Monday, February 27, 2017

Woody Allen Quote for Analysis

"Common sense would prevail. After all, was a 56-year-old man who had never before (or after) been accused of child molestation."

Although this is a single quote and Woody Allen has been analyzed before, it is a good example of the Hina Clause in analysis. 

It is sometimes difficult for new analysts to keep in mind: 

We are not analyzing reality.  

We are analyzing the subject's verbalized perception of reality and as such we "stick to it"; that is, we yield our thinking to it. 

This means we 'accept' the position given. 

The common example I often use as a reference is the analysis of the event in which a relationship is shown in a "void."

Consider a setting where something serious has taken place in the home, and the subject has been asked, by a criminal investigator, to write out what happened.  

Subject:  "So where do I begin?"

We do not tell him specifically where to begin as where one begins a statement is always important.  It can even tell us where the crime  began. 

The best answer is "Start at the beginning" while carefully avoiding a time period.  

"What, from like when I first woke up?"


Oh, ok.  So, let's see.  I woke up and then Sheila woke up.  I got dressed and..."

Here, we would conclude that the subject is not married to Sheila.  


a.  He is communicating with police who do not know Sheila. 
b.  Something happened
c.  He is not telling us reality, but his verbalized perception of reality. 

We conclude "he is not married", not for profiling sake.  His record will show, indeed, he and Sheila are married. 

This is a critical point in domestic investigations, including homicide and violence.  

In this verbalized perception of reality belonging exclusively to him, he is not married.  The investigation/interview is very likely to show us why he did not say "My wife, Sheila..." in this context. 

This is sometimes the "dual reality" of analysis.  

When we do threat analysis, we must learn the threat posed, which means specifically not projecting the case file into the scenario;  but believing the subject. 

Woody Allen was accused of sexually molesting his step daughter. 

Here, enter into his verbalized perception of reality: 

"Common sense would prevail. After all, was a 56-year-old man who had never before (or after) been accused of child molestation."

Here, you must agree that he 'didn't do it' because "common sense" prevails?  No, it is because common sense "would" (future/conditional) prevail. 

This is not only a long way from a denial, but it is the reason why he 'didn't do it':  

because he was not accused before (or after):  length of time. 

This means that if you are accused of robbing a bank, you may plead the number of years you have never been accused of robbing a bank, instead of denying it!

In fact, the length of years is vital.  Advanced analysis suggests that the subject is considering past sexual molestations in which no accusation arose to the public level.  

The need to explain "why" without being asked, indicates the subject anticipates being asked why, and wants to preempt the most sensitive question.  

Perhaps one unreliable denial that is not a denial that I have encountered the most is the following. 

When a man is accused of molesting a child, instead of issuing a denial, he says,

"I am a happily married man."

This is, in a sense, his 'hina clause' or his explanation of 'why' he would not (not did not) have molested the child. 

'Only those "unhappy" in marriage molest children'  

What is this?

This is the child molester's 'verbalized perception of reality.'  Not only is he avoiding denying the act, but is giving us insight into both his thinking and his state of marriage. 

His thinking is to 'normalize' pedophilia.  
His marriage is anything but happy. 

Only he relates the two together.  


Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
John Mc Gowan said...

OT Update:

Black Waitress Makes $Thousands Off Hate Hoax

A black waitress who received thousands of dollars in donations after she claimed she received a racist note and no tip from a patron last month fabricated the incident, the customer claims.

Kelly Carter, a waitress at Anita’s New Mexico Cafe in Ashburn, Va., claimed that a white man stiffed her on his $30.52 restaurant bill and wrote “Great service, don’t tip black people” at the bottom of his receipt.

But the note was forged, says Daniel Hebda, a lawyer for the customer.

Hebda said in a statement Friday that his client did leave Carter a small tip — one penny — because her service was poor, not because she is black.

The hoax was not well executed.

For one, the receipt she posted online was printed several hours after Anita’s New Mexico Cafe closed. The receipt also bore markings showing that it was a reprint of an original receipt.

John Mc Gowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Mc Gowan said...

Investigation Discovery

What will it take to get justice for 2-year-old DeOrr Kunz Jr.?

Duration 7:44

Jessica "I did not kill my son, 100%, i did not kill my son"

And she is now pointing the finger at Vernal.

Jessica "I believe Deorr's father could have hurt him"

Patty Cake said...

feeling helpless, if you innocent of the inapropriate behavior then why would you be concerned about looking guilty? Don't worry about it. Hmmmmmm

Patty Cake said...

also, what is the inappropriate behavior? If you have really talked/complained about this inappropriate behavior to THAT many employees and it was dismissed, then I don't believe you. Just saying.

Anonymous said...

Dylan Farrow's public letter:

What’s your favorite Woody Allen movie? Before you answer, you should know: when I was seven years old, Woody Allen took me by the hand and led me into a dim, closet-like attic on the second floor of our house. He told me to lay on my stomach and play with my brother’s electric train set. Then he sexually assaulted me. He talked to me while he did it, whispering that I was a good girl, that this was our secret, promising that we’d go to Paris and I’d be a star in his movies. I remember staring at that toy train, focusing on it as it traveled in its circle around the attic. To this day, I find it difficult to look at toy trains.

For as long as I could remember, my father had been doing things to me that I didn’t like. I didn’t like how often he would take me away from my mom, siblings and friends to be alone with him. I didn’t like it when he would stick his thumb in my mouth. I didn’t like it when I had to get in bed with him under the sheets when he was in his underwear. I didn’t like it when he would place his head in my naked lap and breathe in and breathe out. I would hide under beds or lock myself in the bathroom to avoid these encounters, but he always found me. These things happened so often, so routinely, so skillfully hidden from a mother that would have protected me had she known, that I thought it was normal. I thought this was how fathers doted on their daughters. But what he did to me in the attic felt different. I couldn’t keep the secret anymore.

When I asked my mother if her dad did to her what Woody Allen did to me, I honestly did not know the answer. I also didn’t know the firestorm it would trigger. I didn’t know that my father would use his sexual relationship with my sister to cover up the abuse he inflicted on me. I didn’t know that he would accuse my mother of planting the abuse in my head and call her a liar for defending me. I didn’t know that I would be made to recount my story over and over again, to doctor after doctor, pushed to see if I’d admit I was lying as part of a legal battle I couldn’t possibly understand. At one point, my mother sat me down and told me that I wouldn’t be in trouble if I was lying – that I could take it all back. I couldn’t. It was all true. But sexual abuse claims against the powerful stall more easily. There were experts willing to attack my credibility. There were doctors willing to gaslight an abused child.

After a custody hearing denied my father visitation rights, my mother declined to pursue criminal charges, despite findings of probable cause by the State of Connecticut – due to, in the words of the prosecutor, the fragility of the “child victim.” Woody Allen was never convicted of any crime. That he got away with what he did to me haunted me as I grew up. I was stricken with guilt that I had allowed him to be near other little girls. I was terrified of being touched by men. I developed an eating disorder. I began cutting myself. That torment was made worse by Hollywood. All but a precious few (my heroes) turned a blind eye. Most found it easier to accept the ambiguity, to say, “who can say what happened,” to pretend that nothing was wrong. Actors praised him at awards shows. Networks put him on TV. Critics put him in magazines. Each time I saw my abuser’s face – on a poster, on a t-shirt, on television – I could only hide my panic until I found a place to be alone and fall apart.

[to be continued in next post - limit of 4,096 characters...]

Anonymous said...

Here's the rest of Woody Allen's daughter's public letter:

Last week, Woody Allen was nominated for his latest Oscar. But this time, I refuse to fall apart. For so long, Woody Allen’s acceptance silenced me. It felt like a personal rebuke, like the awards and accolades were a way to tell me to shut up and go away. But the survivors of sexual abuse who have reached out to me – to support me and to share their fears of coming forward, of being called a liar, of being told their memories aren’t their memories – have given me a reason to not be silent, if only so others know that they don’t have to be silent either.

Today, I consider myself lucky. I am happily married. I have the support of my amazing brothers and sisters. I have a mother who found within herself a well of fortitude that saved us from the chaos a predator brought into our home.

But others are still scared, vulnerable, and struggling for the courage to tell the truth. The message that Hollywood sends matters for them.

What if it had been your child, Cate Blanchett? Louis CK? Alec Baldwin? What if it had been you, Emma Stone? Or you, Scarlett Johansson? You knew me when I was a little girl, Diane Keaton. Have you forgotten me?

Woody Allen is a living testament to the way our society fails the survivors of sexual assault and abuse.

So imagine your seven-year-old daughter being led into an attic by Woody Allen. Imagine she spends a lifetime stricken with nausea at the mention of his name. Imagine a world that celebrates her tormenter.

Are you imagining that? Now, what’s your favorite Woody Allen movie?

Anonymous said...

Woody Allen's public written reply to his daughter's letter:

TWENTY-ONE years ago, when I first heard Mia Farrow had accused me of child molestation, I found the idea so ludicrous I didn’t give it a second thought. We were involved in a terribly acrimonious breakup, with great enmity between us and a custody battle slowly gathering energy. The self-serving transparency of her malevolence seemed so obvious I didn’t even hire a lawyer to defend myself. It was my show business attorney who told me she was bringing the accusation to the police and I would need a criminal lawyer.

I naïvely thought the accusation would be dismissed out of hand because of course, I hadn’t molested Dylan and any rational person would see the ploy for what it was. Common sense would prevail. After all, I was a 56-year-old man who had never before (or after) been accused of child molestation. I had been going out with Mia for 12 years and never in that time did she ever suggest to me anything resembling misconduct. Now, suddenly, when I had driven up to her house in Connecticut one afternoon to visit the kids for a few hours, when I would be on my raging adversary’s home turf, with half a dozen people present, when I was in the blissful early stages of a happy new relationship with the woman I’d go on to marry — that I would pick this moment in time to embark on a career as a child molester should seem to the most skeptical mind highly unlikely. The sheer illogic of such a crazy scenario seemed to me dispositive.

Notwithstanding, Mia insisted that I had abused Dylan and took her immediately to a doctor to be examined. Dylan told the doctor she had not been molested. Mia then took Dylan out for ice cream, and when she came back with her the child had changed her story. The police began their investigation; a possible indictment hung in the balance. I very willingly took a lie-detector test and of course passed because I had nothing to hide. I asked Mia to take one and she wouldn’t. Last week a woman named Stacey Nelkin, whom I had dated many years ago, came forward to the press to tell them that when Mia and I first had our custody battle 21 years ago, Mia had wanted her to testify that she had been underage when I was dating her, despite the fact this was untrue. Stacey refused. I include this anecdote so we all know what kind of character we are dealing with here. One can imagine in learning this why she wouldn’t take a lie-detector test.

[continued in next post]

Anonymous said...

[Continuation of Woody Allen's response...]

Meanwhile the Connecticut police turned for help to a special investigative unit they relied on in such cases, the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of the Yale-New Haven Hospital. This group of impartial, experienced men and women whom the district attorney looked to for guidance as to whether to prosecute, spent months doing a meticulous investigation, interviewing everyone concerned, and checking every piece of evidence. Finally they wrote their conclusion which I quote here: “It is our expert opinion that Dylan was not sexually abused by Mr. Allen. Further, we believe that Dylan’s statements on videotape and her statements to us during our evaluation do not refer to actual events that occurred to her on August 4th, 1992... In developing our opinion we considered three hypotheses to explain Dylan’s statements. First, that Dylan’s statements were true and that Mr. Allen had sexually abused her; second, that Dylan’s statements were not true but were made up by an emotionally vulnerable child who was caught up in a disturbed family and who was responding to the stresses in the family; and third, that Dylan was coached or influenced by her mother, Ms. Farrow. While we can conclude that Dylan was not sexually abused, we can not be definite about whether the second formulation by itself or the third formulation by itself is true. We believe that it is more likely that a combination of these two formulations best explains Dylan’s allegations of sexual abuse.”

Could it be any clearer? Mr. Allen did not abuse Dylan; most likely a vulnerable, stressed-out 7-year-old was coached by Mia Farrow. This conclusion disappointed a number of people. The district attorney was champing at the bit to prosecute a celebrity case, and Justice Elliott Wilk, the custody judge, wrote a very irresponsible opinion saying when it came to the molestation, “we will probably never know what occurred.”

But we did know because it had been determined and there was no equivocation about the fact that no abuse had taken place. Justice Wilk was quite rough on me and never approved of my relationship with Soon-Yi, Mia’s adopted daughter, who was then in her early 20s. He thought of me as an older man exploiting a much younger woman, which outraged Mia as improper despite the fact she had dated a much older Frank Sinatra when she was 19. In fairness to Justice Wilk, the public felt the same dismay over Soon-Yi and myself, but despite what it looked like our feelings were authentic and we’ve been happily married for 16 years with two great kids, both adopted. (Incidentally, coming on the heels of the media circus and false accusations, Soon-Yi and I were extra carefully scrutinized by both the adoption agency and adoption courts, and everyone blessed our adoptions.)

Mia took custody of the children and we went our separate ways.

I was heartbroken. Moses was angry with me. Ronan I didn’t know well because Mia would never let me get close to him from the moment he was born and Dylan, whom I adored and was very close to and about whom Mia called my sister in a rage and said, “He took my daughter, now I’ll take his.” I never saw her again nor was I able to speak with her no matter how hard I tried. I still loved her deeply, and felt guilty that by falling in love with Soon-Yi I had put her in the position of being used as a pawn for revenge. Soon-Yi and I made countless attempts to see Dylan but Mia blocked them all, spitefully knowing how much we both loved her but totally indifferent to the pain and damage she was causing the little girl merely to appease her own vindictiveness.

[part 3 of Woody Allen's response next]

Anonymous said...

[Part 3 of Woody Allen's reply:]

Here I quote Moses Farrow, 14 at the time: “My mother drummed it into me to hate my father for tearing apart the family and sexually molesting my sister.” Moses is now 36 years old and a family therapist by profession. “Of course Woody did not molest my sister,” he said. “She loved him and looked forward to seeing him when he would visit. She never hid from him until our mother succeeded in creating the atmosphere of fear and hate towards him.” Dylan was 7, Ronan 4, and this was, according to Moses, the steady narrative year after year.

I pause here for a quick word on the Ronan situation. Is he my son or, as Mia suggests, Frank Sinatra’s? Granted, he looks a lot like Frank with the blue eyes and facial features, but if so what does this say? That all during the custody hearing Mia lied under oath and falsely represented Ronan as our son? Even if he is not Frank’s, the possibility she raises that he could be, indicates she was secretly intimate with him during our years. Not to mention all the money I paid for child support. Was I supporting Frank’s son? Again, I want to call attention to the integrity and honesty of a person who conducts her life like that.

NOW it’s 21 years later and Dylan has come forward with the accusations that the Yale experts investigated and found false. Plus a few little added creative flourishes that seem to have magically appeared during our 21-year estrangement.

Not that I doubt Dylan hasn’t come to believe she’s been molested, but if from the age of 7 a vulnerable child is taught by a strong mother to hate her father because he is a monster who abused her, is it so inconceivable that after many years of this indoctrination the image of me Mia wanted to establish had taken root? Is it any wonder the experts at Yale had picked up the maternal coaching aspect 21 years ago? Even the venue where the fabricated molestation was supposed to have taken place was poorly chosen but interesting. Mia chose the attic of her country house, a place she should have realized I’d never go to because it is a tiny, cramped, enclosed spot where one can hardly stand up and I’m a major claustrophobe. The one or two times she asked me to come in there to look at something, I did, but quickly had to run out. Undoubtedly the attic idea came to her from the Dory Previn song, “With My Daddy in the Attic.” It was on the same record as the song Dory Previn had written about Mia’s betraying their friendship by insidiously stealing her husband, André, “Beware of Young Girls.” One must ask, did Dylan even write the letter or was it at least guided by her mother? Does the letter really benefit Dylan or does it simply advance her mother’s shabby agenda? That is to hurt me with a smear. There is even a lame attempt to do professional damage by trying to involve movie stars, which smells a lot more like Mia than Dylan.

Anonymous said...

After all, if speaking out was really a necessity for Dylan, she had already spoken out months earlier in Vanity Fair. Here I quote Moses Farrow again: “Knowing that my mother often used us as pawns, I cannot trust anything that is said or written from anyone in the family.” Finally, does Mia herself really even believe I molested her daughter? Common sense must ask: Would a mother who thought her 7-year-old daughter was sexually abused by a molester (a pretty horrific crime), give consent for a film clip of her to be used to honor the molester at the Golden Globes?
[Part 4 and last of Woody Allen's public written response to his daughter's accusation of childhood sexual abuse]

Of course, I did not molest Dylan. I loved her and hope one day she will grasp how she has been cheated out of having a loving father and exploited by a mother more interested in her own festering anger than her daughter’s well-being. Being taught to hate your father and made to believe he molested you has already taken a psychological toll on this lovely young woman, and Soon-Yi and I are both hoping that one day she will understand who has really made her a victim and reconnect with us, as Moses has, in a loving, productive way. No one wants to discourage abuse victims from speaking out, but one must bear in mind that sometimes there are people who are falsely accused and that is also a terribly destructive thing. (This piece will be my final word on this entire matter and no one will be responding on my behalf to any further comments on it by any party. Enough people have been hurt.)

Anonymous said...

oops I forgot to label that last post - - that was the final part of Woody Allen's reply.

Anonymous said...

"Now, suddenly...when I was in the blissful early stages of a happy new relationship with the woman I’d go on to marry — that I would pick this moment in time to embark on a career as a child molester should seem to the most skeptical mind highly unlikely. The sheer illogic of such a crazy scenario seemed to me dispositive."

He's saying it's "illogical" that he would sexually abuse his daughter BECAUSE he's at a time in his life when he's "in the blissful early stages of a happy new relationship".

So, if he WASN'T in that blissful in-love state, THEN maybe he sexually abused his young daughter?

And the woman he's referring to here - the woman he is "in the blissful early stages of a happy new relationship with the woman I’d go on to marry" >>>> That's his DAUGHTER.

Yep! He married his own adopted daughter, whom he raised from a child.

Anonymous said...

He writes very well. Sounds like a very reasonable thought-out reply. I am leaning toward believing him. I did no SA. I'm sure people here will prove me wrong, and that's okay. Too tired to think for myself tonight.

Anonymous said...

Woody says: "Mia chose the attic of her country house, a place she should have realized I’d never go to because it is a tiny, cramped, enclosed spot where one can hardly stand up and I’m a major claustrophobe. The one or two times she asked me to come in there to look at something, I did, but quickly had to run out."

He's arguing the location is false because he's claustrophobic! HA HA!!!

Anonymous said...

Dylan Farrow's account seems truthful.

Woody Allen's reply is LOADED with deception.

In fact, when it was first published in the NY Times, my first thought was "How in the world did his people allow him to publish this??"

The one thing that stands out the most to me, in his "rebuttal", is his assertion that he was involved in a "new love" relationship at that time and therefore wouldn't have sexually abused his young daughter.

What - it's Either / OR ? ? ?

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't have gone into that closet - I'm claustrophobic!!

Anonymous said...

Maybe if he wasn't claustrophobic the accusations would be true.

Anonymous said...

Here's Woody Allen's convincing proof why Woody Allen is innocent of sexually abusing his young daughter:

1) He was already involved in a romantic relationship (with another daughter).

2) He's claustrophobic, so therefore never would have gone into the closet.

Anonymous said...

I guess once you're already having sex with one of your daughters, you shouldn't be held suspect of having sex with another daughter for the reason that your sexual needs are being met with the older daughter. If someone accuses you of sex with younger daughter you can point to your sexual relationship with older daughter and say See? My sexual needs are being met here, so you are all wrong! It's LOGICAL!

Anonymous said...

Soon-Yi is Andre Previn's daughter, adopted by Mia Farrow and NOT raised in the household During Woody Allen's relationship with Mia.

Anonymous said...

Why was my comment deleted?!

Anonymous said...

Woody Allen makes my skin crawl and his movie's suck and are unfunny. I think it is bizarre Mia Farrow adopted children with him...didn't she adopt like 12 kids with him? I think it's a little weird because he might as well have CREEP stamped on his forehead!

Anonymous said...

I think Mia Farrow has a good heart and was well-intentioned adopting all of those kids, but I just watched a short interview with her, and I don't really think she's all there mentally, like when she is talking she seems to space out every 20 seconds or so...I mention this because I do not understand why she would have ever married Woody Allen or have adopted kids with him, but that explains it if she is so spaced out she somehow failed to realize that Woody Allen is very creepy!

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

I"m a tad worried that Woody Allen is a serial predator. His MO seems to be hooking up with a younger woman, adopt some girls, and either molest or marry one of them (or both). Soon-Yi appears to have been groomed. Maybe it's my personal bias because my extended family went through a "grooming" situation (hook up with a woman with a 9yr old daughter, molest the daughter, leave the wife for another woman with a 9yr old daughter), but it's never "normal" to fall in love with your long-term girlfriend's adopted daughter. That's not love, it's lust.

equinox said...

"— that I would pick this moment in time to embark on a career as a child molester should seem to the most skeptical mind highly unlikely. The sheer illogic of such a crazy scenario seemed to me dispositive."

"That I would pick this moment in time to embark on a career as a child molester" appears to be an embedded confession. The remainder of the sentence serves only to further diminish the irony he thinks he is expressing.

"Should seem" is to make the entire declaration completely vague and "to the most skeptical" instead of "to absolutely anyone and everyone" and closes with "highly unlikely" and not actually "impossible" or even "completely improbable" leaving open the possibility it is true. Well he and the victim are the only two who know for certain, so is it "highly unlikely" or is it true?

"Dispositive" means to have "settled an argument" but not to have disproven or even tried to determine the truth - that's dispositive."

"The sheer illogic of such a crazy scenario seemed to me dispositive."

The speaker calls this a scenario that is settled. And its not just settled it's "sheer", "illogic", "such a crazy" and yet it still just "seemed" to be settled. Again, only he and the victim know the truth so is it even dispositive? Or does it just seem to be dispositive?

I see in here a chastisement to himself of his foolishness for having "embark on a career as a child molester" at "this moment in time". He wishes that the most skeptical, but not all, would see that it is highly unlikely, but not impossible, that he might be guilty of what he has been accused - and even then he is not convinced of his own innocence. It should just seem like he didn't do it.

lynda said...

Anonymous said...
Soon-Yi is Andre Previn's daughter, adopted by Mia Farrow and NOT raised in the household During Woody Allen's relationship with Mia.

February 27, 2017 at 9:31 PM



Allen came into Soon-Yi's life when she was around 8 or so and self-admittedly was her "paternal figure" and pseudo-stepfather. He took pornographic pics of her while she was underage and without her mothers knowledge.

Give me a break. Allen is a pedophile, disgusting little man just like Polanski. They should be in jail.

I loathe this guy and have not seen one of his movies since all this came out years ago. ugh.

Anonymous said...

Another aspect to this also is that we need to determine what Allen's definition of "child molestation" is. If he thought he was engaging in a consensual sexual relationship (even though legally an underage person can't consent to sex), then he wouldn't define for himself that he was molesting her. You'd need to sit him down and have him define the difference between "molest" and "not molest" in his personal vocabulary.

Droll Skeptic said...

An off-topic SA (related) question:
If the topic of opening/closing doors, when it spontaneously occurs within a subject's open statement, is indicative of the language of childhood sexual abuse...
Do you suppose there is any similar correlation to be made with an adult subject who is obsessed with collecting antique doorknobs, knockers and lock sets?

I realize that this is outside the domain of SA, as it relates only to the subject of doors, and not to it's actual, and unnecessary, inclusion within open an open statement.
I was reading an article about a film actress of the golden age, with a quirky habit of collecting such items, and, for some reason I immediately thought of the SA topic 'the language of sexual abuse'.

Augusta said...



A coworker has been "touchy" but not in a sexual way. He puts an arm around me, or hugs me, and has kissed me on the cheek or forehead on occasion, which made me uncomfortable. I asked friends, family, and female coworkers what they thought, as his attention seemed more "affectionate" and "familial" than "romantic" or "sexual."

I wanted to be sensitive to cultural differences that may have made this behavior seem okay to him, and did not want to cause trouble for him, as he is an older man for whom job opportunities may be limited. Nobody was able to pinpoint anything he had done as "crossing a line". At that point, I just asked that those I had spoken with not leave me alone with him, since he seemed more likely to do it when nobody was watching. Eventually, I spoke with several levels of management, my union rep, and human resources.

I wanted to handle it without embarrassing him, or making it sound like I was accusing him of sexual assault (as he has never tried to kiss me on the mouth, to hold my hand, or “accidentally” brush up against me so as to touch my leg, breast, or buttocks).

Nobody took any sort of action, aside from the union person, who pulled him aside and confirmed that I had asked him to stop, and explained the possible repercussions if he did not, EVEN IF HIS INTENTIONS WERE PURE, should I file a formal grievance. I saw a therapist to try to figure out what I could do, but after we met once and I was prescribed anxiety medication, they cancelled each of my next four scheduled appointments, leaving me to fend for myself.

A week and a half ago I was called into the office of our department head (3 levels up from me). This is the same woman I reported the behavior to in July. She told me that she had had a report that someone had witnessed me and this man engaged in an adulterous sexual act on company premises.

I have no idea who reported this to her, or what they claim to have seen, but I know that there has never been any sort of sexual conduct between me and ANY coworker, so I know it can't be true. There is nothing anyone COULD have seen that could possibly have been misconstrued as sexual, and I told that to the supervisor.

She responded that there was NO QUESTION that we were involved in an immoral, extramarital relationship, and that as consenting adults, we were to conduct the affair on our own time, outside the office.

She acknowledged my earlier discussion with her, but stated that her eyewitness had stated that what they saw was clearly consensual and that I was encouraging it. She told me I'd be hearing from HR, and would face disciplinary action.

I do not know why someone would claim to have seen something that I know never happened, and would sound paranoid if I said someone made it up to make me look bad (even though it seems the most likely option). I have not been told who made the accusation, or what it entailed.

Everything that has happened has been reported as long ago as last June, to the appropriate people and I have emails to back up my having scheduled appointments with management and HR to discuss "an awkward situation here at work I want to handle this with discretion and tact, and with respect for possible cultural differences."

I am upset that my complaints were not taken more seriously.
I am upset that someone fabricated a story about me having an inappropriate relationship (and their claims WERE given merit)
I am hurt that my boss would not even consider the possibility that I was innocent
I am concerned about my career

So. With the whole story out there, do you still "not believe me"??

LisaB said...

Rachel Dolezal, the white woman who became infamous for identifying herself as a black woman for decades and running the Spokane, Washington, chapter of the NAACP, is jobless and fears she may soon be homeless.

In an interview with The Guardian about her upcoming memoir “In Full Color: Finding My Place in a Black and White World,” Dolezal says she’s jobless, has only been offered employment in reality television and porn films, feeds her family with food stamps and doesn’t know how she’ll come up with her March rent. She says that although she has applied for more than 100 jobs, no one will hire her even to stock shelves.

“Right now the only place that I feel understood and completely accepted is with my kids and my sister,” she said, claiming she can currently count the number of friends she has left in Spokane on her fingers.

equinox said...

Augusta/feeling helpless,

Unfortunately, the way you should have dealt with this from the beginning was assertively, you chose passivity. Passively accepting being touched and passively requesting that others intervene on your discomfort.

What if in the beginning you had said: "I'm sure you likely mean well, but I am not comfortable with you touching me even in a friendly way." Speaking directly to him about his actions would likely have ended the situation. Most women lack this assertiveness, but it is this lack of assertion that is now compromising your career. This should concern you more than false accusations. False accusations are out of your control. Your assertiveness is in your own hands.

If your office mate had then continued to touch you despite your request that he stop - you would have had a reportable incident that might have been taken seriously. Instead, you wished others to be assertive for you. I understand many work environments make that seem like the only choice, but ultimately you have seen the result of not taking control of the matter yourself. Difficult as it may be your best choice is almost always launching the Difficult Conversation yourself.

Your situation is now worse, and the person who once just made you uncomfortable is now also a victim of character assassination. Do you not assume that he must blame you? Your choice is again to have the Difficult Conversation - with Him. Talk honestly about how this all happened and turn him into your ally. Clearly, this is now much more difficult than had you just been assertive to begin with - but this is where you are now. Together you can make it public back through the gossip channels of the office that the insinuations are not true. Only together will you be believed and you will both benefit. You must become your own champion or continue to be the victim of your lack of assertiveness.

Speak up for yourself. ALWAYS.

Augusta said...


I told him myself first, the first time he did it. He just seemed to "forget" so I reminded him, before deciding I needed outside help. I then had my union rep discuss it with him and it stopped for a time. When it resumed, I approached HR. They were unable to pinpoint anything he had done that was specifically inappropriate. Then the HR director left the firm suddenly, and we had nobody in that role for 4 months.

Soon after that, I spoke to the "big boss" because she is female, and because my immediate supervisor was out on extended leave (surgery), and HIS supervisor was out of the country. Again, I felt like I was getting nowhere. I told each of them about it when they returned to work.

I got no assistance from HR (I DID report it) and management (again, I reported to my uber-boss). The union has no real authority over this kind of thing. At that point, I just asked people to keep an eye out, and not leave us alone.

I am not sure how you feel I was passive, did not complain appropriately, or lacked assertiveness. I was made to feel like a whiny crybaby at every turn. Who SHOULD I have reported it to, if not management, HR and the union? When they told me there was nothing "actionable" what recourse was left?

Michele said...

New article on Sherri Papini on New York Daily News. The "unknown donor" made the following statements.

"It seemed to me that, you know, here's a girl who's got two little kids and got a husband at home crying, and I just visualized what that life was like and felt like, you know, 'Let's see if we can be creative here,'" he told the show, according to International Business Times.
"I am very, very good at reading people, and one of my gifts is the gift of discernment, and I definitely believe she was abducted," the donor said, according to International Business Times."

The interview will air on Thursday on Chris Hansen's Crime Watch.

Anon 1 said...

To Augusta-- Sounds like your company has video surveillance but does not want to disclose the fact that they have indisputable proof (they don't want the employees to know they are being watched/filmed). I think it unlikely they would discipline you based on the word of another. If they aren't the ones who filmed it, then the "older man" may have filmed it himself. Your whole story sounds hinky. Why would someone need a therapist over what you described? Sounds like you were setting the company up for a payday.

Tania Cadogan said...

John mcgowan said...

Investigation Discovery

What will it take to get justice for 2-year-old DeOrr Kunz Jr.?

Duration 7:44

Jessica "I did not kill my son, 100%, i did not kill my son"

And she is now pointing the finger at Vernal.

Jessica "I believe Deorr's father could have hurt him"

OoO spot the minimisation.

Jessica "I believe Deorr's father could have hurt him"

Zsuzsanna said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Zsuzsanna said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
equinox said...

Augusta, why do you choose to ask your question here, and why do you think I would choose to reply to your question here? This is a forum about discerning truth from lies using the spoken and written word. It's been interesting. Good luck with things.

Anonymous said...

"Common sense would prevail. After all, I was a 56-year-old man who had never before (or after) been accused of child molestation."

Woah - his defense for himself is "common sense". Being 56 and never having before or after been accused of child molestation is his argument/defense.

For a guy who is supposed to be smart/genius, this is ridiculously embarrassingly poor defense/argument.

Has anyone else noticed this >>> His own "defensive arguments" against the accusation of child sexual abuse are coming from a place of "I would abuse, if it weren't for..." arguments?

[following "quotes" are my paraphrase]

Like the one where he argues "I wouldn't have sexually abused that little girl because I was in a new love relationship, and fully involved in that, sexually."

[unspoken: "I might have abused her if my sexual needs hadn't been met."]

Or when he asserts "I am so claustrophobic I wouldn't have gone into that closet; so therefore Mia erroneously chose that setting but she screwed up b/c I'm claustrophobic."

[unspoken: If I weren't claustrophobic, then you might need to think I had taken my young daughter into that closet to molest her. BUT since I'm telling you I'm claustrophobic, you can forget that idea.]

Horse Chestnut said...

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

"...that I would pick this moment in time to embark on a career as a child molester should seem to the most skeptical mind highly unlikely. The sheer illogic of such a crazy scenario seemed to me dispositive."

1. What innocent person in their right mind, would even allow for others to entertain the thought of them sexually abusing anyone (much less their own daughter, much less their seven-year old daughter)?

2. Noting not only the wordiness of his statements, but of the individual sentences. Also noting how many words he's employing displaying an air of superiority and odf contempt for those who would question his word: illogic, skeptical mind, dispositive, and so many more throughout the whole statement. He's markedly arrogant and deems any who would dare question him as being of an inferior intellect or unsound mind. He's clearly undercutting Mia Farrow and subtly implying Dylan is unstable.

3. We're supposed to take his word that he did not molest Dylan(ever,at all)because:

a. he's highly intelligent- so are many Sexual Predators
b. a verbose writer, with a good command of the English language and a strong vocabulary
b. of his age- so are many Sexual Predators
c. he's just started a relationship- so have many Sexual Predators
d. he's never been accused or charged before- neither have many Sexual Predators
e. he says he's claustrophobic- so are many Sexual Predators

Tania Cadogan said...

I would pick this moment in time to embark on a career as a child molester

Oh dear

Anonymous said...

Fools, to your point #3 -
Are we then supposed to take Dylan's word (via Mia) that she Was molested by him?
He does try to give a comprehensive explanation of the early reports as a defense.
Can anyone offer the motivations of a scorned Mia Farrow in their analysis? If he was wrongly accused, he would feel the need to offer his perception along with his denial.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

O/T Jessica Mitchell

1. “I believe Deorr’s father could have hurt him,” Mitchell says in the video. “He’s living his life like it’s nothing and I’m falling apart every day.”

a. Why does she “believe” Deorr’s father could have hurt him-? [Because] He’s living his life like nothing and she’s “falling apart” every day

* Jessica left Deorr, got married, and has since divorced. That’s not exactly “falling apart” every day.

*DeOrr has a new girlfriend (new relationship). Is Jessica jealous that he’s moved on? Is that motivating her accusation?

b. Jessica is curiously non-committal to her accusation against DeOrr with “could have”, instead of the stronger “I believe Deorr’s father hurt him/did hurt him.”. Why? She doesn’t allow for this towards her grandfather or even Isaac.

c. As Tania Cardogam already pointed out on the blog, Jessica wants us to believe she firmly believes this, but she further minimizes Deorr’s father’s involvement with “hurt”. This is even more sensitive and unexpected, given that both parents were publicly named suspects by Sheriff Bowerman in 2016.

2. “I would never harm my child,” Kunz tells Monday. “Nothing about my life is normal anymore. Not a single minute goes by that I don’t try to figure out what happened to my son, and I’ll never ever stop looking for him.”

a. Vernal Deorr uses “would never”. It’s future tense, and is not a strong “I did not______.” denial. It’s followed immediately by “harm”, when investigators (Former Sheriff Bowerman and private investigators) have publicly stated they believe Little DeOrr is dead and the parents are both suspects. Interesting that Jessica uses the minimizing “hurt” while Vernal Deorr uses “harm”. Wonder what the difference is to each?

b. “Not a single minute goes by that I don’t try to figure out what happened to my son,..”- Hyperbole, as he’s got a new girl friend. Why is he working so hard to convince us?

c. “…and I’ll never ever stop looking for him.”- Vernal DeOrr anticipates that he will not be found. Reminiscent of OJ Simpson’s “I’ll never stop looking for Nicole’s killer.”

3. “There is no reason for me to hide anything,” Mitchell says. “I am going to stand up and fight for my son. I did not kill my son. One hundred percent – I did not kill my son.”

a. “ …no reason for me to to hide anything- It’s also interesting that she mentally links “hide” when LE believe his body is hidden somewhere as well as “standing up” (body position) and “fight”. Fighting inflicts injuries, sometimes fatal ones.

b. “One hundred percent, I did not kill my son.”- Her financial history, child custody issues, relationship history, she’s aware that her credibility is strained (at best), prompting her to quote percentages.

c. Jessica does not say she didn’t hurt her son, only that she did not “kill” her son. If she and Vernal Deorr were fighting and Little DeOrr was accidentally hurt, she could honestly say she didn’t kill him.

4. “If there was true blood of baby Deorr’s on that truck, why were no arrests made?” Clegg says in the video.

True blood??? As opposed to fake blood? What does Trina define as true blood?

5. Mitchell says she failed the tests because “she was a grieving mother.”- Is she the only grieving mother LE has ever polygraphed? The FBI too?

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

O/T Jessica Mitchell

At 1:42-1:51 Jessica: “We ate breakfast and then I needed to go the store and I decided that we would come back and go fishing.”

Note the change in pronouns in this one sentence: we (unity), I (singular), we (unity). -What was so sensitive about going to the store?

Note that Jessica decided (strong verb)- Indicates she chose between more than one option. What were the other choices?

Note she decided for the “we” and determined what they would do after the store visit. Who is this “we”? Is it the same “we” who ate breakfast?

Note she needed to go to the store, but she does not say “I went to the store” or even “We went to the store.”

At 2:14 Jessica: “One second he was there, in a matter of 15 minutes, he’s gone.”

There’s quite a time span between one second and 15 minutes.

She begins with “…he was there…” (appropriate past tense usage), but then switches to “he’s gone” (present tense usage) instead of “he was gone”. She’s supposed to be recounting past events, so we would expect past tense verb usage and that she'd use it consistently.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

RE: Anonymous February 28, 2017 @ 11:51 PM

No, we're not supposed to "take Dylan's word (via Mia)" in blindly. We're supposed to analyze Dylan's statements as though she were speaking the truth and we should expect to see that supported by linguistic indicators of sexual abuse. If not, we should note where the statement is sensitive and begin exploring why.

Likewise, we're also supposed to analyze Mia's statements, as though she were speaking the truth. Then, if there is unexpected language indicating sensitivity, we should look for deception/question her motivation. Given the situation, the context is betrayal (woman scorned and betrayal by her daughter)...which could (but not necessarily) lend itself to revenge. We can neither jump to that conclusion, nor be pushed to it by Woody Allen. Certainly, there could be room for manipulation in cases like this, but that does not automatically mean manipulation is a foregone conclusion.

Bobcat said...

We ate breakfast
and then
I needed to go to the store
and I decided that we
would come back and go fishing.
"and then" skips over time after breakfast

What did she buy at the store that was "needed"?

"Would go fishing" sounds like the planned cover story she thought up while she made the "needed" visit to the store.

Kind of like when Davey wouldn't lock the door because Amanda was about to get up anyway.

John Mc Gowan said...

Jessica "I did not kill my son, 100%, i did not kill my son"

This is an interesting denial.

A RD (Reliable Denial) has three components without any qualifiers, or need to persude. Anything less, or more, is considered unreliable.


I did not kill my son

First person pronoun "I" taking ownership.

Past tense "did not"

Specific action "kill my son". Or murder my son depending on context.

Jessica's denial at first glance looks strong

"I did not kill my son"

However, she feels the need to bolster by the addition of 100%.


I curious. Given that she gives what appears to be an RD, but then adds in 100%, and then continues with another RD. Does the "NTP", 100% injected between the two, reduce the RD to unreliable?


happyuk said...

Bobcat, so much deception in that one little sentence.
It raises more questions than it answers, because of the amount of missing information.

"We ate" is strong. He was with at least one other person in the morning is more than likely true. Who are/were "we"? Where did they eat breakfast?

"I needed" - is strong use of pronoun. I believe him when he says "I needed to go to the store" [to purchase something]. Just as I would believe someone when they said "I needed to go to the library" [to borrow/return a book].

"and" [not "but", a negation of what has just been stated]

What was the gap between finishing breakfast and his needing (note: not going, and him only) to the store? Minutes, days, weeks...?

Did anything happen during that time frame?

"I decided" - is also strong. From Latin decidere, literally to "cut off" - cut away one alternative in order to come to a settlement. This implies he considered an option that did not involve coming back AND going fishing.

This has both missing and unnecessary information - from where and to did they come back? Why does he feel the need to tell us he went fishing?

John Mc Gowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Mc Gowan said...

Re Jessica's denial

To add. Assuming (which i shouldn't) she is speaking in the Free Editing Stage, and not parroting or entering another's language.

Anonymous said...

John, I will be eager to hear what Peter says, but imo Jessica's repetition along with the insertion of 100% does reduce the reliability of the denial. In fact, I think the 100% appears in her language because BOTH she and the Dad had a hand in killing perhaps Jessica was not, in her mind (or literally) 100% responsible. Instead she may see herself as being 50 % responsible for DeOrr's death.

Anonymous said...

Off Topic: How sensitive is it if someone writes "I love you very, very much"? Or could that just be someone trying to be convincing or persuasive?

John Mc Gowan said...

How i see it. I maybe wrong.

Anonymous said...

Off Topic: How sensitive is it if someone writes "I love you very, very much"? Or could that just be someone trying to be convincing or persuasive?

Context is vital. What lead up to this?

This is how i see it, in principle.

"I love you very, very much"

Lets break it down.

"I love you"

Is a strong statement, and statistically a true statement. It has no qualifiers, it stands alone without the NTP

"I love you very much

We see in this statement the introduction of "very", emphasising the love.

The introduction of the extra word "very" shows sensitivity. It is unnecessary. Why?

The reason maybe they weren't in love previously
They didn't expect to be in love. It maybe something unknown. To be explored.

Then we have

"I love you very, very much"

Here we see the repetition of "very," heightening the sensitivity of "love"

Why, i would ask myself does the person need to persuade me. Again, what is the context?

If we went further and added another "very", making it 3 or more, i would run for the hills, and consult my Lawyer, lol.

Anonymous said...

Thank you John. That is an interesting analysis of the statement. The context is a bit personal, but your analysis is insightful and helpful.

Nic said...

Blogger John mcgowan said...
Investigation Discovery

What will it take to get justice for 2-year-old DeOrr Kunz Jr.?

Duration 7:44

Jessica "I did not kill my son, 100%, i did not kill my son"

And she is now pointing the finger at Vernal.

Jessica "I believe Deorr's father could have hurt him"


Note the change in language from kill to hurt.

NTP (kill x 2 and 100%)

Distancing (DeOrr's father), she does not use his first name.

According to Jessica's statement, she does not accuse or even think DeOrr's father killed DeOrr. She just thinks he "could have hurt him".

Nic said...


Peter analyzed Woody Allen and if I recall, Mia Farrow's letter. :0)

Nic said...

This is my opinion about Hollywood and pedophilia. I'm beginning to think that Hollyweird normalizes/thinks of pedophilia as "art". Movie goers pay to see (their characters) abuse and be abused, so to them, it's just life imitating art. I don't know if that sounds right. I just see actors having spent so many years (decades) pretending, that they don't even know how "civilians" live. Debauchery abounds in Hollyweird, which reinforces the "normalcy" of the abuse. People literally pimp themselves (or their kids,) for parts. Or literally release sex tapes of themselves (they have to sign off of them to begin with) and then say they were "hacked", all in the name of elevating their popularity ($$), notoriety, and fame.

Meryl Streep et al giving Polanski a standing o was sick. Celebrating Woody Allen goes to their warped perception. But they look down on us "civilians" like we're a bunch of clueless serfs.


Tania Cadogan said...

Off topic BBM

The former judge who presided over the Casey Anthony murder trial says he believes she killed her toddler daughter, but not on purpose.

Former Orange County, Florida Judge Belvin Perry spoke about the case in an interview with WFTV on Tuesday, a channel he now works for as a legal analyst.

'The most logical thing that occurred, in my eyesight, based on everything I know about the case, was that (Anthony) did not intentionally kill her daughter,' Perry said.

'I think based upon the evidence, the most logical thing that happened was that she tried to knock her daughter out by the use of chloroform and gave her too much chloroform, which caused her daughter to die,' he added.

Anthony's mother Cindy reported her granddaughter Caylee missing on July 15, 2008, saying she had not seen the toddler in more than a month and that her daughter's car smelled like a dead body.

Casey told investigators several lies while they searched for Caylee, including that she had been kidnapped by a nanny on June 9. Even without a body, police believed they had enough evidence against Casey, and arrested her for first-degree murder in October 2008. She pleaded not guilty.

Two months later, police found Caylee's skeletal remains wrapped in a blanket inside a trash bag that was dumped in a wooded area near the Anthony family home.

A medical examiner was never able to determine the exact cause of death. However, duct tape was found on her skull, leading prosecutors to argue that Caylee's mouth had been taped shut.

They also said that her mother administered chroloform to her daughter before her death, since the chemical was found in the trunk of Casey's car and she made several internet searches about it.

Prosecutors said Casey was motivated to kill her daughter because she didn't want to the burden of being a single mother anymore.

Perry says that the cholorform internet searches were one of the overlooked pieces of evidence in the case.

'Considering the high levels of chloroform that was found in the trunk of the car, that was my logical deduction for what happened,' he said. 'That’s just a theory. The only person that actually knows what happened is Casey Anthony.'

But the defense contended that Caylee's death was a mistake. Casey said that her daughter drowned accidentally in the family's swimming pool on June 16, 2008 and that her father disposed of the body.

After a six week trial, the jury found Casey not guilty of first-degree murder, aggravated child abuse, and aggravated manslaughter of a child, but did convict her of lying to police. She was released for time served in July 2011.

Perry said prosecutors did the right thing by pushing for a murder charge in the case.

'The question was asked, "Was there sufficient evidence to submit the case to the jury on the theory of murder in the first degree?"' Perry said. 'The answer to that question is yes.'

However, in the end, he says he was not convinced that Caylee's death was on purpose.

'To me, that was the most logical thing, looking at the totality of the entire situation,' Perry, said. 'There was never any evidence of abuse of the daughter that was documented, that was presented anywhere.'

Perry retired from the bench three years after the case, after serving 25 years as chief judge of Florida's Ninth Judicial Circuit Court.

He has re-entered private practice at the Morgan and Morgan Law Firm, as a personal-injury lawyer.

Tania Cadogan said...

Another off topic (eye roll for this one)

Rachel Dolezal, the former head of Spokane, Washington's NAACP chapter who claimed to be black before her parents 'outed' her as white, officially changed her name to Nkechi Amare Diallo in a Washington court in October, legal documents obtained by show.

Nkechi, short for Nkechinyere, is a name that originates from the Igbo language of Nigeria and means 'what god has given' or 'gift of god.'

Diallo, meaning 'bold,' is a last name of Fula origin. The Fula people are a Muslim ethnic group thought to have roots in the Middle East and North Africa, who are now widely dispersed across West Africa.

Since the revelation about her race two years ago, Dolezal, 39, has had a difficult time patching her reputation back together and providing for herself and three children.

After applying for more than 100 jobs, including a position at the university where she used to teach, she says that no employer will hire her. A friend reportedly helped her pay two months of rent and Dolezal said she expects to be homeless.

Shortly after her name change last fall, though, Dolezal employed her newfound identity to try to garner a small amount of positive attention.

She started a petition in October urging the TEDx organization to post one of her controversial speeches from April, 2016 at the University of Idaho. She listed the petition under Nkechi Diallo, never mentioning her birth name.

'Rachel Dolezal's TEDx Talk on Race & still not available online. Please post her talk online immediately. She should not be censored due to her unique perspective. We want to watch this speech!' the petition read.

Though Dolezal only received 30 of 100 required signatures, TED begrudgingly posted the video on November 2, along with a description of the politics surrounding her speech.

'TEDx organizers host events independent of TED, and they have the freedom to invite speakers they feel are relevant to their communities,' the TED blog read.

'These volunteers find thousands of new voices all over the world - many of which would not otherwise be heard - including some of our most beloved, well-known speakers, people like Brene Brown and Simon Sinek.

'What TEDx organizers have achieved collectively is remarkable. But, yes, some of them occasionally share ideas we don’t stand behind.

'This particular talk has sparked much internal debate. For many on our staff, sharing the talk risks causing deep offense, and runs counter to TED’s mission of ideas worth spreading.

'But for others, now that the talk has been recorded, refusing to post it would unduly limit an important conversation about identity, and the social underpinning of race -and would be counter to TED’s guiding philosophy of radical openness. There’s no easy middle ground here.'

In 2015, Dolezal, then a high-profile NAACP leader and part-time professor of Africana Studies at Eastern Washington University, was forced to step down from her leadership role when her parents Larry and Ruthanne told a local newspaper that their daughter was, in fact, born Caucasian.

For years Dolezal had been insisting she was black, even claiming a black man she met in Idaho was her father on social media and styling her naturally blonde locks in traditional African American hairstyles.

She diligently studied the Civil Rights movement, black literature and attended HBCU Howard University for graduate school.

Tania Cadogan said...


Despite a constant stream of threats and hate mail directed at Dolezal after her unique story made national headlines, the NAACP issued a compassionate statement about its former chapter president.

'For 106 years, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has held a long and proud tradition of receiving support from people of all faiths, races, colors and creeds.

'One's racial identity is not a qualifying criteria or disqualifying standard for NAACP leadership. The NAACP Alaska-Oregon-Washington State Conference stands behind Ms. Dolezal's advocacy record.

'In every corner of this country, the NAACP remains committed to securing political, educational, and economic justice for all people, and we encourage Americans of all stripes to become members and serve as leaders in our organization,' the statement read.

Dolezal, who grew up with four adopted black siblings, still maintains that race should be a fluid concept.

'I’m sure it’s hard to make sense of for people from the outside, but for me it’s been like a consistent, organic process of coming into who I am. As long as I can remember, I saw myself as black. I was socially conditioned to discard that,' she told the Guardian.

'There's no protected class for me. I'm this generic, ambiguous scapegoat for white people to call me a race traitor and take out their hostility on.

'And I'm a target for anger and pain about white people from the black community. It's like I am the worst of all these worlds.'

Last year, Dolezal announced she was publishing a memoir, titled In Full Color, that will describe her path from the child of white Evangelical parents to 'an NAACP chapter president and respected educator and activist who identified as black'.

The book is set to be released next month.

This woman has a severe case of body dysmorphia.

She wants to be what she cannot physically be (unless she spends hours under a sun lamp)

I expect her to start campaigning claiming she is transracial, i am sure there are people out there who would support her.
Will we then see blacks claiming to be caucasian or asiatic.
Asiatics claiming to be white or black?

WE can be whatever race we want to be, today i feel white, tomorrow i feel asiatic.

As it stands we have whites wanting to be brown so they suntan till they are whatever shade they want to be (remember sunbed mom)
We have blacks bleaching their skin to be lighter or white.
We have the asian lot having eye surgery to make their eyes western.

I wonder what went on in her childhood that she feels so strong a desire to be black?
Did they get preferential treatment?
Was she abused by a white person?

Why doesn't she accept herself for what she is and campaign for equal rights for every race, every gender?

She cannot change who she is, her DNA, her biological parents, her ancestry.

If she really wants to believe she is black then everyone on this planet is since we all started off in Africa courtesy of Lucy.

She need professional help that is for sure.

Anonymous said...

relating to or bringing about the settlement of an issue or the disposition of property.
"such litigation will rarely be dispositive of any question"
dealing with the disposition of property by deed or will.
"the testator had to make his signature after making the dispositive provisions"
dealing with the settling of international conflicts by an agreed disposition of disputed territories.
"a peace settlement in the nature of a dispositive treaty"

lynda said...

Is it significant that Jessica uses the past tense and accepts that Deorr is dead and then on the flipside, Vernal is convinced he is still alive, does not use past tense, and gives the "I'll never stop looking for him."

I just cannot figure them out and I know Peter had a hard time with them also.

You would think at this point, one of them could easily cut a deal and roll on the other.

Why haven't they?

Anonymous said...

Lynda, Good question. I can't figure them out either.

1) DeOrr was never at the campsite.

2) DeOrr "walking" is an area of extreme sensitivity. (In fact, I think the key to the whole case lies within this sensitivity.)

Linguistically, there are indications that DeOrr was left somewhere with another person in my opinion, and Jessica "looked back" at him. "Walking", specifically, DeOrr having trouble walking, is extremely sensitive...what I pick up linguistically is that he may have tried to walk back towards them (Mom and Dad), he may have stumbled, he may have had to walk some kind of distance with them and had difficulty walking, had to be carried, I don't know...this is the unknown puzzle piece. It is always a possibility, but I don't believe that it was a homicide or accidental homicide. I believe he was left somewhere, abandoned, perhaps and probably with another adult person. Why they did this or what they gained or thought they would gain, I do not know.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Anonymous said...
I came across this in a forum/

The topic is a missing girl

When I realize someone is lying to me or misdirecting me, I understand it's all moot. So I no longer focus on those things. jmo

I see very little that can be learned from what anyone said. You gotta start doing investigative work that goes beyond the statements, because those are purposefully meaning to divert you.

Also, nothing of what they say, matches with what she actually did. So it's not whether the club owner or her friends or her coworkers are lying/deceiving, it's just simply why

Are they not contradicting themselves?

This is similar to dismissing a liar by saying, "I know she is lying because her lips are moving."

It is worse than amateurish. It fails to recognize that within a lie, including a diversion, we are given valuable information.

Even in deceptive statements, we learn when, how and even why, the subject did it.

It is ignorance.


Statement Analysis Blog said...

In Statement Analysis, few child molesters "molest" children.

They "love" them; they are "affectionate" with them,

they are "teaching them what bad touch is"

They are "tickling them."

In analysis, we are not seeing reality. We are seeing a subject's verbalized perception of reality. This is why many can pass polygraphs when asked, "did you molest...?"


Anonymous said...

Flawed bobcat and her flawed SA. it fails her often because she cannot correctly apply it.

Nic said...

lynda said...
Is it significant that Jessica uses the past tense and accepts that Deorr is dead and then on the flipside, Vernal is convinced he is still alive, does not use past tense, and gives the "I'll never stop looking for him."

There is video showcasing DeOrr sr. correcting Jessica's use of the past-tense. I've just tried to find it, but if I recall correctly, it's towards the end of an interview and I don't want to spend that much time sifting through Youtube video to find it. :0) Maybe someone else could put their finger on it. I remember her acting like an immature kid when he corrected her/reproached her. Like he was being "picky".

After I watched that interaction I am of the opinion that they both know what happened and regardless who did or didn't "do" (insert), they both have been lock step after the fact.


Nic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nic said...

This is Jessica Mitchell's 911 call up to the point she is put on hold. Note the change of pronoun from I'm camping, to my son to "we" can't find him. The period of time she becomes part of a group is when the search is "on". Not just that, but she doesn't even use DeOrr's name until the 911 operator asks her for it and she doesn't become exasperated with the 911 operator, ever, not even when she can't understand DeOrr's name or how to spell it.

Something else I noted listening to the call, she became progressively calmer. I found that unexpected. Personally I would be frantic and probably crying. At the very least breathless from hiking, yelling, and, pacing while on the phone. I would probably be yelling at the 911 operator WHO CARES! (about the spelling of DeOrr's name) and demanding she immediately dispatch someone to help me, not "us". I really found it odd she was progressively calmer as the call went on.


911: What’s the address of your emergency?

JM: Um, I’m actually camping in Leadore. Just outside of Ledaore.

911: Uh-huh.

JM: Um, my two year old son, um we can’t find him.

911: What’s your name?

JM: Jessica.

911: Jessica who.

JM: Mitchell.

911: How long has he been missing?

JM: About an hour.

911: An hour?

JM: Yeah.

911: Are you by water?

JM: Yes.

911: Ok, stay on the phone with me, ok.

JM: Ok.

911: I’m going to put you on hold.

Nic said...

Something further to the 911 call. She isn't very forthcoming about information. For instance, she is speaking to an official and she only gives her first name? When Jessica Mitchell is describing her emergency (she can't find him) she doesn't disclose how long she was looking for DeOrr or her fear (they are camping near water). In fact, it's the 911 operator "connecting the dots". Mitchell just agrees that they are by water.

What I'm wondering is, if Mitchell is avoiding the water or is the water not important? Why not facilitate the dispatch of emergency responders (whatever kind is required,) and lay the whole scenario out to begin with?


Anonymous said...

Nic, that is very peculiar that she did not at least feign concern at the mention of water. If I recall, she remained incredibly calm during the 911 call.

Note, she says "I'm actually camping in Ledore".

As Peter points out, "actually" indicates "as opposed to something else". I think that this further supports the idea that DeOrr was never at the campground. (I believe in every fiber of my being that DeOrr was never at the campground.)

I can only stress that the sensitivity surrounding "walking", specifically, DeOrr walking, is an indispensable clue to solving this case.

They all know what happened to him imo.

Anonymous said...

I believe the big cowboy boots that he couldn't walk right in and that "would have fallen off" had he been snatched by a person or animal is coming from experiential memory. I do not believe he was ever at the campground. In fact, this bit about the boots that were too big is the only experiential detail regarding DeOrr's presence anywhere at any point that is shared making it extremely important imo.

Why were these favorite boots, these cowboy boots that were too big for him to walk in, put on DeOrr?

Even his 3 items he liked to carry (the monkey and I can't remember the other two) do not contain details indicating experiential memory, however, the cowboy boots "were too big for him to get far in"...there is an actual memory involving DeOrr in motion that is being remembered. Important. Very important.

John Mc Gowan said...

911 Call Analysis:

Anonymous said...

From WA's rebuttal: "I naïvely thought the accusation would be dismissed out of hand because of course, I hadn’t molested Dylan and any rational person would see the ploy for what it was."

Anonymous said...

From Woody Allen's rebuttal: "Justice Wilk was quite rough on me and never approved of my relationship with Soon-Yi, Mia’s adopted daughter, who was then in her early 20s. He thought of me as an older man exploiting a much younger woman, which outraged Mia as improper despite the fact she had dated a much older Frank Sinatra when she was 19."

Anonymous said...

Woody Allen complains that the judge didn't approve of his sexual relationship with Mia's daughter "who was then in her early 20's" at the time of the court case. So, never mind the fact he was sexually involved with her for years prior to that - - NO: Let's just focus on the fact she was now in her early 20's, at the time the judge took issue with it.

Anonymous said...

WA said: "I hadn't molested Dylan"

And WA said: "...and any rational person would see the ploy for what it was."

The phrase "I hadn't molested Dylan" bothers me.

Why is he using that word "molested"?

An innocent father, seems to me, would say "I didn't TOUCH her!!"

Or, "I LOVE my daughter! I have NEVER done anything that might harm her!"

But, to so casually say "I hadn't MOLESTED Dylan" and so easily calmly using that word "molested" it's like someone saying "No, I didn't hungrily devour half the cookie dough before you put the cookies in the oven."

Nic said...

"molest" regards WA's personal dictionary needs to be investigated. For example, maybe to him, the word is ultimately defined by intent. Or, maybe he defines "molest" as a victim's willingness to participate. For example, if he groomed Soon-Yi, then maybe he interprets the result as consensual, ergo, he did not "molest" her. Maybe he defines "molest" as age and willingness or just age (being a minor, so grooming and ultimately capitalizing on her "affections" once she was legal). Bottom line, he denies "molesting" Soon-Yi, so it would be interesting to learn what he defines "molesting" to be.


Anonymous said...

Woody was a long-time buddy of Epstein.