Monday, June 26, 2017

Lyn Balfour Statement on Death of Her Son in Car

thermometer in hot car

The following is an interview that took places several years after the death of her son.  

Gross Negligence:  

Question for Analysis:  Is she honest about not knowing there was a phone call from the babysitter?

Did she willfully ignore the call, or, as she claimed, did she not know it came through?

'I Left My Baby in a Hot Car': One Mom Shares Her Tragic Story

How do you leave a child in a hot car? It's a question every parent has asked at one time or another -- usually sparked by a headline about a child dying in a vehicle somewhere in the United States. Lyn Balfour has asked the question too. She's asked the question about herself.
The 13-year veteran of the US Army, member of the Army Reserves, and mother of five -- including three children 6 and under -- left her son Bryce in her car on March 30, 2007. By the time she realized her mistake, her 9-month-old son was dead.
After being charged with his death and later being found not guilty, Balfour has became a fierce advocate for educating parents on these accidental tragedies. She spoke with The Stir about the day her son died, and what kind of mom leaves a child in a hot car:

Can you walk me through that day?

This is akin to "tell me what happened that day." 

This particular week, my husband had accidentally backed into my sister's car in the driveway, so her car was in the shop and she was using my husband's. So, he was riding with me to work, and I was dropping him off first and then the baby 

The account does not begin "that day", but she does not reflect back the language of the interviewer with "that day."  This takes extra effort. 

In this verbalized perception of reality, the death of the victim began "that week", not that day. 

Here we also note the first reference to the victim, who is "the baby" here.  

This particular week, my son Bryce had been really fussy. 

Here is a good social introduction.  It includes the victim's name, title and status in relation to the subject.  This came after the introduction of "the baby", which is unusual.

Note that the subject is being interviewed about the death of her child and here begins by complaining about the child.  

Where the subject began is important and the subject's linguistic disposition about the victim is important.  

She next gives us specific details as to his behavior:  

He had a bad head cold, wasn't sleeping well because he couldn't suck on his pacifier at the same time, so he kept waking up.
The first three nights of the week, I had gotten up with him the majority of the night, and I was exhausted

We are now beginning to see how the death of the victim was not "that day" but began earlier.  

Instead of simply saying, "I forgot he was in the car", or even "I forgot because I was exhausted", the subject goes back in time to begin her statement and sets a reason about herself.  

Here is why the dating is important: 

That last night

There is a culmination of events leading to the victim's death. 

1.  He was fussy
2.  I was tired 

my husband agreed to get up with him, but then he couldn't find his pacifier in his bed. 

"agreed" suggests disagreement, negotiation.  

Bryce went ballistic, woke up completely, and then I got up, was up with him for another hour and a half to two hours.

The expected of mothers who have lost children is consistently the same:  the lofty almost "angelic" like status of the victim.  

This is not what we find here. 

The expectation is also consistent:  mothers blame themselves even when no blame should be assigned.  

They care more about what the victim went through than their own status. 

The emphasis here is not the day of his death, but the week that she suffered through.  

An example of this is when a teenager went missing and was found murdered.  Her father, who was her protector, blamed himself as years earlier, he moved the family to a state where she was murdered.  Self blame is the norm. 

"I should have seen the signs"
"I should have done this differently..."

Here we have an entire alibi set up to distance herself from her action that led to the victim's death. 

What is wrong about complaining about the victim?

Guilt seeks to alleviate itself and can be so subtle as to attempt to justify action by showing a negative status of the victim.  

"The baby would not stop crying" or "he would not eat..." is heard in Shaken Baby deaths.  

That was about 5 o'clock in the morning. I had to be up at 6:30 in order to get ready for work. I didn't actually get up until 7:15 because I was exhausted.

The initial thought in my mind was just to call in, stay home with Bryce because he was just very lethargic, he wasn't being normal because he was really tired too. But I had appointments that day -- at the  school, students were graduating and I had no way to call the students that I had appointments with. I was like, you know what? It's Friday, I've just got to get through today and I can sleep tomorrow.

That particular morning, Jarrett got Bryce ready. He went to get in the vehicle, but before I came outside we were talking about a spare car seat that we could not get into the car correctly. He had been in the car seat for a couple of weeks, but it just wasn't sitting as secure as we felt it should be so we took that car seat out and put it in his old car seat.

Context:  The subject brings up a topic of a difficulty in the interview about her child's death.  

The difficulty is the "spare car seat" not fitting properly.  

Note:  Only a "good parent" would care that the car seat fit perfectly in.  

That particular day, he said, "When are you going to get the car seat put in?" I said, "Put it in the car today, and I will go to like the fire department and get them to put it in correctly at lunch time."
He put the spare car seat in the car behind the front passenger seat in my field of view, and that car seat was empty. The other car seat, which is the car seat Bryce was in, when he put him in he put it behind my seat, the driver's seat.

In the account of the death of her child, this is a lot of detail about a car seat that was not used.  

Here is a dramatic change in language and a dramatic shift away from maternal instinct:  

On the way to work ... we don't remember hearing him. We don't remember talking with him or him cooing or anything like he normally would. We just assume it was because he was really tired.

There are several points here to note:

1.  In an open statement when one tells us what is not remembered, it is a signal of missing information.

2.  This signal of missing information's sensitivity is made even higher as she does not own it for herself, but uses the pronoun "we."

3.  Note the need to tell what someone else remembers, what someone else does not remember

4.  Note the need to report what is "normally" done. 

Consider what took place before this rule of the negative:

She has complained about the victim
She has repeatedly told what she went through
She has repeated her status of exhaustion.  

I dropped my husband off, and shortly after that I got a phone call from work, from a co-worker. It was the first sergeant of the school very upset because we were honoring a fallen soldier from Iraq, his family was supposed to be coming in from California and the tickets had not been purchased through the travel agent that the military uses.

Here, the mother of the victim slows down an already slow pace, with unnecessary details that would need to persuade us that she was not only distracted but details on who distracted her and what was used to distract her. 

All in an account of her child's death.  

This is a very strong example of one who has a need to persuade.  

Lyn and Jarrett BalfourThat was my area of responsibility -- I was transportation officer for the JAG school. I immediately got on the phone, started making phone calls, called the family that was waiting at the airport, talked to the gate agent, said please don't let the plane go, this is very important for this family to get on the flight.

Is this while you were still driving?

Yes, when I was on my way to work.
In my mind, I'd already made a stop, baby's dropped off. I passed right by where I would normally turn left to drop Bryce off to daycare.

Before I got to work, I got things resolved. I got ahold of the travel agent, they paged the tickets, everything.

I got to work, got out of the car and went into work like normal...

The subject wishes to portray this as normal; a signal that she knows it was anything but normal.  It is not that leaving a baby is "normal" that is conquering: 

It is the need to convince the audience of such that is a red flag.  

I get a phone call about 10:30 in the morning from the babysitter asking how Bryce was doing that day.

This is a very straight forward statement:  she got a phone call at the time stated, by whom she claimed, and about what she claimed.  

Note she does not say "she called me twice" or "I had a missed call."  She is in experiential memory language and she is telling the truth.  We should believe her.  

This is not a statement of missing a call; but a statement of fact.  There are so many other ways one would describe this including,
"I had a missed call from 10:30 that morning" which would place her:

a.  hours later (4pm)
b.  looking back (appropriately)

Instead, she placed herself, linguistically, in the knowledge of the call. 

This is an indicator of guilty knowledge of the call at the time it came in.  

Here, with this in mind, note what comes next:  

 The problem was I didn't get the phone call because she called my personal cellphone because the Friday before she had gotten a brand new cellphone and didn't have any of my work contact information in her phone.

This is extremely sensitive information and likely something where there is not only missing information, but information a prosecutor used.  The need to explain "why" in two locations very quickly, is something that must be explored for deception.  

That was communication failure number one.

The blaming of communication is void of personal responsibility.  This is not consistent with maternal instinct. 

The second thing was that in her file in her home she had all our contact information, my work cellphone number, my work office number, my husband's work office number but she just naturally assumed -- because it had happened in the past -- that I stayed home and he wasn't feeling well.

Note the blame shifted to the babysitter using the wrong number, but then shifted to being such a diligent worker but great mother who usually stays home with her sick child.  This is all part of her necessary portrayal of self.  

Question:  where this hyper sensitivity exists, is there deception?

Answer:  We listen for the subject to guide us.  

She didn't think to continue to communication, not thinking that he was accidentally not dropped off.

What time frame was this when she made the call?

10:30 in the morning.
I wasn't in the office when she called, but around 2 p.m., I pulled my cellphone personal cellphone out of my purse and I saw a missed call from her.

Deception Indicated. 

Here the subject tells us

1.  Where she wasn't 
2.   Where her phone was
3.  The physical action of pulling out the phone 

This is likely the missing information where you see the two blue colorings above.  

She had called me twice that morning. She called that first time and left a message and then she called again. It said missed call, but it never told me there was a message available.

Now she gives additional information in going back in time:  it was not just that the babysitter called to check on the well being of the child, but that the babysitter called twice. 

"it said missed call but it never told me..." 

"it" is to blame here. 

At 2:30, I saw the missed call, I called her back, and I left her a message. She'd taken her other daycare kids to McDonald's as a treat, and around 2:30 she was still out ... So, I called and left a message ... she called me back when she saw a missed call from me at about 10 to 4.

I was just walking out of my office because we'd been given an hour out early. She asked me how Bryce was doing, and I was like "what do you mean?"
I didn't understand. I said, "Did Jarrett pick him up early?" not thinking that he didn't have a car because I had dropped him off.
She's like no, he's not here. She began to panic because I was so adamant that he was there.
Then, she turned around and she's like, "No Lyn, you didn't drop him off."
The whole morning flashes through my mind, and I can remember dropping him off. I can remember having a conversation with her. And that memory never happened. That conversation never happened. 
At this point, I panic. I ran to the car because I couldn't believe there was a possibility he could still be in the car and then I saw him in the car.

When you found him, what did you see?
He was in the backseat, he was hooked in, and he was not responsive. He was not breathing.
Bryce BalfourWhat did you do?
I started screaming and said, "Please somebody call 911!" And then -- even though I was extremely hysterical -- it's kind of hard to explain but my military training kind of took over.
I unhooked him, pulled him out of the car, ran around to the other side of the car, laid him on the ground, and started CPR.
What was the temperature that day?
The high that day was 66 degrees.
Do they know what that translates to in the car?
I don't recall specifically what the temperature was in the vehicle -- they took the measurement at 4:30 in the afternoon, but I think it was around 100 degrees. It was too hot for the child to be in the car, obviously.
It was only 39 degrees when we left the house that morning ... he probably passed away later in the morning or early afternoon because it was so cold that day, but on an 80-degree day, a child can die in 30 minutes or less.
The degrees once you turn off a vehicle can go up 10 degrees every 5 minutes, and children under a certain age do not have the type of temperature control that adults have. 
Obviously you're very educated about this now, but before this happened, did you know any of this?
No. And the thing now, which is why I'm an advocate, is because when they told me they couldn't save him, I said to myself, "How can I forget my kid? I can manage $47 million for the US military with every penny accounted for, and I was awarded a Bronze Star for those efforts, but how can I forget my kid? How can a loving, responsible, detail-oriented parent forget him, something so precious, something so valuable?"
I started educating myself and doing research on why it was possible and how it was possible.
The more research I did, the more I learned ... we have educated ourselves on babyproofing our home, but we do not educate ourselves on babyproofing our vehicles and that's what we need to do.
Unlike some parents I was absolutely blessed to have the opportunity to hold my son one last time and tell him goodbye, and I made a promise to him that no matter how painful it would be to go through my story over and over and over again if just one parent listens and understood about the dangers and educated themselves and took the prevention measures for vehicles ... his death would be worth it.
It would be worth losing a child to save 100. No parent wants to feel like I do every day, to be responsible for your own child's death
While you were there holding him, who responded?
The police and ambulance arrived.
What happened then?
They took over; they're more professional than I am.
They wouldn't let me ride in the back of the ambulance while they were working on him, but I rode up in front with the driver, and I called my husband and told him he had to get to the hospital right away because there was an accident, I forgot him in the car.
He didn't really understand because I was hysterical.
They took him into a room and were working on him while I was in the waiting room of the hospital and one of the doctors came in and said it wasn't looking good. I started praying to God to just take me.
Then maybe about 10 minutes later ... it seemed like a lifetime ... they came in and told me they couldn't save him.
I was hysterical, and all I could think of was how am I going to tell my husband that I killed his son?
What happened when your husband did get there?
The first sergeant of the school told my husband the news. She is a pastor at a church, and she was probably the best person to be able to tell him.
He came in and he was really upset and he was crying. I told him I was so sorry I forgot him.
They probably would not have let us see him and I don't even know if I would have been in the state of mind to ask to hold him one last time, but my husband said, "I want to see him, I want to see my son."
So, they escorted us into the room to see him one last time.
It was completely unbelievable and shocking to have to leave that hospital without him.
When you left the hospital, did you go home or were the police already there?
I got to go home, but the lead investigator on the case, they interviewed me at the hospital. I don't remember that at all.
That was on a Friday. I didn't talk to the police again until they arraigned me. That following Monday, I woke up and my mom and everybody got down there on Saturday and Sunday. They recommended that I get an attorney. I called a couple of attorneys to see what I would need to do.
The interesting thing was the lead investigator on the case walked in to the hospital that same day and told the first responders on the case, "OK, you guys go ahead and write your statements because we're going to charge her for everything you can."
He had not spoken to me and he had not spoken to my husband when he made that statement. So he already had his pre-formed opinion that I was guilty and they were going to go after me, and he was the one who set the tone for the case....
Nobody ever gets arraigned on a Saturday unless you're slapped with handcuffs and taken to jail, but they waited until the day of my son's funeral on a Friday to tell me they were arraigning me on charges the next day. Forty minutes after my son's funeral was over, I was at my house and the attorney I had spoken to, they called her and told her that I was going to be arraigned the following day.
I was really upset, and I was just like .... we're not going to be able to put our lives back together as a family, we have to go immediately into defense mode. My son died on the 30th of March. My husband left on the 21st of June to deploy to Iraq as a government contractor for 18 months in order to cover my attorney fees which ended up being $126,000.
What was the charge?
The initial charge was second degree murder and felony child abuse and neglect. They later amended that dropping the abuse and neglect and reducing the second degree to involuntary manslaughter.
Here in Virginia, it says willful act or admission. That was not the case. I didn't knowingly do that.
How long did the whole thing drag out? Did they put you through a long trial?
He died in March; I was charged the following week. The trial was like the 28th of January 2008. 
What was it like trying to grieve your child's death and on the other hand you don't know what's going to happen?
My perspective on it's a little different from other people. The thing I was worried about was my family -- my husband, my son who was at the time 14. That's who I was worried about, that's who I was stressed about it. 
My husband was getting ready to deploy, my son was trying to deal with the loss of his only sibling and his mom was facing 10 to 25 years in jail.
The thing is, I've been to a lot of place in the military that a lot of people, you see and experience things, like Bosnia. You talk to war victims and people who have gone through devastating things. I've been out in the middle of the desert during Desert Storm, and I had to go to the bathroom in a hole that I had to dig and bury.
Going to jail and sitting in a jail cell with three meals a day to me is not hell, and that's what I don't think that prosecuting attorneys and them ... they don't understand.
When they punish you for a crime they think you committed, it's supposed to be a deterrent, but how do you deter someone from accidentally forgetting your kid?
This has happened to a mathematical genius. This has happened to a NASA scientist. It has happened to a pediatrician. It's happened to numerous university professors. It's happened to the poor. It's happened to rich people. It's happened to middle class. It doesn't matter.
I explain to people who try to tell me they couldn't be that irresponsible, I was one of those parents. I had heard stories about that happening, and I said that could never happen to me, I'm not an irresponsible parent, that's got to be somebody who didn't do the right thing. That cannot be me.
I have found out it absolutely can be me, and that's why I educate. 
The reality is our brains don't differentiate between a child, a purse, a cellphone, a pair of glasses. It doesn't matter.
How do you tell parents to get past that though? If parents are stuck on that idea of "I'd never do that to my child," how do you get them past that and into actually being proactive?
If people say they can never do it, I give them examples:
I know plenty of people who take medication every day. If you didn't take that medication but you swear up and down that you did, it's call mis-remembering.
If that's happened to you, you can forget your child.
If you've ever driven anywhere, and you can't remember how you got there, that's a function of your brain going on auto-pilot. If that's ever happened to you, you can forget your child.

I give these examples because people will say, "Oh, that didn't happen to me, that didn't happen to me, OH, wait a minute, that has happened to me."
If you've ever forgotten your cellphone, your pager, your wallet, your keys, your sunglasses, and you swear you know where you put them but they are not there, and you find them in a completely different location, you can accidentally forget your child.
Do you think these examples you've found out about and this research has helped you forgive yourself?
Well ... that's an interesting question. I don't feel like I need to forgive myself. I do acknowledge and have to deal with the responsibility of forgetting my son.
But I feel like parents that do this intentionally -- they leave their kids in the car and they go somewhere, like one parent, a veterinarian, she has to deal with the fact that she went into the house and got distracted on the phone and forgot her son was in the car. She has to deal with that. That to me is like I feel you have to ask for forgiveness.
But for me, when I got out of the car that day, my son was exactly where he was supposed to be.
What I have to come to terms with, and this is what is really hard for me -- because my son usually took his first bottle in the morning at the babysitter's. Because it was so cool that morning, at some point at time he woke up because he was hungry and was in the car by himself.
That's what I have to deal with -- not being there for him.
There's nothing to forgive, but I will be accountable, I am absolutely accountable for his death. That's what I have to deal with. Can you say that that's forgiveness or not forgiveness? I don't really know. But for me the problem is that I should have been the type of parent that knew  about these dangers and made sure there were steps in place to prevent that.
It sucks. It sucks every day.
It's something that you have to live with.
I'm accountable every day. I miss him every day. He would be 8 years old today. I'll never see him grow up. I'll never see him graduate from school. I'll never see his children.

How did your family move on? How did things work with you and your husband?

He was angry for awhile but not necessarily at me. He was angry because our son was gone and there was nothing he could do about it.
Unbelievably he and I became stronger and talked about it and learned to work through it and he knew it was an accident. He knew I would never leave my children in the car, not even for a second.
It was hard for awhile to talk about him without crying. I do feel like it was a blessing in disguise that my husband was deployed except for coming home for the trial.
He was not home for any of that, so I feel like it was beneficial that he was out of the country so he didn't have to go through that.

How did you decide to try again, to have kids again?

Again, it's about love and trust. He knew I would never intentionally hurt one of our children and we just didn't not try.
The interesting thing that happened was he was going to be gone for a year and a half to Iraq. Originally it was just a year ... my husband is seven and a half years younger than me, so when I had Bryce I was 31, and so I wasn't getting any younger so to speak.
We knew he was going to be gone for a year, and we talked to a counselor, we talked to our pastor and said when is an appropriate time to grieve? When is an appropriate time to have another baby?
What our pastor said and what our counselors said was when you feel like you can, there's nothing wrong with trying. 
Bryce passed away in March. We ended up getting pregnant with Braiden in September/October, somewhere around in there.
We talked about it, and I asked him if he wanted to try, and I think that was part of the healing process -- that he was so willing to have children with me, even though we were hurting and we were grieving the loss of our son.
That for me was the most telling part of it, that he forgave me.
I do think that Braiden's birth helped us to continue to heal because it pulled us away from the loss that we felt

By the time Braiden was born, had you been found not guilty?

Yes, the trial was only like three days.
Teddy Bear in CarYou have different ways you talk to parents about recognizing they can be at risk, but what do you actually tell parents to DO?

The best tool that I can provide to them is to go to the Kids and Cars website, and what I tell them is to get in the habit of babyproofing your vehicles ...
Put a stuffed animal in the vehicle, and always, always, if you have one or 50 children, if there's a child in the car, put that animal up front with you or put something in the backseat that you're going to need when you get out of the car. I don't like that idea as much as the stuffed animal up front because you can forget your cellphone that you need and you remember 30 minutes later ... and you're in the same situation.

We've started a campaign called Look Before You Lock, so you ALWAYS get in the habit of opening the back door and looking before you lock the door.

How do you deal with the criticism and with being so public?

Because I made him a promise, and nobody can judge me more than I do myself. Nobody. It doesn't matter what they say, the harsh things. I've been told you need to be locked in a hot car and allowed to die the same way your son did, you need to have your uterus ripped out, you should never be allowed to have children again, the list goes on and on.
But none of them know me. They don't know anything about the type of person I am, what type of a mother I am.
If you don't know the type of person I am, how can you judge me?

These are not the words of an innocent mother. Innocent mothers take all blame and far more blame than deserved.  This is a self defending stance that is necessary due to the critical decision she made in not taking that call, nor in even checking up on her son of whom she reported was sick and fussy.  

The victim was not the priority of the day, as seen in the language.  

In her linguistic perception of reality, his death began a week earlier.  

Please note, she did not include drinking of beer on the night before his death and asked her friend not to report this to police.   

Analysis Conclusion:  The subject is not honest about the phone call at 10:30AM. 

She chose to ignore it, as the prosecution stated, because of prioritizing her job.  "She put herself in a situation where she was able to forget her infant," Prosecutor Killeen told the jurors. Even with the stress and tension at work, "You still have to take care of your children," she said.
"Ms. Balfour doesn't get a pass because she did this to her own child as opposed to someone else's child," continued Killeen, calling Balfour's actions "gross, wanton, and culpable neglect."

To this, the words of the subject agreed.  She chose to ignore the call deliberately, that would have saved the child's life.  

Her defensive posture is acute and not consistent with innocent mothers' statements.  

The defense said:  Zwerling offered another angle.
"She came to believe she'd dropped him off," he said. "Bryce was in a place where he was safe, sound, and happy, so she didn't have to worry. Not remembering is easy to understand when she believed he was at daycare."

The problem  here is that the subject spent a great deal of time describing how Bryce was not sound and not happy, leaving the position of mother to be one of worry and concern over her child.  She then reports of a babysitter who was concerned, and how she, herself, did not even call the daycare to see how the child was.  

This is negligence. 

 The question of the phone call was pivotal in the trial.  Here, she answers for us what the prosecutor attempted to prove. 

Becoming an "advocate" for telling people not to look their infants in their cars is part of the overall profile of guilt.  The subtle blaming of the child, the babysitter, the phone, etc, all indicate as much.  

One may consider the worth of attending a seminar to have someone who chose not to make her child a priority  lecture you to not to forget your child.  

If you wish for training in detecting deception, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services.  


«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 410   Newer›   Newest»
Unknown said...

This is Raelyn Balfour and I am not sure who posted this "overview" of my statement but any account of an article that was written based on a interview without interviewing me personally is interpreting an interview of second or third hand account. If you read any of the articles that have been written, I have always and continue to maintain my responsibility in my son's death. The explanation of what occurred that day, the week prior etc., was given by others during the trial and was explained by my husband during the interview not by me. I NEVER gave anyone on this blog permission to use any of the pictures posted here or pictures of my son. If you intended to analyze my statement that could have been obtained from the trial and other witnesses. I am respectfully requesting this be taken down immediately.

Anonymous said...

Best comment yet!

Sounds like someone who attended one of those "seminars" and is also a member of a gritch and gripe group who focuses on anyone with a scab turned this piece of garbage in for analysis.

Unknown said...

I have contacted Peter Hyatt to discuss his "analysis" of my interview. As an Intelligence Analyst for the US Army for 28 years trained in HUMINT (Human Intelligence) as well as many other intel analytical areas; what he has provided is a skewed analysis of an interview that he pulled from many different articles and one that was published 7 years after my son's death. A big part of statement analysis is during the questioning and interrogation. Body language, demeanor, and facial/eye contact are all big parts to witness/statement analysis. All of which Mr. Hyatt was not a part of or ever conducted in any interview with me.

At the time of my son's death I provided a full statement to the police without an attorney and have always maintained my responsibility in my son's death. The later accounting of what occurred throughout the week prior and what occurred that day was not in anyway excuses and much of the statement in the article provided were given by my husband and not me as he misrepresents in this blog. I was never contacted nor questioned about my statement and more importantly was never personally interviewed or questioned by Mr. Hyatt. He also used an article that was not a transcript of my exact statement rather an article and non of the information above was verified by me or my attorney has actual facts on the day of my son's death.

I am disappointed in that if Mr. Hyatt was in fact a reputable professional, he would have sought me out directly and requested an interview to discuss / verify any information listed in the article. I have dedicated my life to the education of how it's possible to accidentally forget your child or mis-remember dropping off your child and how are brain's function. What Mr. Hyatt did not mention is the medical professional that explains how this is possible and how often it happens to many loving parents on a daily basis. 3 in one day in Texas just a few days ago.

The article written by Gene Weingarten from The Washington Post,

This article accurately explains how this is possible and I encourage anyone that posted here to read the article and reassess your evaluation of Mr. Hyatt's "explanation" of my interview. It was not a statement, but an article and what Mr. Hyatt also does not tell you is that I learned many years later that I had been suffering from severe PTSD, Depression and anxiety from being sexually assaulted while deployed in Iraq in 05 and was exhibiting symptoms which include memory issues long before my son died.

Mr. Hyatt has taken the story and understanding of the events in my son's death to pick apart an article for the sole purpose to promoting his own business without thought or regard to what assumptions/comments and opinions would come following this blatant disregard for factual accuracy.

Finally, had Mr. Hyatt contacted me to interview me personally I would have gladly spoke with him or met him in order to provide the above mentioned critical pieces of statement analysis which is the human aspect of and critical piece of HUMINT.

I have provided this blog to my attorney Mr. John Zwerling and requested that he contact Mr. Hyatt to have this removed and issue an apology to my husband and I as he conveniently does not have any contact information on either his Google page, business website or his blog.

But I am a robot! said...

Quoting John McGowan

“I think if that’s what their suspicions were, they should have kept their mouths shut and pursued that,” Clegg said. “If you stole something from me and all of a sudden everyone keeps pointing fingers at you, what are you going to do with what you had stolen from me? Hide it, get rid of it, try to make it less suspicious. If (investigators) had just kept things quiet, maybe something would have come up.”

Yikes, talk about a buried confession! I do believe Jessica knows exactly what happened and where it did/didn't happen, but her mom sure doesn't do her any favors here. She says right out that the investigators should have just quietly proved their case against her daughter and Vernal; if they had done so they might have found the truth.

As to the topic case, ima.grandma quotes Balfour that baby Bryce was upset when he couldn't find his pacifier. Why, if he couldn't breathe with it in his mouth, which is another reason he was ballistic before he got very lethargic?

But I am a robot! said...

More on baby DeOrr's case, thanks, Mr. McGowan for keeping this one current; I often search hoping for some sort of justice update.

I have sat in interrogation rooms and I’ve begged her. I threw pictures of baby Deorr in front of her and said, ‘All it takes is you to talk to them,'” Clegg said.

WHY would you even think of doing this to your scared, distraught, grieving daughter, if you didn't believe in your brain –– not your heart –– that she is withholding important information about your missing grandson?!?

Clegg continued, “I may get proved wrong. I can’t say that it may not happen, but as of right now, I have to believe in my heart the things that I’ve been told.”

If she can't even say it MAY not happen, we certainly can't say it for her; did I get that right? Also, isn't a double negative a flaming blue cloud of sensitivity? Further weakened by "as of right now" and "in my heart" –– not in my head, brain?

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Daisy (part 2)

if your child is vaccinated and you believe vaccines are safe and work then why does it bother you if someone else who doesn't agree that vaccines are safe does not vaccinate their children.

if it is safe and it works you and your child are safe from the disease.

too many people use emotion to try to sell vaccines. why don't you just read the paperwork that comes with the vaccine.

ima.grandma said...

Thank you John for continuing to contribute updates on previous cases relative to this blog. I appreciate the Baby Deorr post. I feel his little face is forever emblazed on my heart, like a sad emotional tattoo.

Ms. Balfour, yesterday, I read the heartbreaking article you reference. It took me most of the day to complete. I was only able to allow small segments of his words to enter my mind at one sitting. It was too much for me to absorb and I shed many tears. I also researched educational medical submissions and quality clinical findings. I am painfully aware of the mind's wonderous ability to alter behavior and reality in order to survive.

Although I'm unable to tell you I regret my previous posts as I shared my true thoughts; I am compassionately apologetic for any additional pain my personal conclusions may have caused you.

Anonymous said...

This "Statement Analysis" blog and comments are a law suit waiting to happen.

Most of Peter's analyses have NOT proven accurate, and to so casually accuse people of being murderers can't be legally safe.

Lines are being crossed.

Maybe Peter has met his match in Lyn Balfour.

Just watching.

Anonymous said...

Peter has said in SA the words speak for themselves, and yet, throughout the comments, there are analyses involving "it just didn't feel right," or some such nonsense. Also, the comment is routinely made by "analysts" that "I would never have thought or done that." Peter's own analyses are heavily influenced by his right leaning life philosophy.

This is a vicious blog.

Anonymous said...

Foreign news outlets post breaking US news before Breitbart.

But I am a robot! said...

Quoting another random Anonymous;
Maybe Peter has met his match in Lyn Balfour.

What is she going to do, lock him in a hot car all day?

ima.grandma said...

Thank you Peter.

Anonymous said...

Who has been accused of being a murderer?

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Foreign news outlets post breaking US news before Breitbart.

June 30, 2017 at 4:29 PM

visit this link below ...regarding Brietbart

Anonymous said...

Oh.....Davey Blackburn, for one (another topic in the SA blog). Commenters have said he murdered his wife, although he has never been a suspect by law enforcement.

When I say they have accused him of murder, I mean they use the words, "he murdered his wife" or "he's a murderer."

Read a few more of these ridiculous discussions. They are over the top.

Anonymous said...

You're being evasive. The comment says his analysis are innacurate. Which ones? And you infer he has accused of murder. I dont recall him doing that. When has he?

Anonymous said...

I am doubtful that is actually the real Raelyn It looks like the google account was just made and has only 2 followers. Also the statement "This is Raelyn" is quite different than her stating " I am Raelyn". Also, why does this supposed "Raelyn" keep saying that she "has always maintained (her) responsibility in (her) son's death"? If her son's death was a tragic accident, she is not "responsible" for it. Just saying, why are you claiming to be responsible for something that, if it was truly accidental, was not your "fault" or "responsibility"?
I dont believe that is the real Raeleyn, I feel someone made a fake account.

Unknown said...

I do not have a fake account and also posted the blog on my Facebook page as well. I also don't write things anonymously. I am the real person that read and was appalled at this blog. Peter could have easily looked up my information and contacted me. I have never turned down an interview and have been judged by many and that is fine. People that judge me do not know me but to have this basically state that I lied and was deceitful from inaccurate information which has allowed others to come to assumptions and conclusions is disheartening and as a "professional" analyst Mr. Hyatt should have known to verify facts and information. This was not an analysis of my statement it was an article that he manipulated to meet his own agenda.

Anonymous said...

I said comments contain accusations of murder. Read them for yourself. I pointed you to one instance. If you care to know, you will read other areas of this blog. The blog does had for itself, and it's there to research. Do your homework.

Anonymous said...

You said you contacted him then you said he has no contact info then you said your lawyer contacted him.

Anonymous said...


Unknown said...

An analysis isn't conducted on an article that is written based on an interview that the analyst did not conduct or was not present for. Mr. Hyatt never attempted to contact me to question me and I would have been happy to speak with him. Based on his "assessment" I was deceitful and should have been convicted. It's irresponsible, but more importantly hurtful and not accurate.

Unknown said...

I provided his contact information that was found after my post to my attorney. His email, phone and home address. And his assumptions do indicate I murdered my son. And Mr. Hyatt still hasn't taken the time to comment on any of my posts. The only contact information on him for this blog is his google account. And his business page has not contact such as email or phone. And I said my lawyer is contacting him after I emailed him all of the information for him to review.

Anonymous said...

Peter was down on America as a whole...that is until he got a FREE INVITATION to teach at the FBI Academy in Virginia. My guess is one of the students in that area looked the case up and forwarded it to him.

He isn't the only one publishing on this blog. But after he posts these runaway go nowhere subjects that generate a lot of clicks, it isn't unusual to not hear from him for a few gives the crazos room to expand on being total azzwipes and having an excuse.

Unknown said...

What accusation?

ima.grandma said...

To yet another anon@5:18
Include some integrity to your voice~pick a name

An accident, also known as an unintentional injury, is an undesirable, incidental, and unplanned event that could have been prevented had circumstances leading up to the accident been recognized, and acted upon, prior to its occurrence.

I disagree. Ms. Balfour is the author of the referenced posts on this page and the owner of the associated google blogger account.

Unknown said...

This is interesting that whomever is posting from this anonymous keeps defending Peter. My guess is this is Peter. Assumptions seem to what is needed. And as for a "student" sending him the case I point out again that this "analysis" was based on an article and not any facts. And from the 27 years I've been an analyst the first and foremost is to verify the information you are analyzing. In my job if I don't absolutely ensure that the information is credible or accurate soldiers lives could be lost. He carelessly wrote this blog without any verification at all. He didn't even provide the link to the article he references.

Anonymous said...

Sorry. The comment was not directed to you Ms Balfour. Directed to commenter at 5:33pm. Accusatioms made without evidence then requiring an inquirer to do his/her homework to find the info. Pitiful.

Anonymous said...

Intellectually challenged @ 5:50.
Choosing a phony name has nothing go do with integrity.

Unknown said...

Ima.grandma this is my account and this so close to the date of what would have been Bryce's 10th Birthday has been devastating to my husband and I. Many times over the years I have had to explain that day and in none of those cases have I ever made excuses for his death. The factual statement I made to the police says as much. But no official fact check for the facts ever requested from me. And this analysis is defamatory and implies my guilt and deception on my part which is obsurd.

Anonymous said...

I believe its really her.

Anonymous said...

I am not Peter and most of my posts disappear as they aren't in agreement with the other commentors.I have been reading here for a long time and pretty much know the score

Read a few posts and you'll see what I mean

The one that almost got me banned was when a "team member" posted his Memorial Day shopping spree which included him being a total prick in public. I stated as much as was warned, because, after all, this is a science and one isn't supposed to get the general gist of it.

I would monitor emails and phone calls as I know how people who look for subjects such as this are. IT AIN"T PRETTY.

This being posted so near the birthday of the deceseced is the first warnng sign.

Anonymous said...

And, imagrandma claims to be an investigtor for the State of Oklahoma (retired) and investigates doctors, IIRC.

She gets to keep her insane posts up and mine get wiped away.

Then again, Oklahoma has more mental illnesses than any other state in the nation so her insanity is deemed of sound mind.

ima.grandma said...

Ms. Balfour, I reviewed numerous unique articles yesterday. I believe your words were very consistent. The only discrepancies I found were the listed times of phone calls and a few "change of language" indicators. These times were written as facts from these other articles for which I provided a link for each. I offer my personal opinions on this blog after an attempt to inform myself based on multiple resources. I believe the words you write today to be genuine based on this blog's teaching principles. There is no doubt in my mind, you are indeed Ms. Raelyn Balfour.

Anonymous said...

And, I'd close down facebook and any other public profiles for a while and see if your friends will do so, too. Perhaps upping the cell phone security might be in order, too.

There are people on here that still can''t get over the fact that Casey Anthony was acquitted and monitor her relatives daily. They post their financials as if that has anything to do with SA, and my comments get "disappeared" for some odd reason if they don't regurgitate every little word.

Look up imagrandmas old comments. I'm sorry is as heartfelt as asking what time it is

Hey Jude said...

Raelyn Balfour wrote: 'what he has provided is a skewed analysis of an interview that he pulled from many different articles and one that was published 7 years after my son's death.'

Here is the interview which Peter analysed:

It is a complete first-person interview, which was given by Lyn Balfour, to The Stir/CafeMom website, which introduced it thus:

‘After being charged with his death and later being found not guilty, Balfour has became a fierce advocate for educating parents on these accidental tragedies. She spoke with The Stir about the day her son died, and what kind of mom leaves a child in a hot car:’

Lyn Balfour, in her comment here, states:
‘The explanation of what occurred that day, the week prior etc., was given by others during the trial and was explained by my husband during the interview not by me.’

The website states that Lyn Balfour spoke to the interviewer - it is a first-person account, with no suggestion that the husband was involved in or contributing to the interview.


Raelyn, please disregard my comments if they are inaccurate - I make no claims to be a trained statement analyst. I am sorry if what I have written has added to your distress.

Anonymous said...

If it was an accident, she is not responsible. She was also not found legally responsible.

She is not once saying it was an accident. I find that strange.

I also dont think Peter implied she killed her son. Correct me if Im wrong, but I believe Peter only indicated neglect.

But I am a robot! said...

Peter has clarified more than once that he does not believe Bryce's death was intentional, just that it didn't happen as claimed, and that there are many inconsistencies in both parents' statements about that day and their regular routine.

It is several commenters, including me, that suspect it may have been intentional.

Hey Jude said...

I think it was ^Negligence and Deception ^? - The analysis question was about the phone call.

I think some of us may have gone too far in the comments - way beyond whether the mother chose not to notice the babysitter's calll, then. Well, that would happen, because some of us lack restraint. :-/

Hey Jude said...

How do you think intentional, Robot? I mean, how, based on the parents' own words?

Hey Jude said...

I was beginning to think a bit differently, then read the article at the link. A couple of 'new' things there relating to that day. IDK what to think.

Hey Jude said...

The Washington Post link - read it thinking she said there were two spaces nest to the car, and the spare seat was the usual seat. There is a lot of sensitivity around that spare usual seat.

ima.grandma said...

Hey Jude, I got confused about the two spaces yesterday also. Then I reread the article routed from a different link. I think there was another interview with Raelyn at a much later time that was included. Lyn was describing the logistics of her car placement in the parking lot of her workplace on that fateful day. I think? Maybe Raelyn can assist. Raelyn, do you mind clarifying?

Hey Jude said...

Re Washington Post article: A bit differently with regard to the explanation that as she had dropped off Jarrett, which usually she did not, her brain registered that as the one drop off she normally did, of Bryce, to the babysitter. I began to think that sounded feasible - a sticking point for me is that she had said she intended to go to work after she had dropped off Jarrett, rather than to the babysitter. So, it seemed possible, yes, that could explain it - she thought she had already done the drop off, but it was the wrong drop-off - I get that could have been the case, a slip of the mind as she started the car, thinking work next. Except - she later drove past the turn off to the drop-off for Bryce - so, I think, as she approached it, she would realise her mistake, and that she could not have dropped him off yet. Even then, one could say, well, she did not take Bryce to the babysitter for most of the time, maybe she forgot it was her turn, because he was quiet, he was not in the spare usual seat. Thinking about that though - the sight of THAT seat, empty In the back, which had not been in the car the previous day ('put it in the car today and I will like take it to the fire department at lunchtime') would have made her remember they just had put it in the car, and moved Bryce across, out of the driver's field of view, into his old seat?

So, IDK. And yesterday, when I was wondering why she went round the car to lay Bryce's body on the ground on the passenger side - if it was because there was no space on the ground on the driver side - well, in that article, she tells the person she was with, there were two spaces besides the car the day - she was not asked, so it was unnecessary information to volunteer. There were empty spaces either side, but she took him round to the passenger side, which was where first responders found him, as if to give the impression he had been in the baby seat on that side, which looks like a calculation, an attempt to mislead in the initial moments of such a horrendous discovery. I don't understand why anyone would think to do that rather than lay him on the ground where he was.

Hey Jude said...

Yes, Ima - I just saw your post. I also am confused about the car spaces, and why she took Bryce round from the driver side to the passenger side.

But I am a robot! said...

Hey, Jude: Several factors, although they of course could be simply more of her blame-shifting:

The complete lack of empathy or any sort of acknowledgement of what Bryce suffered that long day.

The pacifier: he was fussy in part because he couldn't be comforted by it since he couldn't breathe with it in his mouth – so, why is he ballistic that he couldn't find it late that night?

Both parents detail dressing him that day. Her purse, which she said she put in the back seat with Bryce, was with her. She willfully ignored phone calls and voice mails until it was definitely too late, much like Justin Ross Harris.

Everyone close knew to reach her on her work phone or work cell phone, so she didn't check her personal phone until much later when searching a phone number. Everyone would certainly include her sick infant's primary caregiver.

Even knowing that her child's caregiver, who presumably had her very lethargic child had called the personal phone, she still didn't immediately respond.

A sick, stuffed up baby who cannot breathe properly isn't going to be totally soundless even if lethargic.

She continues to claim taking responsibility while saying she did nothing wrong. She jumped quickly into anti hot car death crusader mode, much like the fake victims taking to Facebook to spread their messages.

The odd details about the car seats, including Bryce being placed directly behind the driver and a more-familiar empty seat placed in driver view behind the passenger.

Her account is that she dropped off her husband and proceeded to work, not "then to daycare, drop off Bryce, then onto work."

Her language about creating a false memory of dropping him and having a conversation with the babysitter.

Her extra details about running around to the passenger side of the car with his body – why do that or say it? Her inconsistent details about picking up and/or pulling out her personal cell phone.

I agree that all of the conflicting facts could be to cover up an accidental death that took place before he was put in the car seat (or the car seat into the car) reportedly that morning; they just point more to intentional to me, especially the national crusade without actually acknowledging responsibility.

But I am a robot! said...

Hey Jude, part 2:

Now if you could please provide some mom insight? Several have mentioned that Balfour had not bonded with Bryce,and that is why her complete lack of remorse or acknowledgement of the hell he endured in his final hours.

It wouldn't matter if I had just met an infant and his mom that morning as a stranger employing me, a new neighbor in a bind, whatever – if his life ended in my care, especially in such a horrific way, I would be devastated, my guilt would destroy me.

Just from your many comments on this blog, I infer you would feel the same way if you caused something like this regardless how long you'd known the infant and his mother. So why do you see it as a lack of bonding, rather than a lack of basic human empathy?

I recall years ago, no clue where it happened or where I read it, a father left his sleeping toddler son in the car while he scoped out a potential camping and hunting spot for that weekend. He had a bad feeling too late and hurried back to the car to find his little boy nowhere in sight.

This was a cold day, not a hot car death, but equally inappropriate for leaving a helpless child unattended.

He immediately called 911 and ran for help, and when sheriff's deputies arrived, he was on the ground, face covered in tears and snot (sorry), sobbing, vomiting and begging the deputies to please shoot him.

Nowhere and at no point did he ever minimize his own negligence, or try to minimize the legal impact on himself; his only focus, as Peter has cited in many statements was on what his poor child endured. (the toddler was eventually found dead, with frozen tears on his face.)

That is what is expected from any parent I know who loves their child, and what I'd expect just from what little I've read of you this past month. It's also what I would expect from anyone who directly caused a helpless child to suffer terribly in death regardless of how close they were to the child and his mother.

Hey Jude said...

Do you have a link to the other article where she spoke about the car spaces? Besides the analysis interview, I have read little else as I was trying to limit my wonderings and observations to what is in that, or what I think is in that, which is so for most of my comments. So far I have also read the article TJ posted, and the closing arguments document you linked, and Lyn's link to the Washington post article. I am wondering if there are any YouTubes, so will look shortly.

ima.grandma said...

Hey Jude,  I couldn't let this go until i verified the info, so I found the quote in the article.

And here is the parking lot of the JAG school, on the University of Virginia campus. She's pulling into the same spot she was parked in that day, the place where Bryce died.

Ms. Balfour:
"It was like this, except these two spots next to us were empty," she notes blandly as she gets out of the car, gathers her keys and leans in to get the diaper bag."

There is a photo attached but I can't view it so I don't know which side the empty spots are on.

Personal opinion: I'm not "all in" on your thoughts regarding the empty spaces. At that crucial time, I believe all of Lyn's focus and energy was on saving her baby, not saving herself. 

There's an online blog attached to the Washington Post that was updated later, making it confusing.

This link provides hyperlinks to the blog and the associated article. I think one of the comments also mentions the car spaces. The blog is a little harder to follow because of the format but has much more information and comments.

Anonymous said...

Is the Mom dating the paramedic from the case as someone claimed upthread?

ima.grandma said...

I have to agree with you.

Everything but...

This blog is not utterly useless. However, this blog does sometimes contain useless comments. I admit I have written useless comments. I also boast I have learned much and been enlightened from this blog.

Anonymous said...

If the baby was "very lethargic" that means he was sick with something words than a cold.

Anonymous said... have written most of the useless comments and have a pack of "friends" that follow suite. Perhaps you've now decided not to be a retired state investigator from Moore so everyone will think you are a psychopathic serial killer and they'll all click on your blog.

However, I'd guess you may be Okiegrannie on Websleuths and this trash site is where you pick up the trashy "friends." This person posts around the same time a deceased person of the woman she looks like posted...and her husband was a cop. Not a good one, but good enough to be employed in Okla.

Any one who has read that site know for certain nothing comes of it other than sheer terror.

T said...

In several accounts LB says that she received a phone call from work about making arrangements for honouring a fallen soldier, WHILE she was driving. However, the court transcript reveals that that call was not received until 8:24 am. She starts work at 8:00am. In other words, she had already arrived at work and left Byce in the car by that time and therefore, that phone call could not be a contributing factor to forgetting him.

Anonymous said...

Hey Jude "The two spaces next to <\>us<\>".

Not "the two spaces nexr to where I parked".

The use of the pronoun "us" in light of the fact she claims to have not known he was in the car seems kind of odd to me. What do you think?

T said...

On the Thursday night, before that fateful Friday, the baby sitter, W. Huff asked the Balfours of she could borrow fifteen thousand dollars - ($15,000.00) to keep her childminding business afloat. That's pretty bizarre. You'd think the Balfours would be discussing what Lynn was going to tell Ms. Huff about that on Friday morning:- going to the babysitter's the next morning after being asked for a loan of 15 grand should have been enough of a memory jog. IMO.

T said...

It's also weird that Lynn told W. Huff that the lawyer suggested that she (W. Huff) had come back in the middle of the day and put Bryce in Lyn's car; AND the Balfours gave Huff $1,500.00 to get an attorney.

Anonymous said...

Embedded confession?
Raelyn Balfour said...
I provided his contact information that was found after my post to my attorney. His email, phone and home address. And his assumptions do indicate I murdered my son. And Mr. Hyatt still hasn't taken the time to comment on any of my posts. The only contact information on him for this blog is his google account. And his business page has not contact such as email or phone. And I said my lawyer is contacting him after I emailed him all of the information for him to review.
June 30, 2017 at 5:44 PM

Hey Jude said...

Hey Jude "The two spaces next to <\>us<\>".

Not "the two spaces nexr to where I parked".

The use of the pronoun "us" in light of the fact she claims to have not known he was in the car seems kind of odd to me. What do you think?


I think she is referring to 'us' in the present, of herself and the person she is speaking with, rather than to herself and Bryce on the day he died.

Hey Jude said...

Robot - thanks. The way in which you present those points so concisely does make it seem it may have been intentional. I still am thinking there could be alternative ways to understand it and the coldness may be due to her not having bonded well with Bryce, and her explanations and justifications might be due to guilt that she forgot him and didn’t care enough about how sick he was, that she had intended to leave a ‘just very lethargic’ baby with the babysitter - because the bond was not there.

“my husband agreed to get up with him, but then he couldn't find his pacifier in his bed. 
Bryce went ballistic, woke up completely, and then I got up, was up with him for another hour and a half to two hours. him, but then he couldn't find his pacifier in his bed. 
Bryce went ballistic, woke up completely, and then I got up, was up with him for another hour and a half to two hours.”

I read it that it was Jarrett who could not find Bryce’s pacifier in the baby’s bed, so Lyn got up to find it, and then stayed up with the baby. From your comment, I see I might have read it in the wrong way, and rather it was Bryce himself who could not find his pacifier - in his bed, which was why he ‘went ballistic’. She didn’t say Jarrett had got up, only that he had agreed to.

Well, I would not expect a nine month old to have been searching through the cupboards and drawers for his pacifier, so I will continue to wonder if he could not find it ‘in his bed’ are unnecessary words, meant to persuade that Bryce was in his bed rather than that he was sleeping upright in a car seat to aid his breathing. A spar out pacifier might have been more out of reach if he was in a car seat, than in the bed. I'd go ballistic if I woke up and found I was in a car seat - though he may have been in his bed, I don't know, she doesn't say where he was, only that he could not find the pacifier 'in his bed', which logically, I know I am meant to think he was in his bed. That is what I am intended to think, though I do not have to be convinced of it as it is confusing as to who could not find the pacifier in the bed, and even in whose bed, if one wants to be extra confused.

Interestingly, having followed Ima Grandma’s links, and then made a Google image search, I found a photo of Bryce, sitting in a car seat, on the floor in a house. He is past the tiny baby stage in the picture, where a sleeping newborn might be carried inside in a first size reclined car seat, so I’d say he was sometimes put into a car seat in the house. Car seats are very restrictive, and are for cars. The purpose of a car seat is to contain and restrain the baby from all but the slightest movement.

You wondered why he would want his pacifier when he could not breathe with it due to being blocked up. Some babies who are used to pacifiers, if they begin to wake, will find the pacifier themselves if it is within their reach, and fall back to sleep with it rather than wake fully - others don’t do that, they need someone to give them the pacifier, and will wake up fully if a parent doesn’t go to them them when they begin to stir and to miss the pacifier . It sounds as if Bryce may have been able to find it himself, but that he would fully wake if it was out of his reach. He wouldn’t have remembered or understood that he wouldn’t be able breathe and suck the pacifier at the same time - he would have still just wanted the pacifier. As he was only in a semi-wakeful state, he might have been satisfied with it for a short time, despite he was blocked up it may have helped him long enough to have fallen back to sleep, if he had found it, but instead he woke up fully.

Anonymous said...

Good lord.

Just keep up your idiotic, obsessive theorizing, interpreting, conjecturing.....anything but true SA. Remember what that is?

Keep in mind, the SA by Peter was applied to an article quoted out of context, not on Ms. Balfour's statrnent(s). But that's ok. This is what you neurotic basement dwelling sleuths (who SA without having taken Peter's training course) do to occupy your lacking existence. It's a game to you. Trifling with people's real life tragedies is nothing more than a game.

BTW, read what this woman had said.

I just had a thought--why are women the vast majority of commenters here? I wonder if that's a widespread internet thing.

Hey Jude said...

Robot - interesting question - I had to think about why I think lack of bonding rather than she just generally lacks empathy. I’m not saying she doesn’t also lack empathy, rather the interview made me think her way with Bryce was due to lack of bonding.

That was due to the way she spoke of Bryce, in addition to the things she did not say about him. It is more than lack of empathy - she’s not wanting to care for and comfort her sick baby (later it becomes apparent that she went out to babysit someone else’s child all evening while her own baby was unwell). She spoke negatively about him as if it were her default, and lacking are what I consider to be words of love or concern for him in her account, rather he seemed an inconvenience. He was in full time daycare since he was a month old, the husband had done a fair bit of the caring, and the day was arranged so that Bryce did not receive his first bottle from his mother, and when,she described the day she left him in the car, she spoke of her ‘area of responsibility’ as relating to her work, rather than to her baby.

I think lack of empathy need not equate to a dislike and indifference towards the baby, more difficulty in understanding and responding most appropriately to the baby’s needs, whereas lack of bonding can have more severe consequences in that it can cause dislike and resentment of the baby, and indifference to the baby’s needs, and guilt at the knowledge, as the mother wants to be a good parent but often cannot acknowledge her difficulties and will sometimes try to hide them. Some mothers don’t initially bond due to post-natal depression or other problems, and the bonding can come later - nine months is a long time.

That the usual arrangement of the day was not to feed her baby his first bottle herself, even though it was not a very early start to the work day, also adds to my belief that she was not bonded - the first feed time would be a priority to a mother who knew she was not going to see her baby again until early evening, when he would be tired and more likely to be fractious and wanting to sleep. If it was important to her, she would have made time for it at least some days of the week - the arrangement was that she did not. In her account it is almost as though Bryce is not there - missing are the ordinary expressions of love, pride, praise of her baby. When she attempts them, they are not quite it. She says Bryce gave them ‘unconditional love’ as though a little baby had a philosophical take on the type of love he made available - conditions, no conditions? - hmm, maybe I better settle for no conditions, seeing the way life’s like a box of chocolates.

If that sounds like judgement, it is not intended - for whatever reason, some mothers do not bond well with their babies.

Hey Jude said...

Anon lied:

'Keep in mind, the SA by Peter was applied to an article quoted out of context,'

The SA was applied to the words of Lyn Balfour, spoken in an interview she gave to The Stir/CafeMom website.
Here is the link to that interview:

That interview is what Peter analysed, not any random or other articles.

Hey Jude said...

Was it in the trial's concluding remarks that it was said Whitney, the babysitter, and Lyn spoke a lot about all sorts of things because they were friends - as a reason why Lyn did not pick up/ return the early call? She didn't expect it to be important, or about Bryce? I think I read that there.

In the post by Whitney which I posted a couple of days ago, from the 'Hook' website, she said she rarely contacted Lyn when she was at her workplace.

Anonymous said...

Jude, you're incorrect. You obviously did not read all of Ms. Balfour's posts here AND on Peter's SA FB page.

Instead of blindly writing 20,000 word rambling thesis, filled with your theories, inform yourself first.

Hey Jude said...

You are correct - I have not read Mrs Balfour's posts on Peter's FB page.

I concur that I am apt to ramble.

Hey Jude said...

Wow, now I have read them, I think it would be helpful if someone were to outline to Mrs Balfour and her followers what Statement Analysis is, and how an analysis of an interview needs no submission of further statements, earlier statements, current statements, or character references etc - it is what is, an analysis of the interview, of what the language therein indicates, with a conclusion drawn from the subject's own words. It would be good if someone were to expand and to say it much better than this.

They have illustrated in their comments some points which Peter makes quite well. The analysis was of the interview, though, which were all her own words. It does not matter to the analysis if there is a difference between what she says now, or said earlier, or what anyone else might say about her - the analysis concerns what she said in the interview she gave seven years ago.

Hey Jude said...

Appearing hideous and hateful is an unfortunate side-effect of having an interest in discovering what the truth of a matter is.

Assuredly Peter does not analyse an interview here unless he finds interest in doing so. His belief is that Mrs Balfour was deceptive. He is entitled to hold that belief, based on his analysis.

Mrs Balfour is used to people having difficulty with her story. I am sorry if my interest has added to her distress. I am shocked by the viciousness towards Peter in the knee-jerk comments on his FB, and by the claim his interest is only business related. If you read here, you will know Peter is passionate about truth for the sake of justice - he is fortunate that his business is built on a passion. Statement Analysis is taken seriously and used by law enforcement, even if the results are not directly admissible in court, it can be still be used.

Hey Jude said...

In case anyone did not know - the FBI uses Peter to teach Statement Analysis.

Anonymous said...

Hey Jude
"I am shocked by the viciousness towards Peter in the knee-jerk comments on his FB,"

Put yourself in Peter's target's position (Ms. Balfour). If you're innocent and have been exonerated in a court of law, would you not be livid at someone exploiting your grief at losing your child in what seems to be a never-ending attempt to advance his the expense of people's suffering. So far, in these SA blogs, he hasn't had much success. Direct us toward a successful analysis from here, please.


Hey Jude said...

Did I say the legal decision was in error?

Did I question that Mrs Balfour has been legally exonerated?

I try not to moral superiority - I confessed I had left my toddler son in the car - twice, and in a shop when he was s young baby.

I have by now read quite a bit, besides the interview which was analysed. I also have watched Mrs Balfour - and her husband - on several YouTubes on videos on other sites.

I do not blindly accept anything - I don't agree with everything Peter says, my political mindset is set to liberal, though in some respects I am not; I am usually inclined to accept his analysis conclusions because he is an expert statement analysis, and I believe, a man without guile.

Hey Jude said...

^ That should read: *I try not to do moral superiority*

Hey Jude said...

Though we all do, to some extent, I believe. Just look at those comments on Peter's FB, and some here, . :)

Anonymous said...

'CafeMom'...isn't that the blogger that depicted Casey Anthony throwing her child in the trunk of an old gangster looking vehicle? Yeah, something like an old Lincoln...something you'd expect in the Jimmy Hoffa abduction.

These are the type of women who stalk their neighbors and then send their offspring out to rob them.

Peter has a facebook?

The perfect storm is matching wits with military intelligence and those that give federal investigators their tools of intelligence.

Methinks this is gonna get stoopid fast.

Hey Jude said...

I do step away, occasionally. :) I don't have time to be a full-time obsessive. You might be quite surprised by how much I have to do before I can get on here, and by what I am sometimes also doing, or pausing from, while I am here.

Hey Jude said...

No point in trying to discredit 'CafeMom' anon - Mrs Balfour freely gave her the interview, it's a stand alone interview. What the blogger may have written about Casey Anthony is irrelevant to the fact that Mrs Balfour chose to give the site an interview.

Hey Jude said...

Anon @ 12.52 - No, I would suffer in silence because my baby was dead, whilst also not giving a **** what anyone thought.

Anonymous said...

There's NO POINT in retryng someone who has already stood trial.
There's NO POINT in posting financial information of family members.
There's NO POINT in trying to connect a self-center, self-promoting preacher to a hideous murder caused by gang members while living in a deteriorating neighborhood.(you'd have a better chance of being hit by an asteroid than ever completing that task)
There's NO POINT in rehashing the timeline of Balfours was decided long ago,, by the media, that appx. 45 minutes are unaccounted for.

So, what's your POINT?

Rachel said...

Lyn Balfour: "But for me, when I got out of the car that day, my son was exactly where he was supposed to be."

Okay. Lyn says that for her well-being and her purposes, her son was exactly where he was supposed to be in his car seat when she left the car that day.

Chilling, and not the words of an innocent mother.

I don't think I've ever seen justification this deep. She must tell us that forgetting where we put our keys is the same as forgetting a child in the car. She seeks to normalize her behavior in her own mind and the minds of others.

ima.grandma said...

This PDF file contains a hyperlink taking you to the audio of the 911 call made by a passerby of the tragedy. Ms. Balfour is heard in the background. There is also a transcript.

I challenge all commenters to listen to this agonizing call before offering another opinion.

there, but for the grace of God, go I
     ~John Bradford

Hey Jude said...

Anon @ 12.52 said:

'Put yourself in Peter's target's position (Ms. Balfour). If you're innocent and have been exonerated in a court of law, would you not be livid at someone exploiting your grief at losing your child in what seems to be a never-ending attempt to advance his the expense of people's suffering'


If I had genuinely forgotten he was in the car, and not remembered or had cause to remember during the day, I would have been helpless in that respect.

I would not ever forgive myself for not having checked on him with the babysitter all day when I knew he was 'just very lethargic'.

I would be thankful and relieved to have been legally exonerated, but I would carry a great deal of guilt. I would live day to day with the knowledge that I had chosen not to check on him on all day, whether I had seen the missed call or not. That would haunt me, because I would know my baby might not have died, had I just called or answered the call from the babysitter that morning, It would haunt me, I would not be able to console myself by telling others to put a teddy in the front of their car because I would not be able to convince myself thar my baby died because I had left him in the car that cold day, I would believe he died because I did not check with the babysitter, how he was doing, and that she had been able to feed him his first bottle. I would think 'if only - if only I had called to check on him that morning' - and ' if only I had stayed home with him that day.'


The posts of complaint all deflect attention from the choice to not have made a call to check on the baby.
Mrs Balfour's campaign deflects attention from her choice to have not made a call to check on the baby.
The truth of the matter is, she did not check on her sick baby, which call might have saved his life - that truth is bypassed.


It is hard, it is tragic, it is shameful, but it also is what it is, rather than only that he was left in the car and forgotten all day.
She has all my sympathy in the loss of her child, but if she wants to take true responsibility, she also needs to say in her talks that her baby would possibly not have died if she had called to check on him.

What are some people going to say? Shut up, of course he would have died anyway! Of course he would have died whether she called to see if he took his bottle or was still very lethargic that morning! What difference would that have made? Well, we don't know. It was a cold morning, the car may not have heated up till later in the day.

So, the truth is not present in many of her statements - SA is about getting to the truth of a statement. The statement Peter analysed was the interview, in which she omitted to say that had she checked on her baby with the babysitter that morning, he might not have died. She shifted responsibility onto the babysitter, as though she had no responsibility to check on her sick son that day herself. She does not take responsibility there - therefore the claim she takes responsibility, she is totally responsible, only relates to leaving him in the car, not to the call she avoided making. She deflects from the issue, indeed it is not even an issue to her, that she herself should have called.

Anonymous said...

what does it say about the mental health of someone who just keeps posting the same crap over and over only to get it deleted? Maggie you should get back on your meds.

ima.grandma said...

Hey Jude, stop, please stop. You are very well aware Ms. Balfour is reading here, elevating your attention-seeking nature. You are intentionally hurting her @ SA's expense. You're turning into the 'meangirl'. It's not a good look.

Hey Jude said...

Ima Grandma, I am trying to say why her statement is of interest, and what I find missing. It may be of interest to Mrs Balfour.

II you've lost a child, the tendency is to keep the wounds open yourself - others sometimes poke at them, but there is already not much which can add to the devastation. Mrs Balfour is used to having her story questioned,

Hey Jude said...

^ You could stop, too, btw.

Bobcat said...

HJ - I copied this brilliant musing:

"Appearing hideous and hateful is an unfortunate side-effect of having an interest in discovering what the truth of a matter is."

Anonymous said...

HJ - I copied this brilliant musing:

"Appearing hideous and hateful is an unfortunate side-effect of having an interest in discovering what the truth of a matter is."
July 1, 2017 at 3:46 PM

What makes you obsessives assume that the three or four of you here are the only ones who know the "truth"? Is there a reason you think the "truth" has not yet been discovered? If so, what is that reason?

Everything you say n these comments is subjective, whereas, the court and jury system has been a tried and true method of meting out judgments and decisions for years, years, and more years. Suddenly, we have a blog where amateurs "analyze" using a procress that is not even admissible in a court of law, and you rank amateurs think you're the harbingers of truth. Not only is SA not admissible in court, many professionals discontent it as junk science.

But I am a robot! said...

Thanks for your thoughtful and insightful responses, Hey Jude. I understand what you mean about the maternal bonding or lack thereof; I would still be destroyed regardless how well I knew the baby.

From ima.grandma's link:

"I go past, in a green light, right past where I would make a left to drop him off at daycare."

Isn't color a sensitive area in SA, especially when it's extra information? And is this another fault out of her control, the city's traffic signal pattern that morning?

I hope the protocol here isn't to suddenly stop commenting on the specific topic and article Peter took the time to analyze for us simply because the subject has arrived, and doesn't appreciate being questioned?

How the heck is that "mean girl" and how does it justify a personal insult because you disagree with the thoughts?

Hey Jude said...

So, don't let SA, much less us rank amateurs rattle your truth cage, Anon @ 4.02.

Is it right the judge refused, unusually, to allow the trial records to be expunged in this case?

Hey Jude said...

Robot - I'd like to know if it's significant that she remembers by-passing the turn-off to the babysitter. I thought she only remembered going to the babysitter, dropping him off, and having a conversation. It turns out she has a clear memory of *bypassing* the turn-off - she even remembers the light was green.


If Peter posts cautioning or castigating remarks about the comments, or deletes them, I will know to stop - otherwise I will continue to post if I have a mind to say something, or to respond.

Anonymous said...

Hey Jude said...

Oh, I didn't mean is it right, I know it would be the right hing to do if he decided that - I meant is it *true* the judge declined Mrs Balfour's request for the court records relating to her trial to be expunged?

Anonymous said...

if I had doubts about this analysis being correct, holy crap, look what mommy has written on peters Facebook. She is screaming her guilt at people

Statement Analysis Blog said...

This can't be just cannot be! Yet, the stats we get from the governments are always minimized.


ima.grandma said...

Hey Jude, I apologize for the rude comment. I'm sorry.

Hey Jude said...

it's okay, Ima, if it was what you thought. :)

Anonymous said...

She fried her kid and now makes a career out of it.

T said...

Lynn Balfour is not brave. She is not a hero. She is a liar and a professional victim. It's lucky that the court records were not expunged. I would have believed her lie about her making arrangements for the fallen soldier. That it happened while she was driving Bryce and it was one of the myriad reasons she left Bryce in the car. I wouldn't have known that she initiated the personal call about her nephew's gambling. I wouldn't know about the $15,000.00 she had been asked to consider lending the babysitter, Huff, less than 12 hours before she "forgot" to drop Bryce off. It is, indeed, fortunate that the court records were not expunged. They tell a story that she does not want heard.

I am glad, too, that she never refuses an interview (nothing to do with her very profitable non-profit,I'm sure) and that the contradictions in her stories can be seen in black and white. There is no statement analysis needed to see that she is deceptive, although Peter did a very job.

Lynn Balfour is as much, if not more, of an advocate for the prevention of parents being prosecuted for hot car deaths. Parading herself around at trials of other hot car death parents, embracing them, whispering words of encouragement in their ears, telling them what good parents they are, and - holy cow - offering to be a surrogate mother (literally carry a baby to term) for them if they can't have another child. She even named one of her own children, Chance, for a baby who died in a hot car death.

Getting pregnant (by invitro fertilisation) after Bryce was killed and before her trial is one of the most selfish, self serving acts that I can imagine, how manipulative. What if she'd been convicted? The baby should be born behind bars?

She points readers in the direction of an article that, she hopes, will make people understand. I would not do that if I was her. In it she is described as seating her new baby, inches from where Bryce died. It's not financially viable to get a new car. In another part of the article she looks at her new son and says she wishes she'd died in childbirth with him, so that Jarrett could have the new baby and she could go and be with Bryce. As an attempt to tug on the heart strings, it fails. Grotesquely. In another failed attempt at pity she says she was date raped at 16 and had an abortion. She reasons that God might be punishing her for the abortion. Before Bryce died, she dreamt he drowned and in another dream, that he was in a fire. Those dreams, she says were Gods way of preparing her for Bryce's death. Now, She's having dreams about the new baby's stroller being pushed into traffic.

She is a liar. She is manipulative. She is emotionally and psychologically unwell. She is not brave. She is not a hero.

CptKD said...

Leave her be, General P!

That Lady's been through enough!
She doesn't need your nonsense added to her grief!
Her BABY Was too YOUNG to receive that particular IMMUNIZATION!!

READ IT THRU - BEFORE You pick apart that which you wish to proceed with - ONLY TO FURTHER 'HURT' - NOT INFORM!!!

You're being unnecessarily CRUEL - ALL for NOTHING & NO good reason!!

NOW, back off - Please!

T said...

In most of the stories she tells about cradling Bryce and making a promise to him, it's usually "that no parent will ever go through this"
Only once have I seen it written that the promise is "that no child will ever have to go through this". That tells you about her priorities.

I think the incarceration of Ross Cooper has done more for the prevention of hot car deaths than all Balfours weak chinned, strong mouthed interviews.

Anonymous said...

Anon wrote

"Lynn Balfour is as much, if not more, of an advocate for the prevention of parents being prosecuted for hot car deaths. Parading herself around at trials of other hot car death parents, embracing them, whispering words of encouragement in their ears, telling them what good parents they are, and - holy cow - offering to be a surrogate mother (literally carry a baby to term) for them if they can't have another child. She even named one of her own children, Chance, for a baby who died in a hot car death."

She does all that shit because she gets to "relive" what she did each time she talks about it.

T said...

For those that think Lynn is a brave hero for giving interviews about leaving her sick child in her car for 7 and a half hours, think about this. Would she still be a brave hero for giving interviews about leaving YOUR child to die in her car for 7 and a half hours?

General P. Malaise said...

Blogger CptKD said...
Leave her be, General P!

like I said drop the emotional argument.

do your own research, the studies are available (I suggest you read some independent ones and not just from the company that makes them) the drug company whistleblowers have exposed some of them.

the data sheets from the companies list the side effects.

read what's in the vaccines and then research what those things do.

T said...

Anon @11:27, I'm trying to interpret your comment, but am finding it difficult. It is incoherent. What are you talking about? Are you the cowardly Anon criticizing and castigating other posters for having a different opinion to you while insisting upon, hypocritically, your own right to be heard? I think you are.

T said...

11:27 has been deleted. Good job, mods.

Christy said...

Way to stay on topic folks!

Are Lynn and her husband still together? Was the 14 yr old Bryces half sibling? I'm confused by the account to that she is the mother of 5.

Anonymous said...

I see that she or someone claiming to be her is posting here and talking up an attorney. Peter has posted since the and is not addressing it. I assume this means that we do not need to be concerned about the posters identity?

Anonymous said...

Destroy the family unit? What?

John Mc Gowan said...


Full interview:

Duration 38:15

aNoNyMoUs said...

Ms. Balfour, how do you intend to "educate" parents in preventing an accidental tragedy?
In the direct statements attributed to you that I read, you only offer Several explanations for the reasons you left your son to die in the car. How will you train parents to not become distracted? How do you explain that you were able to retrieve your purse from the floor board behind the driver's seat where it was placed, along with Bryce's diaper bag to make room in the front passenger seat for your husband to sit - and not Notice the diaper bag itself, or your Son still strapped in the car seat at your eye level? Perhaps if you addressed that one fact alone, you would not be on the receiving end of so much critical analysis.

ima.grandma said...

aNoNyMoUs asked:

How do you explain that you were able to retrieve your purse from the floor board behind the driver's seat where it was placed, along with Bryce's diaper bag to make room in the front passenger seat for your husband to sit - and not Notice the diaper bag itself, or your Son still strapped in the car seat at your eye level? Perhaps if you addressed that one fact alone, you would not be on the receiving end of so much critical analysis.

I agree. I've done my homework. This particular element of Ms. Balfour's explanation has not been addressed anywhere. In fact, I haven't seen any media inquiring about this specific issue. Why not? It's a logical and applicable question.

In an earlier comment, I stated how consistent she had been in her statements. There are dozens+ of articles and she is almost verbatim as if she had her day's account memorized. I don't know the application of SA principles to memorizing one's words. Does anyone else know?

BTW, i like your name.I hope you will choose it as your name here. It's cute and it differentiates you from other anons.

ima.grandma said...

BLITZER: Whatever the truth turns out to be in the Harris case, it's a fact that every year, dozens of children across the United States die in hot cars. Sometimes parents simply do the unthinkable, they forget their own child is in the car. It happened to Lynn Balfour, she was tried for murder. She was acquitted after her 9-month-old son, Bryce died. She's joining us now.

Lynn, the details coming out about the father's behavior in this case, his computer searches, the messaging, six different women. You say it doesn't really matter what he might have been doing on the computer that it doesn't mean he deliberately left his son in the car on purpose. Explain that.

LYN BALFOUR, SON DIED WHILE LOCKED IN CAR: Because, in my particular case, I know personally what it's like when the police officers and the prosecuting attorney take the death of a child, in my opinion, personally, in my particular case, all the first responders and police officers on this initial scene were in a room waiting for him to show up, and he had not spoken to me, not spoken to my husband.

And he said, OK, I want all of you to write all your statements right now as much -- in as much detail as you can. We're going to charge her for everything we can. So basically, that set the tone for my guilt or innocence, and he had never even spoken to me. Whether we're perfect parents, or not, whether we act morally correct negates whether we accidentally left them in the car. I certainly was not a perfect mother.

Did I get upset? Did I get frustrated as a parent? Did I make mistakes as a parent? Was I always morally correct? No. I wasn't sexting or anything of that nature. But regardless of what he was doing, what if he was on the internet during his workday looking at NFL scores? Does that make it any different that his child was in a car and he accidentally forgot him?

And in respect to comments that are made, the one thing I learned after my son's death was it's hard to, in the first few days or weeks after your son or your child passes away, it was really hard for me to come to terms he was gone. I was in shock. I don't remember listening to the police in the hospital, I don't remember the first couple of days.

I had nightmares waking up thinking it was a nightmare. It wasn't real. Some say my reactions after my son's death were not normal. But who is -- who determines what normal is? I can only imagine Mrs. Harris' feelings of personal attacks and things that are being brought up by her husband when they just lost a child.

And if Mr. Harris truly accidentally forgot his child in the car, the thing that goes through your mind every single day after that moment when you're told your child is gone, you are responsible for their death. And I can only imagine whatever he was doing on his cell phone or his --

ima.grandma said...


BLITZER: Sorry for interrupting, Lynn, but the whole notion of him researching, going on the web before obviously the death of his little boy, how long would it take for a little boy to die in the car? Doesn't that raise some suspicion in your mind?

BALFOUR: Well, here's the question there. There could have been another story at some point in time and we don't really know when those researches took place. I know that, for example, a month ago, there was a Facebook page -- a video up on my Facebook page about a veterinarian that was explaining how hot it is in a car for an animal. And I pull those things up and watch those videos people send me, and that comes up on my computer. I'm not saying he didn't research it, and she didn't research it. But from my personal experience, we need to wait until the facts come out of exactly when those researches happened, when they were and what the context is. They may know someone close to them or a distant friend. Every year on the anniversary of my son's death and on the anniversary of his birthday, I send out the story that was done about me to remind parents to review and -- the information and the safety tips in memory of my son.

I can only imagine how many friends and family members and colleagues that I have that I add to my Facebook page every year that continue to share and pass that on. So I just reserve judgment knowing that I want to wait until the facts come out of the case. And until I see something glaring that may be suspicious that he's innocent until proven guilty. This is a grieving father and grieving mother.

ima.grandma said...

Ms. Balfour, I respectfully ask you:

Did you retrieve your purse from the back seat at any time between leaving your home that morning and arriving at your workplace?

Moderator said...

To Raders:

Please do not direct any questions to the subject of the analysis.

I have been instructed to remove all comments as the subject has posted on Facebook that she has given instructions to her attorney regarding the analysis.

Thank you,


ima.grandma said...

T: does the transcript delineate between the work cellphone and Ms. Balfour's personal cellphone? Does she switch phones while in the car? She was on a call to her nephew and then rec'd the emergency call from work. I would think her nephew called her personal phone and she hung up to take the work call switching phones. She has stated many times, she keeps her personal cellphone in her purse.

Anonymous said...

I wish you were not deleting her comments. Some said she was digging her hole deeper and deeper. This is like Casey Anthony starting a babysitting business. You forget your baby but you'll remember a freakin toy doll?? WTF??
If the analysis is so wrong why would she even bother to be posting here but I will look for her Facebook page. I bet she is obsessed with being called a liar

ima.grandma said...

Moderator: are we allowed to post if in compliance with your request?

Moderator said...

Yes, just don't direct questions to her. She claimed to have contacted Peter and instructed her attorney to (he was not contacted) and he said that once someone makes a threat, legal or not, , communication ends.

There were her comments and her supporters at Facebook that were vile, and one of his kids asked about, or something like that, so they asked me to spam them. Thank you!

T said...

Ima, the transcript reveals that Balfour initiated the nephew call that she had whilst driving. The work phone call did not come through until 8:23am, AFTER she had already arrived at work, not whilst she was still driving. I do t know which phones she used for which calls.

T said...

What is significant, IMO is that most accounts, she says she was driving when she got the work phone call. Not true.

ima.grandma said...

"...tells you that after Mr. Balfour gets out of the car, the infant became more alert. There's no reason to disbelieve that statement."
 "She, at some point after Mr. Balfour got out of the car, was aware of Bryce talking in the back seat as he usually would be and then just later forgot."

T said...

Someone purporting to be Balfour's oldest son has just posted a lengthy comment on Peter's fb page. Whats the bet that the self-serving LB wrote it herself? (Or a least dictated it).

Anonymous said...

Go Trump! #MAGA #youshouldhavebeenaprowrestler #loveyouTrump

Anonymous said...

So funny to watch the media get worked up! Trump your humor is priceless! WE are all laughing WITH you!!! CNN SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

T said...

Amongst other things he (?) calls her a "phenomenal rape victim". It will be interseting to see what Peter makes of the comment and who he thinks is the author.

Anonymous said...

If anyone wants to continue Q & A, I set up a space

Hey Jude said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
WWF said...

Please respect wrestling as a sport. #MAGA

Anonymous said...

Isn't it enough she is taking quality time away from her own children to advocate for those sexting and texting and killing their own children. You'd think you nasty people would enjoy that fact silently.

Some people do have tragedy; others create it.

T said...

2:05.I recognize all the words in your comment, but the way you have strung them together is incomprehensible. Care to rephrase, cowardly Anon?

Anonymous said...

I do not intend to comment further in this discussion.

T said...

Anonymous me2
"I'm guessing the minor you are impersonating for your agenda and no imagination would be you, T."

You guess that I am impersonating myself for my agenda and no imagination. Is that correct? What does that mean?

LB is exactly the type of person that Peter advises companies not to employ. He has blogged about that type, and the damage they do, frequently. If Peter is wary of LB, perhaps it's because he's had experience her type, before.

T said...

Someone likes to dish it out but not take it, huh. Coward and bully.

T said...

Cowardly Anon me2. Rephrasing means putting the comment in a different way. Not repeating the wrong one three times. You hope it gets deleted because it makes you look like a fool. I hope it stays.

And I'm still waiting for you to rephrase @2:05.

Anonymous said...

Peter, you are now picking up the worst of criminals. You might consider locking this post down.

T said...

Cowardly anon. The oldest Balfour child is 21, and he posted something on Peters fb that looks very much like it was written by Lynn, herself. Don't let you FACTS a get in the way of your hysterical moralising. I have no vendetta.

But I am a robot! said...

Moderator, can you please remove the vile comment at 11:36 pm July 2, repeatedly calling a named poster obscene names?

Hey Jude said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
But I am a robot! said...

Hey Jude, Balfour's rant to her then-lover, the firefighter, about she always thought she'd have someone standing beside her during "her" worst moments, she thought he was that person, discovering she does not have that, etc., read as so calculated, rehearsed, manipulative, that it made me a bit nauseous; I wondered how many times she's used that and to how many?

She would certainly have a version personalized for her first-born child, and would know exactly how to play him, having done so all of his life. He's probably long accustomed to hearing himself casually used in her lies and manipulations of others, just as she used him to go after Kelli Peters, a kind, friendly adult who provided some positive influence in his life.

Hey Jude said...

Robot - you are mixing up your subjects. Mr Delicious, the firefighter, was the paramour of the Kent woman - Easter, then, though I begrudge her that name, and quite like the Kent pun.

I forgot, till you mentioned him - the Kent/Easter article also details how she also tried to destroy Mr. Delicious, once he had 'abandoned' her. It did not seem reasonable to her that he might want to step back under the circumstances of not being sure she was the person he had thought she was. She took his emails and photos to his workplace, and got in contact with his wife and family, telling them about their affair. Anyone could be forgiven for suspecting she might be a spiteful psycho bitch. As with Kelli Peters, and her husband, not only did she not care about him - rather than walk away from a situation in which she felt slighted, she sought to inflict pain - she caused mayhem for Kelli Peters, Mr Delicious, his wife, and family and she rounded off the chapter by telling her husband to kill himself. There has to be some mental health issue there, surely.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Would it not have been far easier to say, "I did not ignore the call" than to post how many years she has done this or that, and all the other extemporaneous information?

This is the point of the "wall of truth" and why the attacks, anonymous posting, and even the legal threat.

She asks about my qualifications. Why? If I am well qualified or if I have no qualifications, it would still avoid issuing what a truthful person would have.

The analysis hit a sensitive point and I understand that. She was in court and she fought, which included following an attorney's advice.

She was found "not guilty."

Will some nobody analysis from some nobody notices blog somewhere in the woods of Maine hold meaning? This is the context of seeking to challenge qualifications, motives, etc, over analysis.

There is a time to challenge motive and a time to challenge qualification. But that time comes after debating any points within analysis.

The illogic is seen in now making a career over the victim's death where parental advice is given by one who did not follow it. This is a common thread in our society.

Marriage counselors who are divorced are prized above those who have had successful marriages.

I agree that telling parents to use a teddy bear to remind them to remember their own child is such folly that some may have thought it to be humor, as if the inanimate toy would hold more value than the living child. It is an insult to the intelligence.

Consider this: "insult to the intelligence" in context.

To conclude that a parent would forget their own child is an insult, but to then conclude that a parent would hold a toy in higher esteem is contempt.

Now, what do you know about deception and contempt?

I also understand that those who doubted the analysis may no longer do so based upon her postings. Please try to separate the two if you wish to learn more. Challenge the analysis, including point by point. Stay logical. Once you understand the sensitivity, including reducing sensitivity due to years of processing, and the defensiveness of a trial, what do you come up with.

It was a tragedy I do not wish upon anyone.

The subject, however, chose to speak publicly and in doing so, readers of the article (statement) as well as readers of the analysis, will either agree or disagree.

She wants her attorney to obtain an "apology" for disagreeing with her.

That's high-mindedness.

I did not do in depth analysis, but may consider it. I only sought to answer one question:

was prosecution correct about ignoring the phone call.

Perhaps the greater question is: with such a lengthy introduction (days earlier) and such a sick child, why would it not be negligence to call the caregiver to get an update on the sick child?

I babysat my 2 year old granddaughter the other night. In order to give my daughter-in-law and son the freedom to enjoy the rare night out, I text'd regular updates; especially, "she is asleep now!" as this was a concern: even though healthy, would she be up late with subsequent cranky behavior the next day.


Hey Jude said...

That is precisely it - baby's parents want and look for updates when the baby is well, more frequently if not so well, if even they will leave him/her.

Communication was not so easy as by text and FB then, but the mother had the means which she chose to not use.


I think, If you are merciful, Peter, will you not do an in-depth analysis.

Hey Jude said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hey Jude said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

OT: Philosophy of Statement Analysis

When/why is it appropriately merciful to NOT analyze?
When/why is it merciful to not publish analysis?
When/why is it merciful to not publish discrepancies in stories told by familial survivors of victims? Even if they have been tried in a court of law, or otherwise declared "100% cleared"?

Hey Jude said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hey Jude said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hey Jude said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hey Jude said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Well said,Peter.

It is easier to show the crossed lines and separate from the blurred ones.

Thank you, sincerely.

Hey Jude said...

Bobcat - I think sometimes you, I, and others who are not trained in Statement Analysis cross the line and in our enthusiasm become unethical in posting things in a way which even a qualified analyst would hesitate to post, or would not post at all. So, that is not good, and Peter tells us, and we just carry on, because it is so irresistible. So. That's when.

Hey Jude said...

I mean even in the sense that they would have every reason to be confident, yet still would hesitate to post - more likely would not even contemplate saying some things due to sensitivity issues, especially in regard to posts about family members of the subject.

Anonymous said...

Bobcat said...
OT: Philosophy of Statement Analysis

When/why is it appropriately merciful to NOT analyze?
When/why is it merciful to not publish analysis?
When/why is it merciful to not publish discrepancies in stories told by familial survivors of victims? Even if they have been tried in a court of law, or otherwise declared "100% cleared"?
July 3, 2017 at 3:46 PM

Simple. Your analysis is worthless. You. Aren't. Trained.

What you say are discrepancies are more like things that don't agree with your particular interpretation, not discrepancies except in your mind.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Bobcat said...

I think it is acceptable to point out contradictory statements regarding activities in the time period surrounding the untimely death of a close associate or family member. The truth has no variations.

Hey Jude said...

I subscribed to receive comments by email for this post yesterday but am not receiving them - is it not working? I am still having updates for the Blackburn thread. It's frustrating to have missed the deleted comments on this one. :-/

Hey Jude said...

Some of them. I keep checking here, it's easier when you catch up by email because the deleted comments are still available there.


Bobcat @ 6.59 - I agree it's acceptable to point out contradictory statements - there are plenty of those round Amanda's death.

Anonymous said...

I suppose they're deleted for a reason.

Anonymous said...


Hey Jude said...

Amanda Blackburn - it's an older case.

ima.grandma said...

Noticing an earlier comment I posted yesterday:

When telling a lie, people often provide unnecessary detail, and their scripted stories are often presented verbatim over several tellings. When someone is simply describing an event, the gist of the event is what matters, and sometimes small details vary because they are comparably unimportant. Someone who is lying, however, feels the need to “prove” that his or her story is genuine by providing minute, memorized detail that doesn’t change much from one telling to another.

Anonymous said...

Do liars always "win"?
Does the truth come out?

Why does it seem like lies have more then truth? We see it on here all the time--liars always win, and the truth has no power.

Anonymous said...

ima.grandma said...
Noticing an earlier comment I posted yesterday:

When telling a lie, people often provide unnecessary detail, and their scripted stories are often presented verbatim over several tellings. When someone is simply describing an event, the gist of the event is what matters, and sometimes small details vary because they are comparably unimportant. Someone who is lying, however, feels the need to “prove” that his or her story is genuine by providing minute, memorized detail that doesn’t change much from one telling to another.
July 3, 2017 at 7:40 PM

That's a very good point, imagrandma. I think it's why some people think the information is contradictory.

T said...

Great comment Peter @12:37. It would have been so much easier for Balfour to say "I did not ignore the text." And leave it be. Interesting, too, that Balfour feels she is qualified to educate parents on hot car deaths, (what are her qualifications again?) and feels she has a right to demand to know yours. I remember a case (maybe not quite relevant) where an active heroin user counselled drug addicts in a clinic.

Anyway, far from ignoring the first text, I would have expected Balfour to have initiated the contact, early, with the baby sitter to see if her sick, lethargic baby had taken his first bottle of the day and how much he had taken.

Hey J @ 7:33 I agree it is frustrating to miss deleted texts. I often appear to be talking to myself, and I miss some context for other comments. Also, I read your comment about Peter being merciful exactly as you intended it, the first time. You have a kind heart.

But I am a robot! said...

Hey Jude, thanks for straightening out my mistake on mixing up Balfour and Jill Easter. Both give me chills, but for different reasons. There are so many disturbing things about the phrase "phenomenal rape victim" I'm not even sure where to start. If I heard/read my own son use that, especially about me, I would really wonder just how badly I'd messed him up.

ima.grandma, your thoughts about liars having all of the details perfect reminds me of people frantically "getting our stories straight" when something bad has happened. It reads a lot more like self-preservation damage control, than getting the truth figured out as to who actually did or did not do what.

Regarding the stuffed animal reminder, I agree it's foolish and wouldn't help a parent who is going to leave their child locked in a hot oven-car all day without once thinking of them and at least sensing something is wrong. But since the toy is intended to be a visual reminder of the less-visible child in back, it isn't so much valuing the toy over the child.
It's that we stop seeing things right in our line of sight. It's why we stop noticing reminders to switch on our lights after driving off the ferry, and speed limit reminder signs that don't change to display a driver's actual speed.

ima.grandma said...

Thank you ^anonymous for adding the logical summary statement.

Anonymous said...

Bobcat said...
I think it is acceptable to point out contradictory statements regarding activities in the time period surrounding the untimely death of a close associate or family member. The truth has no variations.
July 3, 2017 at 6:59 PM

Anonymous said...
ima.grandma said...
Noticing an earlier comment I posted yesterday:

When telling a lie, people often provide unnecessary detail, and their scripted stories are often presented verbatim over several tellings. When someone is simply describing an event, the gist of the event is what matters, and sometimes small details vary because they are comparably unimportant. Someone who is lying, however, feels the need to “prove” that his or her story is genuine by providing minute, memorized detail that doesn’t change much from one telling to another.
July 3, 2017 at 7:40 PM

That's a very good point, imagrandma. I think it's why some people think the information is contradictory.
July 3, 2017 at 8:13 PM


Hey Jude said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Statement Analysis Blog said...

It is true that she could have said, "I did not ignore the phone call. I told the truth" and end it there. The point I am hoping serious readers will consider is two fold:

1. The length of the posts.
2. The avoidance of denial

The psychological protection afforded by truth is powerful.

The highly emotional need to defend, and even threaten, along with the need for self justification ("I have been...for 28 years...") and to question the background of the analyst, all speak to Statement Analysis weakness.

The multitude of words reveals self.

See the lengthy detailed and even "sensory" description of Zanny the Nanny. Casey Anthony's MO was to over yield detail in a "need to persuade" rather than report truthfully.

Supervisors routinely see this in sick calls.

Those with an illness precluding work do not feel the same burden to persuade, even if concerned over not being believed (which could either speak to past lies by the subject, or chronic lying by the supervisor/employer.

ima.grandma said...

Re-reading Ms. Balfour's posted interview (without personal bias this time), I'm surprised by how quickly content deception and narcissism becomes apparent.

opening question: Can you walk me through that day?

 The most significant indicator of deception is the relative length of the prologue to her day's recounting and throws the entire narrative out of structural balance. 

Discussion of the main event (discovering her tragic mistake) at least one-third of the way into the narrative would support veracity. Again, form and structure criteria indicate deception.

Another blaring observation:
The cellphone is the villain, her cellphone, her work cellphone, the babysitter's cellphone, etc. Ms. Balfour's narrative contains an exceptionally skewed amount of words focusing on cellphone details. Why? 

My eyes and mind are open now but only because I began with a belief in the subject's words. I will now be able to re-examine her narrative with objectivity.

Thank you Peter for the gentle reminders. I'm paying attention.

Anonymous said...

Ima never believes anyone is innocent. The general narrative is everyone is narcissist and guilty unless they conform.

ima.grandma said...

This comment is not specifically related to SA but a concept to think about:

Perhaps, technology, particularly the mobile phone, is creating human emotional disconnection rather than connection. Could it be this connection is being replaced with an emotional identity attachment to the mobile phone? 

Few things require more hands-on attention than a baby or young child. And there’s little that's more distracting than the constant bleeping of our cell phones. What happens when these two things compete for our attention?

aNoNyMoUs said...

The single fact of her description of finding her cell phone inside her purse, IN her office that day, AFTER her lengthy scenario of her purse (along with the diaper bag) being Moved to the floorboard behind the driver's seat to make room for her husband as a passenger that day - Belies the fact that she Had to lean into the back seat to retrieve her purse - where the diaper bag and Baby, strapped into the car seat were in Plain eye-level Sight.
Her lengthy attempts to persuade are her downfall, IMO.

Anonymous said...

It's not her downfall because you seem to forget:She, as a US CITIZEN, was tried by a jury of her peers; not bloggers searching for a victim.

Anonymous said...

So after the fact, everyone decides to "analyze," and not beginning with a presumption of innocence, as is taught with SA. In fact, just the opposite is true here. The self-defined "analysts" are always out to prove guilt. Everything is suspicious. Every word implies deception.

This, after a REAL trial decided on a not guilty verdict.

You people are ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

And, thank you for moving the 12:30 post from the Easter thread to here. . . makes more sense considering your criminal agenda.

It is the 4th, so I'll give you that one.

I need you to tell me what and where to comment and when to do it.

Peter, I'll take potent potables for $500---if I win, I'll send an address where you can ship the newest edition of Bartletts book of famous quotations.

Hey Jude said...

In her first post here above, Lyn Balfour is bold in making false claims:

'...I am not sure who posted this "overview" of my statement but any account of an article that was written based on a interview without interviewing me personally is interpreting an interview of second or third hand account. '

It's convoluted and intended to convince via confusion - it's also untrue that it was 'interpreting an interview of second or third account.'

She goes on to say: 'If you read any of the articles that have been written, I have always and continue to maintain my responsibility in my son's death. The explanation of what occurred that day, the week prior etc., was given by others during the trial and was explained by my husband during the interview not by me.'

The analysis was not about any of the articles that have been written or if she has consistently maintained she was responsible or not - the analysis is of her own words during an interview. An interview is not an 'article' written by someone else, into which might be put erroneous information. The 'explanation of what occurred' was her own explanation given in the interview - the interview was not given by her husband. 'She spoke with The Stir' - it's right there in the intro. Nowhere is there any indication that the words, spoken in the first person, and attached to her name there for several years, were anyone's but her own.

If she read the analysis, which she did, in order to feel strongly enough to post about it and to threaten legal action, she would also recognise the analysis was of her interview, of her own words, yet she goes to lengths to persuade the reader that it's just a hash-up of second and third hand accounts of what happened, drawn from articles. So, she not only wants to distance herself from the analysis, but to claim it is not an analysis of her own words. She thinks if she says that, readers will disregard the analysis, and accept that Peter analyses second and third hand accounts drawn from random articles. That is an insult to everyone's intelligence, and an attempt to manipulate the reader away from the fact it is an analysis of her own words - she expects to be believed and on that basis 'respectfully' requests that her wishes should be complied with.

If she is happy with everything she said in her interview, which has been online since 2014 (I don't know where the seven years came from), which length of time indicates she was happy with it, why the need to distance herself from her own words and to even try to attribute them to her husband?

Also, the 'I'm not sure who posted this overview of my statement'. - not only does she claim the 'statement' (interview) as her own - she believes she is giving Peter a get-out from the mistake he is meant to believe he has made. As though she anticipates, an 'It was not me who posted that, it must have been one of my students when I wasn't looking - so sorry.', sort of thing - like.

What I find interesting is that her concern must be to convince readers to dismiss the analysis, yet she knows it is 'my statement' - her words, the interview. Therefore she also knows that Peter knows she knows it's an analysis of her interview, not random second and third hand accounts drawn from articles. She might fool some people, if not here, but she must have known she was not fooling Peter. Still, though, she posted it.

Anonymous said...

So what's your point Jude? Are you saying she's guilty?

It would be good to learn to think independently and not be anything more than Peter's lemming.

Anonymous said...

anonymous at 3:15,
if you don't like the comments, posters or site, why do you feel the need to waste your tome to say so on here?

Hey Jude said...

Anon @ 4.25. My point is that she is acting guiltily. Rather than question the analysis, she tries to deny her own words, and also that it is even an analysis of her own words. So, why does she feel the need to disown her own words?

Hey Jude said...

^ Might be something she said...

Anonymous said...

She does question the analysis, and she does not deny her own words.

The "analysis" was done on an interview which was conducted 7 years after her son's death.

Chris said...

This woman is lucky that she was not convicted. Her detailed excuses surely produced confusion + doubt for the jury. The SA people doubt her very words for reliability as truthful statements. Her convoluted story worked for a jury, but not for the public, so she is angry about not being able to persuade everyone.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
anonymous at 3:15,
if you don't like the comments, posters or site, why do you feel the need to waste your tome to say so on here?

July 4, 2017 at 4:52 PM

I like to rile you up. Anyone who is in agreement with bogus analyses which apparently is nearly always "wrong" (according to findings by courts and LE) needs to have this pointed out to them.

Do you ever question? Or are you merely another unquestioning lemmIng?

Anonymous said...

Chris said...
This woman is lucky that she was not convicted. Her detailed excuses surely produced confusion + doubt for the jury. The SA people doubt her very words for reliability as truthful statements. Her convoluted story worked for a jury, but not for the public, so she is angry about not being able to persuade everyone.
July 4, 2017 at 5:09 PM

Lol. What a ridiculously revealing thing to say!

You view the justice system with contempt, while valuing public opinion.

Can you explain why you put your faith in SA? Or better yet, why you put your faith in the "SA people"? Are you speaking of the SA people in these comments....most who have NO SA training but do not hesitate to "analyze" from a their untrained positions?


Hey Jude said...

Anon @ 5.06 She does not question the analysis - she denies the analysis is even an analysis of her own words. She then goes on to deny Peter's status as a professional analyst.

Why would an interview given seven years after her son's death be so easily confused with random articles written by someone else? There is no similarity, or mistaking an interview you gave, with an article.


Is this true?

'The explanation of what occurred that day, the week prior etc.,.....was explained by my husband during the interview not by me'.

How is that not a blatant untruth?

ima.grandma said...

I'm not a trained SA analyst. I am an avid reader and I love learning. It is as fulfilling as any other spare-time activity. Fortunately, it doesn’t require much more than an inquisitive nature and a desire to develop as a person. What’s more, learning need not be in a formal setting to take place but it can arise from where you least expect it (i.e. this blog) and at any time. The process happens naturally. I found this blog nine years ago by happenstance. I didn't have an agenda; the articles stimulated my mind and I was 'hooked'

Learning is an act of participation.
The motivation to learn is the desire to become an accepted member of a community of practice. It’s about building and maintaining person-to-person connections that bring value. The depth of our learning depends on the depth of our engagement.

We glean knowledge and retain more information from active participation in many different situations and activities. The more we are actively involved, the more our brains’ hardwiring is fired-up and the more we learn. Thus, passive listening is the lowest form of engagement, next to reading information. (You’re reading this now. That’s why leaving comments on a blog, requires the brain to become engaged in more depth and to process this information differently. You have to think about how to respond and how it applies to you before you type.)

Engagement is joined at the hip with empowerment.
We perceive our identities in terms of our ability to contribute. We want to have a positive impact on the life and growth of communities and be seen as resources to the connections we have. Engage us and we feel empowered.

Active learning also stimulates cognitive learning and the use of higher level thinking skills like analysis, evaluation and synthesis. It does not include participation for participation’s sake. It means instructional activities where attendees do something and are involved in critical thinking while doing it. It does not mean punching keys and hitting the publish button. This blog presents problem-based learning, collaborative, and activity based approaches with guidance from the presenter, Peter Hyatt.

Anonymous said...

If that were true, psychologists, counsellors, teachers....any number of professions do not require formal training....merely an inquisitive nature and exposure to relevant experience, blah, blah, blah.

Very ignorant.

ima.grandma said...

I know better than to "feed the trolls" but in honor of Independence Day...If not for Peter's staunch beliefs in Freedom of Speech and American Liberties ~ trolls wouldn't be allowed to sit down at this dinner table at all.

Let Freedom Ring
Happy 4th of July 

Anonymous said...

Ima, You just warm my heart with your patriotism.

Honestly, the way I feel
Ive seen fireworks before
Yeah I get it
4th of July
Who gives a shit

Anonymous said...

It just kills me
The "Yeah you can say it was only one time
thing..." that he was upset about
He wouldnt even say what he was
Talking about
But that HAD TO BE IT
And I didnt do it
I lied and said I did it just
To make him jealous
Years before
He wouldnt even look me on the eye afterwards
After I said I did what I actually didnt do!!!!
So horrible. I loved him
And he was so upset about something
I didnt do! But I lied simply by saying "yep" when he asked
Me "Did you do -----?"
Because I wanted to make him jealous
And I didnt want to hurt him
And I did
I think his mind is confuse to
Because he senses that I loved him
So like why would I do that?
I DIDNT!!!!!

Anonymous said...

"These are not the words of an innocent mother. Innocent mothers take all blame and far more blame than deserved."

I wonder how we know this to be true.

Anonymous said...

Blogger ima.grandma said...
I know better than to "feed the trolls" but in honor of Independence Day...If not for Peter's staunch beliefs in Freedom of Speech and American Liberties ~ trolls wouldn't be allowed to sit down at this dinner table at all.

A troll being someone who disagrees with the majority and points out the holes in so many of the accepted statements?

Hey Jude said...

Thanks, whoever deleted the other one of my posts - I was about to do that.

Hey Jude said...

Anon, who has always
treated men like dogs
Therein may be a clue
As to why he preferred
her to you.
It might be considered
how thinks your dog.
How he or the dog who meets you
will let you and your companions know,
if he considers you
already or potentially his friend,
how it is he knows or believes
you treat of a dog -
the same of them also in their turn,
which thought might please or concern.
Perhaps your parents' turn of phrase
or one of your own telling.

Hey Jude said...

To clarify an earlier comment - the email subscription for comments is working from the link below the comments box. I had overlooked that one, which must be how I subscribed to some other threads. The other day I subscribed through the form box on the sidebar, which did not work for me, I got the confirmation email to say I was subscribed, but have not received any emails. I just subscribed through the link under the comments box, and got my most recent post.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 7:14 pm,
A Troll in this case refers to a poster who feels the need to rebut every comment with disdain.
You have no idea if the comments made are 'accepted' by the majority of other readers unless a reply is directed at them.
Your opinion is not regarded as any more valuable than any other. You have only offered argument to negate the comments. Why not post a detailed opinion regarding the article itself? Open yourself up for debate and deliberation.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 410   Newer› Newest»