Thursday, November 16, 2017

Roy Moore Open Letter to Sean Hannity Analyzed

In child sexual abuse cases, one of many signals of guilt popularity employed is to avoid denying the accusation and referring to marital status. 

Married men and unmarried men commit sexual assault. It is immaterial by itself, but when presented instead of a reliable denial, it is a signal of deception via tangent. When an accused says, "but I am a happily married man", in a child sexual abuse investigation, he is telling us that he believes sexual arousal towards a child is natural and normal, as he equates it to marriage. Sexual attraction towards a child and sexual attraction in marriage are unrelated, but in the abuser's verbalized perception of reality, it is one and the same; hence, it is in his language. 

Internal Stress of Lying 

Why won't Moore simply say, "I didn't touch her" and be done with it?

When words do not come from experiential memory, there is an automatic stress level that rises.  Even sociopaths feel this stress, though they may not have human empathy because they do not want to be caught; confronted and seen as a liar. 

Kevin Fox was accused of  killing his own daughter.  He issued a reliable denial and there was little he could offer after this.  Why?  Because he had no linguistic connection to killing his daughter.  Had the investigators been trained, they would not have persecuted him.  

Direct lies are often (90%) avoided.  Instead, most deception comes from deliberately withheld information. 

Analysis thus far has showed:

1.  The woman who claimed she was 14 when molested gave us an insufficient sample.  Yet, in the sample, there was no indicator of deception.  

2.  Judge Moore responded with an "Unreliable Denial."  In subsequent statements, he was indicated for deception via missing information.  He was not truthful and did not say, "I did not touch..." in any form.  

3.  Another woman came forward, this time with Gloria Allred, and accused Judge Moore of sexual assault.  She showed signals of deception, but only in her classification of the event:  not the event itself.  Her language was that of a consensual romantic encounter, where she refused to engage in oral sex with him. Her assertion of assault, at that point, is not strong.  

4.  The yearbook:  I wrote that there may have been a second author adding the date and name of the restaurant but that I am not an expert.  Therefore, if so, we could hear Judge Moore say, "I did not write in her yearbook" as a strong denial.  

Here is his "open letter" to Sean Hannity.  

What do we look for?

The answer is simple:  "I did not..." using the basic truthful formula for a Reliable Denial. 

"I did not touch..."
"I did not write in Beverly's yearbook" and so on.  

The analysis is in plain text. 

Sean Hannity was accused of "defending a pedophile" by the Soros organization.  The specific allegation was deceptive.  Sean Hannity lectured Moore and gave him continual opportunities to deny the specifics, which Moore refused to do.  Sean's own suspicion was evident in his words.  

Dear Sean:
I am suffering the same treatment other Republicans have had to endure.

Priority for the subject:  his status as victim.  

This should not be taken as indifference to suffering victims.  Remember:  Statement Analysis works on the presupposition that the subject is truthful, has de facto innocence, and will guide us to the truth. 

This is not a moral exercise. 

We set up a "linguistic confrontation" in analysis. 

We presuppose that he did not do it and we then expect to read the statement seamlessly affirming this.  

If not, we are now "confronted" with information that is unnecessary. 

We are "confronted" by the missing information of "I did not..."

In short, we begin with believing the subject unless and until he talks us out of it. 

In the analysis of Madeleine McCann, every sentence is viewed from this perspective:

Maddie was kidnapped by a stranger. 

What happened to this starting premise?

The McCanns tore it down, to the uttermost.  They "confronted" me with their language telling me that my presupposition of them not being involved was wrong.  They "talked me out of it" completely.  

I have written about two dramatic professional challenges for me where my analysis and the polygraph differed.  In both cases, the subject so completely talked me out of the position of innocence that I had no choice but to say, "guilt."

In one, the mother's boyfriend was permitted back into the house to reoffend; and in the other, the subject is now serving life for the murders.  There was nothing "iffy" about either. 

With Judge Moore, I have followed his statements waiting fo him to say, "I did not molest" or "I did not touch" or "I did not write in her yearbook."

It is not complicated. 

Complexity is introduced by Anthony Wiener, Casey Anthony, OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson, as well as attackers like Lance Armstrong. 

Yet, search the cases in the Statement Analysis blog and see how the Reliable Denial holds up. 

If Judge Moore said, "I did not touch her and I don't know who she is.  I am telling the truth" it would have been 99.9% likely and the story would have died.  

Let's say that during a seminar, I left my wallet on the table and went out into the hall to take a phone call and came back to learn my wallet had been stolen. 

If I looked at you and said, "You took my wallet!" and you did not.  

Would you say,

"On advise of counsel..."
"People have long accused my people of stealing due to racism and..."
"I have plenty of my own money"
"I work for a living."
"I would never steal anything."?

Or, would you say, "I didn't take your wallet", resting on the truth?

"Why should I believe you?"

"Because I am telling the truth.  I didn't take your wallet."

If I kept up at it, you, the de facto (not judicial) innocent person would immediately lose faith in my ability to teach lie detection, as I stared into the face of truth and not recognize it. 

The Judge is truthful:  he didn't do it and he is a victim.  He is going to tell us that he did not do it and we are going to believe him.  

We continue to listen for him to tell us so:  

A month prior to the general election for U.S. Senate in Alabama, I have been attacked by The Washington Post and other liberal media in a desperate attempt to smear my character and defeat my campaign.

Here he tells us motive.  The Washington Post is infamous for not only partisan reporting, but actual "fake news" stories.  They are, corporately, corrupt. 

Was it a false story?

if so, he will deny it for us.  

Over the last 40 years I have held several public offices, including Deputy District Attorney, Circuit Judge, and Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. 

Chronologically, he goes back 40 years, which is appropriate given the age of the accusations.  

Now that he is there, appropriately in the past, we now expect to hear the Three Elements of the "Reliable Denial"

1.  the pronoun "I" putting himself psychologically (emotionally and intellectually) into the denial.

2.  the past tense verb "didn't" or "did not."  Reid is solid training for police but the differentiation of the two is unnecessary.  Both are reliable. 

"would not"
are not acceptable substitutes, as they speak to future and/or conditional. 

"never" is not acceptable especially here as he is, chronologically back in time.  "Never" is deliberately vague.  Lance Armstrong could not, in years, say, "I did not use PEDS" but he was able to say, "NEVER!  NEVER!"

3.  The allegation answered.  Even with multiple allegations, the 14 year old girl allegation is the most serious to date.  Answer it directly. 

"Did not touch the girl" is an example of how guilty people sometimes make a denial. This is unreliable.  Why?

What's wrong with this?

Did you notice that the pronoun "I" is missing?  The pronoun "I" is used by humans millions of times. We are really good at it. 

He did what guilty teens do; they psychologically remove themselves. 

"Went to the movies."  The teen does not say "I went..." or even "we went." 

Therefore, we do not know if he went, but if he did, what did he do there, and where else did he go?

Caring parents recognize the dropped pronoun.  

In addition to running five statewide and three county campaigns for public office, 

Roy Moore now tells us:

"I am the  good guy."

This is a form of ingratiating himself into his audience.  If he is the "good guy", it means he can't be "the bad guy."

We use this to uncover child abuse and other crimes.  Mothers who put their children, for example, through vicious drug withdrawal often write on their application to methadone clinics that they are "great mothers."  It is a signal of the need to persuade something that does not exist. I often say that "great mothers are too tired to boast."  Yet, when we read "great mother", we often find child protective services history. 

Moore is now boasting of his service.  

People with good service records can molest, just as people with poor records can molest.  This is a signal that he does not want to be remembered for molestation, but for his career highlights.  It is very sad, but indicative of guilt. 

It is more than just a tangent away from a denial.  It is now to portray him, not a victim of dirty Washington Post politics, but of personal suffering for a cause:

I have been involved in two major controversies that attracted national attention, one about the Ten Commandments and the other the sanctity of marriage.
The Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission, Court of the Judiciary, and Attorney General have investigated, scrutinized, examined, and vetted me, not to mention every opposing candidate against whom I have run.

He now seeks to ingratiate himself further to people of faith by appealing to the sanctity of marriage and the Ten Commandments. 

Although this is not strictly part of the "Divinity principle" in analysis (this is where "I swear to God" indicates habitual deception) where one feels the need for Divine witness to words (revealing weakness) but it comes close. 

We still wait for him to say, "I didn't...

I have been married for almost 33 years to my wife Kayla. 

By itself, this inclusion in an allegation of molesting a child (14 year old) would cause most investigators to believe he is guilty.  

That he is married to the same woman is offered as proof that he did not do it, rather than say, "I did not do it..." 

We have four children and five granddaughters.

Charles Manson could claim having children and grandchildren.  This is immaterial or "unnecessary" information.  

In analysis, unnecessary information is very important to the analyst.  

This is a statement of concern:  Roy Moore is embarrassed by the allegations, cannot deny them, but knows they are now for his wife and children and grandchildren to know about.  

It is humiliating.  

We continue to wait for him to deny what is alleged.  Thus far, he works through tangents, seeks to persuade us that he is too good of a person to molest a child. 

We are in the process of investigating these false allegations to determine their origin and motivation. 

He is no longer "alone" in the statement, but employs others. 

What he says next should be read with analysis of Beverly Nelson's claim

Nelson is deceptive in her categorization of what happened. She described a consensual flirtatious relationship and likely planned "necking" in his car, but when she refused oral sex, he "left" her.  What he says here is likely not only truthful, but affirms the analysis.  Please take the time to read it.  It may prove that Moore is truthful at this point.  

For instance, we have documented that the most recent accuser, Beverly Nelson, was a party in a divorce action before me in Etowah County Circuit Court in 1999. No motion was made for me to recuse. In her accusations, Nelson did not mention that I was the judge assigned to her divorce case in 1999, a matter that apparently caused her no distress at a time that was 18 years closer to the alleged assault. Yet 18 years later, while talking before the cameras about the supposed assault, she seemingly could not contain her emotions.

She dramatized the event and may have been promised financial reward by Gloria Allred (see analysis about her husband the truck driver). 

Had it been the actual assault that Allred wished to convey, it is true that she would not have wanted the judge to be Moore.  This is a good argument but not against the allegation of an inappropriate relationship with a 16 year old girl. 

We continue to wait for him to deny it. 

In the analysis, I wrote that the date and restaurant may have been added by another person (perhaps at Allred's directive).  

Let's yield this point.  

Therefore, we now expect him to say "I did not write in her yearbook."

This would tell us, in very strong language, that it is fraudulent.  

All he needs to say is:  I did not write in her yearbook."

My signature on the order of dismissal in the divorce case was annotated with the letters “D.A.,” representing the initials of my court assistant. Curiously the supposed yearbook inscription is also followed by the same initials — “D.A.” But at that time I was Deputy District Attorney, not district attorney. Those initials as well as the date under the signature block and the printed name of the restaurant are written in a style inconsistent with the rest of the yearbook inscription. The “7’s” in “Christmas 1977” are in a noticeably different script than the “7’s” in the date “12-22-77.” I believe tampering has occurred.

He did not say, "I did not write in her yearbook."  He is now "splitting hairs" and this is a deceptive point.  Remember, most deception is via missing information. 

If he had not written in her yearbook, he would have told us so.  

It is likely that we are going to learn that he did write in her yearbook, even if the addition is from Allred. 

He now moves into a lecture.  This is called, in analysis training, "The Sermon."

We find this in drug cases. 

We need to learn:  did this employee use cocaine on break and then drive patients. 

The subject was told of the allegation and said,

"Drugs?  Are you kidding me?  Let me tell you that drugs are destroying this nation.  I would never use drugs..."

He used and operated a bus of developmentally disabled clients under its influence. 

In a theft case, the subject did not deny the theft instead said,

"I gotta tell you.  My father went to prison for theft.  My uncle went to prison for theft.  Thieves are lower than drug dealers!"

He had stolen a valuable item from a client.  

The need to "Sermonize" is a shifting of guilt (projection) and continues to build himself up as the victim.  

Note the questions in an open statement do not wait for answers by Sean:  

Are we at a stage in American politics in which false allegations can overcome a public record of 40 years, stampede the media and politicians to condemn an innocent man, and potentially impact the outcome of an election of national importance? When allegations of events occurring 40 years ago — and never before mentioned during a 40-year career of public service — are brought out and taken seriously only 30 days before a critical election, we may be in trouble as a country.

He now, finally, gets to the allegations.  

Will he simply say "I didn't..." and end the controversy?  If not, he keeps it going: 

I adamantly deny the allegations of Leigh Corfman and Beverly Nelson, did not date underage girls, and have taken steps to begin a civil action for defamation

First, he "denies" what?

He does not deny touching them.  He does not deny doing anything:  he denies "allegations."

Next, did you notice the dropped pronoun?

"...did not date underage girls" does not use the pronoun "I" in it. 

What does this tell me?

First, let's say he really did not date underaged girls, with this being a "technical" point of legal age.  Even if it is legal to date a 16 year old by a 32 year old, it will be viewed by Western civilization as inappropriately exploitative.  This is because of the disparity of sophistication between them.  

Secondly, and more importantly, the dropped pronoun may reveal that there will be others to come forward who may have been under the legal age, and/or that the then 14 year old Leigh Corfman was something Moore considered consensual in nature. 

Because of that, at the direction of counsel, I cannot comment further.

— Roy S. Moore.

There is no legal consequence, in spite of what all guilty persons like to say, when one truthfully says,

"I didn't do it."

Going on the attack while not relying the allegations is consistent with deception. Lance Armstrong went after anyone and everyone who did not believe his lies. 

Roy Moore is incapable of saying he did not do it.  We cannot say it for him. 

We waited for him to say it, believing he would, but he "talked us out" of our premise that he did not do it. After all, if he cannot say it himself, we are not going to say it for him.

He has had many opportunities, including in the interviews where he was freely answering questions and choosing his own words and was incapable of doing so.  

We know the truth.  

Reliable Denials are easy to issue, and are very low stress.  They are comforting and they provide a psychological "wall of truth" that shows that truth stands on its own. 

The three components are:

1.  Pronoun "I"
2. Past tense verb "did not"
3.  Allegation specifically addressed.

Add to this, or subtract from this and it is not reliable.  

When a child killer says, "I did not harm the child" the minimization of the allegation is a violation of component number three above.  He did not "harm", he "killed."

The brain's attempt to deceive is powerful and intuitive.  The speed of transmission of thought to word gives us our advantage.  

In sexual abuse cases, number 3 is often altered to fit the guilty party's definition.  This is to alter the formula and is not to be deemed reliable. 

For training in deception detection, we offer the Complete Statement Analysis Course, in which you will learn how to discern deception from truth and run at or near 100% accuracy. 

It is done in your home and it comes with 12 months of e support. 

Tuition increases 1 January, 2018, so consider enrollment now.  


Deejay said...

Suppose you took me to court for sliding on the ice and hitting your car.

I went into a long spiel about 'my illustrious career and my great driving record'.
'We are at a point where anyone can take someone with 40 years of great driving to court.'
Then I said 'I deny these allegations'.

It would be fairly obvious that my smoke and mirrors as presented had nothing to do with whether or not I hit a car.

Peter Hyatt said...

Its a fair comparison.

Heather said, "he is telling us how he has taken many drug tests without being caught..."

Sylvester Stallone is up next...well, after Al Franken.

Hollywood is a cesspool and it is reflected in their art.

Anonymous said...

Hillary could come up with a much better defense for Roy Moore than the "fake signature" defense. Her diabolical mind was ingenius at getting a child rapist who put his victim into a coma out of jail. She knowingly transported the wrong evidence hundreds of miles on her own person to have it tested by an expert knowing the test would come out negative (the lab had already tested the right evidence and it had tested positive.) Hillary--the liberal hero.
Sly Stallone--another liberal hero--dumb as a brick and cant even talk.

Anonymous said...

Beverly describes three shades of bruising, consistent with pressure points.The thumb on the left side of the neck and two-three fingers grasping the right side. She doesn't mention he fondled her hair in the car, but I think he probably did. She mentions he grabbed her hair while she was working, though. Maybe an uh,oh moment of when she knew she was in trouble.

Women at the mall describe his repeated harassing behavior. None call it stalking, though one woman complained to her manager fearing she'd lose her job because of his hanging around her counter on the weekends. Another, a high school girl, describes how he called her at school-forcing her to leave class!!- for the betterment of he, himself, Roy Moore and no more...amen.

As she described him leaving the restaurant at the same time as she did, I thought maybe it had been his way of hanging out a bit longer than he should have for the betterment of himself.

Anonymous said...


Would this statement be considered a reliable denial - "I want you to know that I did not do it"? On the one hand, it contains all three elements of a reliable denial, but on the other hand it seems to be more about what the subject wants others to know rather than about his own actions.


June Bug said...

Stallone is not a liberal; he's endorsed every Republican since Reagan. He said he loved Trump early on in his run :)

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous said...
As she described him leaving the restaurant at the same time as she did,

.....this might be contamination from the lawyer, it would not play well if she said we left together. it would explain the wording as it seems contrived.

tania cadogan said...

We are in the process of investigating these false allegations to determine their origin and motivation.

The origin of the allegations is already known.
It is the people who have come forward and made the allegations.
He knows the names of his accusers whether the allegation is truthful or deceptive.

The motivation could be or or more of several things.
Speaking out because other cases involving other persons have become public.
Something the judge has said or done that has caused his victim(s) to speak out, Angered perhaps that he is speaking out against abusers when he himself is one?
Fear that he is a continued threat to minors?
Fear that he might be more lenient to those who molest or abuse young children or teens from a position of authority?
Needing to come forward to help themselves start the process of healing, perhaps becoming parents or grandparents or having children reaching a similar age to themselves when they were abused?
Attention seeking?
Victims of abuse by someone else who have decided to join this bandwagon?
Other mental health issues?

He has not denied the events took place with the 14 year old as claimed.

I will not be surprised if he admits to contact with the 16 year old and claims it was consensual as would seem from her statements.
Perhaps not illegal if the age of consent was 16 but inappropriate perhaps because he was in a position of power over her.
He concentrates on this case excusing it perhaps as her experimenting and being willing (citing the general behavior of men in those times older men younger women and pointing out it goes on today with all the sugar daddy websites, and now even sugar momma sites)
He focuses attention on the 16 year old, perhaps admitting he was foolish but everyone was doing it and she was legal, whilst diverting attention from the behavior with the clearly not legal 14 year old.
A case of look over here not over there.

Then expect him to drag up other cases of older men going after younger women democrats (bill clinton perhaps) and muddying the water.

What needs to be done is pin him down to specifics with the 14 year old, make this front and centre and then if other reliable accusations are revealed nail him with those.

Anonymous said...


Well, Hollywood is super liberal.
Every liberal I know is a fan of Sly Stallone. I never cared for him. He's probably a closet liberal.

Anonymous said...

Off Topic: Someone made a computer that "thinks" like the Zodiac Killer to help solve the zodiac's codes & it is now writing disturbing poetry?!? The guy who made the computer looks just like the sketch of the Zodiac killer! The Zodiac killer was never caught--I remember when I was reading about the JonBenet case, there was a guy on a message board who had a somewhat compelling argument that the Zodiac killer killed JonBenet. But anyway, now I am scared of the Zodiac computer!!!

Anonymous said...

Jeffrey tambour accused of sexual assault

His denial:
am aware that a former disgruntled assistant of mine has made a private post implying that I had acted in an improper manner toward her,” Tambor told Deadline today. “I adamantly and vehemently reject and deny any and all implication and allegation that I have ever engaged in any improper behavior toward this person or any other person I have ever worked with. I am appalled and distressed by this baseless allegation.”

What do you guys say?

Anonymous said...

off topic:

Gloria allred standing solemnly beside any female
behind a microphone is a problem for anyone.
It is time for her to decline to pursue these
salacious allegations type clients.
Why can't she just gracefully retire?

New England Water Blog said...

Is Sean Hannity telling the truth here?

"You know, I have an experience, look, obviously it’s not like what you guys went through. One day I went down to the green room at the Fox News channel and Barry Farber, who you know is one of the great radio pioneers and I went to see him. It was in the Hannity and Colmes days. I’m trying to have a conversation with Barry Farber and Al Franken is in there screaming at me and I’m like alright I don’t want to talk to you, I’m here to see my friend. Finally it gets to the point that I can’t even have it and I said alright Barry good to see you my friend, God bless you, give him a hug and walked out. [Franken] is screaming at me, following me and the halls of Fox are filled with security guys and literally he would not stop. They called the code and then security literally surrounded this guy.”

Peter Hyatt said...

Why can't Gloria Allred retire?

Because this is who she is. She exploits. She is addicted to exploitation of others. She will destroy anyone for any reason if it satisfies herself. Victim, abuser, it matters not.

Peter Hyatt said...

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous said...
As she described him leaving the restaurant at the same time as she did,

.....this might be contamination from the lawyer, it would not play well if she said we left together. it would explain the wording as it seems contrived.

The General refuses to underestimate Allred.

This is wise.

I am concerned when investigators do not hold enough respect for their adversary.

She has been doing this for a long time and we need to question point by point.


Anonymous said...

More fodder from Alred about the yearbook signature.

Anonymous said...

Allred is being investigated for disbarrment. I do not know what the reason is, but I know she is being investigated.

Anonymous said...

More great analysis. Great stuff, Peter. I have learned so much from your work over the years.

One tricky part for Moore is that lying might be the right political strategy. I would have accepted a reliable denial of the 14 year old and of any actual assualt, along with a truthful admission that he regularly dated 16-19 year olds. But the public in 2017 would not accept that. So trying to dismiss all the allegations in a bunch as a political dirty trick might actually be a good political strategy. But since he clearly DID date multiple 16 year olds, he's lying and he's therefore suspect even on the most damning accusations. Similarly, he can't say the truth about Beverly, that he convinced a 16 year old to agree to cheat on her boyfriend with him and then lost interest in her when she didn't want to perform oral sex on him. It would sound terrible and be politically damning if not legally damning.

All that said, he hasn't given anything close to a reliable denial of touching the 14 year old and assaulting the 16 year old. Which suggests that he did both things.

One thing that's interesting is how few people know about statement analysis. I've seen many unreliable non-denial denials celebrated by the press as "putting the rumors to rest" "forcefully debunking the accusations" "giving a strong denial" etc. Granted, these are usually liberal journalists celebrating Democratic politicians. But it's not just their bias---they are indeed convinced at least in part by unreliable denials. They don't seem to notice the dropped pronouns, the avoidance of directly addressing the accusations, etc.

Anonymous said...

In her narrative, Mrs. Nelson describes that he'd sit in the same seat night after night. I don't recall if she said it was typical for him to shut the place down or not.

Dec 22, 1977 was a Thursday night before Christmas weekend.The temps at 1pm were 44 degrees and winds at 12mph. Assuming temps drop after sundown, I'd say it was bitterly cold.

She also says it was dark twice. Christmas would have been a full moon that year.
Regarding her lying on the ground, it is possible she stepped in a pothole and tripped on her way out. She does remember his passenger door open as he sped off-Burned Rubber! (like he was mad)

This is consistent with what others are saying, though Beverly's is an actual violent type attack without the conning and whisking away from under the parent's nose type of stuff most describe. He had categories for these girls before each endeavor.

Peter Hyatt said...

Adding dating legal age teenagers to illegal and very close to pedophilia (dependent upon development) is a clever strategy when one does not wish the facts to stand on their own.

That Washpo is narrative driven is true.
That Moore was inappropriate is true.

Now I wonder about the other choice voters have! He could be worse.


Peter Hyatt said...


the brain's recall of the squealing of the tires indicates the possibility of humiliation. Peter

Anonymous said...

The timing of the allegations is suspect, but the tales no longer are. There's little that can be now, some 40 years after the fact. The first accuser, Leigh Corfman (name right) may have went with him after the initial courthouse meeting a year or two later...still weird for a man his age.

But Beverly's claims align with what many are saying and his hanging out around girls he'd like to "date." I'd be curious as to whether or not there were any other girls with red hair in the pageants at that time. His wife appears to be a blonde, from the bottle I'd suspect,and continued the pageant circuit. I doubt Beverly did if she had to work during her school years as it would prove costly to buy dresses, etc.

To me, he doesn't fit in the pedophile category as these girls were teens and most knew about guys in general hanging out at the mall and all. I wonder if Beverly did as she seemed not to know the others and had school, work, boyfriend, etc. There's only so much time in the day. If he came in nightly, he'd be aware of the boyfriend and most likely knew some of what went on in her life from general daily chit-chat like small town people do.

He seemed to alter his behavior over time it sounds like. I am curious as to whom really got the brunt end of the deal and when and where. If he is so brazen to chase them at the mall, call them at school,and god knows what else, he is brazen enough and sure of his hero status to talk his way out of something.

His Houston martial arts instructor said he had no idea he was religious.

He smells bad to me. I don't live in Alabama and it bothers me none that he may be a Senator. He fights for the 10 commandments and for family and God and promotes the military. He sounds like apple pie, but somethings way off.

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
H’wood is notoriously liberal.

glad you're here to be the arbiter of all things.

Anonymous said...

Humiliation can also come with falling and being ignored. I recall falling once (my fault) in high school and looking up to find several people looking at me. One of them was my boyfriend at the time. He laughed, and laughed ,and laughed. It seemed like forever as I lay there trying to figure out what had happened. I was mad because he laughed at me, and when I got up and shook myself off, another friend started screaming. Blood was gushing out of my arm and I never felt any pain but anger. I had a broken pop bottle in my arm and it didn't hurt until the next day and I never cried because I was MAD!....he apologized later and I accepted, but really I didn't forgive or forget.

That woman with the signature in her yearbook wouldn't remember too much of the event unless she led a sheltered life or was shocked by the man's behavior because he was much older.

I do think he signed the book. Still, that proves nothing.

Anonymous said...

Peter, this is probably just idiot crap, but I stumbled upon a DB Cooper letter:

I get a weird feeling that the army and federal agents have been making up their own excuses for decades.
The footnotes suggest that special ops are like actors on a stage wearing disguises and writing letters to the cops to boast of their crimes.

Get where he mentions he's not a psycho path. How can we be sure of that?!!

Note the post mark date.

It's a Zodiac type thing for the film industry and forget the victims, though DB Cooper wasn't know for killing others.

Trudy said...

November 16 @ 5:30

"I want you to know that I did not do it" is not a reliable denial, IMO. The person did not say they did not do it, just that they want you to know that they did not do it.

Anonymous said...


In addition, as the plot thickens, they think he got his name(D.B. Cooper)from a comic book character. They've been pulling the comicon terror con for decades it seems.

No fingerprints (there never is on the ones they want to classify as mysteries),and almost always a profile of who'd send a letter like THAT: clipped and pasted words, sent from different locales,and always to the largest newspapers in the four corners of the US.

Could he have changed the "L" notes into "E" notes? Only the FBI knew which series he had.