Monday, January 15, 2018

Repost: Las Vegas Terrorist Girlfriend

Withholding information 
From November 2017.  Please compare analysis with Search Warrant Affidavit.  

Investigators have said:  Marilou Danley is withholding information from them. 

Thus far:   We are not given answers in the Vegas terrorist attack. The statement that "we may never know the motive" is not credible. 

That he may have left a suicide note or letter that is "not relevant" is not credible.  

This was a well planned, trained, financed  and executed terrorist act.  

Officials reported that they now believe  Marilou Danley is deliberately withholding information from them in their investigation into the terrorist killing in Vegas. 

To this, the analysis of her released statement agrees.  

The Sheriff said that the killer may have been "radicalized" and did not likely act alone.  He also said that the shooter intended to survive and continue to another killing.  It was planned, financed, trained and it was methodical. 

His girlfriend, Marilou Danley received $100,000 from Stephen Paddock just prior to the attack and was a "person of interest."

The statement is made through her attorney and must be analyzed as a statement, not of her, nor her attorney.  We analyze the statement here:  

We are analyzing the statement, not the person, as it could be her words and her words and the  words of her attorney.

What does the statement tell us?

Analysis Questions:  

Does the girlfriend show knowledge of his intention?
Does she reliably deny knowledge of motive?
Does she reliably report no suspicion of him?

Here is his girlfriend's denial of knowledge: 

“It never occurred to me in any way whatsoever that he was planning violence against anyone,” 
He never said anything to me or took any action that I was aware of that I understood in any way to be a warning that something horrible like this was going to happen.

Let's look at it again, using Statement Analysis.  In this analysis, we break down the statement into small parts examine or analyze, and then put it back together again. 
“It never occurred to me 
Instead of saying, "I did not know he was going to do this" the statement began without the pronoun "I."  A statement that begins with the pronoun "I" means the subject is putting herself, psychologically, into the statement.  This is called "linguistic commitment."
Instead, she uses a "passive voice" of what "never occurred to" her. This is to use language that reflects a general indirect obtainment of knowledge.  There is an infinite number of things that never occurred to her.  This is a deliberately vague denial, which is given in the passive voice; which is a form of distancing language. 

The attack was not something that was vaguely committed, or would be lost in memory.  It was specific and memorable, which then warrants specific, memorable language. 
It also uses the word "never" rather than "I did not know..." with the verb "never" being unreliable for the purposes of classification.  It is to avoid the strong "did not", and it comes after a passive, rather than active and directive, introduction.  
"I did not know he was going to do this" would be very strong and would not need an attorney's approval or guidance. This would begin with "I", go to "did not" and "do this", would bring the obvious (shooting) close to her, psychologically with "this."  

Preferable would be to call it specifically "attack, killing, terrorist, shooting" etc; something to identify a most unusual, memorable and specific event. 
We now see that she begins without stating with herself in the statement, uses qualification with her denial:

"It never occurred to me in any way " uses the unnecessary qualifier of "in any way."

She has not been asked, "did it occur to you in any way?", nor would this be something anyone would ask.  

Q.  Why not? 

A.   Because it is a unique specific memorable event.  It is not a passing ordinary event.  She now introduces multiple ways in which she might have known his plans.  

This is a very important point in advanced analysis;  she is anticipating being accused of specific ways in which she knew his intention and seeks to preempt the questioning. 

It is as if to introduce a defense where there is no attack or accusation.  

We would not have thought to ask, "Well, he didn't tell you about it, but did he write to you about it?" or, 

"He did not say he was going to do this, but did you understand that he was going to do this when you observed the cache of offensive weapons he was amassing?"

This expression, "in any way", seeks to cut off accusations that we would not have even thought of.  This is how we catch liars.  

But, she is not done yet.  She is more concerned about other possibilities; possibilities that we do not know of, but she does, that she fears being addressed.  

Let's note:  
*missing pronoun "I" is the first signal of weakness. 
"Occurred to me" using passivity is second signal of weakness. 
"never" is unreliable (3rd point of weakness) and now we have 
the unnecessary emphasis of "in any way" as the fourth point of sensitivity (weakness), but she is not done yet: 

It never occurred to me in any way whatsoever that he was planning violence against anyone, 
The subject adds "whatsoever" as another attempt to persuade us. This is not only a call in for reinforcements, but it is to tell us that his communication of his intentions was done in a way that she is thinking of and wishes to tell us that he didn't, without the internal instinctive repulsion from direct lying that the brain does. 

This was a planned, specific, memorable event that took place at a certain locale, at a specific time and had intended victims.  The passivity and vagueness are used for self protection.  We have better memories (linguistically) over 'the big game' from yesteryear than she shows in an horrific event of bloodshed.  

The need to be vague is a form of distancing language.  She is vague about his communication, but she is also deliberately vague about the victims. 
She states:   "violence against anyone" as unnecessary directing towards the victims.  
The victims do not need to be pointed out as "anyone":  59 dead, 500 injured of the specifically chosen victims.  
At this point, the statement is so weak that suspicion that she knew and is concealing information continues to rise. 
Yet, the statement continues: 
He never said anything to me or took any action that I was aware of that I understood in any way to be a warning that something horrible like this was going to happen.

1.  "never" is not "did not" is unreliable. Lance Armstrong "never" took PEDs.  He was incapable of saying "I did not take PEDs." In the same sense, she does not say, "he didn't tell me..."
2.  "to me" is specified.  She does not say, "he didn't tell me" but designates the preposition, "to" here instead.  This is to consider that it was not "to" her, that he "said" or "took action."  This raises the question, unnecessarily:

 Did he say something to others that she is aware of? 

If not for her statement, we would not have known to ask this.  This now brings someone else into her denial, which means collateral interviews are likely to produce results. 

Because she has raised questions by her denial, we now have more questions that need answers: 

 Did he write or type things?  Did she witness things?  Did she see his expenditures of weapons? ...and so on. 

This puts the emphasis upon self, even while being unreliable, signaling to us that others also know.  
3.  Action:  Let's look at what she said about "any action"
"Action" is a witnessing or awareness of events.  This unnecessary addition has provoked new questions for us.  She is introducing witnesses "things" (actions) that further weakens the denial while simultaneously giving us new information.  
a.  Action that she was aware of.  Would she need identify something she was not aware of?

Actions such as...

going to trainings for the weaponry. 
purchasing the weapons. 
cleaning them, practicing with them, including dry runs,
storing them, 
hiding them, 
cataloging them, 
print out receipts, 
e receipts,
book keeping
drives to locales 
booking of the hotels
travel plans 
This is unnecessary unless because she is acknowledging the possibility of action that she was "not aware" of.  This is an unnecessary qualification.  

She has invited us to consider "actions" while being both unreliable and vague. 
He never said anything to me or took any action that I was aware of that I understood in any way to be a warning that something horrible like this was going to happen.
b. "that I understood" is now a qualification of Paddock's actions. This is to acknowledge that he did take actions that she was aware of, but she did not "understand" them to be violent. 
"That I was aware of" was first qualifier of action. 
"that I understood" is the second.  

She now wants us to believe that his actions were open to interpretation. 

This is to admit eyewitness actions, but the actions had to be "understood" a specific way to conclude murderous attack upon innocent lives. She piles weakness upon weakness: 
The subject  is not done yet: 
c.  He never said anything to me or took any action that I was aware of that I understood in any way to be a warning that something horrible like this was going to happen.

"in any way" now should cause investigators to learn of his actions' expressions in various means.  The subject is broadening the scope. The interpretation of his actions is now given by her:

"a warning."

She now is telling us that she witnessed actions, but did not "understand" them to be a "warning."  

d.  He never said anything to me or took any action that I was aware of that I understood in any way to be a warning that something horrible like this was going to happen.

Here is the center of the subject's denial:  "to be a warning."

It is unreliable and it is heavily qualified and it is about something specific:
her understanding, interpretation, or grasping of "warning."

This is to specifically avoid saying "He did not tell me he was going to kill people" and instead gives us an unreliable and heavily qualified specifically classified  denial "warning."  
This should cause suspicion that the subject did not need to be "warned" because of "agreement."

Minimization:  "something horrible like this."

Like what?

Like shooting innocent victims with sophisticated weaponry?  She has a need to distance herself to something that even strangers would not have a need to distance themselves from. 

What is the "something"?
What is "this"?
What is "horrible"?

This is how guilt operates:  it seeks out words to cover itself, and while doing so, literally leaks out information.  Some of the most sensitive and powerful information we gain is when a subject presumes an accusation is coming. 

Often, only the guilty make these very specific presumptions because investigators (and readers) would often not have even thought to ask certain questions. 

It is to show that "only the guilty" would be concerned with specifics that would not have occurred to others.  Only the guilty worry about a specific because this specific is not only unknown, but likely would have not even entered into the mind of the investigator had not the subject stated it. 

This is why in Analytical Interviewing, we do only 20% or less of the speaking:  the subject has the information; it is not within us. 

The interrogation is short and flips this around:  we do 80% to 90% of the speaking, making accusations and threats of consequence. 

Analysis Conclusion:
The statement is an  Unreliable Denial
The statement not only increases suspicion but it tells us some specific areas in which the Vegas terrorist's girlfriend knew of his plans.  

It broadens the investigation telling us:  she was not alone in her knowledge of what he was doing.  

To learn Deception Detection to the point of 100% accuracy, enroll in our "Complete Statement Analysis Course" which comes with 12 months of e-support.  

Our Advanced Course, which includes content analysis and psycho-lingustic profiling is not offered until successful completion of our Complete Course.

Certification requires minimum of 60 hours live training after completion of course.  


Anonymous said...

It never occurred to me in any way whatsoever that he was planning violence (passive) against anyone,”

Is this also minimising.

She could have said. I did not know he was planning to shoot and or kill anyone.

But I am a robot! said...

The effect on a statement of the unreliable denial factors seems to be base-ten like the Richter magnitude scale by which we measure earthquakes:
Each additional qualifier increases the deception likelihood by tenfold.

Danley's denial looks to measure a record-pushing 11 or 12 on the Hyatt scale.

I can safely tell you, I never would in any way at all even think of considering to plan doing anything remotely like that to anybody who anybody has ever known, anywhere on earth at any time in history no matter what!
In fact, the truth is I actually go around seeking other people who do think of doing that and beat them up for it!

LuciaD said...

This woman makes me angry. She knew enough to have prevented mass murder. I hope she can be prosecuted for aiding and abetting, collusion, or another crime.

Anonymous said...

The problem with constant blaming until someone issues a reliable denial is they don't know why they are being accused and are without an attorney.

I, in no way whatsoever, in my wildest imagination understand how/why a 50 something woman can be expected to take responsibility for a 60 year old man acting like a hormone-raging teenage boy disgruntled with life and everything that walks upright upon the earth.

Anonymous said...

It's similar to the Texas church shooter. Who was forced to take the blame there? I'm guessing no one! The shooter had issued several warnings and make verbal threats and had even showcased his weapon of choice.

What did the media report?

No one cares....pfft!

No one cares for the way they like to characterize the terror. No one cares for the crowds they were hoping to protest. No one cares for the ongoing terror they brought to the community by trying to figure out how and why someone would do such a thing like they didn't have a brain in their head.

Yep, just mount yer trusty Harley, put Jesus in yer heart and ride off into the sunset...just don't "mess with Texas".

Anonymous said...

Her fingerprints were found on the bullets.

Habundia said...

" “she spontaneously stated that her fingerprints would likely be found on Paddock’s ammunition because she occasionally participated in loading magazines.”"

But it never occured to her in anyway that all those guns and ammunition could be used for violence?
Yeah right.....if she would have said she was to afraid to go to police out of fear of her own life i could have understand........but telling cops they probably are gonna find fingerprints on the bullets......because she participated (she does not say she was forced to do so) in loading magazines.

Mimsie said...

Peter, I would really like to see your analysis of the story trending in Toronto about the girl who claimed a man had cut her hijab off with scissors. Turns out it is fake news.

New England Water Blog said...

More of a light hearted story but is she lying?

“This is not real,” wrote one commenter. Pam replied: “This IS real!!!! I kid you not!”

General P. Malaise said...

Blogger Mimsie said...
Peter, I would really like to see your analysis of the story trending in Toronto about the girl who claimed a man had cut her hijab off with scissors. Turns out it is fake news.

MIMSIE I will give it a try.
this is from an article in the CBC.
the CBC is government media. they are 100% owned by the government and they carry the water for the liberal party.

"I felt really scared and confused," Khawlah Noman, a student at Pauline Johnson Junior Public School in Scarborough, Ont., said at a news conference Friday afternoon.

"He continued cutting my hijab again" before smiling and running away, said Khawlah.

"What you're doing is really wrong, you should not act like this, and especially, I'm a kid," she said, addressing her attacker.

there is not enough quotes to get a good handle on the language. the video isn't much better. english for the mother at least is not first language.

with those caveats out of the way (and my bias front and center) I called it fake.

1) the placement of emotions in the story indicate deception.

2) the linguistic disposition toward the "attacker" is favourable.
3)the attack is described in the passive voice which usually is used to hide the identity or of responsibility. this linguistic disposition strongly suggests the young girl and her mother know more than is being stated in the news. the language can mean that they were the ones who cut the hijab.

surprisingly this was used by prime minister justine trudeau to attack Canadians as islamophobic. this at a time when he was stumbling badly in a town hall meeting where he is under attack for his giving 10 million dollars to a islamic adherent and other criticism.

I am not saying he is complicit in the hoax, just the timeline of the hoax and the political use of it seems strange.

Anonymous said...

Out of curiosity, are statements of police ever examined using statement analysis?
Might that go against who you're marketing your services to?

Trigger said...

Bill Clinton's denial: "No Clinton Foundation funds- dedicated to Haiti or otherwise- were used to pay for Chelsea's wedding.

It's not only untrue It's a personal insult to me, to Hillary, and Chelsea and Marc."

(Wedding costs reported to be $3 million)

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 7:03 if you read more on Peter’s blog he does analyze police statements sometimes.

Mimsie said...

Thank you, Peter. Very few newspaper reporters will have the courage to question the family's motives. I think your analysis is insightful.

General P. Malaise said...

Blogger Mimsie said...
Thank you, Peter. Very few newspaper reporters will have the courage to question the family's motives. I think your analysis is insightful.

whoa that wasn't Peter. it is General P. Malaise.

I do hope Peter doesn't eviscerate my analysis.

John Mc Gowan said...

Re hate hoax

Her is the interview with the girl and her mother. Listen how the joirnalists feed her answers.

Fast forward to 3:50

John Mc Gowan said...

The presenter in the clip above asks us, the viewers some very good questions.
Why was the press conference so rapidly announceď.?
Was she put up to it by her mother.? And so on

Anonymous said...

That would be a physical assault with a dangerous weapon. I'd think they'd be pressing charges.

It's more likely a male would carry a knife and not a pair of scissors. Even if he did have scissors, unwanted touching while hold a sharp life threatening instrument would be enough to scour the country side for such a villain.

Considering the "smile" he displayed, he sounds like a sociopath that would do it again.

I'd think a child would be one or the other-scared or confused.

Perhaps the confusion is putting the story together to sound real.

John Mc Gowan said...

Highly Hyped Hijab Hate Hoax Features 11-Year-Old

Mimsie said...

Sorry, General! Credit goes to you.

General P. Malaise said...

Blogger Mimsie said...
Sorry, General! Credit goes to you.

I am not concerned with credit here, it is the blame I want to avoid. I doubt Peter would use the same words as I used.


Anonymous said...

to anon at 7:46

Any links? Searching for police or police + isn't getting anywhere.
I've been reading for several months and don't remember seeing any.

Nic said...

Can [they] confiscate her $100,000?

Money talks.

ima.grandma said...

in any way (directly or indirectly, in any manner) 
the calvary effect of whatsoever (basically repeating herself) is added for intense emphasis, using it to support "it never occurred to me"
She is building a watertight defense. She is saying she won't be responsible for any leaks and I dare you to dispute it (Contempt!)

Hey Jude said...

Anon - some links to aid your memory:

GeekRad said...

Danley's denial seems not only unreliable, but guilty as well. She know more than she is saying.

Anonymous said...

Off-topic: Has anyone here seen the news of Davey Blackburn wedding?

This article led me to his blog; there are lots of his usual creepy discourse in the post in which he announces their brief engagement and marriage in last december:
'I had decided I wouldn’t pursue anything with anyone no matter who it was until after the one year anniversary of Amanda’s death. I knew this is what God put in my heart and I was going to stick to it.'

And today, in a gossip blog of blinds revolving around mostly Hollywood people, 'Crazy days and nights', there was this blind (A 'blind' is a story about someone in which the author doesn't tell who this someone is):

'In this worldwide headline making murder case there is some new evidence that has been found which looks very damning for the thirsty celebrity husband of the wife who was killed. His story and actions have never really jibed and investigators kept digging. Apparently it was a tip though that led to a revisit of timelines and and something that happened when the huge life insurance policy was originally bought. I'm also told he went through the insurance money quickly with his new extravagant lifestyle. There are only so many books and seminars he can sell but he won't cut back on his spending.'

Someone there actually guessed Davey (most would venture some Hollywood personality), which was my immediate guess. Maybe his time has come at last?

Sorry if someone already posted these links before.


Anonymous said...

The Intriguing Murder Of Amanda Blackburn Part I

ima.grandma said...

Off Topic:

He said: ‘She claims that, one, I used colourful language in front of her, not at her, but that I used colourful language.

‘Two, she claims that in conversations I had in front of her, on the phone, that I spoke raunchily, or dirtily with friends of mine, in private conversations. I fired her eventually… for the work she was doing, (but) three, she claims that I blackballed her from the industry and stopped her form getting another job.

In relation to an allegation he masturbated in front of said woman, Douglas said: ‘This is a complete lie, fabrication, no truth to it whatsoever.’

"I never blackballed her. If people from the industry called me to ask about her, I would have been honest, but I never blackballed her."

Speaking to Deadline, Douglas said he was taking the unusual step of making a pre-emptive denial after he was informed by his lawyer that film industry trade magazine the Hollywood Reporter was preparing to run a story on the allegations of a woman who worked for Douglas in the mid-1980s. Douglas describes the suggestion that he masturbated in front of her as “a complete lie, fabrication, no truth to it whatsoever”.

Douglas said that the accusations also included a claim that he “used colourful language” in her earshot, as well as on the phone in private conversations, and that he “blackballed” the unnamed woman after she left his employ. Describing the former accusation as “minimal”, Douglas said: “I am sorry if I used coarse language with my friends.” However he denied the claim he had prevented her getting further employment in the film industry, as “completely untrue”.

Saying he had no contact with his accuser for “30-plus years”, Douglas added he was “floored” by the accusations, and that he would “confess to anything I thought I was responsible for”. “There is no evidence. This would not be presented in a court of law. This is way past the statute of limitations.”

habundia said...

I was reading an article when seeing this line
"The justices cited a 2004 Supreme Court case that found an attorney doesn't need his client's tacit consent to admit guilt."

Does this mean any lawyer could during trail choose to make his client look guilty even if the client is telling he's not and wants to plea not guilty?

This sounds scary.

LC said...

The preemptive strike by Michael Douglas is a good example of the #metoo movement getting diluted by a rash of old accusations that are not considered as sexual harassment.
When the jury of public opinion gets overwhelmed by a flurry of public disclosures, it is increasingly likely that they will begin to discount many accusations as fabrications.
Too many cooks spoil the broth. --such a shame for the legitimate cases...

ima.grandma said...

LC, good point. Is there a difference in the language of a preemptive offensive player as opposed to most of the reactive defensive statements we examine? Do the same principles apply? Is it important to "hear" the accusation before we hear the response, which is the norm? Are Michael Douglas and his counsel maneuvering outside the playing field?

Buckley said...

To add some context to habundia's question about lawyers contradicting clients: the case here was a death penalty case in which the lawyer was saying the client was guilty but insane to spare him the death penalty. If the client was indeed legally insane- and provided due process on the issue of his sanity, I could see it. But the notion that "any lawyer could..." no, the trial would be declared mistrial and the lawyers would be disbarred. I see the article says the lawyer in question isn't a lawyer any more, so maybe it's related to this move.

ima.grandma said...

Restating Peter's teaching in this article:
This is how guilt operates:  it seeks out words to cover itself, and while doing so, literally leaks out information.  Some of the most sensitive and powerful information we gain is when a subject presumes an accusation is coming. 

habundia said...

Ive seen another case in which a lawyer was pushing his client under the bus, where of the judge also said he didnt think that was the case, a 16 year old boy whos now 10 years in jail for something he didnt do

This case wasnt cleared a mistrial either (by the judge) so it can (in theory) happen to anyone

Anonymous said...


Justin Timberlake: I have 'absolutely' made peace with Janet Jackson after Super Bowl incident

"I" (owning) Vs "You" (distancing)

Timberlake has not publicly apologized to Jackson for the incident that seemingly sent her career into a free-fall (though she's recently been touring), but in a recent Beats 1 Radio interview with Zane Lowe, the bearded, beanie-and-flannel-wearing Man of the Woods implied that he had resolved things with Jackson.

The conversation, about Timberlake's upcoming performance and the one from more than a decade ago, started with Timberlake joking about how he's not going to repeat his infamous mistake, and ended with him saying that he "absolutely" resolved things with Jackson.

Here's a snippet from the interview:

Lowe: When you announced (you'd headline the halftime show), it brought up the last time for a lot of people again. 

Timberlake: Naturally. I mean that's something that we talked about.

Lowe: Yeah, I bet. So what was the conversation?

Timberlake: To be honest, (it) wasn't too much of a conversation, just one of those things where we go, "We're not gonna …" What do you want me to say, like, "We're not gonna do that again?"

Lowe: That's so crazy. That is the world's biggest stage (and) to come off that stage back then and realize that everything was supposed to go to plan and now the whole thing is something completely different … the rest of the performance must've been like, one of those moments as an artist, a human being, we're you're like, "How do I roll through this?"

Timberlake: I mean, yeah, and I stumbled through it. You know, to be quite honest I had my wires crossed. And it's something that you have to look back on and go, like, "OK, well, you know, you can't change what's happened, but, you know, you can move forward and learn from it."

Lowe: And you and Janet took some time to do that after the fact, and kind of resolve the situation, like, were able to make peace of the whole thing?
Timberlake: Absolutely. Yeah. And ... I don't know that a lot of people know that. I mean, I don't think it's my job to do that, because you value the relationships that you do have with people.

Anonymous said...

Who said romance is dead?

Former US president Barack Obama and wife of 25 years Michelle's famously happy marriage was on display during his eight years in office and is still giving us relationship goals.

The former first lady celebrated her 54th birthday on Wednesday and Barack shared a throwback picture of the two of them, gushing over his long-time love.

"You’re (not) only my wife and the mother of (my) children, you’re my best friend. (I)love your strength, your grace, and your determination. (And) I love you more each day. Happy Birthday, @MichelleObama," he wrote.

Michelle also shared some romantic insight into one of their revered traditions on special occasions.

"Thank you @BarackObama for (the)beautiful flowers waiting for me in the office this morning," she wrote. "You’re my best friend, biggest fan, and getting notes and flowers from you will never get old."

She also thanked supporters around the US who took time to send their birthday wishes.

"And to the many people from around the country who sent cards and posted on social media, you have (no idea) how much (we) love hearing from you. I know birthdays can sometimes be bittersweet (54!), but your messages of hope, generosity, and warmth have always reminded (me) how lucky and blessed (we) are."

Barack has never been shy about his admiration for his wife, which he vocalised once against in October to pay tribute to her on their 25th wedding anniversary, delivering a special video message while she was peaking at the Pennsylvania Conference for Women on Tuesday/

"I had to crash this party because today we have been married for 25 years. The idea that you would (put up with me) for a quarter of a century is a remarkable testament to what a (saintly, wonderful, patient person you are,)" he said, according to People.

"It was a lot easier for me to do it, because the fact of the matter is that (not only have you been an extraordinary partner, not only have you been a great friend), somebody (who could) always make me laugh, somebody who would always make sure that (I was following what I thought was right,) but you (have) also been an example to our daughters and to the entire country."

"It is (truly) the best (decision) that I ever made to be persistent enough in asking you out for a date," he added.

(So, don’t) want to interrupt the flow of what I’m sure is a fascinating discussion, but I figured that you wouldn’t mind maybe me (parachuting) in (just) to say how much I love you, how much I appreciate you, (and to all the women in the audience), thanks for your indulgence," he finished.

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous said...

Who said romance is dead?

If I get time I might try an analysis on that. need to parse out the actual quotes text.

off the start If Michelle tweeted her reply (or if either did) it is not for each other it is for you the audience.

Anonymous said...

In the negative. Dependant words.
Embedded confession.
Hear say.
Remembering in an open statement, altjough editing is a caveat.
Missing information.


“He just kept brushing my hair off my shoulder and kissing my neck,” she alleged. “And he was like, ‘So, can you stay?’ And I was like, ‘No, I gotta go.’ I LEFT, and he kept calling me less and less over the coming months.”

Allabove is more than likely edited. Yet some principles, "LEFT", can't be ignored, given the setting.

ima.grandma said...

d.  He never said anything to me or took any action that I was aware of that I understood in any way to be a warning that something horrible like this was going to happen.”

This phrase means that "I understood" something in the past, and I still understand it now, so it refers to an interval of time up to now.
The fact that someone understood something is much more important than when or where it was done.
It has strong connection to the present: something, happening at the moment of speech, probably depends on whether someone understood something or not.

John Mc Gowan said...

Re POTUS Allegation.

Anon @ 11:54


The link you provided dosn't work.
I think it's this one.

I would like to read, and or hear her [unedited, possible journalistic bias, one way or the other] full statement.

There are a few SA principles in there ["Left" being operative word for me], i'm intrigued.

Misha said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Intriguing Murder Of Amanda Blackburn Part I

January 17, 2018 at 1:01 PM

Thanks for posting this. I watched all the parts and there is one telling moment when he is preaching where he likens himself to "William Wallace who also had his wife murdered". Not 'William Wallace whose wife also was murdered.'

link to clip - ff to 6.30

But I am a robot! said...

ima.grandma, there are so many qualifiers in that one sentence, she's left it open to dozens of interpretations!
that I was aware of; that I understood; in any way; to be a warning; like this

Even taking out all of the weakening verbiage, she could still argue the use of "warning" as to his intent discussing any plans in her presence.

I get the impression she was eagerly looking forward to being the center of attention making the talk show and blog circuit as The Girlfriend, and envisioned herself theatrically bemoaning, "And I even helped load his weapons, oh, woe, how will I ever go on?"
When the reality hit that she'll be seen as an accessory (since she is one), and not as another victim, she's now in survival mode trying to save her own pathetic hide.

Anonymous said...

anons post.

My amateur effort

Capital emphasis not mine. It' easier to copy n paste. Lazy, yes.

"He just kept brushing my hair off my shoulder"

The shortest sentence is the best. Every extra word added to a sentence, statement, when a statement stands on it's own, (strong) and does not take away from the meaning, gives us extra information.

He kept brushing my hair off my shoulder"

Yet she doesn't say that. She uses the word "just", a comparison, minimising, and dependent word.

What is she comparing.
The word "just" is also used in the passing of time.
I "just" (in close time, 5,10,mins, etc) put the pie in the oven.
Given that we can take that scenario away.(she"s looking back) In her perception of reality at that time (his status is worldwide) why (my opinion) minimise. He's the POTUS why hold back?

"He kept brushing my hair off my shoulder"

Was she wearing a wig? Was her hair falling out? was his?
Subjective to her.

and kissing my neck,” she alleged. “And he was like, ‘So, can you stay?’ And I was like, ‘No, I gotta go.’ I LEFT, and he kept calling me less and less over the coming months.”

This is very casual "(like")
Note: she doen't say he said, "So, can you stay"?’ but says "like". An Atty would have a field day.

"and he kept calling me less and less over the coming months.”

When something is repeated ("less") it' important to whom is saying it, it may also be sensitive. Why, to be explored.

Was she monitoring his calls. Would she not be happy with that.?
Why is this important to her for it to enter her language.?

We don't have to waite.

"and he kept calling me less and less over the coming months.”

"over the coming months.”
How does she know how long it was if she wasn't keeping time.?

I believe something may have happened (none sexual) possibly phone sex talk.
He shunned her and this is why (and he kept calling me less and less over the coming months.) Has entered her language and Is sensitive to her.

She also (in the negative) says she not a hooker (twice)

Nic said...

Re Blackburn case
@ 3:30

I-I just think they discounted him too soon. Look, uh, uh, what was th-there was a burglary prior to this incident in that house, by-the-way…And I’m curious as to uh, what was the method of entry of that burglary. There was no force entry in the house where she was found dead. You know, her home. …"

What the heck?!? There was a burglary at the Blackburn house prior to November 11, 2015? I was late to this case in the first place; but, this is the first I heard of this!

Could this be "the reason why" Davey Blackburn would insure his stay-at-home wife?

I wonder what the circumstances, i.e., time of day, etc., were around that break in.

Nic said...


I saw that yesterday. The Daily Mail has some interesting commentary under that article, as does the Data Lounge on the subject of DB. Just one thread, though. Apparently they keep getting deleted.

Nic said...

...then at 11:40

(March 2017)

0.o He's definitely living The Dream, but is everyone there with him? (More than 25 people?)

Anonymous said...

Why is the Amanda Blackburn murder discussion discontinued? Did the statement analysis conclusion of throwing guilt accusations at the husband turn out to be wrong?

Anonymous said...

Stephen Paddock had ‘significant amount’ of child pornography on computers, Marilou Danley will not be charged:Sheriff

Nic said...

@ Anonymous 5:26AM,

The last thread reached the maximum commentary allowable: 5000 posts

Hey Jude said...

OT -
When the last Blackburn thread filled, the discussion moved to this older Blackburn thread - the more recent comments begin on the first page - there are over five hundred comments on that thread by now:

Anonymous said...

Thank you Misha for the youtube links on Davey Blackburn. They are all disturbing to a degree especially the 4th one.

LuciaD said...

Too bad it isn't a crime to willfully hold your head in the sand. Or to not report that kind of suspicious behavior. Or could Marilou be so stupid she really didn't suspect her live in boyfriend had bad intentions? I don't think so. I'm shocked she is walking free.

CptKD said...

It may not be for very much longer, however ...

Nadine Lumley said...

CBC is funded by Canadian taxpayers. If they carried water for the Liberals, how do you explain CBC's fluffy puff pieces / interviews with dictator Stephen Harper for ten years?

Nadine Lumley said...

Obama lived in a gay relationship with an older rich man when Obama was in university. Obama is a homo and extremely ambitious person.

He continues to ride the D whenever he can get away with it.