Tuesday, March 13, 2018

Full Transcript Emily Glass: Missing 5 Year Old Lucas Hernandezy

Here is a corrected transcript of the interview with the step mother of missing 5 year old. The changes are important as they establish context, rather than the broken article from media.  Please note one word, in particular, that changes the analysis below. Thanks to Lars for the transcript and interesting observation. 

5 year old Lucas Hernandez was reported missing by his step mother, Emily Glass. 

Emily Glass has been arrested on child endangerment charges unrelated to Lucas.  This is a telephone interview with a journalist. 

Q. There’s obviously a lot of rumors going on, a lot of things that people are saying about your stepson Lucas, just curious if there’s anything that you wanna say about that situation?
A. Ehm, yes, ehm, in the past, you know, there’s been times he's being a boy and playing with older brothers and his cousins, ehm he gets bruises. He has had some falls… ehm… falls, you know, it could be there or at the porch ehm……. (pause), I’m sorry, ?...

We first note that she avoids giving a description of a single event, injury or incident, but speaks only in general terms. This is not simply indicative of avoidance, but suggests ongoing child abuse issues by the subject. This is a typical pattern heard from parents accused of child abuse and/or neglect. Introducing the word "porch" would immediately cause a child protective investigator to focus on that area of the house.

"Tell me about your house" beginning with a general question, moving on to note any repetition and/or avoidance of "porch" in te language.

A legally sound interview is one that holds up best in court.

The avoidance of a specific fall is important. It is likely at this point where she says, "you know", that she is considering a specific fall; likely one of significance.

That he has fallen and has been bruising roughhousing is likely true, but note that it avoids conclusive language and any denial of causing bruises.  This is technically truthful in the sense that kids fall and bruise.  Yet note that she enters into a hina clause of the need to explain not how, but why, he got bruises, with "he's being a boy"; rather than "he got bruised playing with his other brothers."

The need to explain "why" (not "how") he bruised should be considered with the incomplete information about bruising.  It is likely that at this point, the subject is concealing another source of his bruising. 

Note also "with older brothers" drops a common pronoun of possession.  

Q. No, you’re fine, take your time
A. He’s my son too, you know. I may not have given birth to him, but he's my baby boy… (pause)… I take care of him every day, you know, ehm, I ? ah… (long pause), this is very painful that this is happening at a time like this, right now

In missing child case, we view the Linguistic Disposition towards the victim.

A parent, caretaker, relative or close friend will care for the safety and wellbeing of what the missing child is currently experiencing. The unknown can drive them to the point of trauma. Someone who cares for a child cannot bear the unknown; it goes against instinct and it goes against habitual care.

When the baby cries, the mother soothes the baby. When the child falls, the "boo boo" is kissed and comfort given.

When a child is in the hands of a stranger, in an alleged kidnapping, the focus of the subject is always going to be what the child is experiencing, which pales out everything else. The focus or "Linguistic Disposition", which is measured, is to be positive (measure) and the priority.

Here we find the subject expressing empathy for herself.

Analytical Question:  What is her linguistic disposition towards the victim's plight?

As a missing 5 year old, we expect her, his "mother" with her "baby" to indicate concern for his present circumstances.  

We continue to wait to hear empathy for the victim.  As "missing", we expect to hear human empathy over what he is going through at the time of this interview:  who is caring for him, is he getting fed, his favorite toy, etc.  

Similar to the McCanns'  interviews:  they showed no linguistic concern for what Madeleine was experiencing, as biological parents, because they knew Madeleine was beyond their help, intervention or concern. Concerned parents show no concern for a child for a reason:  the child is beyond their realm of parental concern.  

Video of McCann interview analyzed.  

Q. Do you have any idea where Lucas might be at this point?

The pauses have been added by the transcriber. A pause means the subject needs time to think, which indicates sensitivity.
A,… (long pause)…. ah… but if anyone does know, please say something because me and dad are worried sick… you know…. I keep thinking and keep thinking what could have happened, you know… And I keep thinking back to these two people… ehm… that were outside of my house a few days prior… ehm, ‘twas a black man and white woman

The word "but" refutes and/or minimizes by comparison, that which preceded it.

"please say something" is deemed "appropriate" but it is weak as analysts have noted. It may be due to the now common expression about "see something; say something" in the United States. We do, however, expect more, such as "call police right away", etc.

"say something" is appropriate (acceptable) but then she adds on why someone should "say something"

"because" she and the dad's comfort is disrupted. "...say something because me and dad are worried sick."

This is a positive linguistic disposition towards self. It is not an expression of concern for the victim.

One should consider that:
a. Step mother is sociopathic and has no concern for the child or
b. Step mother knows or believes that the child is beyond her concern.

This latter (b) was evident in the McCanns. I did not see sociopathic indications or elements in Kate McCann's language.

In step mother's other statements, she does not indicate, even in the small sample, sociopathic indicators. We would need more sample to work from. She is concerned about herself, and shows no concern for the victim.

She then introduces two people.

She is thinking a lot, and is, at this question, very aware of the interviewer.  

She introduces "these" two people.  The word "these" indicates closeness.  With such closeness, we might wonder what the relationship and quality of contact was.  If she suspects them, we expect "those people" along with suspicion and linguistic concern for Lucas. 

We should consider the possibility of "narrative building" (story telling) with the language of, "a black man and white woman."

We should also be concerned about a drug purchase. There may be elements of fabrication stitched together with reality. 

This next question and answer impacts the previous analysis. 

Did she say "standing" outside?  If so, we can compare how "standing" is analyzed with how "staying" is analyzed below. The editing of the article is worthy of criticism. 

Q. Do you know them?
A. No, they were staying outside ? approx…. approximately 3 early morning, so I went out there and be like, hey, is everything okay, do you need to come inside or you stand here or you … stay here just like… no, I felt like I offended them or something… eh. And I said okay, I'm sorry, it's cold outside and I didn't know if you needed to come in, you know. I was just being nice. They stuck around for maybe 10, 15 more minutes. I actually did snap a picture of them walking away because I wanted to send it to their dad to say hey this is what's going on. Because I'm at home alone.

a. "standing outside" analysis
b. "staying outside" analysis

a. "standing outside":

They were not "outside", but they were "standing."  This is a body posture that indicates lack of movement.  Therefore, in her mind, time is stopping with this increase of tension.  This suggests that the presence of "these" two people is now very important to her.  In her mind, time is now stopped.  What follows is critical; even if there is falsehood within the account (such as race/sex):

"standing outside" slows down the pace and now introduces language:


This is an indication of her involvement in the communication.  As we progress through the statement, pause here and enter into her verbalized perception of reality. 

"standing outside"
"talking" and
"smoking a cigarette"  

All of these observations are unnecessary. Yet for the subject, they are critical. 
She compares the time ("actually") with another time.  This is to affirm the "stopping" of time in her statement.  This suggests that there was more communication between her and them than she wishes to let on.  We are now given more insight:

a.  "so I went out there" tells us that she has a need to explain why she went out there, because she anticipates the interviewer asking her. She is pre tempting the question.  The interviewer may not have even thought of the question had she said, "I heard two people talking outside my house..."

b.  ""so I went out there to be like hey is everything okay?"

She goes on to explain, again, why she went out there. 

We now can safely know:  She went outside with them for another reason. The reason is so sensitive to her that she employs deception (two blues here). 

What was the reason?

c.  "to be hey like is everything okay?" indicates the need to be seen as a good person.

This helps answer the question, "Why did she go out there?"

We may know that she went out there for something that makes her "the bad guy"; that is, for an illegal illicit reason. 

This could be a drug purchase.  This could be worse. 

Either way, it is related to the disappearance of the child. 

The use of "like" is to avoid telling us the genuine, but to characterize instead. 

She continued:  

Do you need to come inside? Are you stranded? 

She did not say that she said these things.  This lack of verbal commitment is narrative building. 

They were just like, no and just like looked at me like I offended them or something.

The communication was intense, with "looked at me":  

 "And I said okay, I'm sorry. It's cold outside and I didn't know if you needed to come in. I was just being nice. They stuck around for maybe another 15 or 20 minutes. I actually did snap a picture of them walking away because I wanted to send it to their dad to say hey this is what's going on. Because I'm at home alone."

We now know why she keeps "thinking" about them.  As narrative "strangers" she "actually" (dependent, comparison) "did snap" a picture of them walking away.  

She anticipates being asked, "Why did you take their picture?"

She anticipated this so intensely, that she revisited the explanation even further.  The tension ("I'm sorry") is high and she was "just" (dependent, comparative) being "nice."  This tells us she is comparing her behavior with something else.  

Staying Outside 

There is a significant difference between the words.  We are not certain which she said.  

b.  "staying outside" indicate that the subject attempted to get them to come indoors (as stated) but their refusal is something that was very important to her.  Remember, she was asked a "yes or no" question only. 

Every word after the word "no" becomes critical. 

We note that in this recall, she portrays herself as the "good guy", which in analysis indicates the opposite. 

We note that she has given them a good deal of volume of words, which must be compared with:

What we know about the victim. 

What do we know about the victim from the step mother's words only?

This answer is important. 

She relates him, repeatedly to herself, via possessive pronoun. 
She changes him, linguistically, which must then be viewed in each specific context. 
She avoids using his name. 
She talks about him being bruised, avoiding all specifics, tagging "normal" (factor) which indicates to the contrary, removes herself from the equation (care for self; not victim, by sending him elsewhere) and introduces some words that likely indicate specific child abuse/neglect events, including the porch and cooking. 

Note that Neglectful parents often boast on how accomplished their children are in terms of self care that is not age appropriate. 

"I'm sorry" often finds its way into those with guilt, no matter what context it is found in. 

By them "staying outside", they did not yield to her will.  This is very important:

Her will, whatever it was, in context of Lucas being missing, was not followed.  

I am very concerned about this difference.  She anticipated being asked, "Did you take a picture of them?" which is not something an investigator or an interviewer would have thought to ask without some prompt from her.  This is how we see the high level of sensitivity in the word "because" in her statement. 

Q, Did you end up sending that picture to Jonathan?
A, Yes, I did, I did : he’s my baby boy…. he has sisters and he has brothers. He's so loved

She wanted proof of someone's presence regarding the disappearance of Lucas.

She claims ownership repeatedly in the context of this picture. Was she under some form of threat, prior to this event, where others said they were going to remove him from her custodial care? Was money involved?

Q. Now, Emily, I hope you understand I do have to ask you because of, you know, the arrest and because a lot of rumors; did you hurt Lucas?
Q. I did not. I would never hurt my son.

The follow up should have been something about the two people hurting him; this would have given her opportunity, according to her profile, to shift the blame to others. It was a missed opportunity, but it is easy to criticize the interviewer here, but he was up against "the clock"; that is, anything he says could cause her to hang up.

Q. Do you have any idea what could have happened?

poorly worded. Better, "What happened to him?" By using "any idea", he allows her to drift from what she knows; away from experiential memory and on to hypotheticals or former news stories or simply imagination. Although these can produce information from analysis, best is to use the Assumptive method: she knows what happens and has a psychological need to release it verbally.

A. Pause.. I mean, I have ideas but that ideas, I mean… ehm… I really should have spoken to you, ehm… through my attorney, but eh… I have (one thing?)

Here is the entrance of the need for an attorney. It was worth taking the chance by the interviewer, but it did produce defensive posture.

To have kept her on the phone, (I don't know if there was a time limit but there may have been), best to ask her things according to her own language. He did see her focus on self. Therefore,

"Tell me what you did for him"
"What was a typical day of caring for him like for you?" (note focus on her)
"Did anyone ever help you caring for him?" *(note avoidance of his name; we avoid using his name if she avoids using his name. We allow her to gain comfort by distancing herself from him).

"Were you his primary care taker?"
"Why didn't others help you?
"What could others have done to make things better for you?"

This slow progression of questions allows her to be exactly who she believes she is: the victim.

There may have been a 15 min time limit.
OK, yeah, is there anything else you wanna say?
I do want peop… I mean, I do want people to know my side, I’m just not there yet, you know… ehm…  ‘cause there is a huge history between Lucas’ family from New Mexico and I and all of the accusations… A majority of the time when he had gotten hurt and ended up with bruises, he wasn't under my care because I would send him off with my cousins and there's older boys over there and he's a very little, small boy and he can get hurt easily and when he's playing with older boys who are like 10 years old, even though we'd say hey Lucas be careful. We had to tell him all the time you know, be careful

Note that she did not call him "Lucas" in her Linguistic Disposition. Here we have Lucas' family and what "we" "would" say. This is not her linguistic disposition towards him, but further distancing language and blame shifting.

Here she uses a form of subtle distancing regarding the bruising. First, she shifts the bruising away from her responsibility with the needed explanation of why this is so.  Rather than saying, "he bruised at his cousins'" she gives a more lengthy explanation.  This takes extra effort which, for a 5 year old, may be unnecessary. 

Next, she switches from "I" to "we", which indicates:  she does not want to be psychologically "alone" in context of bruising.

Who is the victim?

We had to tell him all the time you know, be careful
The flow of the interview is better discerned than the edited news story. Here we find the flow, or context, to be more natural and clear.

Who is the victim in this event?

The linguistic disposition towards the victim indicates a subject in need of persuasion of her audience of being a good mother. Yet, she does not tell us anything about him of significance until this point:

We had to tell him all the time you know, be careful

We now know.

What happened to Lucas was Lucas' fault. His behavior brought this on. "We" did not tell him to be careful; we "had to tell him all the time", not just sometimes. He would not listen. This was his fault.

She is the victim and even as such, she wishes to be the victim with someone else ("we") which further tells us of her own personal responsibility in what happened to Lucas.

If Lucas had only listened to "them" ("we") then they would not have had to tell him this "all the time." This is taxing and it is to show concern for herself and the other person, and not for the victim.

Verbalized Perception of Reality

Statement Analysis recognizes that the words one uses is not reality, but the subject's own verbalized perception.

Lucas' behavior "made" her and someone else "have to" caution him. It was so often and so taxing that it was "all the time." Plus, he had to wear a pull up because he always had accidents.

The Linguistic Disposition towards the victim is Negative.

He "deserved" what befell him in the step mother's verbalized perception of reality.

We hear this in the language of child abusers...routinely.

Q. So you’re saying that all of those bruises and those things from the pictures and the accusations are all from him being a little boy and playing with other boys?

leading questions should be avoided; they allow for conclusion and to use his language. It is to directly reduce her stress.

A. Absolutely. Him and my older boys would be rough around the house and they would even get rug burn, you know, just normal boy things

"Absolutely" is persuasive and unnecessary. She continued to avoid any specific event (timing) but introduced:

"normal" which indicates anything to the contrary and

"burn" which means child protective investigators needed to check the victim's feet for cigarette burns in prior reports as well as current investigators seeking to learn if fire was used to cover a crime.

Q. Is there anything that you would want to say to Lucas if you could right now?
That I love him very much and I want him home

She loves him. She wants him home.  

How is he doing?

Q. Is there anything you want to say to the people who are saying you had something to do with this?

This is a good question and it allows for her to deny the obvious; particularly as she is in jail.
A. No, ‘cause that's on them it's not my concern

She avoids issuing a denial. She puts the burden upon "them" (this is very insightful for how to conduct the interview) and we now see that she is not concerned about them.

She is not concerned about Lucas.

She is, however, thinking a lot about "these" 2 people.

She may be banking on creating doubt by using them as a tangent.

Q. Can you tell me more about what happened that Saturday when he disappeared?

He asks for "more", instead of, "What happened when he disappeared?" It is a subtle mistake. It produces "just" below:
A. Just the fact that I took a shower and he took a nap like we always do. I put him down for a movie in his pull up because, you know, he has accidents when he sleeps so that's why he had a pull up on. Ehm… he had fallen asleep after my shower which is why I went down… I gotta go

Sexual Abuse is indicated in the language.
Possible drugging of child
She "put him down" as a 5 year old child. I believe her. This may have been a habit. It could be anything from cough syrup to illegal drugs so she could get her "shower" and "nap."

Reporter: I understand

Analysis Conclusion:

Analysis Conclusion: Deception Indicated in the disappearance of her step child, Lucas Hernandez.  She is not only deceptive, but she withholds critical information while seeking to shift blame to another.  

The language indicates both substance abuse and child abuse.  She may have drugged the victim. 

Victim Blaming

The human brain seeks to justify wrongdoing.  Child abusers (and child killers) are often skilled in the subtle blaming of the victim.  In shaken baby cases, the subject says things such as, "the baby would not finish her bottle" or "he would not stop crying" which puts the blame upon the victim's behavior. 

Emily Glass blames Lucas Hernandez.  He would not listen and he made her (and someone else) always have to tell him to be careful.  This is a very subtle justification for what befell him. 

It was his fault.  

The context is vital:  the child is "missing" and the expectation is that the parent or caretaker will show a majority of the language (priority) with what the child is going through currently.  This is something that can drive a parent crazy with worry.  Yet, the parent's focus is so acutely honed in upon the child, that the parent will neglect his or her own health, which is reflected in the language.  It is all about the child. 

Kyron Horman. 

There are some examples of this in the blog, such as the missing boy, Kyron, of which his mother's language (Desiree Young) should be compared to his step mother's, Terri Horman's language.  One indicates nothing but concern for Kyron, while the other shows guilty knowledge of his death.  

Setting:  Note the need to explain why the 5 year old wore pull ups is stated in a jail house, while the child is alleged to be missing. 

She denied "harming" him but did not deny killing him or selling him for drugs. If he was taken in a drug transaction, for example, she is not the one who "harmed" him, but the recipients did.  This is compartementalizing of guilt. This minimization is consistent with her subtle blaming of the victim. 

Sexual Abuse

 Although I need more for a definitive analysis, I believe he was likely sexually abused as was his step mother in her childhood. The explanation for this is beyond the scope of a blog entry.  Advanced Analysis Training for social workers, therapists and Sex Crimes Units goes into linguistic indicators of such, and explores it from the psycho-linguistic profile. 

The two people are very important to her and may be something she is concentrating upon for the purpose of shifting blame from herself by creating a doubt.  Even with elements of fabrication, this may be her hope as she is, indeed, giving it much thought. 

Also, the need to pull in the "father" is to be noted.  She may shift blame to him in some manner, down the road, and he is likely a source of child abuse, including exposure to domestic violence, in the child's short life. 

Psycho-linguisitc profile:

Emily Glass is a strong candidate for obtaining a confession (or admission) in an Analytical Interview. Given the correct interview and a well chosen interviewer, she could give up the information on what happened to him.  The interviewer should use her words as much as possible, and an empathetic male interviewer may prove most effective.  He should be very willing to "clear" her in any manner possible.  She wants to speak.  


In the interview, let Emily Glass  be the "victim" in the interview and pity her for all her "endless struggle" to keep him "safe."  Let the scenario of "...if only others had supported her in getting him (Lucas) to be careful..." 

Let her be the "good mom" who is misunderstood.  


The interviewer should be willing to "expose" information about a "suspicious male seen in the area" and allow her to alleviate her guilt of neglect.  She should be taken through her own childhood and the failure to protect she, herself, experienced growing up.  She should be permitted to focus on herself, and how much she sacrificed for Lucas and how she did the very best she could, with so little support from others...and so on.  

She does not present as challenging in this short phone interview. If the interviewer will allow her to separate areas of guilt in the interview, and then allow her to accept only a small area of guilt ("self medicating" instead of drug abuse) and permit her "freedom" from child abuse, she is likely to reveal what happened. 

Like the McCanns, she shows no concern over what he is going through in the present, while "missing."

She knows he is not "missing" and she knows he is beyond her care. 

Deception Detection Training.

We offer seminars for law enforcement, business, private sector, social workers, medical professionals, lawyers and all those interested in lie detection, content analysis and profiling.

Our profiling is used to identify the authors of anonymous threatening letters and emails.

Advanced Seminars available for Sex Crimes Units.

Complete Statement Analysis Course is done in your home, at your own pace, with 12 months of e support. Joint Seminars with Steve Johnson, retired detective and analyst, with hand writing analysis.


ima.grandma said...

After police Detective Ryan Schomaker read Glass her Miranda rights, the affidavit says, Glass said that around 3:30 p.m. the day before the 5-year-old disappeared, “she was cleaning then went to the garage to smoke marijuana … she said she smoked a few bowls.”

Glass said she then became hungry and drove the 1-year-old to Olive Garden for dinner, it says. She said she spent about an hour at the restaurant before driving home with the 1-year-old.

Glass “offered consent to search her phone,” the affidavit says. Records showed texts between Glass and someone identified only by initials as “JH” the same day she drove to the restaurant.

She told JH that “she was going to smoke a couple bowls of marijuana and go to Olive Garden and use the gift card JH had sent her,” the affidavit says.

In a phone interview with The Eagle on Monday — the 23rd day that his son, Lucas, has been missing — Jonathan Hernandez said: “I am standing by her until either some other information comes out or something about the case breaks. If it involves her, obviously it would be different. Obviously, my thoughts would be changing if she was implicated in any way involving Lucas.”

ima.grandma said...

Every time I read this long sentence: 
" Ehm, yes, ehm, in the past, you know, there’s been times he's being a boy and playing with older brothers and his cousins, ehm he gets bruises."

I feel like she is talking about her own older brothers as she then lists 'his cousins'. To be cousins there must be uncles also. Purely speculation, I don't know any facts as to her family or siblings.

Anonymous said...

Peter, her explanation of how & why he would get bruises & her stating that "we" would always need to tell him "be careful" made me think that he was being sexually abused. Im not really sure why. There is something that she is leaking linguistically that falls outside the range of simply physical abuse.
"Rug burn"....that leaves me very uneasy. You could be right about the cig burns. I would also worry about possible scalding with hot water or chemicals.

Buckley said...

We had to tell him all the time you know, be careful

She doesn't anticipate having to tell him this in the future, does she?

Anonymous said...

It's something about the "we had to tell him to be careful" (or he will get bruises)...they are covering up sexual abuse. Also, she says "when he got hurt AND ENDED UP WITH BRUISES" he wasnt in her care. I feel like that points to sexual abuse, like in her sick mind, "other times" he hadnt gotten as "hurt" & "ended up with bruises".
The 2 people outside. I feel like they had been IN the house, and then lingered outside, & it was making her nervous, so she tried to get them to move along or come back in so noone would see them. She sounds to me like a female pedo pimp. Probably one of the visitors raped him & killed him. It may sound racist but I know a drug rehab counselor who says that she sees lots of young Mexican women & men who are hooked on heroin from being raped when they were kids by their male adult relatives.

Anonymous said...

I feel she took a picture of the 2 outside as if to say "They were strangers. I did not know them. I didnt know why they were there!" Yeah, she knew why they were there.

Anonymous said...

The fact he was 5 and needed pull-ups could indicate sexual abuse.

His "falling asleep" is sensitive bc she repeats it multiple times. He was probably dead at that point.

He "was asleep" AFTER she got out of her shower.
I think he died from a fatal blow to the stomach area, he maybe even had diarhea from it. When she got out of shower, he was dead.
Where is he?

Why is "porch" sensitive though? Was he put outsids there on the porch in the cold as punishment? She even mentions how concerned she was about the 2 strange people outside on porch in the COLD.
How cold is it there? Did the kid freeze to death from being sent out on the porch as punishment?

When someone freezes to death, they "fall asleep".

Peter, I think the boy froze to death.

Anonymous said...

Was he forced to "STAND" outside in the cold?

She is leaking out the fate that befell the boy in her tale of the 2 strange people "STANDING" "OUTSIDE" IN THE COLD". She was so concerned though & asked them if they wanted to come in out of the cold.

She probably made the boy stay (stand) out there all night, & he got hypothermia & died. I feel very sure that is what happened.
Her "concern" for the (probably fabricated) strangers is what she knows she should have felt for the boy when she ordered him to stand outsids in the cold all night. Maybe sge even checked in him around 3 am & found he was dead, maybe put him in the shower to try to warm him up/revive him.

Anonymous said...

Here's what happened to the boy.

" I'm sorry, it's cold outside and I didn't know if you needed to come in, you know. I was just being nice"

Except that "statement" was said after the kid had died of hypothermia.

The admission of guilt is right there, as Peter pointed out "Im sorry."

Anonymous said...

"at the porch"..."Im sorry"

"Im sorry. It's cold outside & I didnt know if you needed to come in".

Anonymous said...

Why would she invite strangers into her home?

Deejay said...

If a kid is drugged to take a nap- would that child be likely to wet himself due to the drugged state? I had the same thought about her putting him outside and checking him at 3 am. But what did she do with him, poor kid. I think the two people she mentions were just nearby as she was looking for someone to blame. If they weren't walking by, then she would have found someone else. Or snapped a photo of a passing car. What is more perfect than a photo from behind, where people are tough to identify.

Anonymous said...

"Rug burn"

She mentions "rug burn" AFTER the interviewer asks her if she knows where he is.

I feel that she simply dumped his body somewhere & may have wrapped him in something--a blanket or even a RUG.

Anonymous said...

She may have put pull-ups on him because he was going to be spending the night outside.

Anonymous said...

I think this statement is odd & unnaturally phrased:

"Ehm, yes, ehm, in the past, you know, there’s been times he's being a boy"

What I immediately thought was 'Are there times when he was NOT "being a boy"? Was she dressing him like a girl sometimes & telling him "be cateful", because typically parents say that to little girls if they try to do boy things "be careful"!!! If they try to climb a tree etc "Be careful". Typically people do not say that to their sons.

This may explain him wearing pull-ups also.

Anonymous said...

She repeats "boy" "baby boy" "boy stuff" over & over & over---a lot of sensitivity surrounding the word "boy" when used in reference to the missing kid.

ima.grandma said...

Priority addressing rumors in her defense
A.  Ehm, yes, ehm, in the past, you know, there’s been times he's being a boy and playing with older brothers and his cousins, ehm he gets bruises. He has had some falls… ehm… falls, you know, it could be there or at the porch ehm……. (pause), I’m sorry, ?...

A.  He’s my son too, you know. I may not have given birth to him, but he's my baby boy… (pause)… I take care of him every day, you know, ehm, I ? 

I have an uneasy "Carmel Chamberlain" vibe, especially with all this talk about the porch. I wonder how many times she has asserted this same retort to Lucas' father, particularly in parenting and discipline conflicts. She seems to be the primary caregiver since he works out of town.  After all, (in her mind) she already has two boys, she knows how boys should be raised, particularly if she often compares them. She has a lot of responsibility on her shoulders and she seems to have no coping skills except for the 'green' . I have an opinion on another substance.

She resents and denies the rumors placing Lucas' NM family at the center of the controversy. Primarily, she blames Lucas for the rumors. It was his fault in the first place; if only he had been tougher and more careful. He could have kept up with the the older boys and learned to defend himself, then he wouldn't get so bruised. Perhaps she was teaching him how to be a tough boy, a big boy, a little man. I agree with someone else who mentioned a possible punch in the stomach.  

I don't know how many boys are included in the family group of cousins and brothers, but logically you can say two brothers and at least two cousins plus Lucas making five. Experimentally, I can tell you, it's never a good dynamic to have an odd number. Especially when they are unsupervised, which she somewhat implies. Given Lucas's shy personality, he was probably odd man out. Boys those ages, usually need a target when misbehaving, especially if they were able to get a rise out of him. No wonder he had rough-housing marks on his body. She thought he ought to be able to take care of himself! Neglect is abuse, in it's most common form.

LuciaD said...

I think pot figures into many, many cases of child neglect. So many see it as benign, but it isn't. . Those who use it regularly (and from what I know those who like pot tend to REALLY like it) smoke all their natural anxiety away. And normal levels of anxiety help people make good decisions. Imagine having no anxiety? How could you care about anything? Even your children.

ima.grandma said...

Ditto Lucia. Ambition is nonexistent with stoners. Mantra becomes "yeah well, who cares?"

Anonymous said...

Change in language.

"My son"
"Baby boy"

ima.grandma said...

Yes she does Anon. Good catch.
Change in language.

"My son"
"Baby boy"

Originating post:
She relates him, repeatedly to herself, via possessive pronoun. 
She changes him, linguistically, which must then be viewed in each specific context. 

Opening reference: "he's being a boy"
Here she uses the article: "a"
Peter teaches about using articles in lieu of pronouns. I'm drawing a blank right now. What do you think?

Anonymous said...

Off Topic: I recently read "Ted Bundy: Interview with a Killer" which is hindreds of pages of Ted talking to 2 investigators about how "the killer" (who did the crimes that Ted was accised of doing) thinks, and even goes through each case asking Ted about the change in the killer's M.O. , what Ted thinks the killer did during each killing. The transcription even indicates when Ted coughs or clears his throat, and Ted never once accidently says "I" or "my" instead of "he" "him" "his" when talking about the killer.
What entered my mind is is there some possibility Bundy could have been like "Dexter" & was actually tracking the real serial killer?
I have listened to Bundy talk also about how to catch the Green River killer, and I do believe Ted Bundy was somewhat of a genius in terms of getting inside the mind of another, engineering escapes, etc. In some interviews he speaks of himself almost as if he is a superhero.
Could Bundy have been "tracking" the reap killer?

Anonymous said...

I haven't read it all. (Time)
Was there a change in realty to warrant a
change in language?

Deejay said...

Bundy was a smart sociopath. He did those murders.
He probably prided himself on his ability to lie.
All sociopaths think before they speak. It is normal for them.

ima.grandma said...

I found this in my notes.
Principle: Indefinite aticles (a, an) are demonstrative determiners that refer to nouns relating to space or time.
I'll revisit OP.

ima.grandma said...

A.  Ehm, yes, ehm, in the past, you know, there’s been times he's being a boy and playing with older brothers and his cousins, ehm he gets bruises. He has had some falls… ehm… falls, you know, it could be there or at the porch ehm……. (pause), I’m sorry, ?...

"Ehm, yes, ehm, in the past, you know, there’s been times he's being a boy"
Thought process tells us a little insight into her background: Gender biased stereotypical upbringing. She's trying to defend this distant mindset. It's not my fault, that's just what all boys do. They're boys. The nonspecific article "a" refers to any one of a type of person, place, or thing. 

A.  He’s my son too, you know. I may not have given birth to him, but he's my baby boy… (pause)… I take care of him every day, you know, ehm, I ? 

Thought process may be related to verbal guilt seeping out. She begins to take defensive possession with "my son too" as she remembers her final action resulting in Lucas' death. She switches to "my baby boy" thinking of the last time she saw his lifeless body. He looked so little, like a baby, as she wrapped his body up. I tried to take care of him. I tried to love him. I tried.


Anonymous said...

Deejay, the arhument thst Bundy was a sociopath, to me, falls short bc sociopaths do not have ANY compassion, but Ted Bundy DID feel compassion. How do you reconcile that fact with the idea that he is a psychopath. Bundy saved a drownimg boy, chased & tackled a purse snatcher...would that not also mean that he would have saved someone who was being attacked or raped? Please answer, bc I dont understand.

Anonymous said...

Her words (falls, bruises) are passive. She expects us to attribute, fill in the gaps on how he got them. She doesn't say how.
I'm not prepared to say it for her.

Anonymous said...

Ted Bundy was left-handed.

FYI; Beach killer had sling/cast on his left arm.

Chi Omega killer was seen by 2 different people carrying the heavy club (murder weapon) in his right hand.

Anonymous said...

Does a psychopath feel compassion?

Anonymous said...

I'm trying to understand your confusion about Ted Bundy. Are you saying that humans either do only all good acts or all bad acts and since you can cite two good deeds, it's illogical to accuse him of committing crimes? We live in a hyperbolic age when people are perceived as either complete angels or total devils. It's not true. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Anonymous said...


My confusion about Ted Bundy is based on many things including linguistics.
What I am simply asking is can a psychopath feel compassion? Would, for example, in your opinion, have saved someone from being attacked & raped? I want an opinion about this?

Anonymous said...

@9:48, The psychopaths I have known have never done anything heroic that has placed themselves at risk.

Anonymous said...

Please listen to this:


This "confession" given 3 days before Bundy's death is fabricated. He knows all the details of the case already. He is not drawing from experiential memory. He is drawing on what he has read.
When he switches from car to van (it is because he is mixing cases together, not because it has any relation to the van the kimberly Leach kidnapper was allegedly driving which was stolen in FLORIDA. He is talking in the clip about a case in SEATTLE.
HIs confessions remind me of the confessions of the one Memphis Three guy. The Memphis Three guy's coerced confession is based on what he knows he is supposed to confess to. Ted Bundy's confession is based on his knowledge of the cases which he has read extensively about and they are not from experiential memory and they are given under duress (threat of death in 3 days in electric chair).

Listen to this one confession about the Georgann Hawkins case in link above.

Unknown said...

Imo any act of perceived kindness by a psycho is just that perceived. Psychos only do for themselves. So if they save someone it is for themselves. Not for the person needing saving.

Anonymous said...

Saint Theresa, so you are saying Bundy would not save someone if noone would ever know about it (to make him look like a hero) and/or if it put himself at very serious risk? Please answer.

Deejay said...

I did some studying on sociopaths. They are usually big risk takers (gamblers) who have very flat emotions and do almost everything for some sort of personal gain. Their brain ct scans are so different from other human beings, it is like they are a different species. For one example, their pleasure center is wired to other people's pain, embarrassment, or humiliation. Some other parts of the brain are odd also. (I forget what exactly) When they speak to someone, they are very calculated. Because they have flat emotions they are easily bored, so they absolutely crave excitement. (although most do not commit crimes, not out of ethics, but fear of punishment) They also tend to think that they are more intelligent than others- so the others are rightfully 'prey'.

So Bundy saving a drowning kid or running after a purse-snatcher would be done, not to be nice but for the excitement. Attacking girls would be a two-fer to Bundy. First to con, kidnap, and harm the victim. Second to avoid detection. All pretty thrilling (to him) Even conning you years later, watching his tape, would be cool to him at the time.

Sociopaths are not rare- about 1 in 25, so you have met some of these people. Many work their way into upper management, because they are perfectly willing to do or say whatever it takes. The gal who takes credit for everyone else's work. The guy who tells fibs that get other people in trouble. The cousin who cleans out Grandma's house while everyone else is at the funeral. Sociopaths.

elf said...

I don't think there were any people standing outside Lucas home. I don't think she made a drug deal and I don't think she knew them. I think she went over the edge and beat Lucas to death. I think the picture was taken of two people who happened to be walking by shortly after she killed Lucas. It sounds like an alibi. I bet the picture is blurry or from far away and of course they were walking away. It reminds me of Phoebe DiPietro.

Anonymous said...

Deejay, thank you for your feedback & that makes sense that he saved the boy & got the pursesnatcher bc it was exciting.
But please answer this hypothetical question: could a psychopath do something to save another person purely out of empathizing with that person's pain & knowing that if they intervened they were not just taking a risk, they would almost definitely have severe conseqiences & would not be seen as a hero?

Anonymous said...

Deejay, please tell me what you think.

But also, and I KNOW this sounds preposterous, but linguistically, I DO detect that Bundy THINKS someone else (he expresses that some other person or persons) did the crimes. He talks in depth especially how he thinks the Chi Onega killer was a different killer. He BELIEVES that someone else did all the killings.
Separately, the one time that the investigator asked him to tell something that only the killer would know he says that (after he had knocked Georgann Hawkins out with a crow bar and she "woke up" & he was bringing her handcuffed into a wooded area that she supposedly told Ted that her friends call her "George" & she used a safety pin on her blue slacks to hold them up bc they were slightly too big. The detective says "do you know anything else only the killer would know?" And Ted's like "No."
OK, so really? How hard is it to figure out that "George" could be short for Georgann? Did they ever find a safety pin? No. In fact they never found her clothes--Ted claimed that "in a panic, he threw them out the window as he was driving away after murdering her. He then says later in the questioning when prompted that he cut her clothes up into 3-inch squares & threw them out the car window while driving away from the murder (?!?!)
My point is, linguistically, his confessions are fabricated. The beach killer (blond hair 5 foot 6 inches, cast on left arm) and Chi Omega killer (clean-shaven, dark skin, 5'8 inches, heavy club carried in right hand DONT match what Ted looks like or his keft handedness.
I read somewhere (cant remember where) that yrs and yrs after Ted had been arrested some college girl said that the night before a killing (that he was not and is not a suspect for) in the area, Ted and her were doing LSD & Ted told her that ge was psychic and that there was going to be a murder the next night. He then "hypnotized" her to try to make her forget it. The FBI went to interview her & dismissed her as a kook. But maybe she wasnt. Why would someone make that up yrs and yrs later?!
OK, so here is my crazy thought: What if he had some kind of weird psychic power, something like the guy in "The Green Mile"? Remember how that guy didnt understand why he was tge way ge was and he would wander from place to place being drawn in some way towards people who needed serious help. Remember how some mystical force brought him to the place where those 2 little girls had been raped & killed & he tries to heal them & bring them back to life but it doesnt work and instead he gets blamed for the crime & sentenced to death???
I inow it sounds very weird but why does he say before one of his jail escape that he has grown & matured & learned stuff about himself & his only misgivings is that he was afraid he wouldnt get to put it to use where he would like to...out on the streets?
In "The Green Mile" the psychic/healer guy does not make a denial either of having raped/killed the girls.. Its almost like he knows noone will believe him & he knows that that was just his fate to have weird powers that noone would understand.

Deejay said...

Sure- many sociopaths would help their family members or their especially their child. The Green Mile was a movie. There were no real superpowers.

Anonymous said...

Deejay, other freaky things: Just like in "The Green Mile", while on death row, a psychiatrist has spoken about the guards treated Trmed Bundy with deference & that the usual contempt that they had for all the other prisoners they did not have fir Ted.
Also, just like in The Green Mile, his greatest joy on death row was throwing crumbs to a mouse.
Just sayin, when you really think about it, somewhat is very weird & seemingly supernatural going on with Bundy imo.

Anonymous said...

Deejay, you dont understand.
I know the Green Mile is just a movie, but, you dont understand. You cant understand.

Habundia said...

I thought psychopaths (of sociopaths) have the ability to copycat emotions and how to react, its not because of natural feelings of them, but they have learned how to react and learned how to use emotions. So a psychopath or sociopath can show "care" but its all act and taught by themselves through contact with others, its not because they really care of others they only care about them.
At least thats what ive read about it

I will later go into this transcript when i have more time. For now i can say, this interview is really troubling. Poor child!

Anonymous said...

This woman wants people to know "her side" but she isn't "there yet"? Strange thing for someone with a missing child to say. Wouldn't "her side" be the truth? So all the talking she has done up to now is not "her side" of the story? Then what was it? And if she isn't "there yet", what needs to happen so that she can "get there"?

Anonymous said...

Habundia, you dont understand. I know psychopaths have the ability to copycat emotions & "caring" gestures. Thats not what I am talking about.

You dont understand.

ima.grandma said...

Anon has said "You dont understand. You cant understand." 

"You don't understand" is similar to "I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you"

"You can't understand" sounds like "you had to be there to get it" or "unless you've experienced it yourself" or "it takes one to know one". 

I don't understand.

To be fair, I'll start over and follow your train of thought.

Habundia said...

Thats a great response.......you dont understand.....

" but Ted Bundy DID feel compassion"
How would you know he felt compassion?
How would you know what he did feel?
If you know psychopaths and sociopaths are able to copycat emotions.....based on which theory....DID he feel compassion?
You are right......i dont understand.
I would almost think you are one of his expartners who still has difficulty to accept that he was a wolf in sheep clothing.....and you have been close with for so long not knowing what he was capable of......but i dont think that...i almost would.
I just wonder.....why the need to defend him?

ima.grandma said...

On Tuesday, KSN spoke with both Lucas' biological mother and father who say they are extremely worried and anxious for their son's return. KSN spoke with Lucas's mother first. She arrived from El Dorado on Sunday. She tells me she lost custody of Lucas when he was 6 months old. To date, she says she has not seen her son since December of 2017 and hasn't had regular contact with him in months. She is now pleading for the communities help to find her son.

"Find my son. He's terrified of water so the fact that the search has moved to a park that's surrounded by water, terrifies me. Lucas is a sweet boy; please find my son."

KSN also spoke to Lucas' father. He expressed hope for finding Lucas.

"Lucas is the sweetest, kindest, smartest most gentle little boy. He loves school, fishing, riding his bicycle and playing with his siblings. It makes me so proud to say I'm his father and that we love him very much. He's a wonderful, helpful big brother. He's never been the type to run off without asking permission to do so first. He's must be terrified being away from his family with no way of finding us. Please, if anyone in the public has information on the whereabouts of Lucas, please contact the proper authorities. We are pleading for his safe and prompt return home! We will not stop searching for him until he is found! I'd like to thank law enforcement, the public, prayer groups, friends, family, and anyone keeping an extra diligent eye out for my son, Lucas. We are all hoping and praying. We love you Bubba"

Another article: http://www.kwch.com/content/news/Lucas-Hernandez-parents-speak-about-the-search-for-their-son-475069363.html

"Lucas has grown into a respectful, compassionate, caring and adventurous brother and son," says his father, Jonathan Hernandez.

"If you ask him what he wants to be when he grows up he's always said like his daddy,"adds Jamie Orr, his mother.

Jamie and Jonathan recall the moment they learned their son was missing while under his stepmothers care.

"I don't think anybody or any parent is prepared to receive that phone call and then automatically believe it's happening. Somedays I still don't," says Jonathan.

"I had no indications this would even be a possibility for my son, my family my life. I'll probably have that question till the day that I die about it, regardless of how many answers I get," Jonathan says.

"I've been fully cooperative and I've done everything that's been asked of me and I think anybody that knows me knows the kind of person I am or the kind of father I am. I think if they did i don't think they would ever say anything about me or my family," adds Jonathan.

"Nobody knows our little boy, but to them it's their little boy and I think everybody should think like that because its never you until it happens to you," says Jonathan.

Jonathan, shares the following message for Lucas, "We're searching for you. and we're not going to stop looking for you and we do love you very much and we cant wait for you to come home."

A. Formulate your opinions developed on the above MSM statements.

B. If you're interested in the "underground" independent journalism which most likely create contaminated thoughts due to lack of legally identified documentation, please see:


C. Now, what do you think? Re-evaluate your thoughts. Do they differ from preformed perceptions? If so, what does that difference in reasoning show about "us" or "them", the  biological parents? 

Anonymous said...

I don't think Bundy did the crimes. I don't believe he's a rapist.

There are way too many things that point to him being innocent.

Anonymous said...

Deejay and others,

How does one fabricate confessions to crimes if they actually did the crimes???

If you use SA on Bundy's confessions (and keep in mind, he knows many details of the crimes from court and news stories and investigators, etc and he would read every detail of every case) you will find that the confessions are fabricated.

I even saw where one of the investigators says that TO THIS DAY it bothers him that he can't figure out whether Bundy was fabricating the confessions or was he just omitting information? Oftentimes he omits the actual "killing" part from his confessions.

Bundy made those confessions under duress (3 days from his execution and he thought he could buy himself several extra months to live.

If a person can fabricate confessions to crimes that they actually did commit, then you could just as easily say of the one guy who fabricated a confessions in the Memphis Three case, that "oh, it's true the confession is fabricated but he and the other 2 did kill the boys". That wouldn't make any sense, would it?

How can a person linguistically construct a fabricated confession that shows itself to be fabricated under the lense of SA, if, in fact, the person actually did the crime?

I absolutely understand that people think that Bundy did those murders, I understand the largely circumstantial evidence that is there which makes him look guilty, However, SA gets to the real truth, and the truth that I am finding is that Bundy fabricated all the confessions that I have heard. So what should I think? Yeah, well, he did fabricate all those confessions but he still did those crimes. OK, well then , that needs to be applied to the Memphis Three. We obviously can't use the fabricated confession in the Memphis Three case (same kind of thing where the kid knew all the details of the case--or most of them--and then strung together a fabricated confession based on what the police had told him).

I am not basing my opinions about Bundy on an inability to understand that people can be wolves in sheep's clothing. I am not struggling with the possibility that Bundy could be intelligent, good-looking and seemingly helpful and even perform "heroic" acts and be hiding an evil core. My problem is that I am not finding any satisfying linguistic evidence that Bundy did the crimes, and I have read a lot, including his very lengthy 3rd person discussion of how the killer thinks and what the nature of his dark "entity" is. Not once have I read a single sentence or heard a single sentence coming out of Bundy's mouth and felt "there it is...he did it! He killed those people!"

Anonymous said...

Plus, it just defies common sense.

Supposedly Bundy was a "highly sophisticated" organized serial killer.

Yeah, you know what "highly sophisticated" organized killers do?
They walk around on a crowded beach in broad daylight before they kill 2 women that day, returning to the beach in between kills, , wearing a cast/sling so they'll stand out even more, while giving out their real name to at least 6 people while also pointing out their vehicle
to several! By golly, I cant think of anything more sophisticated & intelligent!

That certainly doesnt sound like a frame job! It sounds like a diabolically clever serial killer!

ima.grandma said...

Anon, I appreciate your eagerness to understand and quench your valid questions. I've not read much of his words so I can't speak to an SA opinion. I have carefully read your posts and are able to only speak in general terms. Do you have a specific link in mind that you would like to share? Perhaps if the focus is on one particular transcript? We would be able to comment further.

Sociopaths are geniuses at taking reality and mixing in their own fantasies to come up with a mixture that serves their own interests best.

Anonymous said...


Here is a link of one Utah confession Bundy gave 3 days before his execution. Keep in mind, je knows all the details of the case, from court, newspapers, investogators.


The confession is fabricated.
He is not speaking from experiential memory.

You can turn on closed caption if you want to see it in print.

What I notice is extreme sensitivity surrounding Bundy trying to establish himself as the actual man he is talking about being the killer.
In other words, trying too hard to convince that "Im the one in the story!"

Lack of any details suggestive of actual experiential (no "I saw, I hesrd, I felt, I thought, I heard....nothing."

Extreme sensitivity surrounding every element of the kidnap/murder/driving away.

Passive language ie. "The Hawkins girl's head was severed".

Note where he says early on "You dont make this stuff up".

Please keep an open mind when listening, and tell me what you think.
Please keep in mind, he already knows the factual details of the case.
But note the sensitivity (indicative of deception) where he attempts to tell them what kind of injuries they might find on her remains.
Also, keep in mind, they found NOTHING.

ima.grandma said...



This dang iPad won't open a video without shutting down. It's a pain in my butt. (I'm sorry iPad, you're my friend, I take it back). Pull up these transcript links I found and see if they're what you're talking about. part one and part two. If so, let me know. Right now, we're enjoying an evening cookout. I'll have a look tomorrow. 

Anonymous said...

Yes, Ima that is exactly the confessions I was referring you to. Very cool that you found them in print.

Definitely have a look at them. And keep in mind the things that I pointed out. I'm sure I will see others when I read over it in written form as before I was only listening to the audio.


Habundia said...

I saw these transcript do not include pauses, stuttering, uhm's and ah's and things of that nature, which in SA gives more indept about the person using them.

Habundia said...

I read in august of 2011 DNA of Ted Bundy would be used to see if cases could be solved.....I wonder what came out of it

Anonymous said...

Habundia, Thats true--the pauses are so important.

Also the transcript does not include where he switches from talking
about his car and accidentally calls it a "van".
Or the point where he says he put the unconscious woman in the driver's seat and then says "I mean passenger seat".

I would be interested to hear feedback as to the possibility
of fabrication etc within the confession.

Anonymous said...

I dont think Bundy's DNA matched up with any unsolved cases, which is surprising since he has been accused of killing 100 people.

Anonymous said...

Writing a book on Bundy?

Anonymous said...

No, I just want some feedback about the "confession". Also note where he "whispers" & writes down the name of the victim even though he knows the interview is being recorded like he is trying so hard to convince the detective that he is giving him special info that noone else should hear (when he knows everyone is going to know about it).

Anonymous said...

He didnt kill Georgann Hawkins, did he?
Ive listened to that specific confession many times.
The whole confession is fabricated, isnt it? A guy who doesnt want to die in 3 days
trying desperately to convince detectives that he killed Georgann Hawkins and that he can lead them to her remains when ge actually cant bc he wasnt the one who killed her.
Thats what Im getting using SA.

Please give me YOUR opinion.

Anonymous said...

There is more to that interview: When he is pressed as to how they can find her clothes that he said he threw out his car window, he says that he cut all her clothes up into 3 inch squares (while driving) and threw those out the window.

Please what are your opinions about the confession based on SA?

Anonymous said...

Right. You won't comment with your opinion bc you know the confession is fabricated and indicates Bundy did not kill her. But you don't know what to make of that fact. So you just say nothing. Very sad lack of investigative skills going on here and failure to apply SA principles to this case.

Habundia said...

Its been said before still i am gonna say it again because it bothers me......so many anonymous people commenting, i get confussed who is saying what, i am not skilled enough in SA to identify anonymous writers lol
Just pick a name, like i did, it isnt that hard and i am sure no one knows my real idenity (if one does, i wouldnt care, unless you are a murderer lol then it would be scary)

Layla said...

OK, my name is Layla.
Please just tell me what you think of the confession in the link.
It is important.

ima.grandma said...

Layla, are you the anonymous poster @10:28 pm?

ima.grandma said...

Layla, I'm not nor have I ever been interested in Ted Bundy in any perspective, legally or psychologically. You may know the facts according to this particular confession, Bundy may know them; however I do not. I only became interested in "why" you have been so adamant in stating your opinion and begging for validation of SA principles coo-berating your conclusion. You have consistently sprinkled your OT comments intermingled with current lessons and Peter's originating posts. I became more curious in "your" efforts than I was of the mind of serial killer. 

That said, I will not be intimidated into voicing my opinion by you or anyone. Line crossed! Hidden agenda! Good luck with your endeavor.

Layla said...

Yes Ima, I am.

Please tell me, with an open mind, purely based on SA, what you think about the confession.

Im starting to think people are just playing games with me, when I am reaching out for the expertise I thought existed here on this blog amongst the commenters.

Unless it is too complex for analysis to be done on the confession.

Anonymous said...

OK, thats cool Ima. You are probably the least intelligent poster here. I dont want your opinion.

Anonymous said...

I wasnt even talking to you Ima. Someone posted the link & said they would comment after their cookout. I will just trust in my own analysis. Peter always has suggested group analysis, hence why I asked for input.

Habundia said...

@Anonymous (the one who said he didn't commit all of the murders he has 'confessed of')
Since reading into your comments it has kept me thinking about it. I did already thought he hasn't been committing all the murders the world thinks he did......i think more murders have gotten away with their murders because police kept on focussing on him.....like they often do when they are believing they have the 'right' person, when tunelvision occures. Even if they can't believe someone did all they think he did (kill over 100 persons).....even if there isn't any proof, they still hold on to it, instead of broaden their thinking, because failing to catch a killer is bad for their reputation, catching a murderer who comitted 100's of murders (or even one) give them promotions. And if it is proven the wrong person has been caught for the crime they accused (convicted) him of then it take decades to reverse and they are often to arrogant to admit their wrongdoing.

"Ted Bundy: … I won’t kid you to say it’s something I feel I’m in control of or have come to terms with, ‘cause I haven’t"

'its something I feel I'm in control of"........Could it be that he 'still' thought that as long he gave confessions of murders (even if they are not comitted by him) that he would get longer stay?
Could it be he thought that they would let him live longer because they so desperately wanted to find 'his victims' and hoped he would tell them where they could find them.(which is understandable, so loved ones of those victims can have closure) So he thought as long they don't have the bodies and believe I did it, maybe they let me live longer, if i would only give them bits and pieces (and so i have some control, which he lost when he was sent to deathrow)
It would be interesting to know how his behaviour was during his stay and if somehow was noticed if he felt 'out of controle' or tried to control the situation in which he was in.

Anonymous said...

Habundia, I feel he was giving fake confssions based on the info he had about the crimes & that is why they yielded no useful info (rather than "withholding" the info...he simply did not have the info. They would have let him live longer if he had given them useful info to find ONE skull/body they were looking for.

I am not convinced he did ANY of the murders.
The fact that at the VERY start of the killings, the killer went around telling everyone his name was "Ted" in broad daylight & indicating what his alleged vehicle looked like is something a drooling retard would not have done & has FRAME JOB written all over it. Even the Green River killer (IQ 82) said that he would show the women he killed his open wallet with his drivers license WITH HIS THUMB OVER HIS NAME on the livense. Next to his license was a picture of his son, and this was a tactic to out the prostitues at ease that he was a family man & not a killer.

I cannot with my psyche believe that Bundy was skipping around a beach telling everyone his real name & pointing to his vehicle.
I feel like you said cops focused in on him, & most likely, in doing so, missed a giant piece of the puzzle.

Anonymous said...

I mean, think of it, we have seen so many cases on here, cases in the news...is there any case you can think of where the perp gives out his real name to large numbers of people in broad daylight and indicates his vehicle to several?

I watched about 5 minutes of a made for TV movie about Bundy...2 people are talking about how the killer gave out his name "Ted" at the beach to a bunch of people and one of them comments..."couldn't be his real name...that would be too good to be true.
Well, yeah, ever heard the expression 'if something's too good to be true, it probably is'.

I am disappointed that noone is willing to actually say what they think of the confession in terms of did he actually do what he is confessing to? I am not seeing it linguistically. As well as I am seeing someone who is struggling to piece together a "story" based on a lack of experiential and factual knowledge of what hasn't been told to them about the case. Very disappointing noone feels confident enough to give an opinion.

Anonymous said...

Does he seem guilty here, or railroaded?
I would trust him, I do not get a killer vibe off him.


Anonymous said...

Who framed Bundy?

Anonymous said...

I don't know. I can't find anything online regarding anyone having any theories about that kind of thing, only one old article about if he was being framed/railroaded by cops

Something just doesn't add up.
Everything rings hollow to my ear. The stuff psychiatrists say about him. That investigators say about him. That Ann Rule says about him.

They all think they "have him figured out", and it simply rings false to me, like they actually have nothing figured out.

Ann Rule: "Of course no killer is going to give out his real name. But Ted wanted them to know he was out there, a dark figure out there." What the hell does that mean especially when those were his first alleged killings? Like he went to the beach and was like "I want the cops to know I am the dark figure Ted in the VW out there haunting them all!" It makes no sense.

It makes no sense to me Ted did the Chi Omega killings. Every theory says that he was just bottled up with rage and it exploded 2 weeks after escaping and going through all that to get down to Florida. So he waits ONE WEEK and then goes psycho after all that effort to get out of jail?! Right. And then you will hear other theories further explain "Ted just lived to kill. That's why he did it. And he was sad when he realized his life wasn't as great as he thought it would be out of prison." Oh OK. Ted Bundy talked at length about how much he loved being free. Ted Bundy went long periods of time without (allegedly) killing. I personally do not believe he went through all that painstaking long planned effort to escape the Utah prison, travelled for a week down to Florida, got a room, was playing racquetball, tried to get a job and within only ONE WEEK of being in Florida also planned a mass killing and carried it out. I just don't. Those sorority sisters had just come back from Christmas break so, who knows? Maybe it was a vengeful boyfriend or stalker of one of them?! Waited for them to come back and just struck?
To believe that Bundy did the Chi Omega killings after a week of freedom that he had worked so hard to get makes no sense. And the only explanations I've heard for it, are worse than pop psychology, they have no insight or intelligence whatsoever, just things like "he couldn;t take it anymore; he needed to kill".
I just think there are so many things that don't add up. Only explanation would be if he was demonically possessed, but I really doubt it.

Anonymous said...

Here is an article about maybe he was framed


I don't know. I think that he is a very odd person, a misfit, and one person said he said he was psychic, and maybe he was. Maybe that somehow comes into play. I don't know.

Anonymous said...

Yes, but who would frame Bundy? What do you feel/get/linguisticate about that?

Charlotte said...

Ted Bundy was a psycopath. They are able to have empathy, but no sympathy, that is what makes them dangerous.
They can understand that you are grieving for your dead cat, or for losing your job, but they do not care.

My son has asperger. He has close to no empathy, but a lot of sympathy. He can not understand why you grieve for your cat, since it is not his cat, but he can see that you are in pain, and will try to comfort you. He will not be able to connect two different things (crying and a dead cat) but he will see a human being in pain, and do what he can to make it better. However, if he sees the cat in pain, or dead, he will be heartbroken.

Of course Ted Bundy would save a drowning boy or catch a thief. He will receive gratitudes, and maybe money for doing so. Every thing they do, is calculated from what they will gain.
Bundy will understand that saving a boy will make the parents very happy, and that he may be profiting on it. He is also able to pretend to be concerned.

A job as a suicide watch will be perfect, as he revels in other people's pain and grief.
Psycopaths will always do and say what they think others will hear.

Sometimes it slips. Like in his trial, while questioning one of the officers at the scene of the Chi crime. Ted can not hide his glee, when asking the policeman to "exactly, and in details tell me what you saw at the crime scene" It is chilling to watch.

As for giving out his name, why shouldn't he? In his mind, He is superiour, he is so intelligent that he will never be caught. The girls are stupid whores, who no one will believe anyway.

Anonymous said...

Charlotte, I dont agree.
Your take on why he would give out his real name does not make sense. If he felt he was so smart & superior, he would have employed some tactics to hide his real name.

The fact of the matter is he didnt feel he was so smart. He talked at length about how when he went to law school it was "incomprehensible"
to him, and said that the other students must have had something intellectually that he dodnt. Yet the judge who sentenced him to death said he was a great lawyer & another attorney said that he was the best attorney he'd seen in 15 yrs of practice.

How do you know he had no sympathy? Ann Rule said that Bundy was very genuine & caring to the suicide callers & that he saved lives.
You say he was "reveling" in their pain? How do you know?
The only reason he was working there is bc he had to do an internship when he majored in psychology.

As far as who could have framed him, there are a few linguistic things I wonder about, but quite frankly how can I bring this discussion further when people refuse to give their opinion using SA on the confession? Its not a conversation.

Anonymous said...

Also, regarding heroism, you have some valid points.
I am wondering what would make an action truly heroic and show the "hero" actually had synpathy?
Would it be if a hero risked their own life? If they did something for which they would somehow not receive praise?
Because I do agree that Bundy's "heroic" acts could have been self-serving, but then what would make an action truly heroic & show the hero had actual sympathy for the victim?
What are your thoughts?

ima.grandma said...

Perhaps a course in manners and etiquette would assist you with inviting others into a profitable and equitable discussion.
Respect, kindness, and consideration form the basis of good manners and good citizenship. Etiquette becomes the language of manners. Rules of etiquette cover behavior in talking, acting, living, and moving; in other words, every type of interaction and every situation.
Compliments of: https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/manners-and-etiquette

Anonymous said...

Imagrandma, So crazy how youve recovered from
all your ailments & mental problems.

Im talking to Habundia & others, not you.

ima.grandma said...

SA is applicable to all originating posts, elective comments and statements contained therein.This is a public forum, graciously provided by blog owner, Peter Hyatt. Based on your anonymous (Layla's) comments alone, I suspect the following personality traits. 

Obsessive, compulsive, manipulative, tenacious, inquisitive, daring, covert
Smart, attentive, confident, persistent, creative, expressive, dreamer
Rude, argumentative, inconsiderate, opinionated, abrasive, sarcastic
Defensive, demanding, obstinate, angry, impatient, controlling, forceful
Self-righteous, lonely, selfish, blame-shifter, greedy, judgmental, closed

Motive: proving self right no matter who or what you offend, ignore or derail

Suggestion: consider phase two in communication process; open listening

Disclaimer:  My comments and contained conjecture are my opinion and my opinion only. They are based solely on statements  presented by you, my life experiences and perceptive skills I have acquired over my seventy years in this world. This is a one-time announcement to fully cover this and subsequent comments made by me.

aka: common sense

Anonymous said...

Lmao. Yawn.

Yeah duh, I asked for opinions/feedbacks, so I could LISTEN.

Youre way too self-centered to describe another person accurately. If anything, what youve written is projection of your own traits.

If Habundia/Deejay others respond I will answer. Imagrandma, go knit a sweater.

ima.grandma said...

I expected a clever response. Disappointed.

ima.grandma said...

Strike two. One more remaining. Take your best shot. Ready, set, go.

ima.grandma said...

...and strike three, you're out!

Anonymous said...

Watch the first 15 minutes of this video where the arresting officer in Utah is going through every step of his arrest of Bundy who was supposedly out "hunting" when he caught him...even though he was one of 3 cars passing one after the other through the neighborhood at 3 am after a drinking party had been broken up. Listen to the complete lie he tells when he first tells the interviewer who is asking about him finding tools and handcuffs in Bundy's car. The cop says "well, he had lost his handcuffs with Carole DaRoach" Then 10 minutes later he says that he found tools and a piece of paper with brand new handcuffs inside them in Bundy's trunk. One thing also, it was and is not unusual for people who drive VWs to have screwdrivers, tools etc in their cars...I had a friend who drove a VW in modern times and I remember him saying that they used to make the engines so you could fix any problem with a screwdriver. But just listen to the first 15 minutes as the cop lies about the handcuffs.


Anonymous said...

At 1:50 Cop says "He lost his handcuffs with DaRonch" when the guy asks him about Bundy having handcuffs in the car when he pulled him over.

Then 10 minutes later cop says he saw a "piece of paper sticking out" with brand new handcuffs inside?!?

Anonymous said...

Ima, You show you are not very perceptive in telling me "I just want to be right" about Bundy.

It is about something I am able to perceive about Bundy, something I am sure of, it is not related to an agenda.

Habundia said...

Transcript - Ted Bundy_ Rare confession tapes part 1 and 2
It's 7 pages long so decided to upload the file instead of posting 7 messages.

There is no reliable denial once.......but at the same time I don't see a 'real' confession either.......the interview isn't complete so maybe those things are in the parts that aren't in the vids. There are many cuts.
I don't think he's innocent, he has done horible things to woman.........but I am not convinced he has done all the crimes he has said he committed. He wouldn't be the first person who would confess to murders/crimes they didn't commit for whatever sick reason.

Anonymous said...

I never thought of her drugging him to make him take a nap. I thought it was odd to have a 5 year old napping in the first place and then the pull-up thing made it even weirder. What if she gave him too much of whatever she used to make him sleep? What if he stopped breathing and she didn't notice until she woke up? What if the people she saw outside were actually people that helped get rid of the body and she cooked up the story the next day? If they had drug dealers on speed dial, maybe they could find someone who would deal with disposal of evidence for a fee? So sad.