Thursday, April 5, 2018

Christina Garcia Statement Analyzed

California assemblywoman Christina Garcia had been the legislature’s voice of the #MeToo movement.  As we saw through the lens of Statement Analysis:  there were genuine victims and there were deceivers.  

 This subject said:  

Speak up, speak loud, and know there is a community of people who will support you,” she  said. 

She  insisted that legislators accused of sexual harassment should take an immediate leave of absence and that accusers, even if anonymous, should be believed before an investigation was complete:
No one should have to wait for an investigative article to know the truth about the kind of environment they work in. I’m working with @SEIU1000 on a bill to create a centralized mechanism to track sexual harassment complaints in state government.
Then, four people made accusations against her with the accusations including inappropriate jokes, physical groping and intoxication at the work place.  She was also accused of forcing workers to do work for her at her home, unpaid.  

They also alleged that she routinely using homophobic slurs and drank to the point of intoxication. 

Weinstein's strategies varied, but one, in particular, is noted. After being accused of sexual assault, he said he would dedicate his life to destroying the NRA.  

The analyst notes the need for tangent. This is commonly used and recently employed by Jill McCabe who likened her husband's firing by the Attorney General to denying free health care to those in need. 

The allegation and tangent appear unrelated in both above cases, which only highlights the principle in analysis of the "unnecessary
information" deemed as highly important. 

She claimed her sexual abuse accusers have a motive:  they are trying to stop her work:  
"I think this is about shutting me up. Making sure that my advocacy stops. Making sure that I don’t ensure that my community has a voice. And it’s not just shutting me up, or shutting people like me up. Whether it’s on the #MeToo movement, whether it’s on environmental justice or whatever injustices that are out there, I have been very vocal. I’m not afraid to take on fights."
Who is behind silencing the crusading assemblywoman?
"Communities that have been treated like wastelands for all my life. For the first time we’re going to start to identify those hotspots and start to change that situation. I started to bring attention to the chromium 6 issue and how that poisons us on a regular basis. What does that mean? That means that some of these businesses may be in danger. Why can’t I have some good green jobs like the rest of the communities that are out there? Why do I have to settle for shit?
 so she is being punished for her “advocacy”:
And this is about making sure I don’t have any more advocacy. That I don’t have any more voice. And it sends a message to people that I have mentored. I spend a lot of time trying to create advocates in the community. That’s my legacy. To make sure they’re told ‘if you rise up and you speak up this is going to happen you. So, sit down and don’t say anything.

here is the interview with Statement Analysis and some psycho-linguistic profiling. 

The allegations are sexual assault, sexual inappropriate jokes, anti-homosexual slurs, public intoxication and forcing employees to doing work at her home, without pay.  She did not take a leave of absence, nor claim that her accusers should be believed. 

KQED: You have been very quiet. Some would say uncharacteristically so. Tell us why you decided not to talk to the press the past few months.

This is a fair question based upon context:  she is a politician. Even if she did not have a reputation for being outspoken, the profession itself is known for such. 

Please note that truthful people are known to issue reliable denials. They say, "I did not do it" plainly, knowing that there are no consequences for such.  They are behind a "psychological wall of truth" that when present, gives the interviewer or investigator a sense of disinterest by the subject.  It means the subject did not do "it" (the allegation) and nothing said in the interview, or evidence found, can change this fact.  When accompanied by "I am telling the truth" it is more than 99% accurate. 

GARCIA: You know I've just been trying to be respectful of the investigation and the process and there's an ongoing investigation. I can't really talk about that I can't talk about personnel issues. And so I've just been sitting back letting people do their job and waiting to be cleared.

This is to distinctly avoid saying, "I didn't do it" and claim inability to speak out. 

Note first the pause of "You know" which suggests that she may not have been expecting this question.  ("You know" is a habit of speech used when the subject's awareness of the interviewer's presence, via the specific question, increases). 

She avoids issuing a denial and explains why: she is "just" trying to be "respectful."

This is the "Good Guy" principle that often indicates the contrary.  It shows she has a need to be seen in a positive light, while avoiding issuing a denial of the accusations.  It is insight into her personality.  It also is an indicator to keen investigators that suggests:  there is "more" here than, perhaps, what has been alleged. 

KQED: One of the things that came up in this investigation are the allegations against you I should say is this idea that you somehow sexually assaulted someone physically. Did you ever sexually assault anyone?

The interviewer's bias is now known.  Rather than ask her how she speaks to the allegation of sexual assault, she qualifies the allegation in a manner to indicate it is unlikely to be true.  Note the additional wording, "sexually assaulted someone physically" likely refers to one of the accusers who claimed she groped him. 

GARCIA: I've never assaulted anyone physically.

The allegation of sexual assault is singular.  The denial uses "never", which is to cover a nondescript period of time and "anyone" which avoids the specific accuser.  
She also uses parroting language, which is why investigators rely upon open ended questions;  parroting another's language reduces internal stress. 

She dropped the word "sexual" from her denial. 

The denial is Unreliable. 

KQED: Sexual or otherwise.

GARCIA: Sexual or otherwise. I try to treat everyone with dignity and respect. Similar to how I want to be treated.

a. parroting rather than entering the Free Editing Process of which she would choose her own words freely

b.  She did not say, "I treat everyone" but that she "tries" to. 

c.  Note she has revisited the "Good Guy" persuasion that she invoked before.  This, too, suggests not only to the contrary, but should cause the investigator's interest to increase and look for possible criminal behavior beyond the scope of the allegations. This is something found within the context of power, authority and politics, but is also signaled within her language. 

She has an acute need to be seen as a good person.  This need is what indicates the contrary.  

KQED: So this one gentleman says that you tried to grab his butt reached for his crotch, to be graphic about it. You never did that?

Why would a journalist word it this way?  This is not only poor, unskilled interviewing which needs training, but reveals bias.  

"You are accused of groping a male subordinate.  How do you speak to this?" would allow her to speak freely.  Instead, the interviewer allows her to parrot: 

GARCIA: Never.

The "ever" and "never" question and response is not reliable. If the context of the overall statement indicates, the analyst should go further to concluded "Unreliable." 

KQED: There's another allegation that you played or encouraged people to play spin the bottle in a hotel room. Did you ever encourage anyone to play such a game?

GARCIA: I've never encouraged anyone to play spin the bottle and I've actually never played spin the bottle myself.

The denial is unreliable but in going further, she affirms the need for investigation.  The word "actually" indicates, as a dependent word, she is thinking of at least one other game in comparison.  Not only is "never" not reliable, but she is thinking of some other form of sex game in comparison.  This is why defense attorneys insist on silence from guilty clients. 

KQED: Never in your life?

The interviewer is failing to obtain information and is failing to get the subject to speak for herself.  This is done by feeding her the denial.  

GARCIA: Never.

KQED: You're not missing much...

GARCIA: Thanks (laughter)

KQED: be perfectly honest.
One of the other things that has come up in this... These accusations against you that you are an alcoholic or that you have some type of alcohol problem. Dan Gilleon, the attorney for the people who brought the claims against you, has not only told me that he believes you have an alcohol problem, and offered photographs to suggest that you do, but he said so very publicly. How do you respond to this idea that you have an alcohol problem?

"to be perfectly honest" tells us about the interviewer's own deception in regards to the context of sex games. 

Look at the questions and answers. 

In Analytical Interviewing, the interviewer does 20% or less of the speaking with the goal of getting the subject to do as much as 90%. Remember, it is the subject who has the information; and it is obtained by asking questions; not giving out answers. 

Note the minimization of the allegations in passive voice:  "one of the other things that has come up."

The allegation of bad behavior was buttressed by the accompanying allegations that she was intoxicated and that she kept a keg of beer in her public office.  

GARCIA: First and foremost I want to be clear that alcoholism is a serious disease and we need to be working and giving support to folks who are ready to deal with that. 

Hence the greater context of a vocal politician.  What is "first and foremost" in this allegation that she has a drinking problem?  That she is a "good person" who "cares" about alcoholism.  She uses the unnecessary word "serious" to qualify the disease.  

She then moves from the pronoun "I" to the pronoun "we", immediately invoking a crowd of plurality. 

It is the allegation that she has a "drinking problem" that has caused her to:

a.  invoke the Good Guy principle 
b.  seek the psychological shelter of a crowd.  It is no different than your son or daughter coming home from school and saying, "everyone was doing it" rather than deny or take personal responsibility.  This, too, is insight into her personality traits.  

It is "first" and it is "foremost" that "we" take alcoholism seriously. This is akin to one accused of rape claiming to be an advocate for women's rights, rather than deny the allegation. 

Next, she moves closer to herself: 

It's something that is in my family as well it's personal to me. 

If indeed a disease, hereditary issues are to be considered.  

Follow her language:

Do you have a drinking problem?

1.  Alcoholism is very serious disease is the "Sermon" in statement analysis. 
2.  It is unnecessary information 
3.  She then unites with others (we)
4.  She moves it close to herself. 
5.  She then claims it to be "personal."

While avoiding a denial, she portrays herself as the moral superior, and preacher to others. 

To whom is she preaching?
In context, it is to those who do not take alcoholism seriously. 

This is where we seek the example of projected guilt.  

And so there's respect there.

She invokes "respect" again.  The topic of "respect" is very sensitive to her.  These are "folks" and they are in a very specific place in her language:

"ready to deal with that."  

The subject is speaking to you if you are listening.  This is where psychologists, therapists and counselors who are trained in Statement Analysis may provide impactful service to clients.  

Psycho-linguistic profile insight:  The subject is not ready to deal with her drinking problem. She did not need to invoke this in her "sermon" yet she confirms it by not only including it, but her choice of words:


"ready to deal with it" would be the expected, if the need to include this is accepted.  Instead, she chose the distancing word, "that."

She is not, personally (her words) ready to deal with that. 

And I'm not an alcoholic, I drink, yes.

She now tells us what she is not.  

She was not asked if she was an alcoholic.  This is vital because thus far, she has relied upon parroting, but is now finally speaking and in doing so, she is revealing a great deal of personal information in a public setting. 

She now shifts responsibility away from herself.  This is the opposite of what AA relies upon. 

In Employment Analysis, job applicants in recovery take responsibility for everything.  If not, they know, they will relapse.  If something is passive or outside of their control, they will fail.  This is why AA pushes personal responsibility acutely.  When one is a "victim" it is to remove or disengage powerful motivation as the "deck is stacked" and it is "everyone else's fault."

It is a path of failure.  

Here she moves not only towards a crowd, but shifts responsibility away: 

 There's a culture of drinking in the Capitol and I've definitely participated in that

She does not use present tense language about this participation.  Then she gives her own rebuttal: 

But I don't think that makes you an alcoholic. 

She ejected herself from the sentence.  She did not say, "I don't think (a.  rule of the negative.  b. weak assertion) that it makes "me" an alcoholic.  It is now "you" she addresses.  She is now in a very weak position and it shows in the language: 

But you know all I have to say is if I thought I was an alcoholic I would have already said that the same way I'm saying, ‘yes I drink.’

a. "but" begins the rebuttal/minimization 
b.  "all I have to say" is self censoring.  She is limiting herself on this question deliberately 
c.  "If I thought I was an alcoholic" embeds and it allows for it as a possibility (follow the language;  remember "personal" and "respect")
d.  Good Guy invoked again. It is to say that "I am such a good person that if I was an alcoholic I would have already told you so."

This is the language of addiction.  In going so far to be the "Good Guy" (3rd invocation indicates much guilt) she now has gone "too far" and must be prepared for what comes out:  

KQED: One of the things that these detractors have come out and said is that you had a keg in your office and that this keg is somehow evidence that you have a drinking problem. How do you respond to that?

"How do you respond to that?" is how questions should have been worded.  

She can either admit she has a keg of beer at her tax payer funded job and work place, or deny it.  

However, her answer gives us insight into her intellect, background and familiarity with the language of deception:  

GARCIA: I think that's a similar saying ‘Do I have beer in my fridge and so I’m am alcoholic?’ Yes I have beer in my fridge. Yes. 

a.  setting up a false dichotomy is a signal of intellect
b.  setting up a false dichotomy is a signal of practice or efficiency 
c.  Note the equation is not only set up, but answered by her in the affirmative. 
d. Note the embedded "I'm an alcoholic" 
e.  Note the need to ridicule 

At some point I've had a keg at my office. 

She admits having a keg at her office, but compartmentalizes it to the element of "time":  "at some point." 

She is not done concealing guilt.  She now calls in for the support of others: 

A lot of us do. 

And not only is everyone doing it, but it is not her fault it is the fault of the culture:  

It's part of the culture of socializing after the way business gets done. 

She conducts "business" in this manner, so it is the business fault to. 

Please note that timing was very important to her. 

Question:  Does she say this happened "after working hours"?

She does not. 

She uses "after" in an unusual manner.  This suggests a comfort level with lying, with the expectation that the listener will interpret what she has not been able to say.  

The crowd guilt issue continues, but is now met, again, with the sermonizing of the "Good Guy" as she allows for "discussion" between herself and the interviewer, of whom she sees distinctly by the pronoun "we" indicating unity and cooperation. 

I think we can have a discussion about that and discuss whether or not that's appropriate. But because you have alcohol or you are in the possession of alcohol doesn't make you an alcoholic. I think that's a really gross generalization.

KQED: The other issue that came up was that you are someone who is very intense. You're very intense to work for. You demand a lot from your employees and that you had them do things like pick up your dogs or household items that shouldn't necessarily fall under the spectrum of what it means to work for a state representative. How do you respond to that?

Note being "intense" and "demanding a lot" are positive traits in the workplace.  This is an accusation of an abuse of power.  The interviewer minimizes from the start. 

Did you make employees do personal work for you?

GARCIA: I've been honest from the beginning and I put out a public statement that I do demand a lot of my staff. I have a lot of needs in my community. We have issues with lead. We have issues with arsenic

a.  the language of a habitual liar
b.  the needs of the community are invoked
c.  "lead" is invoked
d.  "arsenic" is invoked. 

It is to say, "Did you rob the bank?" and answering, "Who will save our children?"

Recall the level of guilt the psycho-linguistic profile suggests.  This is an indication that she has concerns outside the scope of the allegations of sexual abuse, alcohol abuse and exploitation of workers. 

Here is an example of "leakage" in Statement Analysis. 

This inadvertent revelation of information is something the top analysts (psychologists, therapists, etc) are good at spotting. 

We have issues with corruption. 

Here is what is on the mind of the subject.  Investigators should now look into business transactions specifically. 

The need to be seen as the "Good Guy" is acute and extreme.  This goes  beyond the allegations. 

She is out "Harvey Weinstein'ing " Harvey Weinstein when he said he would target and make a movie and make it his life's work to destroy the NRA as a response to allegations of rape.  

How many tangents can you count?

She was asked about exploitation and has, instead, sought tangent after tangent which tells us our answer about exploitation. 

Please consider the personality type of "power sexual assaulter", "power abuser" and "power exploiter" within the language.  

We have a community that has been ignored for a long time. We have a lot of folks that need help with their Medi-Cal. They need help with the DMV, they need help with veterans issues. 

And so we are busy.

As if she is too busy to answer the question. 

As if she is united to many others who are all too busy to answer the question. 

Recent Analysis Examples 

She brought in medicaid (see Jill McCabe) and she brought in thousands of veterans. This is James Comey saying that to criticize him is to "attack" 30,000 FBI employees. 

It is an extreme need to spread out guilt and attempt to attack the accuser, rather than address the allegation. 

We also are a district that hasn't been very engaged, and so it's been my goal to help educate, empower and engage my constituents. 

Her answer is to include the entire population where she is elected.  

The entire population is not accused of sexual harassment, sexual assault, intoxication, or the use of free labor.  

And so we're out there on the grounds constantly trying to interact with my constituents, trying to make sure that they know we're here for them. 

Recall the first question asked to her.  She is known to be in the public spotlight, speaking incessantly and making incessant appearances of self promotion.  

She claimed that accusers should be believed before due process and that elected officials should take a leave of absence during the investigation. 

She is too busy serving everyone to do any of what she wanted others to do. 

This is an example of the "virtue signaling" projected guilt. 

But also that they're part of this and I need them to be engaged. And that’s how we’re going to become better leaders together.
And so it is a demanding job that I have and I try to be fair. 

This is a lengthy "sermon" that is "unnecessary information" and is used to "slow the pace of the statement" down dramatically.  This slowing of the pace indicates "deception is coming" in the answer.  We wait for it. 

I try to provide support for my staff out there. 

She is accused of exploiting staff but asserts that she is the Good Guy, who "try" to provide support for her staff "out there" (distant from self).  

The ongoing invocation of "Good Guy" heightens the need of the investigation.  

They need breaks, we give it to them. So I think that's not anything I've ever hidden.

The deception unfolds slowly.  They need 
"breaks" and she does not "think" she has "hidden" this "ever."

Our subject is hiding something that is of great concern to her.  This may prove to be financial and felonious. 

 I work hard. 

The "good guy" is now revealing more about her activities that are likely alcohol fueled...

I do a lot on a daily basis, whether it's for my district, whether it's for the women's caucus, whether it's on the policies that I'm pushing forward. 

She has been asked if she exploited labor but she is too busy fighting on behalf of women to answer.  This is insulting to women and indicates her contempt for her female constituents' intellect.  This lack of self awareness is something that has likely progressed with alcoholism. 

You know I'm not shy. 

Recall the first sentence and her silence.  

I pick fights on a regular basis to do the right thing looking for justice. And so I think that's fair. That's not a crime.

The question goes unanswered, therefore, in Statement Analysis, we say, "she has answered the question. 

She has now introduced the word "crime" among other alarming words in her statement. 

Analysis Conclusion 

Deception Indicated. 

The subject has sexually harassed and sexually abused others.  

The subject's language indicates she is an alcoholic in denial.  

The subject's language shows both a comfort and familiarity with deception. 

The subject holds her constituents in contempt.  This superiority is a dominant personality trait, exasperated by alcohol and something those who work for her likely readily identify. 

The subject is concealing greater crimes than what she has been accused of. 

It is very likely that when or if said crimes are brought to light, her defense will be alcoholism.  She takes responsibility for nothing but is smooth and easy in her shifting of blame elsewhere. 

Her need for "others" indicates acute guilt.  

For training in lie detection, we offer both seminars and at home study.  Hyatt Analysis Services 


Anonymous said...

Off topic
I thought Amanda Blackburn’s trial was to start today. Any news?

Anonymous said...

Off Topic: Peter, have you heard about the blasphemy coming from a New Testament professor at a Jesuit college in New England. The professor claimed Jesus was a "drag king" (biologically female) with "queer desires" who tacitly approved of pedophilia & had homosexual urges for his Father. The local bishop is extremely upset & the college is defending him! Do you think that Satan is trying to infiltrate & destroy Chrostianity through acadamia? I myself am DISGUSTED!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Here is an article about the blasphemy.

habundia said...

If it was found Jesus was all of would explain it all. Religion is outrageous by doesnt need a professor to explain.....its still unbelievable how it is accepted people believe in things that doesnt exists...yet if one is claiming to see things others dont see they are diagnosed with mental disease.

Bobcat said...


Are there any SA statistics related to the word "swallow"?

Anonymous said...

Is Nathan Carman leaking statements around 35:00+ of this hearing?

LuciaD said...

Alcohol in the workplace is always questionable. Her admission of having a keg in her office shows she has poor judgement at the very least. I would love to see a written statement from the employee who claims she groped him. Was there alcohol in her office that day? If she was a man she would have already been pressured out of office, and rightly so. This is going to be interesting.

Anonymous said...


DeOrr's father disputes claims in new video that he could hurt his child

@ 6:20

Jessica Deorrs Mum.

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

Anonymous said...

Habundia, There is nothing outrageous about Jesus. These corrupt members of acadamia are just tryimg to dismantle who Jesus was so that he is no longer a Savior.
The Church has always resisted what is before their very eyes in the Scriptures--that Jesus elevated women & that he had a deep spiritual bond with Mary Magdalene. It is much easier for them to attempt to dismantle his Manhood & try to make him into a pervert. Holy Cross has now ignored the bishop's chastisement & continues defending the professor. I think it would be hilarious if he tells them that they can no longer receive Communion. That is what he SHOULD DO!!!!

C5H11ONO said...

Sorry for off topic. Teen arrested. His threat:
“For who ever is reading this, I will be shooting up my high school in broward county Fl. Tomorrow afternoon at 12:00 when school starts. Round 2. J.P. Taravella HS! (I am legit, make my presence known).”

Was it a legitimate threat?

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Jews are evil and are the cause of everything evil in this world. Here's a few quick facts about Jews for you:

-Jews created feminism
-Jews own the media
-Jews start all the wars, the neo-con politicians and advisors are mostly jewish
-Jews control Hollywood
-Jews are the ones pushing for mass immigration of 3rd worlder subhumans into the West
-Jews own the global banking system
-Jews created pornography
-95% of all "terrorism" attacks worldwide are FALSE FLAG attacks that are carried out by undercover Mossad agents
-Jews created and/or control all the major social media networks such as Facebook, YouTube, Google, etc.
-Jews were the ones responsible for slavery (the ships which brought African slaves to America were owned by jews)
-Jews did 9-11 (google Masters of Deception PDF)
-Jews created the bogus science of psychiatry, which creates fake diseases like ADHD in order to justify selling billions of dollars worth of drugs like Ritalin to "treat" these fake diseases
-Jews are the ones pushing all of the pro-transexual, pro-homosexual propaganda
-Jews turned the religion of Christianity into a jew-worshipping cult that promotes Jews as the "Chosen Race"
-Jews are trying to destroy free speech (the ADL and SPLC are both run by jews)
-Jews are trying to take away our guns (Jewish politicians are leading the fight to take away our guns)
-Jews are 6 times more likely to be mentally ill than non-jews (Jews are a disease)
-the educational system is overwhelmingly run by Jews and this explains why modern universities have become communist Marxist indoctrination institutions
-Jews are 10 times more likely to be homosexual then non-jews
-Jews lied about the HOLOCAUST and claimed 6 MILLION jews were killed when in reality there were no gas chambers or death camps. The holocaust didn't happen but it should have.

Tania Cadogan said...

Off topic

Police say a Tennessee father killed his autistic five-year-old son and hid his body before reporting the child missing.

Joseph Ray Daniels, 28, was arrested on Saturday and charged with one count of criminal homicide over the disappearance of his son Joe Clyde Daniels.

The child, who had autism and was nonverbal, was reported missing to authorities on Wednesday.

Tennessee Bureau of Investigation issued an endangered child alert as multiple law enforcement agencies searched extensively for the missing boy near his home in Dickson.

Following a three-day search, authorities determined that Daniels had intentionally killed his son sometime between Tuesday night and early Wednesday morning at their home before hiding the boy's body.

Daniels allegedly admitted to killing his son, authorities say.

Police are now searching for the boy's remains.

'Though this news is profoundly disappointing, we are grateful for the volunteers who gave time and resources this week to help search for Joe Clyde,' the TBI tweeted after the father's arrest.

'That work will continue by law enforcement today, so we might provide a small degree of closure for his family and friends.'

Joe's parents had initially told police they discovered he was missing when they went to take him for school early on Wednesday.

They said they could normally find him within shouting distance of their home.

A tweet from the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation said Joe was last seen 'wearing pajamas with a skeleton print' at the family's home.

Daniels is being held in jail with his bail set at $1 million.

Tania Cadogan said...

911 call about missing Joe Daniels
the sound quality isn't great

Lemon said...

Jimmy Kimmel "apology" (non apology) to Sean Hannity, or a lesson in how NOT to apologize :)
It's a tender treat.


Trudy said...


Casey James Lawhorn is on the run in Mississippi after allegedly writing a long facebook post confessing to the murder of his mother and a friend.

I think Casey James Lawhorn is dead, and his brother Chad, is the real killer. The link above is to Casey James Lawhorn's face book post in its entirety.

Consider that Casey chose to type it, rather than speak directly on camera. Please also consider the type of language Casey uses, in particular, with reference to his brother, Chad Lawhorn. Let me know what you think.

John Mc Gowan said...

Hi, Tania

From what i can make out it was like pulling teeth for the operator to get information from him

John Mc Gowan said...


What i can understand their accents are very strong.

Mum: He has never left out of the yard by his self

Man: He is smart, very smart

Reporter: Did he know the area very well?

Mom: No, someone had walked him through there Monday on both sides of the road through the trails. I don’t know if he tried to go back through the trails they took him through or what went on but my baby never left his yard. He always stayed in the yard playing.

John Mc Gowan said...

^^^^ VT (Above) of Mum and the man with her.

John Mc Gowan said...

My apologise i forgot contex to my OT.

It is day 5 in the search for Rondriez Junior Phillips

Claiborne Parish - Monday marks day five in the search for four year old Rondreiz “Junior” Phillips. Sunday, the Claiborne Parish Sheriff’s Department called an end to the public search for Rondreiz.

Sheriff Ken Bailey says the department will continue their search for the child. They are planning on sending divers to a couple of ponds Monday as a part of their continued efforts to find the child. Sheriff Bailey says the department will turn its attention to focusing on areas of interest identified during the search.

"We sincerely appreciate the publics help in the search for Jr Phillips. We have had a tremendous outpouring of support. At this time we are calling off the public search," the agency said in a press statement issued Sunday afternoon.

Philips was reportedly last seen about 11:30 a.m. Thursday in the 100 block of Howard Road, wearing a white shirt, blue jeans and black and yellow rubber boots. Sources say, the child reportedly wandered off while outside with his mother's boyfriend.

The child's mother, Shelia Phillips, who is said to have been inside the home when the child disappeared, reported the toddler missing shortly after noon, according to authorities.

Since Thursday afternoon, police and volunteers have been sifting the woods near the Phillips' mobile home off Howard Road on the edge of Lisbon.

Friday afternoon, law enforcement expanded their search just east of the residence. The search continued all day Saturday and Sunday morning

Anyone having any information as to the whereabouts of Rondreiz Cortez “Junior” Phillips should immediately contact the Claiborne Parish Sheriff’s Office at 318-927-2011, 800-810-2011 or 911 or Sgt. Stacey Pearson of the Louisiana Clearinghouse for Missing and Exploited Children/AMBER at 337-962-2605

Anonymous said...

This is the brother, Chad's, bio, which has been updated to include Caseys alleged confession to double homicideand suicide. Please note. Casey has not been found yet! wtf? It's a bit premature, don't you think?

There is something very off with this case.

PS Chad Lawton's facebook indicates that he has run to California and condolences are trickling in. To be clear. I think Chad murdered his mother, brother and friend, and also wrote the confession and suicide fb post, blaming his brother, Casey.

I think Casey's body will be found at the bottom of a lake.

Tania Cadogan said...

Yep, long pauses and mono syllabic answers. He was trying to give as little info as possibe due to his guilt

Buckley said...

John Mc Gowan said...

My OT:

A mother's plea for missing son, search continues for 4-year old

CLAIBORNE PARISH, La. (KNOE) - On Monday, KNOE's Dede Willis spent time with the family of Rondreiz "Junior" Phillips. He has been missing since April 5th. His mother, Shelia Phillips said he was playing in the yard near their home on Howard Road in Lisbon, which is in Claiborne Parish, Louisiana.


This is too painful for me. Please, don't make me suffer like this. Please, I want my baby. Please don't do this to me, please. I want my baby," Phillips said.

Hundreds of community members have been searching woods near the family's home, but Phillips said she does not believe her son is out there.

"Somebody picked my baby up out this yard; I don't care what nobody says, my baby, ain't never left up out this yard. He's never walked in no woods," she said.

Nicholas Gilbert, the step-father, said he does not believe their son wandered away from the front yard.

"Whoever picked Junior up, no matter how they feel or what's going on, just drop him off," Gilbert said.

He said the family is hurting, especially after hearing rumors he could have something to do with Junior's disappearance. Gilbert said he volunteered to take a lie detectors test and passed.

Red flag.

This is too painful for me. Please, don't make me suffer like this. Please, I want my baby. Please don't do this to me, please. I want my baby," Phillips said.


Note it's all about what she is going through, what about her son, this is not expected.


Is my baby suffering?
Is my baby being fed?
Is my baby warm?
Is my baby thirsty?
Please don't harm him, etc etc.

Also, they don"t use his name, (distancing langauge) to personalise him. This is not conclusive in it's self that they (Mom or stepdad are involved in his disappearance) but it does concerns me that she doesn't mention (in this brief clip anyway) anything about his welfare.

Also, why are they adament that someone took him?
For what reason have they jumped to this conclusion?
How do they know he never wondered off and slipped and had an accident?

Why not say, please help me/us find my son Rondreiz "Junior" he has been "missing" since xyz.

habundia said...

Somebody picked my baby up out this yard; I don't care what nobody says, my baby, ain't never left up out this yard. He's never walked in no woods," she said.

All in negative.

Not sure but thought i read he has autism?

habundia said...

If he was last seen with his stepfather, why this so called mother is defanding this person?

Hey Jude said...

I read the interview, which is even more astonishing in its entirety. The video and full transcript is at this link:

Here are just some tangents, perhaps I should have grouped more together - or divided them further, as in making ‘educate, empower and engage’ three rather than one…either way, a lot? I gave up the attempt after thirty-six, as it became increasingly apparent that almost everything Cristina Garcia said was a tangent. :-D


In response to “How do you respond to this idea that you have an alcohol problem?”

I try to treat everyone with dignity and respect.
alcoholism is a serious disease
we need to be working and giving support to folks who are ready to deal with that.
It’s something that is in my family as well….
And so there’s respect there.

(I left out ‘”it’s personal to me”, as that might be an admission rather than a tangent?)

In response to :

‘”You demand a lot from your employees and that you had them do things like pick up your dogs or household items that shouldn’t necessarily fall under the spectrum of what it means to work for a state representative. How do you respond to that?”

I have a lot of needs in my community.
We have issues with lead.
We have issues with arsenic.
We have issues with corruption.
We have a community that has been ignored for a long time.
We have lots of folk that need help with Medi-Cal.
They need help with DMV
They need help with veterans issues.
And so we are busy.
We also are a district that hasn’t been very engaged
And so it’s been my goal to help educate, empower and engage my constituents.
And so we’re out there…trying to make sure that they know we’re here for them.
But also that they’re part of this
And I need them to be engaged,
And that’s how we’re going to become better leaders together.

it is a demanding job that I have
I try to be fair.
I try to provide support for my staff out there.
They need breaks,
we give it to them.
I think that’s not anything I’ve ever hidden.
I work hard.
I do a lot on a daily basis
Whether it’s for my district
Whether it’s for the women’s caucus,
Whether it’s on the policies that I’m pushing forward.
You know I’m not shy.
I pick fights on a regular basis
to do the right thing looking for justice.
I think that’s fair.
That’s not a crime.

She’s never hidden that her staff need breaks, and ‘we’ give it to them. Well, that would be a strange thing to hide - the interviewer didn’t ask if she hid that her staff needed and were given breaks, rather if she asked them to pick up after her dogs. I expect her staff don’t get their full entitlement to breaks - it becomes ‘we’ rather than ‘I’ when it comes to ensuring the staff have the breaks they need; she tries to support them, which is not the same as actually supporting them.

Eventually, the interviewer repeats the question - Garcia first says, ‘No.’. However, she eventually concedes that while *most years* she’s had a dog sitter “’s just those *rare moments* when my dog sitter’s not available.” when she asks her staff to take her dog (elsewhere she says she has dogs) out into the yard.

What about the years when she hasn’t had a dog sitter - can years be described as rare moments? She probably would say time flies.

Katprint said...

I have never had a keg in my office. I have never met a professional (doctor, lawyer, engineer, realtor, politician etc.) who had a keg in their office. I have been to office parties, office dinners, office lunches etc. where people consumed alcohol but nobody ever had a keg in their office nor open bottles of alcohol of any type. Her rationalizations about her keg were even weirder than her having a keg in the first place. IMO a normal person who stopped having a keg in their office would say something like, yeah, I was younger then, I'm older and wiser now, and I realized it wasn't a good idea to drink at work or to give beer to other people at work. Her whole "I drink but that doesn't mean I'm an alcoholic" runaround reminds me of all the "s/he cheated on her/his spouse but that doesn't mean s/he is the murderer" that pops up so often in murder cases.

From Indy said...

Per rtv6
Taylor’s next court appearance was scheduled for a pretrial conference on March 13 to confirm jury dates. His trial is scheduled to begin on June 25.

Nadine Lumley said...

In SA, I'm having a real hard time understanding the use of the word never. Never to me sounds like a good denial, I do not yet understand this below,,it makes no sense to me. How does never convey a period of time!!!@#$/^

The denial uses "never", which is to cover a nondescript period of time