Monday, August 13, 2018

Keith Ellison Denies Domestic Violence

U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison  denied abuse allegations involving an ex-girlfriend made by her and her son publicly on social media.  

Karen Monahan' son, Austin Monahan, posted a video of Ellison assaulting his mother, screaming obscenities at her. 

Ellison declined comment but his primary opponents demanded he publicly respond. The issue was, in large, ignored by main stream media until he issued his denial. 

Is he telling the truth? 


The initial post: 

 “In the middle of 2017, I was using my moms computer trying to download something and I clicked on a file, I found over 100 text and twitters messages and video almost 2 min long that showed Keith Ellison dragging my mama off the bed by her feet, screaming  and calling her a “f—ing b—-” and telling her to get the f— out of his house.

No video was posted. 

Karen Monahan tweeted the following: “What my son said is true. Every statement he made was true.@keithellison, you know you did that to me. I have given every opportunity to get help and heal. Even now, u r willing to say my son is lying and have me continue to leak more text and info just so others will believe him.”

To claim a video, but not use it, raises concerns.  


"I did not assault Karen Monahan. Therefore, any video must be fake" is a simple reliable denial.  It begins with the pronoun "I" which means, psychologically, the subject is committing himself to the statement. 

Since the allegation is in the past, and the event is singular (given specific description and video evidence claimed), the simple use of "didn't" or "did not" is expected.  

Since Domestic Violence is specifically alleged, calling it an "assault" or anything similar, is also acceptable and expected. 


Ellison issued the following denial:

 “Karen and I were in a long-term relationship which ended in 2016, and I still care deeply for her well-being. This video does not exist because I never behaved in this way, and any characterization otherwise is false.”

His ex wife also spoke. 

When people speak, they reveal themselves; it is something we all do.  

Let's look at the denial and the support statement from his ex wife. 

Will his denial be "Reliable"; that is, statistically likely to be true?

 “Karen and I were in a long-term relationship which ended in 2016, and I still care deeply for her well-being. This video does not exist because I never behaved in this way, and any characterization otherwise is false.”

Did you notice he didn't say (or write), "I didn't assault Karen"? 

This would be simple and it would put him very high, statistically, for reliability. 

If asked, "Why should you be believed?" regarding the denial and said, "Because I told the truth" we may know: he didn't assault her. 

a.  He begins with "Karen" and not with the pronoun "I" which is a subtle distancing language where, psychologically, he is not putting himself first.  

Isn't this the way of respectful communication?  Isn't it gentlemanly and appropriate?

No.  Recall he is writing, not to tell us he was in a relationship with the accuser. 

We need to see his priority:  he is acknowledging a relationship with Karen; something he is not accused of. 

But do you notice what he says next?

b.  "The Good Guy" principle.  Before he denies assaulting her, he wants his audience to know that even though the relationship "ended", he "still" (ongoing, emphasis) cares for her well-being.  

Not that he cares for her (personal) but her "well-being."  This is particularly interesting in that not only does he have a need to be "the good guy" (indication to the contrary), but he cares for her status of safety and living, not for her, personally.  

This is indicative of a highly manipulative author.

The need to be seen as "the good person" in Statement Analysis suggests to the contrary.  

It is a form of linguistic projection.  

Recall the book tour of former Director of the FBI, James Comey.  What was his priority? 

His words reveal the need to be seen as "ethical" and righteous.  This need reveals the contrary, especially as it is repeated (sensitive) and has a need of persuasion.  The greater the guilt, the greater the need. 

Before the subject denies assaulting her, he wants his audience to know he is a "good person" who "still cares" for his ex girlfriend. 

Now to his denial:  

"I did not assault her" versus:

This video does not exist because I never behaved in this way, and any characterization otherwise is false.”

He does not deny assaulting her. 

In Statement Analysis, we have a simple rule to follow.  I have used this in court testimony when a defense attorney asks me about "lie detection."

I say, "I believe your client."  

If Keith Ellison cannot deny assaulting Karen Monahan, we cannot say it for him. 

This is why I have testified repeatedly, and in different allegations, "I interviewed your client for more than 2 hours.  I believe him.  In the interview, he did not say he did not assault the victim. I cannot say it for him." 

Instead of denying hitting, dragging or cursing her, he tells us that "this video" does not exist. 

Here is where his confidence rests.  

Yet, the non-existence of a video is something, psychologically, heavy on his mind. 

The word "this" indicates a level of closeness, while the word "that" signifies distance. 

The distance could be geographical, chronological, intellectual or emotional. This is why the word "this" is used instead of "that." 

Here, the video, which is said not to exist, is "close" to the subject. 

If it does not exist, would a specific reference be made?

"A video cannot exist" using the article "a" would be appropriate. 

Next, he has a need to tell us why such a video close to him does not exist:

"This video does not exist because I never behaved in this way, and any characterization otherwise is false.”

It is to anticipate being asked, "how do you know a video does not exist?" but not waiting for it to be asked. This need to explain "why" when no such need is evident, increases the sensitivity the subject has towards the topic. 

For Ellison, the topic is not assault, but visual proof of the assault. 

Let's look at his denial:

"A video does not exist because I did not assault Karen..." would be, even with the word "because", a strong statement. He could even add that if a video does exist, it is a fake, in any plain language. 

He does not. 

"...because I never behaved in this way..." 

He has changed the allegation of assault to "behavior", which is natural. 

"assault" is criminal but "behaved" is legally and morally neutral language. 

This tells us:  the subject has not only a need to refuse to deny the assault, he has a need to redefine the allegation

Recall the myriad of child abusers who say, "I never harmed the child" rather than, "I did not assault" in any form. 

This is an indication of guilt combined with manipulation.  He has already "ingratiated" himself to his audience portraying himself as someone so "good" that he even cares for the "well being" of an ex girlfriend. 

Did you notice how the word "this" has continued in the statement?

"this" behavior is to embrace it, closely, rather than to distance himself with "that" behavior.  

Even in the avoidance of a denial, he reveals guilt. 

The video is about a singular event; assaulting, grabbing, dragging and cursing the alleged victim.  

This should be met with the definitive "did not" or "didn't" by the subject. 

Instead, he goes to the word "never", which is to expand time to an indefinite period.  

It specifically avoids mentally locking into the allegation, which he has changed into neutral language.  

He is manipulative and highly intelligent.  This is often a necessary combination for elected officials to deceive their constituents. 

We know some things about the subject. 

The subject has issued an Unreliable Denial. 

If a video does not exist, the subject's denial is not to be seen as 
"not reliable" but "unreliable."

He has expanded the concern over the allegation. This is to introduce vagueness.

Consider this vague statement with the classification of assault as "behavior."

This is likely not his only victim.  

He has likely assaulted not only the alleged victim but others, as it is he who introduces indefinite time, which is outside the boundary of:

a.  the allegation 
b.  the length of the relationship with this alleged victim. 
c. his denial is consistent with deception by chronic abusers of women.  

The support of the ex wife is now viewed to see what her verbalized perception of reality is. 

Will she state that he did not assault his girlfriend?

Such a strong statement, in spite of not being an eye witness, is strong testimony of character.  One can issue such a statement, and be wrong, but due to intimacy, the subject believes it is not possible. 

If a loved one was accused of a crime, and you were to state, "he did not..." it would show that you do not believe it possible.  


Kim Ellison, a member of the Minneapolis School Board who at one point filed to succeed her ex-husband in Congress, issued the following statement Sunday afternoon:

“Keith and I met as teenagers when we took the same driver’s training class. We were high school sweethearts, raised our four children in north Minneapolis, and were married for 25 of the 40 years we’ve known each other. I feel I know him better than anyone else. And, yes, it is true that we ended our marriage a few years ago, it is also true he helped me with my first run for public office. We attended our daughter’s college graduation together this year, we both watched one son get sworn into office, went to our oldest son’s law school graduation, and will welcome our youngest son home as he wraps his time in the military this year. We may be divorced, but we are still a family.

“I want members of our community to know that the behavior described does not match the character of the Keith I know.

“Keith has inspired many, and I think it’s fair for people to want answers to the claims they’ve heard. I’ll be putting my faith in my experience with Keith. I hope you will respect my privacy and the privacy of my children as you decide where to put your faith.”

Do you note the length of the statement in comparison to Ellison's denial?

Here is a brief summary rather than in depth analysis.  

a.  Story telling indicates the need to portray.  She begins with a romance, not a denial.

The subject is using emotional manipulation which holds her audience in contempt as easily taken off track.  

b.  The statement begins decades ago.  An investigator should now consider that domestic violence may have been known long ago, perhaps in the form of teenaged temper.  This is where she chose to begin her support of her ex husband. 

c. She specifically dates 40 years of knowledge. This is a very lengthy introduction which often indicates a need to persuade rather than rely upon the psychological wall of truth. She specifically needs to engage romance, length of time and "the good guy" principle before she states her support. 

This is akin to the "hina clause" of "why" we should believe her opinion.  

"He did not assault her.  I have known him for 40 years..." would be stronger, as the denial is the priority, and then the buttressing of experience is given. 

Instead, she begins with not only experience, but specifically, romance. 

d.  Note the "admission" of "yes, it is true..." comes into her language where she is to be denying domestic violence. 

e.  The need to introduce children increases the need of both emotional manipulation and the need to persuade; it belies the veneer.  

f.  here, however, she reveals something critical:

“I want members of our community to know that the behavior described does not match the character of the Keith I know.

The subject divides the behavior from the character. 

This is very close to an admission. 

This is an ancient "gnostic" belief that reveals guilt.  It is commonly heard when someone says, "It is not like me to do that..." or when celebrities say, "it is not who I am", which avoids denying the activity.

The need to separate the action from the character is used in guilt. 

The ex wife knows his "behavior" (see minimization above) which we may now consider why she had the need to go all the way back to teen years. 

It is very likely that she has been assaulted by him and knows of others.  

Note that she has a need to preface with

"I want members of our community to know" rather than state it plainly. 

This is an immediate distancing from the allegation of domestic violence. 

Lastly, she returns to the need of story telling (portrayal) of how "good" Ellison is.  This is to reveal her need to persuade, including using emotional manipulation that he is "the good guy" in face of the allegation.  This is weakness compounded as she seeks to compare an assault upon a woman with his "good" works.  This is familiar language for analysts. It is akin to a thief refusing to deny the theft, instead talking about how much he has given to charity: 

“Keith has inspired many, and I think it’s fair for people to want answers to the claims they’ve heard. I’ll be putting my faith in my experience with Keith. I hope you will respect my privacy and the privacy of my children as you decide where to put your faith.

Analysis Conclusion:  Deception Indicated

Keith Ellison is unable or unwilling to deny assaulting Karen Monahan.  

He is willing to deny the existence of a video, though he is most concerned that it does exist. 

I do not know if the video exists. 

Keith Ellison is deceptive and from his wife's statement, it is likely that she was a victim of Domestic Violence and may have knowledge of other victims of Ellison. 

If a video does not exist, and the son is lying about it, the statements by both Ellison and his ex wife reveal the truth. 

Should they learn that a video does not exist, they may regret their statements.  

The need to minimize the allegation of "assault" to the morally neutral "behavior" is consistent with his Islamic beliefs in which women are permitted to be physically assaulted which is called "correction" or "discipline" by the ideology. 

The accuser indicates motives, including political narrative, victim status attention and possibly exploitation. 

This does not change the analysis.  

Given this statement and his ex wife's, if the accuser recanted, or the video be a deceptive bluff, the analysis remains the same.

We analyze for truth and deception first, and then for motive, background, experience and dominant personality traits in our pscycho-linguistic profile. 

False accusers often indicate illicit motive, but we must analyze the words for veracity and deception, before we view motive.  

For training in Deception Detection, for civilians and for law enforcement, click HERE

This training is done in your home, at your own pace and begins when you want it to begin.  You receive both the e version and print version, and it comes with the essential support:  12 months of e support for your work.  

From detecting deception to advertising discernment to interviewing for jobs to investigations;

where there is communication, there is a need to know the truth from lies. 


«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 220 of 220
Nic said...

@ Shiela, that depends on the victim. There is quite a lot of on-line resources about narcissistic abuse and going 'no contact' you can read and learn about.

Nic said...

Re the video here on the Daily Mail:

Listening to the counts, the judge says:

"The woman died as a result of the unlawful termination of the pregnancy..."

wt*!?!?! This is more than Shanann dying "just" as a result of strangulation!

Nic said...

"Count six alleges, a Class 2 felony, of unlawful termination of pregnancy in the first degree. Specifically it alleges that on or about August 13, 2018, Christopher Lee Watts, with the intent to terminate unlawfully the pregnancy of a woman, namely Shanann Watts, feloniously and unlawfully terminated the pregnancy of the woman. Further the woman died as a result of the unlawful termination of the pregnancy in violation of Colorado revised statutes 18-3.5-103. Do you understand?”

Yes sir.

begin @ 6:10

Dave said...

So, They're saying that was his motive was to terminate the pregnancy? And that explains Watts' motive for killing the 2 daughters? Wtf?!?!

Killing an adult human implies intention/motive beyond "just" terminating the pregnancy!!!

Nic said...

No, count six is in addition to the first degree murder charges of Shanann and the two girls. I think they are using a statute to charge him with murdering their unborn son.

I was wondering why they had to take the time that said they needed to confirm Shanann's remains. I don't even want to imagine what he did to her to "disguise" that it wasn't Shanann.

I read earlier today in regards to Shanann thinking CW was having an affair. She told her friend she wasn't worried because she said he "didn't have a game". That is code for he is a LOSER. It certainly speaks to why she was propping him up so much. No doubt he resented having to stay behind while she was jet setting (he probably didn't have the vacation time and they couldn't afford the leave without pay he would have had to take./speculation.) IMO, a lot of what went down was about money/status on his part and having an affair was his "retaliation" for being left behind to take care of the kids while she "had fun". This is speculation on my part. Nothing else makes sense for such an evil act.

Something else I found out today while reading about the case. CW and Shanann met on-line. So CW is very familiar with cruising on-line. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that there are on-line dating profile/s in addition to the woman he was seeing at work.

Somehow I'm doubtful they had insurance because they couldn't even afford their association dues. But I'm not doubtful that he dreamed he would be "better off" without a family to support while carrying on as a single man. I don't think murdering his family was planned. I think the nearly three hour flight delay pushed him past what he was willing "to do". So it was Shanann's fault he killed the girls. Everything after that (his lying and accusation) is immature. If Shanann had killed the girls, why tamper with the crime scene and bodies as well as KILL the murderer instead of calling 911? Obviously the defence believes in due process and a "fair trail", because why else even go along with his b.s.


Nic said...

I put fair and trial in quotes because I don't think it is fair to put the extended families through months and months of legal hearings and a trail (and/or appeal?) when it is an undeniable fact that he murdered at least Shanann and by extension the baby she was carrying. I guess "looks" are everything to CW. God forbid he look like a monster killer of four, instead of two. Not that he is out to impress anyone anymore. Or, then again, maybe in his mind's eye is.

Sheila said...

@Nic, I'm sure he killed all 4 of them...some abusers just reflexively blame (usually the abused party) for anything they do. If they run someone over intentionally with a car on the other side of the country from the abused spouse, they will still blame the abused spouse. It is like a reflex in these monsters.

Shannan saying he "had no game" does not mean he is a loser. It means that he is not smooth with the ladies, he's not a player type, it wouldn't be the easiest thing in the world for him to just walk into a bar and pick someone up. My ex used to actually say that about himself when I would talk about how not smooth he was at the beginning of our relationship...he'd jokingly say "yeah I had no game at all".

Another reason a guy could have no game is if he is GAY.

AS I've stated, I believe many men who abuse women are closeted gays. Hetero men like women, they love women, they are hungry for a woman's love, sex etc. Closeted gays are none of those things, they hate being "trapped" with a woman, they hate the kids, and they want to explode with repressed homosexual rage. A hetero guy typically feels powerful and potent to find out his wife is pregnant,,,a homosexual would not feel such a thing. He might feel disgust or rage.

Do not try to explain or understand evil because any explanation evil offers is bound to be a lie since Satan is the King of Lies. Also, no I don't believe we can understand what drives evil actions because, similarly, we don't operate in the realm of lies &destruction. Evil has destruction as it's goal, however, the "whys" are not easy to figure out and the workings of the Beast are clever and deceptive and difficult to try trace, investigate or understand. In short, we will never hear a motive that makes sense as for why Chris Watts killed his whole family and dumped 2 innocent little girls in an oil tank. Satan is the King of LIes. He will LIE about why he did what he did.

Sheila said...

He was probably just with her for the free vacays (note pic of him showing off his gay-looking muscles & tatoo on vacay)....and gee I wonder what he used $400,000 for?! Gay men have expensive tastes!!! Straight men aint gonna land you in that kind of debt!!!

Anonymous said...

Did you notice he wears his wedding ring on his right hand? That's a homosexual way of saying "monogamous" and his wife wore 1 wearing. I dont know the meaning behind that, if any.

Anonymous said...

I think based on his own words that he killed the kids after dinner time.  He exhibits extreme sensitivity around that time of day. 

"And it’s like, I mean last night, like during like at like you know when they usually eat dinner, it was just like I miss them. Like, I mean I miss the telling them like you got to eat that, like or you’re not going to get your dessert, or just, like you’re not going to get your snack, after, you know (laughs). I miss that"

That's what he misses?  That's the anecdote that comes to mind first? 
Them misbehaving at dinner time and him refusing to give them food is what he misses? "Usually" did they not eat dinner the night they were killed?

I think he killed them and put them in their beds and made it look like they were sleeping.  He mentions the monitors in his interview - I think he used the monitors to show SW they were sleeping and fine.  Maybe she never knew they were dead.

I think he killed SW as soon as she went to bed.  Again, he shows extreme sensitivity to this portion of the night.

 "I left for work early that morning, like 5:15 to 5:30, so like, she barley, I mean, she barely got, barely gotten into bed pretty much."

Barely barely barely...

CW said  "She said she was going to a friend's house with the kids and that's the last thing I heard, and that was it."

I believe him. I think that was the "emotional conversation" I think she did say that and that was the last thing she said. She said she was leaving him, taking the kids to friends house. And then he "barrel rushed" her.

I think he considered himself the better parent.  Look how he describes his children:

“There’s Celeste, - she’s just a bottle of energy - she’s called a rampage cuz she’s like, she’s jus’ always she’s, she’s got two speeds, go or she’s sleeping, and she’s always the troublemaker, she’s always the one like jumping off things, you know, and just yelling at you, and all kinds of things, and Bella, she’s the more calm, cautious, mothering - type - and - she’s - she’s more like me, she’s more calm, she’s uh - but uh, Celeste has definitely got her mom’s personality where she’s always gung-ho, ready to go.”

He says Celeste is like her mom:  rampage, troublemaker, yelling at you.

Bella is like him: calm (he says this twice...trying to persuade), cautious, mothering.  He considers himself to be the mothering one and SW to the troublemaker.

Possible sexual abuse?

The pic of the (oddly huge) doll with the face and body covered.  Were the kids reenacting something?  He talks at length about going into their rooms at night.

"I miss, I was (sigh), it was tearing me apart last night and I needed that, I needed that last night and for them, for nobody to be here last night and to go into their rooms and not, and know that I wasn’t going to turn their rain machines on and know that I wasn’t going to turn their monitor on and know I wasn’t going to kiss them to bed tonight it was, (sigh) it was, I, I, that’s why last night was just horrible."

He misses turning the rain machine (water) and monitor on?  What?  He needed that? That was tearing him apart? That's why last night was horrible? He says he "needed that" repeatedly.

He says "and for them" and corrects himself to (sort of) include SW "for nobody to be there".  Did he only miss the girls? Why?

 From the affidavit- Describing Bella as "sprawled out on her bed" is sexualized verbiage.

Nic said...

Regarding Bella being blue. I went through Shenann's FB pic feed last night. Moot point, or not. How the heck can anyone tell Bella or Celest are anything but sleeping?
Not surprising that he is lying about that detail.

About the "I needed that" speech from CW. It sounds like closure to me. Absolute finality. jmo

Nic said...

*Shanann. Geesh.

Nic said...


The screen is clearly black and white.

Willow said...

..." it was tearing me apart last night and I needed that, I needed that last night and for them, for nobody to be here last night and to go into their rooms and not, and know that I wasn’t going to turn their rain machines on and..."

He wants to be seen as a good dad and husband. He pulls it through by comparing.
He has a vivid alternative in his mind of what he could have done that night when the children and wife were not there any more.
He could have gone out to play with the boys. Somehow he felt it wasn't ok so he chose not to. It needed strength of mind to stay at the house though and he wants his audience to give him credit for it.

Sheila said...

Anon, I already pointed out many of the points that you made regarding probable sexual abuse of the girls.

One of the girls actually appears to be in physical discomfort in the announcing the pregnancy video.

There are red flags throughout Chris' language indicating probable sexual abuse.

A person does not get to the point of being able to discard his toddler's body in an oil tank without having done very violating and desecrating things to that child before.

Hopefully, they will fry him on HIGH VOLTAGE!!!! I would love to pull the switch myself!!!

Sheila said...

As for dinnertime being a sensitive time, that's an interesting observation.

It's what popped into his head.

Scary in the context of what I fear may have been happening to the girls. The sensitivity may indicate he was bribing them with desserts and snacks to manipulate them. I hope they put him through a wood shredder!!!

He may have killed them around dinnertime. Or he may have killed them all at once. I just don't know. NOthing in his language is grabbing hold of me as far as time of death of the's almost like he is being intentionally vague, hiding something, perhaps worse than we can imagine. How do we know he even killed them in the house? From his language, I am not necessarily getting that.

His tale that he saw his wife on the monitor strangling the youngest who was sprawled on the bed is bizarre. Why does he place himself in the other room looking through a monitor? Why not say that he walked into the girls' room and saw her strangling the girl? He says he goes in there and strangles the wife, so why does he place himself in the other room watching it happen through a monitor?

My gut instinct tells me that that whole part of it is a fabrication--he was not viewing anything on a monitor at that time...not the wife reviving them or checking on them. Yet it does betray something in that he must have been in the other room when something happened. It almost makes me wonder if there could have been another person in the house at some point that he looked at on the monitor in the girls room. Keep in mind, he had removed the sheets from his bed and put them on the floor. Did someone "help" him commit this atrocity? For example, earlier in the night, did someone else help him kill the girls? Someone who may have been abusing the girls also (another man)? He watched the girls be strangled on the monitor? And then he killed the wife later?

Linguistically, I am sensing the presence of another person at some point in that evening in that house.

Also, he "sees" someone on the doorbell monitor.

Willow said...

"Why does he place himself in the other room looking through a monitor? Why not say that he walked into the girls' room and saw her strangling the girl?"

Had he done that he could have prevented at keast one of the siblings from dying.

Willow said...

The monitor-ploy gives him time and distance. He could not help the children. He was in the other room, probably half asleep.

Sheila said...

Yes, Willow, but something is off.

He is omitting something major from his narrative.

It seems like it might be the presence of another person at some point.

I notice there is also a concerning lack of detail given by him regarding any actions, activities, moods, food eaten etc by the girls in the day or so before they disappeared. Nothing. Zip. Nada.

He does mention them not eating.

We're not getting the full outline ot even timeline of what happened from Watts.

Sheila said...

I believe the girls were killed & disposed of at a different time then the wife. Maybe on the way home from the bday party.

There are no linguistic indicators telling us that the girls were, in fact, alive and in the house in the 24 hrs before he claims they had vanished

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 220 of 220   Newer› Newest»