The following is the letter that an accuser sent to Sen. Diane Feinstein. Analysis follows.
Analytical Question: Is she telling the truth? Was she sexually assaulted by Judge Kavanaugh?
July 30 2018
CONFIDENTIAL
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Dear Senator Feinstein;
I am writing with information relevant in evaluating the current nominee to the Supreme Court.
As a constituent, I expect that you will maintain this as confidential until we have further opportunity to speak.
Brett Kavanaugh physically and sexually assaulted me during high school in the early 1980's. He conducted these acts with the assistance of REDACTED.
Both were one to two years older than me and students at a local private school.
The assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and four others.
Kavanaugh physically pushed me into a bedroom as I was headed for a bathroom up a short stair well from the living room. They locked the door and played loud music precluding any successful attempt to yell for help.
Kavanaugh was on top of me while laughing with REDACTED, who periodically jumped onto Kavanaugh. They both laughed as Kavanaugh tried to disrobe me in their highly inebriated state. With Kavanaugh's hand over my mouth I feared he may inadvertently kill me.
From across the room a very drunken REDACTED said mixed words to Kavanaugh ranging from "go for it" to "stop."
At one point when REDACTED jumped onto the bed the weight on me was substantial. The pile toppled, and the two scrapped with each other. After a few attempts to get away, I was able to take this opportune moment to get up and run across to a hallway bathroom. I locked the bathroom door behind me. Both loudly stumbled down the stair well at which point other persons at the house were talking with them. I exited the bathroom, ran outside of the house and went home.
I have not knowingly seen Kavanaugh since the assault. I did see REDACTED once at the REDACTED where he was extremely uncomfortable seeing me.
I have received medical treatment regarding the assault. On July 6 I notified my local government representative to ask them how to proceed with sharing this information. It is upsetting to discuss sexual assault and its repercussions, yet I felt guilty and compelled as a citizen about the idea of not saying anything.
I am available to speak further should you wish to discuss. I am currently REDACTED and will be in REDACTED.
In confidence, REDACTED.
Analysis
Analysis
July 30 2018
CONFIDENTIAL
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Dear Senator Feinstein;
Appropriate introduction. Sense of writing etiquette associated with education.
Appropriate introduction. Sense of writing etiquette associated with education.
I am writing with information relevant in evaluating the current nominee to the Supreme Court.
Priority:
We always note where an author begins after the greeting. This is often the priority and the actual reason for the author's writing.
Priority
We let the priority unfold, word by word, for us.
Note the purpose: the author writes "with", not "about" and calls the information "relevant."
We generally see "with" between people as a signal of distance. "I went shopping with Heather" instead of "Heather and I went shopping."
The former may indicate distance due to disinterest or disagreement, while the latter shows unity.
It is interesting to note that the author appears to be distancing herself from the "information" ("with") which is coupled with the unnecessary emphasis on the information being "relevant."
Q. Would a victim of sexual assault distance herself from the information of the assault, itself?
This is unnecessary information. If the author is writing about a sexual assault, she should have no need to call her own information "relevant" unless...she has a need to.
Note that she also explains why the information is "relevant", as it is in "evaluating the current nominee to the Supreme Court.
"current nominee" is the first person to enter the statement after the recipient (Feinstein) and the author.
"Current nominee" is not "the nominee"; but "current." Here the word "current" is dependent; that is, it requires, like a "numeric", the element of time.
This tells us as her priority, distancing herself from information, there is an expectation of a future nominee.
Consider that the author's priority is having the "nominee" replaced with another.
As a constituent, I expect that you will maintain this as confidential until we have further opportunity to speak.
After the initial priority of being both "with" information and claiming the information is "relevant", the author goes back to herself with "as a constituent."
This use of identifying herself is consistent with her priority of having a successive nominee.
Did you notice how she did not write, "until you and I have further opportunity"? She wrote "we."
The author has just told us that she is united with Diane Feinstein in her priority: getting a nominee who is not "current."
The author is united with the recipient in this context.
She now gets to the accusation. We seek a linguistic commitment, even with the passage of time, that includes processing.
After the initial priority of being both "with" information and claiming the information is "relevant", the author goes back to herself with "as a constituent."
This use of identifying herself is consistent with her priority of having a successive nominee.
Did you notice how she did not write, "until you and I have further opportunity"? She wrote "we."
The author has just told us that she is united with Diane Feinstein in her priority: getting a nominee who is not "current."
The author is united with the recipient in this context.
She now gets to the accusation. We seek a linguistic commitment, even with the passage of time, that includes processing.
Brett Kavanaugh physically and sexually assaulted me during high school in the early 1980's.
a. "current nominee" is now "Brett Kavanaugh." This is without his title of judge, and it is an incomplete social introduction.
b. Linguistic Disposition: the incomplete social introduction is, in context, a negative linguistic disposition. Given the context of "nominee to the Supreme Court", the lack of title is noted.
Next, note the assault: "physically" comes before "sexually", which in the context of a sexual assault is unusual.
Note the element of time is present: "during" and "in the early 80's."
Thus far we have:
a. motive
b. weak commitment ("relevant")
c. Distance ("with")
We now add unexpected order of event and the lack of commitment to a specific date.
Being a victim of sexual assault and of many years to process, the date is expected to be "memorialized" as a life changing event. It is not an estimate within a decade.
He conducted these acts with the assistance of REDACTED.
a. "conducted" is not the language of assault. It is the language of an ongoing, methodical process. This leads us to ask, "did the subject have consensual sexual contact with the accused?"
b. "these acts" Incongruent with a sexual assault.
c. "with" between people indicates distance. Why would the author not wish to put the two assailants together?
Consider the question:
Was there some form of contact and possible humiliation perceived on the part of the author?
Both were one to two years older than me and students at a local private school.
In the author's account, we do not have one assaulted but an author perceiving herself as exploited; being that they "both" were "one to two years older than me."
The assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and four others.
Note the unnecessary emphasis upon self. If she was assaulted, she would have to have been at the locale. That it included "four others" would provide corroboration of her account.
It is interesting that she did not give the location of the sexual assault but the location as "suburban Maryland area" which is not only an estimate, but unnecessary information.
The author is not making a "linguistic commitment" to a sexual assault.
Note the unnecessary emphasis upon self. If she was assaulted, she would have to have been at the locale. That it included "four others" would provide corroboration of her account.
It is interesting that she did not give the location of the sexual assault but the location as "suburban Maryland area" which is not only an estimate, but unnecessary information.
The author is not making a "linguistic commitment" to a sexual assault.
Kavanaugh physically pushed me into a bedroom
The word "physical" is unnecessary; therefore, very important. We should ask,
"Did the author feel "pushed" in a way other than physical?" This would support the language of "older than me."
Note additional emphasis upon self.
When someone offers that the account can be corroborated, we note the "need" for it, which reduces linguistic commitment. Sexual assault is unique, personal, up close and trauma producing.
as I was headed for a bathroom up a short stair well from the living room.
Although the author refuses to date beyond a decade, and refuses to identify a location, yet here she tells us where she was "headed" while he "physically pushed" her.
This is narrative building language; what cops often call "story telling." Subjects who engage in this often believe they will be seen as credible for giving such detail. Casey Anthony invented a "nanny" to conceal her murder of her daughter and told police, "she has perfect teeth."
Narrative building, or "story telling" includes commentary:
They locked the door and played loud music precluding any successful attempt to yell for help.
We have the language that avoids saying, "I screamed "no" but they played loud music" in her sentence.
Q. Could this be from the years of processing?
A. It could.
Note, however, the need to use the word "attempt" and "successful" as a possible hina clause; or an explanation as to "why" she did not scream or yell.
In this scenario, the sentence would look like this:
They locked the door and played loud music precluding any successful attempt to yell for help.
We now see both passive voice and the potential humiliation:
Kavanaugh was on top of me while laughing with REDACTED, who periodically jumped onto Kavanaugh.
Passive voice is a psychological term of weak commitment.
a. He physically pushed me
b. He was on top of me
She did not say how he got on top of her (passivity conceals responsibility ).
Why would the author conceal the responsibility of why he was on top of her.
Note the inclusion of "while laughing" which is not "laughed", but an ongoing issue for the author.
This "while laughing" came "with" the redacted accused. (consider the LD of the author towards the redacted accused; the distancing language within the accusation of sexual assault).
We find this humiliation in many false accusations.
They both laughed as Kavanaugh tried to disrobe me in their highly inebriated state.
"tried" means attempted but failed. Ex: "I tried to tell the truth" (President Clinton)
"disrobe" is minimalist language; not the language of a sexual assault. To "disrobe" is a slowing down of a pace and of will. Sexual assault includes much stronger language; even after decades of processing, because it was an assault. Sexual assailants do not "disrobe" their victims.
"Their highly inebriated state" is not to say "they were drunk." They were in a "state" in the author's verbalized perception of reality. One should consider why the author employs this language when reporting of a personal sexual assault.
With Kavanaugh's hand over my mouth I feared he may inadvertently kill me.
She does not say how he got his hand over her mouth. She skips over time and she wants us to interpret this as something he did. Truthful victims of sexual assault tell us what happened.
This is an example of a weak commitment to an inflated statement. The author knows otherwise.
Next, we have communicative language. She has not told us that she told him "no" or screamed. She preempted this question from being asked.
We now allow the communicative language to guide us.
"My boss said to be here at 8am" uses the two way and softer communicative word, "said."
"My boss told me to be here..." uses the stronger, "told"
In sexual assault, we do not expect soft communicative language to be associated with the word, "no."
From across the room a very drunken REDACTED said mixed words to Kavanaugh ranging from "go for it" to "stop."
She uses the word "said" associated with "stop"; which is incongruent.
This may explain why she distanced herself from the 2nd accused.
At one point when REDACTED jumped onto the bed the weight on me was substantial. The pile toppled, and the two scrapped with each other.
After a few attempts to get away, I was able to take this opportune moment to get up and run across to a hallway bathroom.
The author does not commit to trying to get away. The passivity of such means she wishes to be interpreted as trying to get away, without committing to it. This is a tool used commonly in deception as direct fabrication or lying causes internal stress.
Note "I was able to take" is not, "I ran..."
Note: "...and run across" using the verb "run" reducing commitment.
"opportune moment" is consistent with both long term processing and narrative building.
Which is it?
The analyst must consider it in context, thereby combining the lack of commitment with this point.
I locked the bathroom door behind me.
This sentence would be reliable if she had not added "behind me" which points back to the accused unnecessarily. This is something done when being chased or when one is involved in the scene.
Both loudly stumbled down the stair well at which point other persons at the house were talking with them.
They are not "people" but "persons" in the author's language.
I exited the bathroom, ran outside of the house and went home.
The Rule of the Negative:
We expect the author to tell us what happened, what she said and what she saw. We do not expect her to tell us what she did not do:
I have not knowingly seen Kavanaugh since the assault.
a,. Why the need to elevate not seeing him?
b. Did she see him but not "knowingly"?
c. "the assault" is not "since he attacked me" or "since he assaulted me."
Sexual assault is deeply personal and invasive. This is lacking from the statement.
I did see REDACTED once at the REDACTED where he was extremely uncomfortable seeing me.
I have received medical treatment regarding the assault.
Note the imperfect commitment to the medical treatment. She does not tell us what was injured nor what treatment (medical) was needed.
On July 6 I notified my local government representative to ask them how to proceed with sharing this information.
It is upsetting to discuss sexual assault and its repercussions, yet I felt guilty and compelled as a citizen about the idea of not saying anything.
"I feel guilty" is to be seen in context of:
a. weak commitment
b. avoidance
c. minimization
d. distancing language.
I am available to speak further should you wish to discuss. I am currently REDACTED and will be in REDACTED.
In confidence, REDACTED.
She is "available" and given the unnecessary emphasis upon "self", we should believe her.
Analysis Conclusion
Deception Indicated
Her motive is political.
Her trigger is that they laughed at her.
She was not sexually assaulted and is manipulative. This is why she avoids giving a date, time and witnesses. Her attorney has now said it is not her responsibility to corroborate her account.
Her secondary motive is recognition.
For training in deception detection: Hyatt Analysis Services
262 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 262 of 262https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/kavanaugh-nomination-battle-like-orwells-1984/
Good read. That sums it up pretty well. Now if the Senators would read that and grow a spine, maybe Judge Kavanaugh will have a chance.
Alex
Great post, Peter!
Dr. Dannielle Blumenthal has done an extensive examination of the contents of Ms. Ford's letter and has posted her evaluation on her website.
She has determined it to be fake. She doesn't believe that a person with a doctorate degree wrote it as there are too many indicators of a third party writer who is telling a story.
http://www.dannielleblumenthal.com/2018/09/an-open-letter-to-chairman-grassley.html?m=1
Agreed! That’s pretty convincing.
III. Words or phrases that sound like the writer does not speak American English natively:
1. "Very drunken" rather than "very drunk"
2. "Mixed words" rather than "contradictory things"
3. "The two scrapped with each other" rather than "they tussled" or "they wrestled"--Americans don't say "scrapped"
4. "I was able to take this opportune moment" -- this sounds overly formal, almost British, and doesn't match the way someone would describe escaping a near-rape
5. Refers to psychotherapy as "medical treatment"
6. Signature doesn't include her title, and the return address is in the wrong place, at the bottom of the page rather than the upper right. City and state are used rather than the typical formatting of a full address -- this is how one would sign an op-ed.
7. "In Confidence" is used as a signoff rather than "Sincerely," or "Yours truly." Americans don't write that way.
8. "Mid-Atlantic" is used instead of "East Coast." Americans don't say "Mid-Atlantic."
9. "Notified my local government representative," rather than "contacted Congresswoman Eshoo"
10. Use of formal words like "exited" rather than "left"; "inebriated" rather than "drunk"; "disrobed"
Re missing Maddox:
“These past few days have been hell for me. I’m so broken. I’m heartbroken,” Ian, 42, of Concord, tells PEOPLE. “Every time it gets dark at night I burst into tears because I’m thinking, ‘My little boy is out there alone.’ The longer [the search is] going the harder it gets because I’m so worried. He hasn’t had anything to eat or drink.”
“These past few days have been hell for me. I’m so broken. I’m heartbroken,” Ian, 42, of Concord, tells PEOPLE.
I noted very early on (When Maddox first went missing) that the focus was on Dad himself. (I was very upset)
No we are 3+ days in we see the focus is on him again which is not expected. In the latter from the paragraph above, however, he shifts focus (which is a good thing) towards what Maddox maybe going through, albeit it comes across as an after thought given the amount of words dedicated to himself.
Ian says he and his friend were walking with Maddox near the lake when the playful boy took off running behind a jogger. It’s common for Maddox to run around, so Ian allowed the boy to jog ahead for fun, he says. But when Maddox began running faster, Ian says he took off after him and wasn’t able to catch up with his son before losing sight of the boy.
“I was terrified. I didn’t know which direction he went so I looked as hard as I could, I went different ways and everything,” the grieving father tells PEOPLE. “I tried to find him. I don’t know where he went. Usually when he takes off running he’ll slow down and stop for me to catch up with him. This time he never stopped.”
He doubles down on what he doesn't know ("Which direction/"where he went") increasing the sensitivity. He then has a need to explain (so) where no explanation should be needed. We would expect him to "hard" (whatever that means) and everything (again, whatever that means)
Ian says park staff helped him search the area before calling police. He contacted Maddox’s mother, Carrie Ritch, who was “hysterical” when he broke the news.
Why didn't he alert the relevant authorities himself. He has the information. It is to delay contact with 911 and help for Maddox.
“I was thinking he was lost in the woods, now I’m not so sure,” Ian tells PEOPLE. “They’ve been looking for days and haven’t found anything. I’m starting to worry. It’s been too long. They had so many search and rescue [teams] that they should have found him by now.”
This is subtle demeaning towards "search and rescue" [teams]. Expected when they haven't found his son, this is a plus.
In the days since the incident, Ian says he’s been overcome with guilt, adding that feeling at fault has only added to his heartache.
“People are making it out like I did something to him. I would never hurt my little boy. I love him to death and I just want him back. I’ve been feeling the blame since this happened. I just wish I would have caught him before he got too far away from me. It’s broken my heart to think that I just let him get too far away.”
Do we have an embedded admission.
“People are making it out like I did something to him.
He doesn't say people are saying, quoting them, but, ""making out" like hid did something. If he was quoting or parroting then it would not be an embedded admission.
I would never hurt my little boy.
This is not to say did not/didn't.
"I love him to death and I just want him back".
This concerns me. To use language like this when your son is missing is not expected. Even if it is a well know phrase or saying its still concerning.
There are some positives in his statement but a lot of negatives also.
This may change if we knew what and if he was answering questions, or it was said in the free editing stage.
Mother pleads for return of missing 6-year-old
Carrie Ritch, the mother of a missing North Carolina boy with autism, pleaded for information on the whereabouts of her six-year-old son.
VT
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2018/09/25/missing-boy-autism-north-carolina-mother-sot-vpx.wsoc
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2018/09/25/missing-boy-autism-north-carolina-mother-sot-vpx.wsoc
“I just wanna thank each and every person who has reached out to me about Maddox wanting to help find him. I would appreciate it if you were at the park Saturday and saw Maddox to please - urgently - please, call the tip line, please. Continue praying for him because I just want my baby home - please - whatever you can do. Maddox is my whole world and my reason for living. He’s Momma’s boy. Maddox loves the park, he loves bouncy balls, and he loves his teddy bear. His smile is so contagious and his laughter is so precious. If you think that you have seen Maddox please reach out to police. Thank you all for your love and support and I just want to say I want my baby back in my arms.”
Carrie Ritch, mother of missing six year old, Maddox
GASTONIA, N.C. - For the first time, we are hearing from 6-year-old Maddox Ritch's father Ian Ritch in an exclusive interview with Good Morning America.
DAY 5: Father of missing boy opens up in interview with Good Morning America
We just received this nearly 15-minute interview in the last hour. We are going through the rest of it right now.
We will bring you more of Ritch's words throughout Eyewitness News Daybreak.
Ian Ritch and a friend were with Maddox last Saturday at Rankin Lake Park in Gastonia when Ian said Maddox decided to take off and got too far away from him.
"We were walking on a track around the lake. He just decided to take off from me and I let him go a little bit because he likes running so I didn't think nothing of it. He just got a little too far away from me before I could catch up to him," Ian Ritch said.
Ian said he started to panic as soon as it got to the point where he could not see Maddox anymore.
"I'd love to let you see the difference between him running and you running 'cause he's pretty fast," Ian Ritch said. It's hard, I'm so worried, and scared hoping that he's OK out there."
Search crews patroled overnight on foot and on ATVs to continue the search for Maddox, authorities said in a news release Tuesday night.
Rankin Lake Park remains closed to the public.
Several tips were called into authorities after investigators held a news conference earlier in the day.
Although the community is not allowed to help with search efforts at the park, several people gathered at a nearby parking lot Tuesday night to hold a vigil.
“A lot of us are running off little sleep, no appetites, because it doesn't make sense,” resident Ashley Dolby said.
About 30 people were there, who felt connected to the boy.
“All we can do is pray,” resident Kara Smart said. “Keep hope alive and let police do their job.”
The FBI has announced a $10,000 reward for information that can help investigators find Maddox.
Officials said they want to speak with a professional photographer who was in the park taking pictures of three children wearing Dr. Seuss costumes. They said he may have inadvertently captured clues they need.
https://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/boy-with-special-needs-missing-from-gastonia-park/839491236
Bobcat,
Thank you for posting about Laura Knoblach.
What a story, I surely wish her well.
Up to now we have no mention of the second adult that was with Maddox and his Father (allegedly)
It's unknown why, whomever it is, their identity has not been disclosed.
OT
In the Maddox Ritch case, and re: the father not making the 911 call
The father Ian was with an adult friend when Maddox went missing, so there is a second witness.
Police are reportedly searching for the jogger who they say Maddox went running after and a professional photographer who was in the park that day.
"Ian called park rangers, who helped him search for Maddox. When they couldn’t find him quickly, they called 911. Authorities have been searching for the boy ever since."
https://heavy.com/news/2018/09/maddox-ritch/
The father does seem to express concern for him, whether he is cold, where he is sleeping, what he is eating,
"“Every time it gets dark at night I burst into tears because I’m thinking, ‘My little boy is out there alone.’ The longer [the search is] going the harder it gets because I’m so worried. He hasn’t had anything to eat or drink.”
Ian
Maddox is autistic and nonverbal.
I have a high functioning daughter on the spectrum. We have always had a special loud noise we know how to make if we are ever separated in the woods. We have used it many times, just to call to each other. When younger, she also carried a whistle.
I have experience with nonverbal autistic kids, some are like unruly toddlers, and are very hard to communicate with and control.
It does not look good for little Maddox, unfortunately he has still not been located.
RE
Maddox
Yes, John, this is true about second person, we just know it was an adult.
My friend on FB has just alerted me to this.
One of Ritch’s parents and two other adults were walking on the back side of the lake at the park when Maddox took off running and got out of their sight, police told Fox 46. When the group of adults wasn’t quickly able to locate the boy, they called 911.
So there were 3 adults and Maddox out run all three.
Also was there multiple 911 calls?
^^
Link
https://nypost.com/2018/09/25/fbi-offers-10k-reward-in-hunt-for-missing-boy-with-autism/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
Here’s about four minutes of the full fourteen minute interview - I’ll do the rest later if no-one does it in he meantime. I have shortened the interviewer’s questions as she rambled somewhat. The interviewer has evidently spent some time with the father before the interviewer - she is repeating back an earlier conversation.
———-
IR: It’s hard. i’m so worried and scared. Hoping that he’s okay out there. I just want him to hurry up and come home.
Interviewer: You said the nights are the worst.
IR: Yes, once it gets dark, I know he's out there alone, and afraid, and scared, and it just hurts me in the heart to know that he - he’s out there and he’s not at home.
Interviewer: Tell me about the first day, the second day, the third day, what's been going on in your mind,
IR: Well, I - I’ve been in shock because I thought after the first night he would’ve been found, and they just keep looking and looking. I mean there's lots of people out there who are looking and I appreciate what they’re all doing but i’m just starting to worry, it”s taking longer and longer
Interviewer: Tell me about Maddox - he’s just a special boy.
IR: Yes, he’s - [sighs] so sweet, kind, he’s always smiling, always happy - and he’s - smart, very intelligent, and he just - he enjoys playing, having a good time. I mean, he doesn't- he’s always happy to see everybody, he’s a good kid - and I miss him.
Interviewer: Tell me a little bit - he likes hide and seek.
IR: Yes, he likes hide and seek. He likes running, he likes playing, he has all kinds of balls he enjoys playing with - toys.
Interviewer: But he also is pretty fearless - give me a couple of examples. there’s one you just had very recently - he does like to hide - serious hiding.
IR: Yes, I had him over my parents house. We went over there, we were sitting on the front porch, he went down and got up under their building at the side of their house, trying to hide under the front porch, I can’t even see him at first, I had to look real hard to find him and pull him out of there.
Interviewer: You’re a very caring dad.
IR: Yes - very.
Interviewer: It sounds like he’s your little buddy.
IR: Yes, he’s my little buddy.
Interviewer: You have a special bond.
IR: Yes.
Interviewer: How so?
IR: I, I, enjoy spending time with him - I love taking him everywhere with me - like we really have a good time together.
Interviewer: You mention that he’s fearless. How could that play into all of this?
IR: Well, he can keep going and going, so. You know, I mean I don't think he would be too afraid to be out there. Once it starts to get dark it makes me worried about him being out there alone.
Interviewer: He’s a tough little kid and you say he's not necessarily non-verbal. What do you mean by that?
IR: He’s non-verbal to strangers. At home he's a totally different story. He’s talking all the time. I’ve been trying to teach him new words , like I get him to read - he’ll read like the boxes food comes in - he’ll read the boxes - he reads all kinds of things all the time.
Interviewer: So he is very smart.
IR: Yes.
Interviewer: Okay, tell me about that day. He wanted to run, he wanted to play - it was his first time in this park, right?
IR: Right.
Interviewer: Okay. So you and he - was he starting to play hide and seek, or was he just wanting to run in the woods - what?
IR: He was just - we were walking on a track around the lake - and he just, decided to just take off from me and I let him go a little bit because he just likes running. So I didn't think nothing of it and he just got a little too far away from me, so I couldn’t catch up to him.
Interviewer: People say you’re a grown dad and he’s a child, but it’s not always the case
IR: Right. Right.
Interviewer: How so, what do you say to people who go, gee, why couldn't you catch up?
IR: I’d like to tell them, hey i’d love to let you see the difference between him running and you running ‘cause he-he’s pretty fast.
Interviewer: You were running yourself as hard as you could, but he just got away - but he’s done this before. What was different?
IR: Usually he runs in front of me and he’ll slow down or stop to let me catch up with him but this time he just didn’t do it.
Interviewer: And he surprised you - then what happened? Then you were searching. How long till you realised -
IR: uh, it was as soon as I got to the point where I couldn’t see him anymore that made me panicky because usually I can find him wherever he’s at but I just couldn’t see him anywhere so that’s when I started panicking.
Interviewer: What was going on in your mind?
IR: I was worried about where my little boy was.
Interviewer: Did you think it would be four days?
IR: No. Actually after this first day I thought they would’ve found him.
Thanks, Hey Jude
Full interview.
VT
Duration 14:31
https://www.wsoctv.com/video?videoId=841556505&videoVersion=1.0
Correction. - Last sentence - it is 'the first day' rather than 'this first day'
---
You're welcome, John., The father does lots of vigorous head shaking. :-/
I have looked at some of the father’s statements in the disappearance of little Maddox (source: www.people.com). Below, I have set out some comments and questions (everything strictly my own opinion). I have tried to phrase my thoughts as cautiously as possible.
PART I
“These past few days have been HELL FOR ME. I’m so broken. I’m heartbroken,” Ian, 42, of Concord, tells PEOPLE. “Every time it gets dark at night I burst into tears because I’m thinking, ‘MY LITTLE BOY IS OUT THERE alone.’ THE LONGER [THE SEARCH IS] GOING THE HARDER IT GETS because I’m so worried. HE HASN’T HAD ANYTHING TO EAT OR DRINK.”
Comments/questions:
In this statement, the focus of the father seems to be primarily on his own feelings and not on his son’s. Towards the end, the father starts to focus on his son. However, he does not say that he wonders where his son could be or how his son is doing or what on earth could have happened to him. Instead he seems to have some answers. He thinks his “little boy is out there alone”. Why is that? Wouldn’t a logical scenario be that someone snatched his son away in an inattentive moment (at least in the father’s story, i.e.: his son vanished into thin air during a walk near a lake). In that case his son would NOT be alone. And in that case, his son may very well have been given something to eat or drink. Yet the father tells us that hasn’t happened. How does he know? Also: why does he say that it gets harder the longer the search is going on? Does he not want people to search for his son?
Ian says he and his friend were walking with Maddox near the lake when the PLAYful BOY TOOK OFF running behind a JOGGER. It’s common for Maddox to run around, so Ian ALLOWED THE BOY TO JOG AHEAD FOR FUN, he says. But when MADDOX BEGAN running FASTER, Ian says HE TOOK OFF after him and WASN’T ABLE TO CATCH up with his son before LOSING sight of THE BOY.
The father states that he lost sight of his running 6 year-old son (who wore an orange t-shirt) because he wasn’t able to keep up with him. Unless the father is physically disabled and/or his vision is impaired, this scenario seems hard to believe. If the father’s scenario is not truthful, something else must have happened that caused the son to disappear. In every lie, there is some truth. In fact, people who try to hide the truth often confess between the lines of their statements out of a deep subconscious need to tell the truth. Here, the father may unknowingly give us details about the actual activity that caused his son to disappear. I think the activity was “playful” and “for fun”. I think it was a game that was “common for Maddox”. The activity involved a “jogger” and the son was also “jogging”. In fact the father allowed the son to “jog ahead for fun”. As a result of the activity the son “took off” and the father also “took off” (expression used twice in the above statement). Could this expression be a synonym for dying and/or were father and son “taking” something “off”? At one point the activity was going “faster”. So fast that the father couldn’t “catch up” with the son. What does this mean? Did the father fail to physically catch his son? Did the boy fall? Or was the boy unable to “catch” his breath? Did he choke? After the inability to “catch up”, the father was “losing” sight of the boy. “Losing” may be a subconscious indication that the boy lost his life and the father lost his son.
Note: the father only mentions that his friend was walking with him and his son near the lake. The friend is not mentioned in the activities that led to the disappearance of the son (the father consistently says “I” instead of “we”). The friend doesn’t seem to have had a role in it. Therefore, the question also rises if the disappearance of the son occurred near the lake at all.
Autumn
What happened and what happened next.?
No leading questions
No loaded questions
No putting words into his mouth.
Just let him talk, he has the information
PART II
“I WAS TERRIFIED. I didn’t know which direction he went so I looked AS HARD AS I COULD, I went different ways and everything,” the grieving father tells PEOPLE. “I tried to find him. I don’t know where he went. USUALLY when he TAKES OFF running HE’LL SLOW DOWN AND STOP for me TO CATCH up with him. THIS TIME HE NEVER STOPPED.”
In this statement the father re-emphasizes the activity that caused his son to disappear. He gives some additional details (apart from the fact that the activity was “usual(…)” and involved “taking off”). First of all, the activity usually involved both the father and the son. Second of all, the activity had an element of velocity that usually ended well because someone (either father or son) “slow[ed] down and stop[ped]”. This time the activity never stopped so that the “catching” part (see comments under previous statement) could not take place.
“I was thinking HE WAS lost IN THE WOODS, now I’M not so SURE,” Ian tells PEOPLE. “THEY’VE BEEN LOOKING FOR DAYS AND HAVEN’T FOUND ANYTHING. I’M STARTING TO WORRY. It’s been too long. They had so many search and rescue [teams] that THEY SHOULD HAVE FOUND HIM BY NOW.”
Here, the father says that he is “starting to worry” after they’ve been looking for days. Why is he only “starting” to worry several days after the disappearance of his son? And what exactly is worrying him? Is it the fact that they haven’t found “anything” or the fact that the search and rescue efforts are so extensive? Why does the father say “they haven’t found ANYTHING”? Is he telling us they are looking for a “thing” rather than a living human being? Of course he may simply mean that they have found no indication of his son (shoes/clothing/etc). What does the father mean when he says: “they should have found him by now”? Does he mean: if my son was lost in the woods they should have found him by now? Or does he mean: they should have found him by now because he is “out there”?
In the days since the incident, IAN SAYS HE’S BEEN OVERCOME WITH GUILT, adding that FEELING AT FAULT has only added to his heartache.
This speaks for itself: the father feels very guilty and responsible for the incident.
“People are making it out like I DID SOMETHING TO HIM. I would never HURT MY LITTLE BOY. I love him TO DEATH and I just want him back. I’VE BEEN FEELING THE BLAME SINCE THIS HAPPENED. I JUST wish I would have caught him before he GOt TOO FAR away from me. It’s broken my heart to think that I JUST let him GET TOO FAR away.”
Does this paragraph contain a hidden confession (read the words in bold, capital letters)? Is the father telling us between the lines that he did something that hurt his son and that – although it was (in the father’s eyes) a loving act – led to his son’s death? Of course that’s not what the father says literally. However, if he indeed killed his son, his subconscious/inner moral compass would bring this message to the surface one way or the other (read through the denial). In any case, the father feels very guilty. Interestingly, he uses the words “get/got too far away” twice. My question is: WHO went too far? Was it the son or did the father go too far (thus letting his son slip away). If the father indeed caused his son to die, I don’t think he meant to kill him.
Finally, the father’s denial is not reliable pursuant to statement analysis principles. The second principle of a reliable denial is violated: the father avoids the past tense verb “did not” or didn’t” but instead uses “never”. I note that in this case the father does not seem to respond to a specific allegation. Therefore it’s in itself not surprising that his denial is vague. At the same time, by saying he would never “harm” his little boy, the father leaves open the possibility that he killed his son. “Harm” is open to interpretation.
Autumn
I lifted this from Fox Carolina News FB. Now, not available
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2020114548011643...
Manage
written by Dad, i think the day after he went missing. I can't confirm precisely as the page has been removed, to me anyway.
The below quote comes after someone has written "prayers going up"
"Yes i'm crushed already. If he is found and his Mom will still let me keep him he will be on a leash.
I hate the thought of that but if it keeps him safe then that's what we gotta do".
Did something fall on Maddox?
Was he in the way of a car?
What does he mean by "If he is found"?
he will be on a leash
Is he blaming Maddox.
....
In the full interview @ 13:25 he praises LE, The FBI, SAR et al. Although they have failed to locate Maddox.
VT interview
https://www.wsoctv.com/video?videoId=841556505&videoVersion=1.0
I hope he is not involved and that Maddox is found safe and well.
911 TAPES RELEASED: The call for help after #MaddoxRitch went missing Saturday afternoon just released by Gastonia Police. A Rankin Lake Park employee made the call. This is the first 1:50 of the call. Gaps of silence have been edited out. #FindMaddox
Note the delay in getting information from the caller. It should have been his dad calling
Vital time is being wasted
The caller initially says hes been missing for 30/40 minits then says its almost an hour now
https://twitter.com/FountainFox46/status/1044954600607043586
Latest from the Dad
Ian Scott Ritch
1 hr ·
I just want everyone to know the 2 interviews i have done was just to get the word out about Maddox. I want anyone with any kind of information about my sweet precious boy to please come forward and please call the tip line 704-869-1075. We need everyones help to get Maddox back home. I dont care how small u think it is please please call. It has been too long already and we need him back home. I just want to hold him. Also just so u know i never recieved a dime for interviews. I just want to get the message out. We need everyones help to make it happen. I love my son with all my heart and i need him to be back home with his family. I am begging everyone to please pray and help get Maddox home. And to all the law enforcement and FBI and the search and rescue people out there looking for Maddox i want to say thank u everything that u do and everything u have done to find Maddox is truly appreciated. We all just want to get him back home. Both his mother and i are worried sick. We need him back with us as soon as possible. So to everyone out there please please help us get him home!
https://www.facebook.com/ian.ritch1
SA principles are all over his statements, yet, why do i get the feeling he isn't involved.
John Mcgowan said:
SA principles are all over his statements, yet, why do i get the feeling he isn't involved
Perhaps the father really isn't involved. I have some questions (as set out in previous posts) when looking at his statements in the PEOPLE magazine article , but perhaps that article doesn't give a full or entirely accurate overview of everything the father said. At the very least some parts of his statements seem to have been paraphrased by PEOPLE magazine. Also, as I understand it, an unreliable denial does not necessarily mean guilt. It just means that we cannot rely on the denial.
Anyway, I too hope the father isn't involved and the boy will be found alive. I feel sorry for the parents.
Oh, and one last thing. I have now also read that the dad actually told the police that his son ran off while he and the other adult were NOT looking. That seems a much more credible scenario than loosing sight of the boy while running after him. Maybe the dad was ashamed at first to admit that he didn't pay attention to his son?
Autumn
New
‘We just interviewed Ian Ritch, father of missing 6yo #MaddoxRitch.
Ian told us Maddox out ran him at a park in Dallas, N.C, on Saturday after Ian says Maddox took off running after a jogger. Ian claims to have taken & passed 2 lie detector tests. More from him on @CBSEveningNews’
David Begnaud on Twitter
*video/interview at link
If the dad were involved, it would be hard to get one person to back up his story about Maddox's disappearance, let alone two.
(if there were in fact two adults with him, reports vary.)
I do not question that a kid could get away and disappear, but it seems that it would not have been the first time for this to happen if he often takes Maddox for walks, a kid can disappear momentarily very easily in the woods.
Quoting Autumn
"Note: the father only mentions that his friend was walking with him and his son near the lake. The friend is not mentioned in the activities that led to the disappearance of the son (the father consistently says “I” instead of “we”). The friend doesn’t seem to have had a role in it. Therefore, the question also rises if the disappearance of the son occurred near the lake at all. "
Interesting observation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENhtElu91IE
Report says Ian was with his girlfriend, no mention of a second adult with him.
FBI says of them " We feel very confident that a lot the information they have provided to us is accurate and it has helped us a great deal."
Transcript continued - interview: Ian Ritch father of Maddox Ritch
Interviewer: How have you been spending your time?
IR: A lot of crying, a lot of praying, and a lot of looking myself. I - they won’t let us into the park or the surrounding area of the park - there’s people out there even looking from the community looking around out there to make sure they don’t - that he didn’t get out of the park, and even when they’re not searching.
Interviewer: But you’ve kind of gone out on your own.
IR: Yes.
Interviewer: What have you been doing?
IR: I’ve been going out, going up and down those roads looking.
Interviewer: And what’s it like at night for you?
IR: It’s - that’s the hardest because I’m worried about him being out there alone in the dark. [long pause]. But - I mean, the police, the FBI, they’re doing all they can do - they're pushing all this manpower to get him back home safe - and I appreciate what everyone’s doing.
Interviewer: And you said earlier you carry a little bit of guilt as any parent would. Tell me about that.
IR: I just feel like I should’ve called him - i should’ve not let him get so far ahead of me before I started after him. That’s what upsets me.
Interviewer: You said at night it’s hard to sleep.
IR: Yeah. It’s been hard to sleep. I feel, I feel guilty because I can go into a house and lay down on a bed and my little boy might be out there in the woods sleeping on the ground. That - very, very upsetting.
Interviewer: Do you think he has some skills that might get him through, or do you worry about that?
IR: I worry about that - because, I mean it’s been days since he’s had anything to eat or drink. I don’t know if he has the ability to do it on his own. He’s always had someone there to help him.
Interviewer: You two are quite bonded, and close. Do you spend a lot of time, do you do a lot of care giving?
IR: Oh yeah, oh yeah.
Interviewer: You’re a very involved dad?
IR: As much as I can.
Interviewer: What’s your favourite thing to do with him?
IR: I - I like taking him out. I like letting him go out, like, we go to parks all the time. I take him to a park so he can be outside playing.
Interviewer: And it’s not like you weren’t watching him?
IR: No.
Interviewer: But the police also- you’re pretty much following what they say
IR: Right.
Interviewer: that you haven’t been
IR: Right.
Interviewer: on the scene.
IR: Right.
Interviewer: Well, tell me what you did today.
IR: Uh, today I went back out with some FBI agents. We did a walk around the park. I was showing them everything that went on - how everything went the night - the day it happened.
Interviewer: And you and Carrie - the boy’s mom - you’re together on this. You both have the same common goal.
IR: Yes, we just both want Maddox back home.
Interviewer: You would’ve been at the press conference today but you were out there.
IR: Yes.
Interviewer: So, um, how do you keep going - what’s the hope? You carry with you a hope - what is that hope?
IR: I hope and pray every day that he comes home, and I’ll just keep it going until they let us know otherwise. Just waiting on the phone to ring.
Interviewer: And you said you think about him being out [inaudible, a few words] - what replays in your mind, what are some of your favourite thoughts to keep that hope?
IR: Just seeing him in the floor playing with his toys in front of me - us going out, riding together in the car, going places. I mean, I just like getting him out.
Interviewer: You sound like you really, really love him.
IR: Yes, I do, very much.
Interviewer: There’s no reason to believe anybody would be doing anything - what do you think this is ultimately a case of? A little boy running away, right? You do not think it’s anything else - this is just
IR: That’s what I’m hoping.
Interviewer: As a parent, and you hear parents say, how did the child get away - all parents know how possible this is
IR: Yes.
Interviewer: and what would you say - words of advice to parents, as far as if your child is a little out - you know, run harder, or something like that. What, if you had it to do over again, obviously you know what you know [interviewer laughs]
IR: Yes
Interviewer: but you didn’t really do anything wrong - what, looking back on that day, what would you’ve, you know, have done differently?
IR: I wouldn’t have let him get so far away from me.
Interviewer: Could you see him?
IR: I could see him until a certain point - he got out of my - my view, and that’s whenever I never seen him again - that was the last time I seen him.
Interviewer: And what was he - was he running and laughing?
IR: Oh yeah, yeah, he was running and laughing all the time.
Interviewer: If he heard your voice - they’re using voices - do you think that would
IR: Right. Yes, uh, that was - as soon as they offered the option I jumped right on it.
Interviewer: How - is there anything people can do
IR: I just keep
Interviewer: to help you?
IR: Just keep hoping and praying. Let the authorities do their job until they say otherwise. And then, after that - hopefully we’ll have him back home.
Interviewer: And you’re not in any way, shape or form - you’re going to be doing what during these hours until the incident
IR: I’m going to be doing all I can do to make sure I get him back home.
Interviewer: You’re going to be out there?
IR: I’m going to be out there. Searching. Waiting - hoping. praying. Everything I can do to just get my little boy back.
Interviewer: Above all, what’s in your mind when you envision finding him? What are you hoping?
IR: I’m hoping to find him and give him a big ole hug. Be telling him I love him a whole lot.
Interviewer: And that’s a great deal.
IR: Yes.
Interviewer: Anything else you want to get across?
IR: I just want to let everyone know that I appreciate all the hopes and prayers from the public and all the hard work that all the FBI, the Gastonia Police - everybody - the state - everybody's doing a good job and I’m thankful they’re out there searching, trying to find my little boy.
Interviewer: And unfortunately you're finding out that social media can be cruel, and that shouldn’t be happening in this case.
IR: Right.
Interviewer: How are you handling that?
IR: It’s hard, you know - whenever you’re looking on there, and everybody looks at you as a monster, like you’ve done something and I’ve not done anything. Worst thing I did was let my boy get too far away from me - and I’ve regretted that since the moment it’s happened. If I could go back and change that I definitely would.
END
If the dad were involved, it would be hard to get one person to back up his story about Maddox's disappearance, let alone two.
Agreed it’s hard. But:
The Kunz camping group?
The Tapas seven?
How many covered up Ayla Reynold’s death?
To add, I’m not saying I believe Dad is guilty in this case.
IR: Uh, today I went back out with some FBI agents. We did a walk around the park. I was showing them everything that went on - how everything went the night - the day it happened.
Hmm
Press Conference - Maddox father and FBI.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZqMGxDDo2E
Ian Ritch said he has taken and passed two polygraphs.
Mystery as to the friend - female friend - a girl friend - my girlfriend, who was being questioned by investigators while he gave his interview.
Maddox' mother didn't express concern for her son's welfare, which is unexpected considering he's lost outdoors for days - but it was the father, and girlfriend, who had care of him when he went missing.
-----
Ian Ritch said he "would" have Maddox on weekends - past tense, but as the interviewer put the question in the past tense, he responded in pas tense?
Other ooccurrence of past tense - Maddox "was" going to school at - rather than he goes to school at - but it could be he is no longer enrolled at that school, or the father considers his son is no longer alive after all this time.
Those are in this interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0EdSCxj9vE
He stayed in past tense when recounting what happened on the trail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0EdSCxj9vE
“Yesterday we [Ian Ritch and FBI agents] went back to the lake and retraced the steps of everything that happened.” - that’s not to say Maddox’ steps were retraced.
“Once I saw him start to really take off running I took the stuff out of my pockets and handed it to her [his girlfriend] to hold for me, and I took off running after him.”
What was in his pockets? Why did he stop to empty his pockets rather than just run? Why does he include that detail?
——
I haven’t compared all his accounts for consistency in the detail yet. It’s curious that there may have been a third adult o or is it a mistake that there were three?
“Once I saw him start to really take off running I took the stuff out of my pockets and handed it to her [his girlfriend] to hold for me, and I took off running after him.”
The interviewer missed a trick here. You should have had him explain what "The stuff" is.
Would you care what was in your pockets? This is extraneous information, unnecessary. Yet its on his mind. Why? It's important to him, again, why?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0EdSCxj9vE
Buckley,
I get your point about collusion, but here Ian says that he has been with current girlfriend "a few months" why would she lie for him? Unless she was involved, I just thought of that.
And the slip on "night" you noted, If something happened at night, that would change everything,
quoting Hey Jude:
"What was in his pockets? Why did he stop to empty his pockets rather than just run? Why does he include that detail? "
Yes indeed, this is the first time with the pocket detail, that sounds kind of off, embellishment?
In one instance I saw he told interviewer afterwards that he had neuropathy and could not run fast, but did not mention that previously while relating account.
We will have to see if other details are forthcoming. There is lot of footage; he has been interviewed quite a bit.
Since the police have the girlfriend separated, they should get to the bottom of it, how sophisticated can they be, if they are guilty it will come out in inconsistencies in their stories. Maddox cannot have just disappeared.
In any case they still haven't found him, this is heartbreaking.
Q and A press conference Father answers questions
begin @ 1:39
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=283772792235222&id=10919507477&_rdr
LE re dad
"Alot of the information is accurate"
What about what isn't accurate.?
It's not funny at all to fabricate lies about sexual assault for whatever purpose.
I think she hoped the guy would face the consequences and she would stay anonymous without having to go into details.
These woman make it hard for real victims who deal with the consequences of the abuse they went through in daily life.....
I don't like this.
.....
From dads fb
8hrs ago
Everyone please pray that Maddox is sleeping and safe where ever he is and please pray that he will be home soon!!!! M A D D O X I love u buddy!!!!!
911 caller now says he thinks Maddox was never at park. :(
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6215209/Park-worker-called-911-says-father-missing-autistic-boy-didnt-act-like-concerned-parent.html
Maddox's body has been found.
"(...). And yet, after several days of considering the matter carefully, she said"
This happened in the 80s....yet she needs days to think about what happened?
If it was an 'assault'or "sexual misconduct"....one wouldn't have needed days to think about what had happened she would have repeated the situation in her mind already for years. It would have been carved in her brains and it wouldn't have took days to 'remember' what exactly happened. If it was a life changing experience she would have know every detail....she wouldntbhave needed days to come up with her 'memory'
Would details also be vague if something did happen.....? Or would one be certain if indeed nothing like that ever occured
because one knows they would not do an thing like that?
lake....water?
I would think they have searched the lake?
Why not analyze Kavanaugh? There are a whole lot of “never”s in his statements as well as his inability to clearly deny. He also could not bring himself to say “I do not want an fbi investigation”. The senator doing that questioning picked up on it and kept saying “what do you want?” And Kavanaugh could not answer it. I used to love this blog. I learned so much from it. But since the trump election it has become obvious you are biased. Statement analysis by its nature can not be biased. Sadly the person doing the analyzing can be by choosing what to analyze.
If there is any truth to this story, then it sounds like the house was a split level. I have family who live in a 60 year old split level. It has no bathroom on the main floor, but you go up a short stairwell to get to the guest bathroom, which sounds like what she describes. My guess is that whatever event she is describing took place in a house within walking distance of her own home, since she says she doesn't remember going home. I would think if the house with the party were close to her home, going home would not be memorable and she would probably not have a memory of it.
To continue from my 5:00 pm comment, alternatively, she might remember walking home, and not want to reveal how close the party house was to her home.
Think about this: It would be impossible for anyone to push her into a bedroom as she was going up a short flight of stairs. There's no way. Bedrooms and bedroom doors do not jut out over stairs or stairwells.
Doors jutting out over stairwells? I'm not sure if you're replying to me, but obviously going up stairs to get to bathrooms and bedrooms doesn't imply doors jutting out over stairwells. She talked about a "short" set of stairs which is consistent with split level houses. plus many older split levels have no bathroom on the main floor, meaning to use a bathroom you have to go up or down stairs. Beyond that I don't understand your post.
Nobody has mentioned that she named the other person who was involved in the alleged assault (we don’t see the name as it is redacted). If she really is deceivig, and I can see the evidence that shows that, then why would she name another individual as witness to the made up assault? It doesn’t make sense. Can anyone shed light on this?
Post a Comment