Friday, November 1, 2019

James Clapper on CNN




Analysis by Luke  Kukovica

AC;  Director Clapper as the man who was there and oversaw the launch of the Russia investigation, what do you make of this?
CLAPPER; Well, I should uh I uh very curious as I I presumably I guess I am one of those uh  under investigation .. and I I … 
AC; and you just heard about it?
CLAPPER; Yes I just uh uh I read the clip on uhh about twenty minutes ago umm mm I found the the timing interesting uh given the uh increasing heat uh around the impeachment inquiry and so uh it it uh the timing it’s interesting and I’ll just let it go at that. And the other thing I I wonder about is whether what we are talking about is the overall investigation of the Russian … the reporting on the Russian interference or are we talking about the counter intelligence investigation that was launched in July by the by the FBI by the potential uh engagement or collusion whatever you want to call it by Russians an and the Trump campaign. So I  … (interrupted) I very curious as to what is the alleged criminal activity that prompted this. 
AC; Do you have any idea even what they might think might rise to the level of criminal offense. 
CLAPPER; No, I don’t. uh that’s uh uh obviously an item of great interest to me. uh What is it uh that any of  us did that uh that would rise to the level of uh a criminal infraction uh I I just don’t know.
Jeffery  (other guest) speaking
CLAPPER; No, I uh if I might add to uh what Jeffery just said uh  just make the point that uh that had absolutely nothing to do with the intelligence community assessment that was done in un January of 2017 and briefed to president elect Trump and his team in Trump Tower on January 6th uh so that uh those again are separate things and uh uh that is a really farfetched uhh theory in my view that that somehow uh Mishud was set up by the FBI to create this uh uh conspiracy that uh you know that he was trying to generate the impression that the Russians  uh were in were in cahoots … unintelligible 

AC;  Director Clapper as the man who was there and oversaw the launch of the Russia investigation, what do you make of this?
CLAPPER; Well, I should uh I uh very curious as I I presumably I guess I am one of those uh  under investigation .. and I I … 
  1. The subject begins with a verbal pause employing the word “well” this allows him time to prepare an answer. It indicates he has a need to give a carefully worded answer and can not or does not want to answer with clear truthful language.
  2. Right after the verbal pause, he begins “I should …” then self-censors and stops this line of response. This leaves the listener with a question, “what should he …?”
  3. Following the self-censoring he pauses, “uh” uses the personal pronoun “I” indicating what ever he is thinking it is close as in personal to himself. Followed by “uh very curious” and then stutters on the personal pronoun “I” repeating it indicating stress relating to the topic. “uh very curious” the qualifier “very” weakens the assertion that he is “curious”.
  4. “… as I I presumably I guess I am one of those …” the subject then gives the reason why he is “very curious”. This is punctuated by two indicators of weakness, the word “presumably” and the word “guess”. The sensitivity of this is buttressed by the stuttering on the personal pronoun “I” and the added impact of “I, I presumably” “I guess” and “I am …”. Even as he distances himself with “presumably” and “guess” he indicates that there is fire in the smoke with the words “I am …” He does not say “others say” or “reports say” he is pointing the finger at himself.  
  5. “I am one of those uh under investigation ... and I I … “.  The subject brings in others to share his situation with the words “one of those” indicating knowledge of others.  The pause, “uh” between “those” and “under investigation” indicates he needs to weigh his words and will not or can not speak freely. He indicates for withholding information in this short line. 
  6. “... and I I … “.  The subject had planned to say something more and stuttered on the pronoun “I” which could be self-censoring. The repeated stumbling on the personal pronoun indicates the subject is likely stressed by the topic. Unfortunately, the interviewer interrupted the subject. 

AC; and you just heard about it?
  1. The interviewer asks a question which requires only a yes or no answer. 
CLAPPER; Yes I just uh uh I read the clip on uhh about twenty minutes ago umm mm I found the the timing interesting uh given the uh increasing heat uh around the impeachment inquiry and so uh it it uh the timing it’s interesting and I’ll just let it go at that. And the other thing I I wonder about is whether what we are talking about is the overall investigation of the Russian …(pause) the reporting on the Russian interference or are we talking about the counter intelligence investigation that was launched in July by the by the FBI uh about the potential uh engagement or collusion whatever you want to call it by Russians an and the Trump campaign. So I  …  I am very curious as to what is the alleged criminal activity that prompted this. 
  1. “yes” is a sufficient answer. Given that the question required only a yes or no any words after indicate sensitivity of the question to the subject. 
  2. The question should not be expected to be overly sensitive to someone yet the subject speaks at length. After saying “yes” he says “I just uh uh read the clip on uhh …” the word “just” is a comparative word indicating the subject is comparing his answer to at least one other thing in his mind. He then pauses, indicating he needs time to form his reply. Truthful people do not need to think about what they intend to say, they simply say it. “read the clip on uh twenty minutes ago …”  Why does he say “read the clip on uh twenty minutes ago …”? Note he pauses midpoint self-censors and adds “twenty minutes ago”. Note he self-censored at the point of telling us where he read “the clip”. The subject also used the article “the” for “the clip” indicating the clip is a known item to the interviewer otherwise one would expect the article “a” clip
  3. umm mm I found the the timing interesting uh given the uh increasing heat uh around the impeachment inquiry and so uh it it uh the timing it’s interesting and I’ll just let it go at that.” Why does the subject use the word“found” in “found the timing”? Was he looking for it?  Note also, he does not say, "I find the timing interesting" even though impeachment inquiry is going on when this interview took place. Did the subject have prior notice that he was the subject of a criminal investigation? Or is he referring to something just 20 minutes ago?
  4. “… umm mm I found the the timing interesting uh given the uh increasing heat uh around the impeachment inquiry and so uh it it uh the timing it’s interesting and I’ll just let it go at that.” Is this his talking point? To connect the “timing” to the “impeachment inquiry”? The words “timing” and “interesting” are repeated. Repeated words or phrases indicate increased importance and/or sensitivity to the subject. The unnecessary qualifier “increasing” is present tense. This supports the possibility these are prepared talking points.
  5. “… uh the timing it’s interesting and I’ll just let it go at that.” The subject wants this to be the last or only words on the subject with his saying “and I’ll just let it go at that.” The subject appears to want to link the impeachment inquiry as to him being placed under scrutiny
    (targeted).
     
  6. “And the other thing I I wonder about is whether what we are talking about is the overall investigation of the Russian …(pause) the reporting on the Russian interference or are we talking about the counter intelligence investigation that was launched in July by the by the FBI uh about the potential uh engagement or collusion whatever you want to call it by Russians an and the Trump campaign. So I … (interrupted) I am very curious as to what is the alleged criminal activity that prompted this.” The subject begins a sentence with “and” which often indicates missing information between the word and what preceded it. Could it also be the subject remembering his “other” talking point? 
  7. “And the other thing I I wonder about …” Again, we see the subject use the article “the” preceding the word“other”, indicating that “the other thing” is known to both the interviewer and the subject. Expected would be “another thing” in place of “the other thing”. Was this a prepared Q&A between the interviewer and the subject?  
  8. “And the other thing I I wonder about …” The subject stutters on the pronoun “I” indicating the topic is sensitive and possibly stressful to the subject. 
  9. “… whether what we are talking about is the overall investigation of the Russian …(pause) the reporting on the Russian interference …” This is significant as the subject self-censors and then corrects himself. He changes “overall investigation of Russian” to reporting of the Russian interference”. This indicates that he cannot bring himself to say there was interference and limits it to “reporting”. This allows him to maintain the narrative without outright lying. This is what deception looks like. 
  10. “… or are we talking about the counter intelligence investigation that was launched in July by the by the FBI uh about the potential uh engagement or collusion whatever you want to call it by Russians an and the Trump campaign.” Note the subject is separating the two, the “reporting of Russian interference” and “the counter intelligence investigation”. In his separation he brings them together with his words “overall investigation” linguistically linking the “counter intelligence investigation” as part of the “overall investigation of Russian (pause/self-censor …” reporting on the Russian investigation”). 
  11. “… that was launched in July by the by the FBI uh about the potential uh engagement or collusion whatever you want to call it by Russians an and the Trump campaign.” Note, the subject gives us a time period for the FBI counter intelligence as being “that was launched in July” but not the year. If it was before Trump was elected it would mean 2016, if after Trump was president it would be 2017. Both of these dates would become problematic. 2016 would mean they (Clapper and the Obama administration) allowed Russian interference and 2017 because the FBI was answerable to president Trump making it treason. 
  12. “… the by the FBI uh about the potential uh engagement or collusion whatever you want to call it by Russians an and the Trump campaign.” The subject continues to use passive language, “potential”, “engagement” or “collusion” “whatever you want to call it”. The subject is unable to call it clearly, or in plain language and allows “you” to call it “whatever you want”. This indicates that he does not have conviction in it himself. If he as the one, per the interviewer’s quote, “who was there and oversaw the launch of the Russia investigation” will not define it, then this indicates that he knows it is a false narrativeThis passive language shows a lack of conviction to the narrative. 
  13. “So I  … (interrupted)  I am very curious as to what is the alleged criminal activity that prompted this.” The subject begins “so I …” then talks through a question from the interviewer. The subject adds the qualifier “very” to “curious” weakening his commitment to the assertion that he is “curious”. Talking through the interviewer’s question indicates the need to persuade that he doesn’t know what the “alleged criminal activity” is. His need to persuade is an indication of the opposite. Consider that he is aware of the “alleged criminal activity”. 
  14. “… that prompted this.” These words are unnecessary and incongruent, expected would be “what is the alleged criminal activity” and no more. This also breaks the law of economy which states a person will use the fewest words to convey a coherent message. The word “this” indicates a linguistic closeness to the subject where “this” is close and “that” is distance. 

AC; Do you have any idea even what they might think might rise to the level of criminal offense. 
CLAPPER; No, I don’t. uh that’s uh uh obviously an item of great interest to me. uh What is it uh that any of us did that uh that would rise to the level of uh a criminal infraction uh I I just don’t know.
  1. “No, I don’t.” is sufficient to answer the question, simply “no” would be enough. “I don’t” adds a small element of need to persuade. After these words any other words work to weaken the assertion and indicate sensitivity to the original yes or no question. 
  2. “uh that’s uh uh obviously an item of great interest to me.” The subject indicates sensitivity with numerous pauses and self-censoring. He then uses the word “obviously” a word often used to stifle debate, as to assert without question.  There is little doubt that it is of interest to him. He adds the qualifier “great” to “interest”. 
  3. “uh What is it uh that any of us did that uh that would rise to the level of uh a criminal infraction uh I I just don’t know.” The subject brings the crowd back into his language with the words “what is it uh that any of us did …” This indicates he does not want to be alone in this issue and it also tells us others are involved with him. NOTE, he has not denied any “criminal activity” or “infraction”. It may also indicate the defense strategy, “rise to the level of uh criminal infraction”. Will he/they try to minimize the event? Will they claim it doesn’t “rise to the level”? 
  4. “… to the level of uh a criminal infraction …” Note the change in language, earlier the subject used the term “criminal activity” here he uses “criminal infraction” a lesser sounding term. His own language indicates guilt by demurring to say “that would rise to criminal infraction”. It is akin to saying he/they did something but to “rise to the level of criminal infraction” is the question. It is using a subjective argument we often see in guilty people. 
  5. “… that would rise to the level of uh a criminal infraction uh I I just don’t know.” The subject then tells us he is not buying his own argument with “I just don’t know.” The comparative word “just” signifies he is thinking of at least one other thing in context to “not knowing”. An innocent person would not use a subjective argument and would know clearly that they were innocent. The stuttering on the personal pronoun “I” supports that he is stressed and willing to allow a different “level/rise” in regards to “criminal infraction”. 

Jeffery  (other guest) speaking
CLAPPER; No, I uh if I might add to uh what Jeffery just said uh  just make the point that uh that had absolutelynothing to do with the intelligence community assessment that was done in un January of 2017 and briefed to president elect Trump and his team in Trump Tower on January 6th uh so that uh those again are separate things and uh uh that is a really farfetched uhh theory in my view that that somehow uh Mifsud was set up by the FBI to create this uh uh conspiracy that uh you know that he was trying to generate the impression that the Russians  uh were in were in cahoots  … unintelligible …
  1. The subject interrupts the other guest to add these comments refuting the other guest. 
  2. This refuting of the other guest shows a sensitivity to the subject as the guest appears to counter the narrative of the subject. 
  3. “… just make the point that uh that had absolutely nothing to do with the intelligence community assessment that was done in un January of 2017 and briefed to president elect Trump and his team in Trump Tower on January 6th…”  Note, the subject gives a specific date “January 2017” and a specific location, “Trump Towers” and it includes a specific person, then president elect “Trump”. This may indicate how coordinated the effort made by the intelligence community was. It also indicates planning on the part of the intelligence community. Does it indicate a setup of the incoming administration? 
  4. “… that uh that had absolutely nothing to do with the intelligence community assessment that was done in un January of 2017…” The subject is distancing what the guest said from the “intelligence community assessment that was done in January 2017 …” The guest had not alluded to the “intelligence community assessment” but the launching of the investigation. Does this bring into question the official timeline and the need for the subject to refute it? Did the “counter intelligence investigation” timeline conflict with what was said during the “intelligence community assessment” that was presented to “Trump”? The addition of the qualifier “absolutely” is a need to persuade. A need to persuade is often an indication of the opposite. 
  5. “… uh so that uh those again are separate things and uh uh that is a really farfetched uhh theory in my view that that somehow uh Mifsud was set up by the FBI to create this uh uh conspiracy that uh you know that he was trying to generate the impression that the Russians  uh were in were in cahoots  … unintelligible …” This sentence is filled with passive language. Passivity is used to conceal identity and or responsibility. Words like “really” “farfetched” “theory” “in my view” “somehow” “conspiracy” “trying” “impression” and “cahoots” all weaken the assertion of the subject. With so many passive words the listener should consider that the subject is concealing information and that there is deception on the part of the speaker. 
  6. Inside the passivity we have the words “… to create this uh uh conspiracy …”. Is this an embedded admission? 
  7. The subject’s final words are unintelligible and the subject is no longer part of the interview. Was he edited out? 


Analysis Conclusion:

The subject is stressed by the questioning.

 He likely had prior knowledge of the criminal investigation that he and others face. 

The subject does not deny the allegation of criminal wrongdoing. 

Tangent-Deception

The subject seeks to assign an illicit motive to the investigators by questioning the timing, yet he deliberately censors any information offered. This is to intimate that he has knowledge of the motives but "isn't telling." 

This is consistent with both a lack of conviction and of guilty knowledge. 

This may suggest a willingness to plea bargain and/or cast blame upon another. 

C


24 comments:

Anonymous said...

Regarding public safety and criminaity.
https://www.conservativereview.com/news/gang-member-released-first-step-act-wanted-murder/

frommindtomatter said...

Excellent analysis I enjoyed reading it.

Adrian.

Trudy said...

O/T - The comment below is an explanation from a pastor who was caught out plagiarizing a quote and attributing it to himself. Question for statement analysis:- is the pastor telling the truth or is deception indicated?

"When you run in the content creation lane day in day out, it’s easy to unwittingly use a quote someone else made popular and have no idea where in the world it came from. You hear it somewhere years ago, write it down, file it away in your Evernote, preach a sermon with the line in it, mentioned it a couple times to folks as you counsel them, and before you know it, it sits in the annals of the this conglomeration of content swirling around in your head, ready to surface when occasion calls for it. You think, man, that was good. Did I really come up with that? That’s exactly what happened here. I found it in an old sermon archive from years ago and thought, Wow! That’s good!
**
There’s an old preaching joke. The first time you use a phrase you quote the source directly. The second time you use it say, “I’ve heard it said before.” The third time say, “As I always say.” 😂. Guess that’s what happened here. 🤷🏼‍♂️

Autumn said...

O/T

Trudy, I googled the statement and saw it was from Davey Blackburn (I suspected as much).

He suggests he had "no idea where in the world it came from". However, he does so in 3rd person ("you"/"your") and therefore doesn't commit to it. Also: if he had no idea where it came from and wondered "did I really come up with that" why didn't he look the quote up instead of attributing it to himself?

I don't think he "hear[d] it years ago", "preach[ed] a sermon with the line in it", "mentioned it a couple time to folks", etcetera. All these things he writes in third person and (mostly) in present tense. So he doesn't commit to it and doesn't speak from memory.

Then, at the end of the first paragraph he lets the cat out of the bag indicating he knows "exactly" where "it came from": "I found it in an old sermon archive from years ago". He even remembers what he thought when he first saw it: "Wow! That's good!"

He uses the words "years ago" twice. He wants to convince the reader that he heard/read the quote years ago (making me think he probably picked the quote from the internet on the same day he attributed it to himself).

By mentioning the three phases/steps in the second paragraph he suggests every pastor at some point attributes quotes of others to themselves. Thereby, he shows a need to "share the guilt". Interestingly, he introduces these three steps with the words "preaching joke" and ends with "Guess that's what happened here". What is he telling us: that his explanation is a "joke"? That he himself is a "preaching joke"? Also he doesn't say "I guess" but "Guess". So he cannot even commit to the "guess" (which in itself already leaves room for doubt) that these three steps apply in this case.

He needs a lot of words to explain why he attributed someone else's quote to himself.

After the above statement he wrote: "Sorry, Zig! Didn’t mean to steal credit from you!" "Sorry" in a statement can be an indication of guilt. And again: he cannot commit to his own words -> he says "didn't mean to steal" instead of "I didn't mean to steal". He meant to steal all right, i.m.o. By the way, he introduces the word "steal" suggesting he indeed stole (intentionally appropriated) something instead of incorporating it after years of use (etc.). Also: he only talks about not meaning to steal "credit". He doesn't say he didn't mean to steal the quote.

Erin77 said...

Is that story of the acid attack on Hispanic male true? Argument started over parking, attacker just happened to have a bottle of acid in his hands. In video footage they dont look like they are arguing, just talking. Also when the acid gets thrown in his face, it doesnt look like it hurts that bad from his reaction. What is going on there?

Trudy said...

Thank you Autumn. Yes. The plagiarizing pastor is none other than DB. Your analysis of the statement is excellent. Good points about "sharing the guilt" and "stealing" credit. In other exchanges with commenters in the Insta comment section, DB calls into question Zig Ziglar's originality wondering "Where Zig got it (the quote) from?" and saying "it certainly seems in the very least he (Zig) popularized it" and #nothingnewunderthesun.

Anonymous said...

Erin,

The effects of the acid sure look real.

Anonymous said...

I was wondering if you could do statement analysis on a prominent Islamic scholar named Tariq Ramadan. He has been accused of rape. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGTHu9I9Y_c Thank you.

Anonymous said...

OT

Alan Dershowitz sues Virginia Roberts

https://nypost.com/2019/11/07/alan-dershowitz-sues-accuser-virginia-roberts-giuffre-claims-shes-just-out-for-money/

Anonymous said...

Again and again, criminals go free.......

Yazeed, at the time of Blanchard's disappearance, was free on a $295,000 bond on charges of kidnapping, attempted murder, robbery and possession of marijuana in connection to the beating of two men in a Montgomery hotel in January. Though, his criminal record stretched back to 2011 when he was charged with robbery and attempted murder the year after. Those charges were ultimately dismissed at separate grand juries, according to court records.

Anonymous said...

Teacher assaults student. Prior criminal assault.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/index.html

Anonymous said...

Anon re: Tariq Rammadan:

He raped the woman. All indicators test positive.

My 6th sense I got from my real Dad is showing me that he raped her—I can see him doing it in my mind. He is also a sadist.

SA indicates he raped her.

Body language, squinting eyes and him places his to “cover” his privates during interview indicate HI IS GUILTY.

What a disgusting pig!

Anonymous said...

@ Anon: Re: Teacher attack

That teacher punches harder than Muhammed Ali. So sad how brutal black females have become...beating & sexually degrading each other worse than men.

I have never seen a woman punch that hard in my life. That is seriously disturbing. I hope the judge locks her up for life & I will be very surprised if the girl lives judging from how hard the punches were. Ive seen guys fight & Ive seen someone 2 different guys get knocked out & it takes WAAAAAAAY less force than what that teacher did to the student.

Anonymous said...

Unbelievable that that teacher is out on bail. That was attempted murder. Again, I will be very surprised if the girl lives. What a p&ssy that teacher is holding the students arms so she can’t fight back against her giant gorilla ass before she starts pounding her head in. Wow!

Anonymous said...

What about the school district that hired her?

Anonymous said...

Well if she passed a background check I don’t know how culpable they are, but their response was retarded and they did not call an ambulance! They should be sued for millions! I have never seen anyone (including men & even Mike Tyson) punch like that!!! The school could not have known they were hiring the equivalent of a silverback gorilla with a human mask on! Watch some Tyson videos—he cant even punch like that! Black women have become animals—the things they say to each other makes me want to vomit & too many seem murder minded—unfortunately this one has the power & force of a giant ape—love the physical position she adopted for maximum damage to the girl’s head. Again, I dont think the girl will survive...she has brain injury from it I read today. I know martial arts & this woman is a killing machine. She needs to be in a cage for life. Oh I know white people are evil—yet they are the ones who sexually degrade each other and beat each other to pulps and then smile about it....she belongs in prison for life. Ive seen a lot of fights & violence & I see no way a human can survive that kind of attack—Im sure her brain is bleeding. The school sounds like a pit of stupidity as well!

Anonymous said...

Some people are saying Tiffany Langsford is actually a man wearing a weave—they are saying it says male on her arrest form but I cant find the form online

Tania Cadogan said...

Off topic

A body has been found in the hunt for a missing five year-old girl whose mother is reportedly refusing to help police. Demopolis Police Chief Rex Flowers announced that the remains were found in a wooded area while officers hunted for Taylor Rose Williams between the cities of Linden and Demopolis, Alabama on Tuesday. Authorities have not yet confirmed whether the body has been identified as Taylor, who was reported missing on November 6 from her home in Jacksonville, Florida, which is more than 400 miles southeast from where the remains were found. The news of the discovery came one day after police said Taylor’s mother, 27-year-old Brianna Williams, is being considered a person of interest in her daughter’s disappearance, WUSA 9 reported. On Monday, Jacksonville Sheriff Mike Williams said: ‘As of today, Taylor’s mother, Brianna Williams, remains uncooperative in this investigation. She’s not spoken to us since Wednesday. She was the last person to see Taylor … We still need her cooperation.’

Brianna Williams, a petty naval officer, stopped working with investigators after they questioned ‘inconsistencies’ in her statement regarding Taylor’s disappearance, Sheriff Williams said. He said Brianna was the last person to believed to see Taylor alive.

At a press conference last week, Sheriff Williams urged anyone who had seen Taylor with her mother to come forward. ‘Really, no matter how insignificant they think that interaction may have been, no matter where it was, we encourage them to reach out and give us that last, you know, that may be the last piece of information we need,’ he said. Demopolis Police posted on Facebook Sunday night, saying it was assisting the FBI and other state agencies in a missing person search in the town.

Authorities are now asking the public to contact police if they have seen Brianna and Taylor Williams together over the last two weeks between Jacksonville, Florida Alabama. ‘While it sounds similar, it’s a different request,’ Sheriff Williams said, adding that police believe Brianna Williams traveled to Alabama recently, although he did not release details about the development.

Brianna Williams works and lives at the Naval Air Station in Jacksonville, where she is currently residing. She is not currently under any form of custody, Sheriff Williams said.

Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2019/11/12/body-found-search-missing-5-year-old-taylor-williams-11087290/?ito=cbshare

Tania Cadogan said...

Off topic BBM

The mother of missing 5-year-old Taylor Rose Williams has been arrested and charged with child neglect and giving false information to investigators, Jacksonville, Florida, Sheriff Mike Williams said Tuesday.
The announcement came hours after authorities said human remains were found in in a wooded area in Alabama.
Taylor's mother, Briana Williams, was charged at a Florida hospital, where she was being treated for an apparent overdose, Sheriff Williams said. She was in serious condition.

"The suspect has been absentee booked at a local hospital after being admitted today due to an apparent overdose of some sort," Williams told reporters.
Williams said it was unclear whether the child's mother had attempted to take her own life.

"Only she knows that," he said. "I know there was what appears to be an overdose or she's ingested something. We don't know as of yet."
"This is obviously not the outcome any of us had hoped to reach," said Melissa Nelson, state attorney for the 4th Judicial Circuit in Florida. "This investigation has led to what we believe to be the remains of Taylor Rose."
Nelson said "many questions still loom and our office's work is just beginning."
The Demopolis Police Department in Alabama said earlier Tuesday that human remains were found during the search for the missing girl. Demopolis is about 100 miles west of Montgomery.
"The multi-agency investigative team involved in the search for missing Taylor Rose Williams confirmed that search teams uncovered human remains in a wooded area between the cities of Linden and Demopolis, Alabama," the police department said in a Facebook post. "Victim identification is pending."

Sheriff Williams said "while indications are" the remains "may be Taylor Williams, the exact identification of the victim will be made pending some detailed forensic analysis of those remains."
The Demopolis police post added, "Operational efforts will now shift to secure and process the evidence at the scene."
The search for Taylor had expanded beyond Florida into Alabama this week.
Taylor has been missing since November 6, when an Amber Alert was issued. Law enforcement officials were asking anyone who saw Taylor or her mother between Jacksonville and Alabama to come forward.

Brianna Williams is not cooperating with authorities in the search for her daughter, police said.
The girl's mother was not cooperating with authorities, the sheriff said.

"She has not spoken to us since Wednesday and she was the last person to see Taylor," the sheriff said. "She is a person of interest in this case and we still need her cooperation in our efforts."
Taylor's extended family has been talking to authorities and has been "very cooperative," the sheriff said.

Brianna Williams lived and worked at the naval station in Jacksonville, Williams said.

CNN had reached out to Taylor's mother and other family members but had not heard back.

Tania Cadogan said...

cont.


Search efforts had been focused on the area around Demopolis and Linden in western Alabama near the Mississippi border, the sheriff said.

CNN's Amanda Watts and Konstantin Toropin contributed to this report.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/12/us/missing-girl-jacksonville-remains-found/index.html

I wonder if the family was known to Police or CPS prior to the child's disappearance?
Where was the father in all this?
The state of decomp of the body will be a good indicator of when she was killed.
Given the location and weather they body would be expected to be in condition A of decomp.
If the body is more decomposed than would be expected then the claim the child was 'abducted' on the date claimed would be proven a lie and that points the finger straight at the mother.
The question then is why was the daughter killed?
Was it accidental and the mother panicked?
Was it accidental after her punishing her daughter for some misdeed?
Was it as a result of deliberate abuse or neglect?
That the mother appears to have taken an overdose does not point to the mother being innocent or perhaps her daughter is dead and she is so grief stricken she wanted to join her?
The latter seems to be excluded though as the mother had stopped cooperating with the police.
Innocent parents cooperate fully with police when it comes to finding their missing child.
They have nothing to hide and will say and do anything asked of them no matter how embarrassing.
Guilty parents have every reason to stop cooperating as their guilt will be revealed,
Claims that they would be embarrassed because they have a guilty secret such as infidelity, drug addiction or debts would be of no interest to police, they are concerned with only finding the missing child and any perpetrators involved in the abduction
As with the mccanns the parent stopped cooperating and, it seems, took an overdose, something akin to kate mccann pressing a button and they would ALL be together.
I wonder what the autopsy will reveal and what if anything the mother has to say regarding her daughter's disappearance and death (if, as seems likely, it is her daughter Taylor)

Katinjax said...

POS mother moved from a safe neighborhood to a high crime area so she could claim the child was abducted. POS mother never went on news begging for her child to be returned. POS mother went to work every day like nothing happened. I am glad she did not kill herself and hope she rots in jail for the rest of her life.

Tania Cadogan said...

The mother of a missing Florida girl, Taylor Rose Williams, 5, has been charged with child neglect and giving false information to investigators after police found human remains in rural Alabama, authorities announced on Tuesday.

The woman, Navy Petty Officer Brianna Williams, reported her daughter missing last week, telling investigators she'd disappeared from home overnight, authorities said.

Williams was booked at an area hospital after being admitted because of an apparent overdose, Jacksonville Sheriff Mike Williams, who is not related to the family, announced during a news conference on Tuesday evening.

In a news release, investigators said search teams had uncovered human remains in a wooded area between the cities of Linden and Demopolis in Alabama. The ID process is continuing.

“While indications are this may be Taylor Williams, the exact identification of the victim will be made pending some detailed forensic analysis of those remains,” Williams said.

Taylor Williams was reported missing from her Jacksonville, Fla., home last Wednesday. Sheriff Williams said Taylor's mother hasn't spoken with investigators since that day.

He said Williams told police she'd last saw the child in her bed around midnight. She's also said to have asserted that an exterior door was open, and that the girl was gone the next morning

The sheriff said Taylor Williams' father, who reportedly hadn't seen the child in two years, and her family have been cooperating with the investigation.

The mother had been staying at the Jacksonville Navy air base where she works, the sheriff said.

Brianna Williams, 27, is from the county in which the remains were found, First Coast News reported.

The news outlet, citing two law enforcement sources, reported that she's in life-threatening condition following what appeared to be a suicide attempt.

Brianna Williams was assigned to the tactical operations center at Naval Air Station Jacksonville in April 2018, and enlisted in the Navy seven years ago, military officials said. She was still reporting for duty as of Tuesday morning, WJXT reported.

A close family friend of hers, who did not want to be identified, said she'd been on suicide watch during the investigation, First Coast News reported. The friend said she overdosed after the remains were found and when police were on the way to arrest her, the news station added.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/mother-of-missing-florida-girl-taylor-williams-5-charged-after-human-remains-found

christina said...

Excellent, cant wait for the Pince Andrew interview analysis on the Jeffrey Epstein case

here is the transcript

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-andrew-interview-read-full-20898538?fbclid=IwAR1j8jK-g5UQjtEXRu_VCFMddl1HezvGZKwV6CYP-ovmoDn5ow-58qjm3yY

info said...

Here's the text of the transcript from the above link

https://justpaste.it/58kvy

PDF: https://justpaste.it/58kvy/pdf