Sunday, September 30, 2012

Billie Dunn Attacks Colorado City Police

The mother of missing 13 year old Hailey Dunn, has taken to Facebook to attack her critics, and specifically, the Colorado City Police Department.

For those unfamiliar with this case, the Colorado City Police, like the Texas Rangers and the FBI believe that Shawn Adkins and Billie Dunn caused the death and subsequent disappearance of Hailey, who was last seen by a non suspected person on December 26th, 2010 when her old brother David left the home at approximately 9PM, saying his sister was playing video games at home.  Hailey would never be seen alive again.

Police affidavit in the case show a startling array of behavior and information including:

*Shawn Adkins had previously threatened Hailey's life, along with Billie Dunn's, yet she invited him into the home anyway.
*Billie Dunn hosted a New Year's Eve party
*Billie Dunn and Shawn Adkins refused to cooperate, tried to fool a polygraph with drugs, but both eventually failed the polygraph.
*Drug purchases and use were rampant
*Child pornography, bestiality, serial killer literature, deer gutting videos, and home made porn found in the home of Billie Dunn and Shawn Adkins.  This indicated the depth of perversion inside the home as sexual arousal comes at the abuse of children and of animals.  Eventually the town spokesman told the public to "do the math" as drugs, violence, perversion and a missing child coupled with lying parents and caretakers gave the same conclusion Statement Analysis had from the first appearance of Hailey's mother.

In January, Billie Dunn appeared on the Nancy Grace Show with her very first answers indicating:

1.  She knew Hailey was dead
2.  She was in need of an alibi

From there, her story's "missing information" was picked up intuitively, howbeit slowly, by Nancy Grace.  In the beginning, Marc Klaas, a frequent guest, praised Dunn, especially after spending personal time with her in Texas, only to later openly condemn her for lying.

Statement Analysis revealed the sociopathic nature of the lies told:  lying from childhood, with a rage towards anyone who dare question her veracity.

Investigators closely monitored Billie Dunn's nightly appearances and read the Statement Analysis here each morning, confirming the accuracy of the analysis.

Deceptive individuals can be classified into various categories, but the most dangerous are those who distort or fabricate reality.  This puts those who do into the rare < 10% category (90% + who deceive do so by withholding information rather than fabricating reality).

Billie Dunn, herself, printed out analysis after analysis and brought it with her to a television station asking her attorney, "Should I use his name?" later issuing a threat of law suit by her attorney, the bizzare John Young, who called Hailey "our daughter" and "our girl" in interviews.  Later, Young would be arrested and suspended from legal practice, reportedly on cocaine, pointing a handgun at a Texas Ranger.  In spite of aiming a weapon at a Texas Ranger (rumors said he was having an affair with the Ranger's wife), he lived to talk about it and entered rehab while suspended.

Some stunning Statement Analysis principles:  

Shawn Adkins, even after reading analysis, in his appearances on radio and television, avoided saying "I did not kill Hailey."  It is obvious that one could read analysis and walk up to a microphone and parrot a reliable denial, but even this he did not do.

Dunn with her "timeline"
Billie Dunn knew that when she spoke, her words were being analyzed as deceptive, yet she still took to a press conference, but with a twist:  she took a written time line with her to make her story appear straight, but even this did not work.  Eventually her attorney shut her down from speaking.  As time has passed, she has become emboldened by the lack of movement by law enforcement and is speaking again.  When a contradiction, for example, arises on Facebook, it is dismissed by the host and deleted.  She has her small following and continues to deceive.

The same principles applied to Casey Anthony were applied to Billie Dunn were applied to Charlie Rogers.  All three came out the same.  There are no changes in application or rules.
arrested while hiding Adkins

Billie Dunn is one who will file a lawsuit, even against legal advice.  This is part of what make up a sociopath has.  She, like Casey Anthony, will 'walk down the hallway to her office, escorting police' and go right off the edge of the cliff for one purpose:

She cannot bear being called a liar.  She will file a law suit even if it means she will have to testify, which prosecutors will be drooling over to have done.  

She can bear all sorts of insult, but not being called a liar.  It is of the upmost sensitivity to this personality type as she has been surviving and living by deception since earliest childhood, where she suffered extreme abuse and exploitation at home.  Deeply wounded in childhood, her perception of life, death, good, bad, right and wrong are askew due to the horrific crimes committed agains her.  It became engrained in her personality from a very young age. 

At this point, we can expect that she will make "noise" as she attempts to rehabilitate her image.  She claims to have 'turned' on Shawn Adkins, but even this is thin.  True, they could not have remained together forever, given the nature of the personality make ups, but she cannot go too far with her distancing as she will always fear that he will talk to police.  

Her claims of having "my FBI guy" are deceptive in nature.  The FBI that investigated knows and an agent is likely very happy to receive her calls.  

Colorado City police have done what they could.  

Prosecutors need to be certain that a jury will grasp everything they bring their way.  

After the Casey Anthony jury, the game is changed.  Shawn Adkins said his grandmother had access to his computer.  

It is difficult for us to picture a juror thinking, 'this is reasonable doubt' but after the Anthony verdict, with the willingness of Cindy Anthony to perjure while under oath before God, prosecutors must be on high alert. 

As she continues to speak, deception will be present.  Even while memorizing the original script, she was unable to keep the story straight because it did not come from experiential memory.  She took the script from a real case, but it was not her own.  

There was never a sleep over planned by Hailey.  

Who do you think made up this story, Shawn Adkins or Billie Dunn?

To consider this question, you might ask yourself:

Of the two, which was more likely to have read the story of the young girl Carlie Brucia, from true crime library that Dunn said she downloaded and printed at work.   That story is here and the article addressing Billie Dunn's employment is here.

You might ask yourself, "which of the two, Dunn or Adkins, is likely to have read the story?" concluding that Dunn was the 'brains' of the two, but there is a far more important indicator:

Statement Analysis showed that the story was deceptive, as told, by Billie Dunn, on The Nancy Grace Show.  While attempting to report what Shawn Adkins told her, she, herself, was indicated for deception.  This means that she was not entering into Shawn Adkins' language, but was using her own. 

Repeating a lie will not show deception.  Deception is indicated because the person has exercised her will to deceive. 

The story was Billie Dunn's and not Shawn Adkins.  

Adkins personality includes bravado.  

He is a fearful sort, which is why he loves scary masks.  An example of a frightened person using bravado language is seen every day by bullies, but Shawn Adkins' own language is indicative of this very thing. 

When confronted by police saying 'you threatened Billie Dunn', he confirmed it and added that he had threatened Hailey and Clint Dunn, Hailey's father. If they were going to accuse him, 'do it right' in his mind. 

When asked by police, "Who should we be looking at?" in the disappearance of Hailey (which, by the way, is a great question to ask), Shawn Adkins boldly said, "Both of us", regarding himself and Billie Dunn.  Both failed their polygraphs.  

The polygraph itself is a window into Billie Dunn's personality and another indicator that she may file law suits, to her own detriment as she would have to testify. 

The police asked them to take polygraphs and Adkins refused, and Dunn balked.  His refusal and her hesitancy focused the investigation upon them, and not on a runaway, or a stranger abduction.  They had reasons to pull away from the polygraph. 

Next came the courting stage.  This is where police were "nice" to her, gently reminding her that if she and Adkins have nothing to fear, that they should take it. 

This went to the stage of showing up, walking out, or not showing up.  At some point, police, in shuffling the deck (some police would be "good guys" (Texas Rangers) while some are "bad" (Colorado City) they knew to appeal to her ego and pride.  Liars hate to be challenged. 

They offered her 'counsel' in staying away from Adkins, which she feigned to accept, even while her language showed that they were together.  (recall the radio program where she feigned break up with Adkins while he can be heard sitting next to her). 

Billie Dunn called law enforcement back and volunteered, with Adkins to take the polygraph. 

This is what she said to Nancy Grace, and it is true.  She did contact them about the polygraph, and immediately, she was praised for it by the host and guests.  Her statement was truthful:  she did call them and did volunteer, but what she left out (which is what makes Statement Analysis more valuable than a polygraph) is the wrangling that took place beforehand.  Eventually, this would come out in the police affidavit and she would be humiliated...again, on national television.  

She could tell Nancy Grace that "we called and we volunteered" without the pronouns being caught...when someone says "we called", I always ask, "who, physically, made the call?" because of the pronoun usage.  

She also left out something else critical to the account: 

She and Adkins fought over taking the polygraph, but she, as the leader and dominant personality, prevailed.  She convinced him that he could pass using anti-anxiety medication.  

Police noted the struggle to get them to the polygraph, and now police noted the need to try to 'trick' the polygraph; not exactly the expected innocent behavior of a mother of a missing child.

Police sent her home. 

On TV, she blamed them. 

She was now forced with a choice:

Billie Dunn could either be called a liar by police, or, to her own detriment, would take the polygraph and have to rely upon her skill to keep her body cool under the pressure of lying.  

grown up hiding behind a mask
Think of this choice:  If she takes the polygraph, police doubt of her will be confirmed, and she will fail.  If she does not take the polygraph, personally, those she spoke to, will believe her to be a liar.  

She took the polygraph.  

This is why I compare her to Casey Anthony, relying upon her own skills of deceit, walking down the hallway to her "office", with each step bringing her closer to being uncovered as a fraud, yet, step by step, she believed she would "get by" the police.  Eventually, as we all saw on television, Casey Anthony's lies paid off as she lied, got her mother to lie, and got away with murder.  Don't think the lesson of Casey Anthony was lost on Billie Dunn or the prosecutors.  

If it comes down to the challenge of suing "important people" in her life, but by doing so, she will be undraped under oath, leading to prosecution, Billie Dunn may cut off her nose to spite her face, and do it.  

The small percentage of the population who will deceive by fabricating reality and going into serious crime, will always bristle when their account is questioned.  

In all the televised or radio broadcast appearances of Dunn, she was unable to bring herself to say "I told the truth."  When challenged about the failed polygraph, instead of the simple, "No way!  I told the truth!", she said she lost faith in the polygraph.  

In sparing no expense in security for the President of the United States, and the most important people in the world today, those responsible for the security of such, rely heavily on the polygraph.  They base their lives on the polygraph. These are those, in our world, who can afford the greatest means of security known to mankind, yet rely upon the polygraph in the screening process.  

It is only the deceptive and those who defend them who disparage its results.  

In the hands of an experienced polygrapher, one who will learn the subject's internal subject personal dictionary, it is a powerful tool. 

When the results of the polygraph and Statement Analysis conclusions agree, deception is assured. 

1.  Billie Dunn and Shawn Adkins both failed their polygraphs when asked about the disappearance of Hailey Dunn.  

2.  Statement Analysis indicated deception in both, specifically related to the disappearance of Hailey. 

3.  Behavioral Analysis indicated both for guilt in the disappearance of Hailey.  

4.  Evidence showed that Hailey lived in a home of perversion, drugs and neglect.  Child pornography (and perversion) with a 13 year old girl in the home is a recipe for the unthinkable. 

Billie Dunn and Shawn Adkins must maintain some form of unity, even an uneasy peace or alliance, lest one budge or weaken, and make a deal with prosecutors. 

It is her personality that can accept being labeled with immorality from pornography, even admitting having bestiality.  This doesn't bother her, but question her veracity and out comes the attack.  Just as "my FBI guy" is deceptive as is her "searching"for Hailey, or bringing people minor 'celebrity' through facebook, so it is that she will, eventually, bring about her own demise. 

Eventually, Billie Dunn and Shawn Adkins are going to answer for the death of Hailey Dunn. 

Police Seek Leads About 2 Missing Children

Chloie Leverette, Gage Daniel
Missing children Chloie Leverette, 9, left, and Gage Daniel, 7, are seen in undated photographs provided by the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation. / AP

 — Police in Middle Tennessee continue to search for leads in the case of two children who have been missing since their home was destroyed by an intense fire last week.
The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation issued a statewide Amber Alert on Friday for 9-year old Chloie Leverette and 7-year old Gage Daniel after investigators spent a fifth day trying to determine if there were any remains of the children in the fire debris. TBI said fire experts had come up empty.
TBI spokeswoman Kristin Helm said that agents continue to “develop investigative leads” but were not searching Saturday at the site of the blaze about 50 miles southeast of Nashville.
TBI has said the children were living with their grandparents. Two bodies tentatively identified as 72-year-old Leon “Bubba” McClaran and his wife, 70-year-old Molli McClaran, were recovered Monday and have been sent to the Nashville medical examiner’s office for autopsy. She was the children’s maternal grandmother, he their step-grandfather.
“I don’t know what to think. I don’t know what to think,” Christopher Daniel, Gage’s father, told The Associated Press in a brief telephone interview Friday. “They don’t think that they burned up in the fire, the way I took it they don’t.”
Daniel, his voice breaking, said he had no idea what could have happened to the children, who have not been seen since before the fire on Sept. 23.
TBI spokeswoman Kristin Helm said Friday that the alert had not been sent to other states.
“We don’t know where they are,” Helm said Friday. “We don’t have any indication that they’re in another state.”
Multiple fire experts had processed the debris of the incinerated farmhouse, located in horse country roughly 50 miles southeast of Nashville. No trace of the children was found, the TBI said in a news release announcing the alert.
On Wednesday, when officials still had not found evidence of the children’s remains in the debris, TBI issued an endangered child alert.
Helm said Friday the TBI does not have any direct evidence that the children are victims of foul play. She said there are no persons of interest in the case and that investigators are following all leads, but she would not elaborate.
Forensic teams from Middle Tennessee State University and the University of Tennessee at Knoxville had been brought in to help in the search.
Christopher Garrett, a spokesman for the State Fire Marshal’s office, said he did not have any information on a cause of the fire

Saturday, September 29, 2012

Amber Alert: 2 TN Children

Amber Alert issued for 2 children missing after Tennessee fire

  • Tennesseekids.jpg
    This photo shows 7-year-old Gage Daniel, left, and his half-sister Chloie Leverette, right. (
  • Deadly Fire Children2.jpg
    Sept. 23, 2012: In this file photo, Unionville firefighters battle a blaze at a home on Kingdom Road near Rover, Tenn. (AP)
  • Deadly Fire-Children.jpg
    Sept. 27, 2012: A worker moves a wheel barrel on near Shelbyville, Tenn., at the site of a house fire where an elderly couple and two young children lived. (AP)
  • Deadly Fire-Children1.jpg
    Sept. 27, 2012: Workers are still on the job near Shelbyville, Tenn., at the site of a house fire that where an elderly couple and two young children lived. (AP)
Authorities have issued an Amber Alert for two Tennessee children missing since a fire burned down their home five days ago, saying there is no evidence they were victims of the blaze.
The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation issued the alert Friday evening. Investigators earlier in the day had returned to the scene of the Shelbyville house fire in which two bodies were found, tentatively identified as the children's step-grandparents.
The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation says in a news release that multiple fire experts had gone through the debris and were unable to find evidence that 9-year-old Chloie Leverette and her half-brother, 7-year-old Gage Daniel, died in Sunday's fire.
The agency issued an endangered child alert for the children Wednesday after they could not find their remains


Statement Analysis: Pete Townsend Full Statement

Pedophile?  Statement Analysis gets to the truth. 

Pete Townsend was one of many thousands who were caught in child pornography by using credit cards to purchase the illegal material.  When police said that a famous rock star was among the caught, he came out with this statement.  Statement Analysis is in bold type. 

Is Pete Townsend truthful?  Statement Analysis finds out. 

I am not a paedophile.

Note that this is strong and it is in the present tense with the verb "am."  This is not to say "I wasn't a pedophile" or "I did not engage in child porn."
His first statement is in the negative.  First statements are always important and when it is in the negative, it is doubly important.  Think: Jerry Sandusky.  He may not, currently, consider himself a pedophile, but he engaged in pedophilia activities. 

I have never entered chat rooms on the internet to converse with children.

1.  Please note that "never" is not to be interpreted as "did not".  Please see past articles on the word "never", as it is an unreliable denial. 
2.  Please note what he is denying:  he never entered a chat room with the intention ("to") converse with children.  This is not to say that it did not happen, only that he didn't go into the chat room "to" do this.  By entering this statement, it should cause police to search what chat rooms he did enter that were identified as chat rooms for those interested in sexual discussion to or about children.  
3.  He makes this sentence very important by not only having it in the beginning (after sentence one) but also in the negative.  By introducing chat rooms, he doesn't tell us which rooms, but only that he did not intend to converse "with" children, but not "about" children. 

This is a strong indication that he entered chat rooms and likely engaged in conversations with pedophiles.  To enter a chat room, he would not only need to know where it is located, but would know the title, or topic of the chat. 

I have, to the contrary, been shocked, angry and vocal (especially on my website) about the explosion of advertised paedophilic images on the internet.

He has been "shocked" about the explosion of advertised paedophilic images.  This is likely where he found the chat room referenced above, and where he found the site to pay for downloads.  By "explosion" he may mean "volume".  

Ask yourself:  how many paedophilic images have you seen online that "advertises" for pedophiles?  The advertisements have "exploded" according to the subject, meaning that they are, according to his language:

"Advertisements" for pedophiles, and they are "images" 

This means that a pedophile website is advertising by using its images. 

Since there is an "explosion" of them, it is likely that the average internet user has been bombarded with them.  

I did not see one today. 
I did not see one yesterday. 

Each morning, like I used to read the newspaper, I read online news stories.  I am bombarded with ads about many things.  Car ads have "exploded" everywhere. 

I did not see a site advertising child pornography today, nor on any day that I have been online, since 1994.  

I have asked others who have all answered the same thing.  They have not seen a single pedophile advertisement.  

We have seen ads featuring children which were inappropriate, but these were for toothpaste, or yogurt, and so on.  This is not what he said.  I will not interpret his words.  I listen to what he said.  

I did not see a child pornographic website advertising on the internet from 1994 until today.  I have never seen a child pornographic website advertising, nor a chat room for pedophiles.  

I believe, therefore, that one would have to deliberately search for one to find one.  

Pete Townsend is lying. This is why the sensitivity indicators are present.  Please take special note of "blue" coloring as the highest level of sensitivity.  

I have been writing my childhood autobiography for the past seven years.
I believe I was sexually abused between the age of five and six-and-a-half when in the care of my maternal grandmother who was mentally ill at the time.

Note "believe" is a weak assertion.  Please see the previous article for what he says about being molested, including a young girl and an uncle, and a rape every week. 

Please note that being a victim of childhood sexual abuse does not give one a license to engage in child pornography. 

I cannot remember clearly what happened, but my creative work tends to throw up nasty shadows - particularly in Tommy.

A truthful person can only report what is remembered. 

Some of the things I have seen on the internet have informed my book which I hope will be published later this year, 

Note that the things he has seen on the internet informed his book, but he does not say informed "him" which means that he is separating himself from his "book."  He says "I am not a pedophile."  Is his book a "pedophile"?  This is how inappropriate such distancing language is, weakening his original assertion.  We don't inform books; we inform people, who write books. 

and which will make clear to the public that if I have any compulsions in this area, they are to face what is happening to young children in the world today and to try to deal openly with my anger and vengeance towards the mentally ill people who find paedophilic pornography attractive.

Here we have the highest level of sensitivity in our "blues"
Note the framing of his own words on having "compulsions" which he allows for.  
Please note that he has "anger" and even "vengeance", which should show itself in the language. 
Please note that instead of the anger towards the perverts, he calls them "mentally ill" and he calls them "people", which is plural for "persons."

Those of whom he has "anger" (emotion) and "vengeance" (to carry out the anger) are only "mentally ill people"

Please note that in today's news release, he reports what he did as "insane"; which is to say, "mentally ill."

Will he continue with the soft language towards the perverts calling them "people"?

I predicted many years ago that what has become the internet would be used to subvert, pervert and destroy the lives of decent people.

Here he believes that it is the internet, itself, that has subverted, perverted and destroyed:  "decent people."  Does he consider this the reason for his pedophilia, or was it that a 9 year old girl abused him, or was it every week he was raped by an "uncle"?

Please note that these people are "decent" but that they have been affected by the internet.  

The soft language continues. He doesn't even use "those" people, employing distancing language.    

This contradicts the use of the language of "anger" and especially of "vengeance."  He has called himself "insane" and is linking himself to the people who are victims of the internet.  

I have felt for a long time that it is part of my duty, knowing what I know,

We would want to ask him, since downloading images of children exploited in sex, what other duty parts exist.  We might fear the answer. 

 to act as a vigilante to help support organisations like the Internet Watch Foundation, the NSPCC and Scotland Yard to build up a powerful and well-informed voice to speak loudly about the millions of dollars being made by American banks and credit card companies for the pornography industry.

Note his quest to be seen as a "vigilante"; that is, one who takes the law into his own hands and administers justice, outside the law.  With his anger, we would expect action, therefore, against the bad guys, of whom he can only bring himself to call "mentally ill people."  I can think of a lot of bad words to call pedophiles and those who traffic in it and "mentally ill people" is a lot nicer than the words I can list. 

Next, in order to believe that he did this for the purpose of research, you must enter his language and believe that the professional organizations know nothing about child pornography and that he, rock star, knows more and can inform Scotland Yard on his findings. 

I can tell you this from experience:  investigators fight each other to avoid seeing child porn images:  No one wants to do it.  They are often sent to a specialist for forensic evaluation, with most investigators only being told of their existence and not being forced to see them.  

Note he lists three organizations.   Note that the organization with the power to arrest him is reported last.  

To believe him, you must presuppose that the professionals need his help.  

Note the change to only "pornographic" industry, not child porn.  

Note that his tool of proof would be to spend even more money on images.  

He "helped" organizations who seek to block access to child pornography by accessing child pornography. 
He "helped" stop the banks making money by spending money. 
He "helped" Scotland Yard, who investigates child porn, by engaging in child porngraphy.  

That industry deliberately blurs what is legal and what is illegal, and different countries have different laws and moral values about this. I do not.

Note distancing language associated with what is legal and what is illegal.  Note that legal comes frist.  

I do not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time.

Note that this is something he does not "want", present tense.  

Have you ever said that you don't want child pornography available on the internet?  It is something that goes unsaid for most because they do not encounter it.  
Note the additional words "at any time" which shows his own need for emphasis.  

On one occasion I used a credit card to enter a site advertising child porn.

Here he addresses "one occasion" but does not say that there were others.  Please note that the additional words give him away:

The site he entered "advertised" child porn.  He paid to enter the site. 

If a site advertises guitars and asks for a credit card to enter, what would you expect to find inside the site?

If a site advertises sail boats and asks for a credit card to enter, what would you expect to find once you have paid and entered the site?

If a site advertises baseball news stories for the "insider" who wants to hear what the pros are saying, and you had to pay to enter.  Once you pay, what would you expect to encounter?

When you enter a bathroom, do you expect an orchestra to be waiting for you?
When you enter a doctor's office, do you expect to see a football team practicing?

He entered a site that advertised child pornography.  He had to find a site that advertises child pornography, which is illegal.  This is why we do not find child pornography advertisements splashed anywhere.  It is why I have not seen a site advertising child pornography from 1994's first day on line to today.  

I did this purely to see what was there.

Deception indicated.  Here we use the highest level of sensitivity (blue) as it shows "why" he entered the site via explanation.  

Note to Pete Townsend:  When you searched to find the site that advertised child pornography, we knew your intention. 

Note the word "purely" enters his vocabulary.  

I spoke informally to a friend who was a lawyer and reported what I'd seen.

He called his lawyer.  This is what people do when they commit a crime and panic at the fear of being caught.  He likely gave his credit card knowing how "insane" it is, something impulsively done, and now is frightened that his name can be picked up.  

He describes it as "spoke informally"; that is, without payment as a client.  This may have proven a mistake if attorney-client privilege is not claimed later. 
He called his lawyer, but not Scotland Yard.  

Note that "a" friend is not "my friend" and is a low form of reference for friendships.  The lawyer likely classifies the relationship differently.  

I hope you will be able to see that I am sincerely disturbed by the sexual abuse of children, and I am very active trying to help individuals who have suffered, and to prevent further abuse. 

He only "hopes" that we will be "able" (meaning it will be difficult) for us to "see" that he is "sincerely disturbed."  Of this, we have no doubt. 

He first said that his purpose was to help organizations, but here, after saying "I am sincerely disturbed" he says his purpose to help individuals.  
Please note that his helping organizations, like law enforcement, his help did not include calling them with his "research."

The perverts are "people" and "mentally ill people" and "decent people" in his language, even though he wants us to see him as "angry" and going to take "vigilante" "vengeance" against them.  

It does not fit.  

In his words, pedophiles are "people", "decent people" and are mentally ill.  He uses the word "insane" about himself downloading child pornography with his credit card.  

Pete Townsend is a pedophile; that is, one who is sexually aroused by the sexual abuse of children.  

He wil make even more money now, via selling his book, about lying about pedophilia because people love his music and don't care about the child victims in this.  It is why the doctor who overdosed Michael Jackson was vilified far more by television hosts than the child molester himself.  

Our generation will be remembered for such folly.  

Pete Townsend on Child Pornography

Statement Analysis concluded that Pete Townsend was deceptive about child pornography.  Now he seeks to make money while attempting to rehabilitate his name, while continuing his deception.  Police may want to counter his assertions, but for us, there is no need.  Statement Analysis gets to the truth.

Next up:  Statement Analysis of Townsend's full statement about child porn.

The Who's Pete Townshend says child porn foray was 'research,' and 'insane'

  • RTR29YF6.jpg
    The Who guitarist Pete Townshend (r., with bandmate Roger Daltrey) says he downloaded child porn in a bid to follow the money trail. (AP) (Reuters)
Legendary Who guitarist Pete Townshend, who was forced to register as a sex offender in 2003 after authorities determined he downloaded child porn, broke his longstanding silence on the incident with a claim that he was trying to prove banks profit from pedophile rings.
Townshend says in his memoir, "Who Am I," which is being serialized in The Times of London, that he paid $14 to download images of abused youngsters in an admittedly "insane" bid to prove British banks helped channel profits from pedophiles to illegal child pornography rings. It marked the first time the 67-year-old has discussed the matter publicly since he was warned by police and put on a British registry of sex offenders.
"It's White Knight Syndrome," Townshend said. "You want to be the one that's seen to be helping.
"I had experienced something creepy as a child, so you imagine, what if I was a girl of nine or 10 and my uncle had raped me every week? I felt I had an understanding, and I could help,'' he added.
His "help" did not include alerting police or other organizations.  His "help" was to give a child pornographic website his credit card in exchange for explicit images of children being sexually exploited.  Now he wants you to buy his book. 

Townshend said he planned to show that the sick industry of child sex spans from Russian orphanages to British banks. But when word of his illicit web work got out, he says in his memoir, he was ashamed and distraught.

"If I had a gun I would have shot myself."

It was easier to purchase child porn than a gun. 
- Pete Townshend
"If I had a gun I would have shot myself," Townshend wrote of the experience in his memoir. "It really did feel like a lynching."

The purpose of "lynching" is to kill.  Shooting himself would have been faster. 

Police confiscated Townshend's computers and files, and found nothing incriminating. But his reputation was in tatters.

''What I did was insane,'' said Townshend, who also talked to the paper.

Please keep this word, "insane" (with the pronoun, "I") close in mind when you read his statement, up next.  

He said he didn't fight to clear his name in court because, "I think I was exhausted. The police at Kingston station gave me half an hour to make a decision about whether to go to court or not.

They gave him a half hour to decide.  It would take an innocent person less than 5 seconds to decide.  

"My lawyers were as surprised as I was because everyone thought I would be let off. And I thought that if I went to court they would f***ing rip me apart."

Next up:  The reason why Pete Townsend downloaded child pornography.