Friday, June 9, 2017

Missing: Terry Blake

Terry Blake, 58 year old mother and wife, has gone missing after going out fishing.  She has not been found for almost one week.  

There is not enough sample for a conclusion, but of interest to some is the statements by her grown children.  The context is different than when a child goes missing, as a child is incapable of self protection and the parent responsible for the child's life.  These two elements will be in a parent's language, but not in a husband's.  

 The interviewer does a poor job of obtaining information. 

BANFIELD: If you have ever been to the Feather River, it is a truly a beautiful and picturesque place in the Sierra Nevada foothills just north of Sacramento. But earlier this year, the landscape changed dramatically when huge storms caused the Oroville Dam to spill dangerously into the  Feather River below. Hundreds of thousands of people downstream had to make for the hills.

But now, this beautiful place has become a river of mystery and two women have gone missing along its banks. A month ago, the body of 20-year-old  Alycia Yeoman was found downriver from where she disappeared five weeks earlier. Her truck had been found stuck in the mud with just a single set  of mysterious footprints leading away from it.

Now the latest, Terry Blake, a mom who went fishing in the river and never returned. Her husband, Randy, and their adult children decided to vacation at one of their favorite spot and Terry had decided to go fishing on Sunday.


It is sensationalism to bring in the case of Alycia Yeoman for this interview.  If the interviewer brings it into the actual interview or if the husband hears this introduction and has the thought that foul play was involved in the death of Alycia, it serves to only put him on the defensive.  This is what contamination of an interview is like:  the interviewer's statements and questions give unnecessary influence upon a subject and should be avoided.  

RANDY BLAKE, HUSBAND OF MISSING WOMAN: My wife is not a great fisher person or knowledgeable. She is more enthusiastic than she was proficient.

I do not like to hear a close relative speak of a missing person in the past tense.  Here he speaks of her fishing abilities.  This may indicate belief or knowledge of her death. 

What can produce this?

1.  Guilty knowledge
2.  Passage of time
3.  Knowledge of the context, including safety issues, abilities, etc. 

"my wife" shows ownership of her (+), though the clip is cut.  

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: And when that wife, Terry, did not return, the Blake family called the police. Search teams got involved using dogs and a helicopter. 

They looked for her but even though they found her car, there was still no sign of Terry.


(START VIDEO CLIP)



KATIE BLAKE, DAUGHTER OF MISSING WOMAN: She is so excited for a week of just our family together. We love her so, so much. I can`t wait to be  reunited with her.

This is a grown daughter.  Note the present tense language and the expectation.  She has no indication of knowledge, belief, nor expectation of death.  

Note her use of "we" to represent all, which changes to "I", which is very personal.  

We should consider that this interview may be the three of them (kids and husband) speaking for them, as one, hence the use of the word "we." 

ROB BLAKE, SON OF MISSING WOMAN: I know I keep saying this. I just love my mother so much. We`re so close, you know.

Pronouns are instinctive; "we" indicates the closeness he asserts.  The word "just" is a dependent word, including he is thinking of at least one other thing besides "love", which may be his closeness to her (in context).  

Neither daughter nor son indicate belief or knowledge that their mother is deceased.  

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Randy Blake is Terry Blake`s husband. He joins me from Blairsden, California. Randy, I am so sorry that we`re meeting in this circumstance. I am very sorry your family is going through this. Have the police given you any updates, any indication as to what they think might have happened to Terry?

so much better is to introduce with apology and ask, "What do you think happened to her?

Instead, she looks for what the police have told him.  This should not be the priority.  

R. BLAKE: Well, the sheriff`s department has been -- first of all, thank you. The sheriff`s department has been very, very professional. Very, very cooperative. Very, very from my point of view forthcoming. We have nothing but good things to say about the sheriff`s department. When they have had to withhold certain information from us, it`s only because part of the investigation and we have no problem with that whatsoever.

This is sensitive information.  Note the use of "very very" may be a habit (POTUS in negotiation language).  It would be interesting to learn what the husband does for a living. 

Note his praise of law enforcement. 
Note his need to declare cooperation, yet without a pronoun to direct us to learn where the cooperation comes from:  them or him.  
Note he does not speak for himself, but uses the pronoun "we" and "us" to not be alone. 

What could cause this?

Note:   Ingratiation with law enforcement.  We note it, but then must determine, via context and analysis if it is appropriately used or not. 

We now see someone who has referenced his wife in the past tense praise law enforcement who have not found his wife.  This could be guilty knowledge or it could be that he has enough information, including her age, physical condition, the climate, topography etc, to have processed the belief that she is dead.  

The reaction when an adult goes missing versus when a child goes missing is significantly different.  

His past tense language and praise of police indicate a lack of confidence that his wife is going to be found alive.  

In missing child cases, the ingratiation of a parent to police, such as in the DeOrre case where the father praised police for not finding his little boy, is very different than in this case.  


BANFIELD: Do they believe that something suspicious happened or do they think an accident might have happened?

R. BLAKE: I think, as best I understand it, they are still keeping all of their options open in terms of what could have happened.

Here he speaks for himself.  He uses the weak assertion of "I think" which is appropriate in context of uncertainty in speaking for another.  

BANFIELD: I know that Terry`s SUV was found and while that might be slightly relieving, as I understand it, it was found in parking area that  was unusual. It would not have been the areayou would expect her to have parked to go and do the fishing since you guys are familiar with this vacation spot.

R. BLAKE: Yes. It was in a very secluded spot. It`s a dirt road. It was not a particular location that to my knowledge Terry, my wife, was familiar  with. That`s all true. It was a secluded location.

This is a complete social introduction which indicates a good relationship.  

"Terry, my wife" uses her name before her title. 

 This is very unusual.  

It gives us her name and then a point of emphasis upon his relationship with her.  This is not as linguistically strong, in terms of the relationship, as "my wife, Terry."  Instead, there is a slight change where the central point becomes the subject as it relates to Terry's role. 

(Please note that this unusual use of the complete social introduction is going to be explained by the subject's own wording coming up.)



BANFIELD: Did that truck yield any clues? Was there any damage? Was there anything missing out of truck? Any belongs that they found nearby? Were  there any footprints leading away from the truck?

The interviewer asks five (5) questions in one.  This is for entertainment rather than building information.  

We now may expect him to speak, again, for himself.  He does not:  

R. BLAKE: Well, to our knowledge, we haven`t been able to see the car. Our understanding is the car is not damaged. That the contents, as we understand them, are what we would have expected. But they do still, the sheriff`s department still is holding the vehicle for investigation purposes.

He does not answer for himself, but goes back to "we" and "our."
He then changes the interviewer's word of "truck" to "car."

The "car", however, is changed into a "vehicle" in his language.  The change of context is evident:  "we" have not been able to see "the car" (which is normal) but when it comes to law enforcement investigation, it is now a "vehicle" and no longer his car.  This is an indication of veracity.  

BANFIELD: Randy, have they said anything about what seems like the elephant in the room, that it was only a month ago we were reporting on Alycia Yeoman. She had disappeared five weeks earlier at that same river. She was found downriver. Have they suggested at all to you or have you asked them if it`s possible these cases might be related?

Here is how to contaminate and interview and hinder the flow of information.  

She introduces a dead person into a case where no such determination is made.    

She claims that this is the "elephant in the room" which is not likely true for the subject, nor for their family but only for the interviewer.  Since the kids appear to be part of this, one might ask why the Interviewer felt it necessary to push this. 

 Please see the linked analysis to that case.  

Some may consider this unnecessary cruelness on the part of the Interviewer.    

R. BLAKE: Actually, no on both counts. If I may, we are a fair distance from I understand where Yeoman disappeared. It`s the same river, but we are a fair distance from them.

He gives a good answer (he has a solid intellect) and can follow her lengthy questions, compound questions and statements well. He continues to speak in the plural "we", which in context suggests that he is speaking on behalf of himself and the two grown children.  

He reports no link to the area with a gentle rebuff, but the Interviewer, rather than receive the answer, presses still with a short  speech and then questions:   

BANFIELD: And it`s about 70 miles. While I agree with you 70 miles is a fairly long way, it`s still in the same rough vicinity and these are two very mysterious stories.
I just wondered if they had suggested to you at all that maybe even all of that construction on the Oroville Dam with all the transient workers who are coming in and out of that area to do the repairs on that massive project, whether that could be a factor here? Have they suggested that?

Here is what a television interviewer does to maintain attention upon herself rather than obtain information.  

R. BLAKE: Well, no. Short answer to that is no.

He does not take the bait, but she will not let it go.  It is apparent that the interviewer does not like being wrong.  This is a trait that can ruin interviews and why analysis often recommends an interviewer for a specific subject who does not mind subordinating himself or herself to a subject, for the purpose of obtaining information.  

BANFIELD: So it just remains this incredible mystery near this royal dam and this beautiful river.

This is not even a question but a challenge where  statement is made which awaits a response.  I counsel law enforcement, when on the witness stand , to always remain silent and when prompted, simply state,

"I was not asked a question."

Also note analytical interviewing training:  This is a good example of how not to conduct an interview.  The defensive posture is now upon him as we see with his word "obvious" and the affirmation of not knowing what happened:  

R. BLAKE: Well, for us it`s obviously a mystery. We don`t know what has happened to my wife and my children`s mother. That is obviously very, very tough for us. But to what I said before, we do feel as though we`re being reasonably kept in the loop as much as reasonably possible by the local sheriff`s department.

Here we get a denial which would be considered strong if he said, "I do not know what happened to my wife."  He comes close but does not say it.  Instead, he reverts to "we" which although not reliable, is consistent with him speaking for the three of them. 

We may now consider, "Terry, my wife", as a complete social introduction, with slightly different emphasis.  

Note now how he revisits his earlier introduction:  

"...to my wife and my children's mother."  

It is now confirmed that he is speaking for himself and his two children, by this context.  Note the emphasis upon the relationship she has with the children. Before, it was her relationship with him, but here he completes the linguistic circle.  

"my wife" takes ownership of her, which is positive.  

That`s all we really feel. We`re trying to cooperate with them as much as we can and give them as much information as we can. We do believe they are utilizing that as best as they reasonably can.

Here he indicates limitation to cooperation that needs to be explored.    

What might this be?  What could cause this?
Why is he speaking in the plural has already been answered.  

Besides the obvious, this shows a consistency with his past tense reference and praise of law enforcement: 

Frustration combined with resignation and processing. He does not believe his wife is going to be found alive after what he knows of her, the area, the time lapse and of what law enforcement has shared with him.  

He has also been consistently in the plural, with the exception of something important to him, that, perhaps, the sheriff's department only shared with him.  

BANFIELD: Yeah, Randy, we`re putting her picture up as we are speaking so that anybody who is watching tonight who may have any information, who may have seen her, any shred of information can be massive even though it doesn`t seem to be.
So we do ask anyone who is watching and has seen Terry and her smiling face to please call the local police. Randy, I wish you the best. Please give our best to your kids, to Rob and to Katie. I do hope the best for you, sir. Thanks for being with us.


R. BLAKE: Thank you very much. We really sincerely appreciate you putting up Terry`s picture and if you`re also putting up the contact information from the sheriff`s department, we sincerely appreciate that. Thank you very much.



Analysis Conclusion:

Although this may change with more sample, there is no indication that deception exists here.  If the husband is deceptive, there is not enough sample to make that conclusion here.  

If the husband was speaking for his family, the use of "we" is appropriate.  He shows signal of knowledge or belief that she is not going to be found alive. 

This does not necessitate guilty knowledge. 

When an adult goes missing, the elements (very rural, water, danger) the length of time missing, and the age of the victim all come into play.  

Not only this but the relationship itself will be part of the language.  

The husband may believe that his wife could not have survived this long, and without knowing what happened to her, may have exhausted himself and the grown children over putting together every detail they could and feel frustrated. 

When a child goes missing, the  language is different because:

1.  a child is incapable of self protection 
2.  dependency 
3.  parental instinct 

The subject (when a parent) is the one who keeps the child both alive and safe through care.  The utter removal of this ability goes directly to the instincts of a parent:  the language reflects this.  The parent not only kept the child alive, but day to day and even moment to moment, kept the child safe from all harm.  

To this instinct, the unknown is unacceptable.  

The parent will not exhaust possibilities for information nor will they praise law enforcement because they cannot accept the possibility of death. 

Even grown children will speak differently than a husband. 

 What is expected from one, is not expected from another.  A husband of his age will be much more prone to processing the pessimistic possibilities than his children, who will still see her as "mother", even though they are grown. 

When I was about 20 years old, my own mother, who had ten children and many grandchildren by then, lost her own mother.  She said,

"Peter, I am an orphan now."

At the time I thought this very odd, but decades later, I understand her pain.  

As Terry Blake has been gone this long, and in this wilderness and at this age, it is easier for the husband to process death than it is for her children.  

His use of the pronoun "we" may have come from speaking for them all, as one.  

A child missing and an adult missing are two entirely separate sets of analysis.  


This is why we do not rush to declare deception

Formal Training enables the analyst, investigator, journalist, writer, and so many other professionals, to discern truth from deception and within proper context. This is necessary to avoid elementary mistakes. 

 To study statement analysis, please go to Hyatt Analysis Services.  


36 comments:

kimisan03 said...

Peter, this is so fascinating. I saw all the "very" in the talk of law enforcement and immediately said, "Uh-oh, that's not a good sign," but upon reading your analysis, I understand why I was wrong. I have got to take your home study course. Thank you so much for all the analyses.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like a clip and paste interview leaning towards a murder(er) mystery like the Green River Killer or something.

Then she flies into other tangents she thinks will make her look smart. Other suspects could include transient laborers working on a govt project-the dam. Lol! (Most likely union labor)

He is no stranger to ludicrous (he has children) and remains cool though she clearly isn't.

Peter Hyatt said...

Kim

great point.

Principles are learned but it is in application that the training kicks in.

It is like learning all the chords on a guitar but until you actually play and learn what to do with them (training), in proper application.

Those interested through the blog who wish to learn find that formal training is an entirely new world. Once enrolled they look back upon their comments and see a startling difference.

It isn't possible to learn the science from a blog. We can learn some, but the discipline within training is vital.

Peter

Colin said...

A great example of the importance of context, experience of many statements and not rushing to conclude deception. I could easily have gone astray here. Probably he most important lesson here is the holding back on Deception indicated. Good stuff! and thank you.

Anonymous said...

Is Comey telling truth?

elf said...

The sheriff`s department has been very, very professional. Very, very cooperative. Very, very from my point of view forthcoming.

The husband sounds like a take charge kind of guy. His use of 'very, very' seems ingratiating but more like he doesn't want to alienate law enforcement looking for his wife. And when he says 'very, very cooperative ' it sounds like law enforcement is being cooperative with him and his expectations of how they should cooperate with him. Usually, in the deceptive persons statements it seems like they put the law enforcement above them (they are cooperating with law emforcement) but this guy sounds like law enforcement is cooperating with him.
Based on your analysis of just this little bit, and what I see him saying here, I'd be surprised if it turns out he had anything to do with it.

BOSTON LADY said...

This is off topic. I've just read on Twitter that Cindy & George Anthony are being foreclosed on for non payment on their house for SIX years! SIX years. They don't have money to pay their mortgage? Didn't they just get paid something like $300K for the interviews they just did and were on tv?? TMZ is reporting they owe $128K on the house. TMZ is also reporting that Casey is out having dinner with friends and going to bars while her parents lose the house.

SIX years is a very long time not to pay anything on their house.

http://www.tmz.com/2017/06/09/casey-anthony-parents-foreclosure-home/

Bobcat said...

The son Rob is a producer at BuzzFeed.

He has made interesting posts on his personal facebook and Find Terry Blake facebook page.

Some interesting comments:

Facebook header:
Teresa "Terry" Blake - beloved wife, sister and mother - went missing from Feather River Park Resort on 6/4/17.

6/5 9:51 AM
She left to go fishing on a bridge by the exit of the Feather River Park Resort on HW 89. ...
Attached to this post are a recent picture (full body), the last taken picture of her (by the lake) and a picture of the model of car. ...
Randy (Husband), Katie (Daughter) and Rob (Son) are actively searching and on the phones. If you are a family friend, please wait for us to reach out to you for information. We do not want to tie up our phone or e-mail during this critical time.

6/5 1:23 PM
As you imagine, our phones are very busy and we do not want to hold things up>

6/5 3:11 PM
She does have her wallet, ID, credit cards (though no charges have been run) and a fishing license.

6/5 5:18 PM
UPDATE: It is true, Terry's car has been found. However, Terry has not been. ... As I have previously stated, please contact our family directly at findterryblake@gmail.com instead of posting it to the public space, if you have any information. ... A lot of people are very worried about her, us more than any others, but we would like to make sure information is not leaking out which seems worrisome to all of Terry Coelho Blake's loved ones without proper context or information.

6/5 5:27 PM
Here is an update in the search for my mom, Terry Coelho Blake. Please keep sharing, particularly her picture. She is still out there and we have not given up hope. The outpouring of support coming from everybody has been strengthening. Hoping that she can feel all of your love and we can get her home. As before, if you have any tips or hear any information please call the Plumas County Dispatch #530-283-6300. If you have any suggestions, please e-mail us at findterryblake@gmail.com instead of posting in a public space. We don't want to startle love ones with half truths and incomplete information.

6/6 10:08 AM
There is a correction on the information that their (the Sheriff) Facebook has shared. She went missing from the FEATHER RIVER PARK RESORT not the Feather River RV Park. Beyond that, they are out there searching right now. We do not have any further developments. Nothing is off the table at the moment, so please if you have seen her or somebody you believe could be her (even if her hair or wardrobe is different than what we have last put out), please make sure that you call the below number:

6/6 4:03 PM (Re: Search and rescue teams)
They have been wonderful to work with. As well as the Sheriff’s department. It has been very nice to feel so well taken care of.

6/6 4:40 PM
Question: Where was Randy?
Rob Blake: The whole family was at the cabin together. It is not uncommon for her to go fishing by herself when we are in Graeagle.

Bobcat said...

More:

6/6 10:49 PM Bakersfield, CA
UPDATE #4 - 6/6/17 - 10:40PM
We know many people are hoping to start a search party. The search and rescue team has already worked over 800 man hours over the last few days. Please wait for us to say whether or not we are proceeding with our own search party. Do not come up yet. If we decide to start one, we will let everybody know.

6/7 9:33 AM
Gary Lewis was kind enough to crop/lighten the last known picture of Terry so that the details can be seen much more clearly. Thank you!

UPDATE #5 - 6/8/17 - 7:45 AM
We as well as the Sheriff's Office are still hoping for a safe return. No hard evidence has been found around the car to point us definitively in any one direction. The only definitive thing we can say about the vehicle is that were no signs of foul play. It is still a SEARCH AND RESCUE operation. We need to stress that we are still actively looking for her and hope to get her back safe. ... Please do not share any news story on the page that we do not share first.

UPDATE #6 – 6/9/17 – 9:45 AM
From the family:
Please do not give up hope and please keep sharing. As you see above, the Sheriff is continuing to look for her as we are.
I know a lot of people have specific questions and want to help. Please know that, while the family is actively involved, we are leaving this to the professionals so that we know it is being done in the most effective and thorough way possible. If we do not comment on something, it is either because we don't know the answer or we do not want to impede the investigation.


Bobcat said...

Husband Randy Blake

This is a place she really likes. She’s used to hiking. She’s used to fishing
...
My wife is not a great fisher person or knowledgeable. She is more enthusiastic than she was proficient.

trustmeigetit said...

OT Aramazd case

There was a gas can, rag doused in gas and matches inside the car...


I wonder if dad initially planned to kill himself then changed his mind?

A kidnapper would. It takes time to douse the car then put the gas can and matches inside the car while kidnapping a gulf from a public park.

Dad lives at home with his mom (Justin P) and neighbors say it is odd that the family has made no efforts to search for the boy. Neighbors have more confern. Sounds like grandma knows the boy is not alive to search for as well.


Anonymous said...

Randy Blake is a Woodland-based attorney.

Anonymous said...

That is correct about Randy being an attorney. He specializes in contract law.

kimisan03 said...

Bobcat, I really think you might need to take a break from this blog for awhile. I've been reading your posts on the most recent Blackburn thread and now this one. Your posts are occurring later and later at night and becoming increasingly divergent from Peter's analyses. I really think you should take a step back from this. I'm not a troll, Bobcat; you know I've been reading and posting on here for years. I am genuinely concerned.

But I am a robot! said...

OT: The McCann parents' ongoing oddities: Has DNA analysis drastically improved in recent years? I understood that the entire hair follicle, specifically including the root, is necessary for any sort of information? The mother keeps going on about hearing the scissors, and how many patches of hair lab technicians "snipped" from the twins' heads.

Obviously, the lab technicians would know if they need the entire hair follicle, and I can't imagine them yanking out anywhere near the amount of hair samples that the mother repeatedly claims they "snipped" (painlessly, if not cosmetically flattering) without the twins screaming in pain and the parents going ballistic.

But I'd think trained medical doctors would understand the basic science as well, so why would she keep carrying on about hearing the scissors cutting vast swathes from each child, and complaining only about the cosmetic effects, not her children needlessly suffering in a supposed witch hunt for their parents?

Anonymous said...

Thanks for explaining how the use of past tense may have not indicated deception here. In reading past articles I've always wondered why the family member can't assume what the rest of us are assuming, that she is dead. The explanation of parent v. child and how perception changes as you age makes a lot of sense.

Anonymous said...

Can any analysts here explain how SA is used to analyze a "humorous" statement(s)? Is it applicable when the content of a statement is "just a joke"?

Anonymous said...

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/humor-and-substance-abuse-in-statements.html

Peter Hyatt said...

James Comey was deceptive.

He, as a former prosecutor, refused to yield to what one says, instead, deliberately deceiving by giving what he "felt" others said.

He is the result of life long deception wedded to moral ego. He thinks he is morally superior while lying.

He now stands to face possible charges, and to make 10 million dollars, and become the player he envisions himself to be, with the book deal.

I may cover specifics time allowing.

Peter

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
LC said...

Journalists and reporters today do Not know how to properly conduct an interview. Many questions are leading, and there is very little follow-up that pertains to the replies that were just given.
I am increasingly aware of the slant in all news reporting - most notably by the adjectives that are chosen in describing a news story.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Peter, My son was asking me if Comey is deceptive and asked me to read important parts of what he had said but I figured I would just ask here bc I wasn't sure where to begin with reading his statements and preferred to have an expert opinion regardless. Thank you again for your detailed response!

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous said...
Do you have any proof of Comey and life long deception? How can you determine that? For training purposes please provide explanation.





1. by asking for "proof", rather than asking what indicators led to this conclusion, combined with:
2. The need to explain why you want "proof" as educational is unnecessary.

What does this mean?

You didn't post because you want to learn; you have a narrative instead, and are seeking to challenge under a false pretense.


If you are serious about training, this is not the place for you.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

Thank you to those who posted that the victim's husband is an attorney.

I was concerned about his use of "cooperation" and this explains why it is in his language.


This is a very valuable entry for those serious about learning. It is more valuable than, I think, blog readers understand.

I respect the honesty of those who said they saw it as guilty knowledge. Even for those in training, this one is challenging. I think those who are able to see the different context from a child are on the right path. It is also a reminder of the need for disciple which in this science, only comes from peer review and guided training. Its a tough one, but a good one, for study.

One analyst wrote to me who exercised much restraint in conclusion, which is far better than loosely made conclusions.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

No, a leftist antognist struggling to conceal vinegar.


Peter

Anonymous said...

It's demoralizing to see, not only how easily some people are fooled by the MSM's deliberately misleading headlines which cast a totally different picture of what Comey's testimony entailed, but the seeming consensus among liberal MSM publications across a wide range of Western countries that portraying it in a deliberately misleading manner is acceptable practice.

Anonymous said...

It would be interesting to go over Comey's responses, I believe he said something like "that's as far from fake news as you can get!"? But so too would be good to go over Trump's counter claim that he didn't tell Comey to drop the Flynn investigation or for a loyalty pledge as recounted by Comey. Someone's lying.

Anonymous said...

I did not believe Comey either. When asked if he shared particular info with other FBI agents he said yes while shaking his head no. Lol! Then he invoked his "Mother" to explain how he was raised and why he was honest.

Trump isn't believable either, but he won this one hands down.

People are tired of the FBI and/or the military interfering with the democratic process. It's the age old saga of the FBI using the media to portray Trump as Hitler when it is the military unleashing the stasi as well.

Waiting until the last week to investigate Clinton again was too much to believe that a credible FBI was concerned for America. Trump knows if they can do that to Clinton, they will do the same to him.

tania cadogan said...

Anonymous But I am a robot! said...

OT: The McCann parents' ongoing oddities: Has DNA analysis drastically improved in recent years? I understood that the entire hair follicle, specifically including the root, is necessary for any sort of information? The mother keeps going on about hearing the scissors, and how many patches of hair lab technicians "snipped" from the twins' heads.

Obviously, the lab technicians would know if they need the entire hair follicle, and I can't imagine them yanking out anywhere near the amount of hair samples that the mother repeatedly claims they "snipped" (painlessly, if not cosmetically flattering) without the twins screaming in pain and the parents going ballistic.

But I'd think trained medical doctors would understand the basic science as well, so why would she keep carrying on about hearing the scissors cutting vast swathes from each child, and complaining only about the cosmetic effects, not her children needlessly suffering in a supposed witch hunt for their parents?

June 10, 2017 at 7:41 PM

Kate exaggerated what happened regarding the hair. The technicians would need only a few hairs for a sample not wads as she implied.
Kate wrote to play the poor me, the poor victim and to get public sympathy, much as every time they open their mouths.
The impression she gave is off the twins and herself being left with huge chunks missing and bald spots which as we all saw was not the case. The samples taken are so small you would not know they had been taken.
They may have also tried for hairs with follicles on, usually combing the hair would provide at least a couple of hairs since we lose up to 100 hairs a day.
Take everything the mccanns say with a large pinch of salt, look at what they actually say rather than what you think they are saying. They leak a lot of information

Hope said...

I love to fish and will go fishing alone if I have opportunity. I know how to bait my hook with worms and dough balls and how to cast without tangling my line. That is the extent of my knowledge. Depths of fish, where to fish, lures and those types of things are a mystery to me. Iy is relaxing just to be out there fishing and dealing with all if the other stuff would steal the relaxation. I get excited when I caych something but it is more accidental luck than knowledge. My point being, she can be an enthusiastic fisher and not knowledgeable. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Hope said...

This is sad because a woman is missing and I don't want to be disrespectful of that but I have learned so much from this sample. I was taken aback by the very very very and I did jump to the conclusion he was ingratiating himself to law enforcement. Thank you for describing why that might not be a rec flag. I need to focus on following through the entire statement marking concerns and then seeing the entire picture when I am done. I erroneously get distracted by something that feels like a red flag.

Alex said...

I believed Comey when he said he leaked a memo. I think leaking info is a form of deception, in that one is seeking to control what info comes out without having to explain or answer any pesky questions.
He seems to me like someone whose self-serving ways have gotten him in over his head.
I think a lot of people brand President Trump a liar because he says a lot of things they don't want to hear. He may lie, but it is beyond me how people can vilify him yet defend his predecessors

Alex

Peter Hyatt said...

Alex,

One of the things learned in training is the magnitude of the context.

In Comey's case, we have background (attorney/prosecutor) who is now testifying for hours in one of the world's biggest stages (setting).

His testimony is also weighed against consequences. The consequences range from life, income, reputation, and so on, all the way to potentially damaging litigation against him, such as perjury and the deliberate leaking of documents.

How did he react in this setting?

As a prosecutor,(background) he used techniques in his answers that were subjective impressions, including a subtle disparagement of actual words. He told his audience, not what one said, but what his interpretation (impression) was. This is the opposite of his life's work as an attorney.

Whereas most people would fall to pieces trying to deceive under the eyes of the western world, he consistently used a technique that required the deliberate miscommunication while carefully avoiding the outright lie, and the accusation of an outright lie.

This was a most skillful display.

At this point in his career, and at this world wide stage, with the most serious of consequences, he went with what he was most comfortable with: avoiding words and using the very opposite that he used in court: impressions.

This is not something he has recently acquired as a skill.


When one is given an extreme test, he can either tell the truth and bear up under the consequences, or he can twist, manipulate and deliberately mislead, but in doing so, he must go to that which he is most confident in.

This is what Comey did.



Alex, I appreciate your post and will cover POTUS statements too. As one investigator noted just before the election, you are hearing the language of "BS negotiator" ---this is something that is very frustrating to deal with because everything is up for negotiation and can change. Schmoozing is consistent.

Many people did not "vote" for POTUS, but voted against the corruption of Hillary.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

Hope,

thank you for your post.

When McCann supporters could not answer the analysis, they accused me of profiting off of the McCann's pain. In a sense, it is true as media profits, and job security in the child abuse world is very strong right now.

I sometimes remind myself that good comes from these terrible situations, of which much of the good is not recognized.

The McCanns did what they did and perhaps studying their language will lead an investigator to catch a liar and save a child's life.

This will then benefit many people from society to the investigator to the analyst to...

the child.

I did not point out, however, to the mccann supporters how some of them that I have dealt with have benefited from what happened to Madeleine as they have found their "cause" in life and emotional fulfillment in insulting those who disagree with them.

They say the words the McCanns could not, and they attack motive, peripheral, and anything they can, but the truth.

Yours is a thoughtful post.

Peter

Alex said...

Peter,
Thank you for explaining the impression I got from Comeys' testimony when I said he seemed over his head. I saw a headline before coming to this site that stated "More Than Just One", Trumps legal team may show months long trail of memos.
Thank you for this site. The things I have learned here has helped me immeasurably in my personal as well as professional life.

Thank you again,
Alex

Anonymous said...

I found this statement parsing and intent attribution very interesting. I did note, however, that with all the focus on each word in the statements, the subject's name was spelled incorrectly at the very beginning of the article. Forest and trees!