"No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth.”
Special interest Article;
Anthony J. Iantosca, BCFE
Subject: Man accused of killing wife, daughters spoke to 9 NEWS.
This interview with Christopher Watts is very disturbing on many levels. His body language and statements is telling me he knows more than he is stating. He has a complete lack of emotion, his consistent shoulder shrugs, lip compression, hugging himself in a attempt to self sooth, his smirks and complete lack of body movements except for his swaying back and forth is telling me he wanted out of this interview fast.
When a person is being deceptive they are thinking about what to say and there is a lack of illustrators or body language "tells." His talking about himself, more than showing concern for his missing wife and children. Statement like "I have no idea, I have no inclination, etc. This is called "perception management." He is talking more about himself and attempting to lead people away from him. This man is talking like someone came on to his property and stole his lawn mower.
During his interview he is popping his shoulders up consistently it did not matter if he was stating something he was unsure of which would be the norm when someone does not know something but when making a definitive statement, shoulder shrugs tells me he is not committed to his statements.
The smirks during the interview is something you should never see. You should see anguish, worry, concern and anger not what I call "duping delight." His lack of emphasis when talking, no real body language expressions. No pounding of his hands on his chest, like when he is stating " I want my family back" I would be hitting my heart area pleading for their safe return. My palms and hands would be open while talking begging for their safe return. During the entire interview he is talking more about himself in what I call "perception management" as stated by Joe Navarro on his four domain model on deception, trying to lead people and investigators away from him.
There were many red flags to me in his interview. The three reds flag to me was when he was talking about his daughter Bella he states she "was" scheduled to start kindergarten using past tense language. He should have stated she "is" scheduled to start kindergarten. This tells me he knows she is already dead. In missing persons cases loved ones will always speak about their missing loved ones in "present and future tense language" long past the point of reason. Stating his daughter " Bella was to start kindergarten" should have been " Bella is starting kindergarten." That statement alone should have flagged the Psychologist that Mr. Watts knows what happened to his family.
Second red flag is when he states he just wants them back so bad and we have a smirk known as "duping delight."
The third is when he is talking about the police and the K-9 dogs and he states "they can lead us, maybe to where they are at." He caught himself and used the word "maybe" he was going to say "where they are at." How did he know they might be on the property? He has stated he had no Idea where they were or what happened.
He could not stay in the house because that is where he killed everyone, not because it was like a Ghost Town. Even that statement is very telling. He is talking about a Ghost Town. The word Ghost or Ghost Towns are associated with dead and non living people. This is "leakage" or what some would call a Freudian slip. Why would someone use such a term when talking about your home, wife and children. He used this term knowing that everyone in his home was no longer living.
He knows more than he is telling everyone. A lot more.
Special interest Article;
Anthony J. Iantosca, BCFE
This was my analysis of Mr. Bolling's statement of an alleged sexual harassment claim by multiple women who have or work at Fox News. I stated in my analysis that Mr. Bolling statement was very equivocal and he was not committed to his statements. Fox News must have felt the same way after their investigation. Mr. Bolling's was fired today from Fox News and his show was cancelled.
Eric Bolling has made a statement through his attorney regarding a claim of sexual harassment by multiple women who work or have worked at Fox News. They have accused him of sending lewd photos of a man's genitalia through text messages. Mr. Bollings has denied these accusations.
The statement below was made by his attorney on Bollings behalf. This statement was not made directly by Bollings but by his attorney, so in all fairness to Mr. Bollings I must be careful that my analysis does not fall victim to "para phrasing." These statements made by Bollings attorney are somewhat equivocal and lack true conviction on Mr. Bollings innocence.
Bolling’s lawyer, Michael J. Bowe, did not immediately return a request for comment on Heldman’s accusations. But in response to HuffPost’s report about Bolling’s current and former colleagues accusing him of sending lewd photos, he said, “ Mr. Bolling recalls no such inappropriate communications, does not believe he sent any such communications, and will vigorously pursue his legal remedies for any false and defamatory accusations that are made.”
“ Mr. Bolling recalls no such inappropriate communications,"
This statement falls short of stating Mr. Bollings didn't do it, a better statement should have stated "I didn't send out or Mr. Bollings stated he didn't send lewd photos to his colleagues or send out inappropriate communications." People do not want to tell a direct lie, having a lapse of memory is a way to deny an accusation and have it sound like a good denial rather than stating outright "I didn’t do that." Also what may seem as "inappropriate" to his colleagues may not seem "inappropriate" in Mr. Bollings mind. Also there are no synonyms in statement analysis. His attorney used the statement "inappropriate communications" not "lewd photos" as was stated in the accusations. "inappropriate communications" and "lewd photos" do not mean the same thing.
"does not believe he sent any such communications."
The word "believe" means he is unsure. It falls short of stating "He/I didn't do it."
"I didn't send out lewd photos to anyone." Also there is a missing pronoun in the attorney's statement. "who does not believe" I can only believe what you tell me. A stronger statement should have stated "he/Mr.Bollings does not believe or Mr. Bollings does not believe." The attorney fell short of stating that.
"and will vigorously pursue his legal remedies for any false and defamatory accusations that are made.”
Who will vigorously pursue? The words "that are made" his attorney is talking about the present and possible future accusations. What about the accusations that "were" made in the past. The past accusations? Also the word "pursue" is a strong statement and sounds like a threat.
Based on his attorney's statements Mr. Bolling's has a problem here.
Special interest Article;
Anthony J. Iantosca, BCFE
FBI Director James Comey
May 03, 2017 / June 8, 2017
GRASSLEY: And thank you for your opening statement. I'm going to start out probably with a couple subjects you wish I didn't bring up, and then a third one that I think everybody needs to hear your opinion on on a policy issue. It is frustrating when the FBI refuses to answer this committee's questions, but leaks relevant information to the media. In other words, they don't talk to us, but somebody talks to the media.
Director Comey, have you ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation?
You cannot substitute the word "never" for the word "no." In this statement the word "never" is acceptable because Comey was asked if he had "ever." Answering "never" is still being a little deceptive, a better answer should have stated no, I didn't release any information relating to Trump and I didn't release any information on the Hillary Clinton investigation. The problem is Grassley asks a compound question. We do not know what part of the question Comey answered "never" to. Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation?
GRASSLEY: Question two, relatively related, have you ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation?
Comey: Answers in a direct way, no. The problem is Grassley asks a compound question again. We do not know what part of the question Comey answered "no" to. Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation?
GRASSLEY: Has any classified information relating to President Trump or his association- associates been declassified and shared with the media?
COMEY: Not to my knowledge.
In this statement I have a problem. First Comey did not answer this question with a direct "no." When asked if any classified information "relating to President Trump or his associates" had been declassified and shared with journalists, Comey said, "Not to my knowledge." The problem is Grassley asks Comey a compound question again. Never ask a compound question because you do not know what part of the question the person is answering to. In this case President Trump or his associates. Grassley asked "shared with journalists" this also gave Comey some wiggle room, as we see in his testimony yesterday. His friend is not a journalist. So Comey did not lie to Grassley on May 3rd if it should come out that he did share or leak information. His friend is a college professor not a journalist.
"Not to my knowledge" is an equivocal way of not answering the question. He did not state "no I didn't nor did anyone else in the FBI." He can only state what he knows based on his knowledge. This answer could also give Comey a little wiggle room in future testimonies if information was leaked he can state he did not know about it. If others did leak anything and never told Comey even if he knew the source of the leaks, since he was never told he will not offer up that information. Don't ask don't tell. This way if he is ever asked again under oath I don't have to purger myself. This is one of the reasons he answered Sen. Collins the way he did in his testimony yesterday. I found that answer very curious, "Didn't do it myself for a variety of reasons." Mr. Comey did not state what those reasons were. Also Mr. Comey did leak the information to a journalist. His friend handed it over for Comey at his request. He did not give it directly by his hand makes no difference. I will explain what those reasons were, if it is discovered that any information was leaked by Comey before his May 3rd testimony he will be brought up on perjury charges. Comey can argue that he did not commit perjury because his friend is not a journalist he will still find himself in serious trouble. Trump is not stupid, he wants an investigation into all the leaks starting from March, who received them and who leaked them.
GRASSLEY: You testified before the House Intelligence Committee that a lot of classified matters have ended up in the media recently. Without getting into any particular article I want to emphasize that, without getting into any particular article is there an investigation of any leaks of classified information relating to Mr. Trump or his associates?
COMEY: I don't want to - I don't want to answer that question, senator, for reasons I think you know. There have been a variety of leaks well, leaks are always a problem, but especially in the last three to six months.
And where there is a leak of classified information, the FBI if it's our information makes a referral to the Department of Justice. Or if it's another agency's information, they do the same. And then DOJ authorizes the opening of an investigation. I don't want to confirm in an open setting whether there are any investigations open.
Comey: States twice I don't to-I don't want to answer that question, senator, for reasons I think you know. Comey did not state I "can't" answer that question senator because of an ongoing investigation. He goes on to say "for reasons I think you know" I do not know anything unless you tell me. Comey uses the word "think" which tells me he is trying to box the senator into a corner by making him look foolish for asking the question that the senator should know not to ask. The problem Comey never stated there was an investigation into the leaks. A better statement should have said. For reasons we talked about in closed session. Comey is getting boxed in a corner and starts talking in circles about what investigations are open or not open. Grassley knows Comey is trying to two step him and asks the question again in a more aggressive fashion,
GRASSLEY: You I want to challenge you on that because the government regularly acknowledges when it's investigating classified leaks. You did that in the Valerie Plame case. What's the difference here?
COMEY: Well, the most important difference is I don't have authorization from the department to confirm any of the investigations they've authorized. And it may be that we can get that at some point, but I'm not going to do it sitting here in an open setting without having talked to them.
Comey starts off with a stall word "Well" this gives him time to think about his answer. He states now that he does not have authorization from the department to confirm any of the investigations they've authorized. He stated before he does not want to confirm whether there are any investigations open. So he is now using the DOJ and investigations they have authorized to side step answering Grassley's question. Now Comey wants to use the authorization card on investigations that may not exist.
GRASSLEY: And I can you can expect me to follow up on that offer.
Comey was the director of the FBI at that time, he knows if the FBI requested an investigation into the leaks or not. The problem for Comey is I believe he never requested or wanted an investigation because that investigation would have lead right back to him.
June 8th testimony
COLLINS: Finally, did you show copies of your memos to anyone outside of the department of justice?
COLLINS: And to whom did you show copies?
COMEY: I asked the president tweeted on Friday after I got fired that I better hope there's not tapes. I woke up in the middle of the night on Monday night because it didn't dawn on me originally, that there might be corroboration for our conversation. There might a tape. My judgment was, I need to get that out into the public square. I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter. "Didn't do it myself for a variety of reasons." I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel. I asked a close friend to do it.
COLLINS: Was that Mr. Wittes?
COLLINS: Who was it?
COMEY: A close friend who is a professor at Columbia law school.
COLLINS: Thank you
Special interest Article;
Anthony J. Iantosca, BCFE
Kathy Griffin Statement.
Was her apology sincere, was Kathy Griffin sorry for her post and picture of a beheaded Donald Trump. Kathy Griffin is a comedian and actress. Actors learn how to feign emotions. The word feign means to pretend to be affected by (a feeling, state, or injury) That is what Ms. Griffin was doing here in her apology. It was a very poor performance. There are many deceptive markers in her body language and statements.
When detecting deception the investigator looks at four key areas of a persons body language, words and statements to determine if the person is being truthful and is committed to their words and actions or are they being deceptive. Those areas are, Comfort/Discomfort, Emphasis, Synchrony, Perception Management. (Joe Navvarro Nonverbal Communication Course)
The only Discomfort she displayed was the fact that she was angry that she had to apologize. There were no true signs of guilt or sadness.
She starts off her statement with "hay everybody it's me Kathy Griffin" this is a very egotistical way of introducing one's self and that she is a person of importance. Also she is very close to speaking in the third person. That is a way of distancing herself from the words she is about to say.
A better statement would have said "Hi everyone for those who do not know me, my name is Kathy Griffin."
Throughout her narrative there is a lack of "illustrators" body language tells/expressions. When people speak, they naturally
incorporate various parts of their body, such as the eyebrows, head, hands, arms, torso, legs, and feet, to emphasize a point for which they feel deeply or emotionally. This movement proves important to investigators because, as a rule, people emphasize when genuine.
Deceptive people, for the most part, do not emphasize with non-verbals. They will think of what to say and how to deceive, but rarely do they
think about the presentation of the lie. When people are committed to their words there will be movement. They are adding Emphasis to the words they are expressing. When people are being deceptive they are concentrating on their words and there will be a lack of Emphasis, "illustrators" body language "tells" this was very apparent in her apology statement.
Her words and actions were not congruent with each other. This is shown with her shaking her head "no" through out her statement. She should have been shaking her head up and down in the "yes" affirmative body language tell/expression. This tells me she is not "limbic" committed to her words. During the important parts of her apology she closes her eyes, she is distancing herself from her own words.
This tells me she is not committed to her own words. She also rolls her eyes upward during her apology, she is trying to minimize her actions. This eye roll is also a sign of contempt/disrespect that she has to apologize to you little people. It has the same meaning as when someone is talking to you and picking lint off their cloths. You are beneath me. It is a sign of disrespect.
Her hand cutting motion shows that she was angry. True emotions are always expressed before words and actions. When she touched her heart with both of her palms her timing was a little off. The timing was bad. She should have touched her heart at the same time she made her apology not after.
At the very end she nods her head up and down in the "yes" body language tell, this in a very aggressive gesture as she again closes her eyes distancing herself from her own words and expressions. This is a very arrogant way of expressing her apology. It is like she is saying ok I apologized to you, are you happy now. At the same time you will see a quick compressed smile this is called "duping delight." She was being very deceptive about her apology and she knows it.
What a person does not say or leaves out of a statement can be as important as what they do say, what did she not say?
She never once apologized to Donald Trump or his family for her actions during her apology. There were a few "qualifying words such as "just" and "sincerely." These words weaken her statement. She was angry she had to apologize shown in a few micro expressions of "disgust, lip compressions, eye rolls and the fast pace of her apology." She wanted to get this over with quickly and was not happy she had to do it. In her statement "I have made many mistakes in my career and I will continue" this tells me she knows what she did and she and is not the least bit sorry for it. She will continue to make mistakes and does not care what you think. A better statement would have said " I have made many mistakes in my career, I am sorry for those mistakes and I will not make them again." The only reason she apologized is she had to because of the backlash and the possibility the Secret Service was about to pay her a visit.
Special interest Article;
Anthony J. Iantosca, BCFE
Church Burning and Crop Circles
A while ago a crop circle popped up in England that had the world in a buzz. This very complicated crop circle had the words written inside the circle "we are not alone." This was the first time a message was given by the Aliens who left this crop circle for all earthlings to see.
The problem is the Aliens who wrote the words made a small mistake. The Aliens should have written;
"you are not alone" and not "we are not alone." This tells me it was written from people from planet earth and not aliens. Think about it, if Aliens came here from outer space they wanted us earthlings to know that we, us living on planet earth are not alone in the universe the Aliens would state "you earthlings are not alone." The only way for them to state "we" is if they are living here on planet earth. Which was the case in this situation. I find the same mistake in the wording of that church burning in Mississippi.
This has been troubling me over the last few weeks with the burning of that church in Mississippi that had "Vote Trump" painted on the side of the church. First, I hate seeing a church being burned for any reason other than it was an accident of some sort. This is vile act that stirs up very powerful emotions. Starting with my own. Second, I have been looking and looking for how this happened and by who. The investigators have yet to find the people responsible. The only information I have been able to find is that the fire that was set with something other than an accelerant.
As soon as I saw the words "Vote Trump" my alarms went up. Lets look at this from a statement analysis standpoint. If Trump's people were responsible or the KKK as the news media has been reporting, why would these Trump people bring attention to themselves and anger people who are angry enough with Trump as it is already. I would think the Trump people would write "Vote Clinton" and not "Vote Trump." If the Trump people want the African Americans in that area to vote for Trump, you would not want people to turn away from Trump and run to Clinton by burning down their church and write, hay! Vote for me! On the other hand if people associated with the Clinton team or people who want Clinton elected wanted to anger people against Trump they would write "vote Trump" this would fall in line with the racist narrative they have been stating over the last year or so.
The third possibility is that this might have been an insurance claim and by writing "vote Trump" on the side of the church turns investigators away from those responsible and on a wild goose chase looking for racists. In any investigation all possibilities must be ruled out. Lets not jump to conclusions. Who ever is responsible for this vile act, I want arrested and put in prison for a very long time, I don't care who they voted for.
I am getting very aggravated with the non reporting of the Church that was burned in Mississippi. I want to know who is responsible for this vile act. We can land a man on the moon, yet we cannot find who is responsible for this church being burned down. Most African Americans in this country are very religious church going people who love and support their churches. This is where they spend time with their families and help each other through church activities. These wonderful people are heart broken over the loss of their church. I have talked to two other forensic experts also trained in Statement Analysis. I have sent them my feelings on this situation and have asked them if we could help by using Statement Analysis to help investigators look for other possible alternatives in this heart breaking situation. There are only three possibilities here. 1) Electrical fire an accident of some sort, that has been ruled out. 2) Arson by people wanting to stir emotions for a political reason. 3) Insurance fraud. The only information I have been able to get is who ever did this did not use an accelerant of some type. They used paper and matches this would tell me they were in that church for some period of time. In many arson cases they use some type of accelerant, gas, lighter fluid, they are in and out quick. Something is not making sense to me here. I want these vile little bugs caught, put in jail and what money they have in any bank accounts taken and given to the church so they can rebuild that church for those people there.
December 21, 2016
They have caught a man responsible who burned that African American Church in Mississippi that had "Vote Trump" on the outside wall.
I stated in my post and analysis on Nov. 18th that this did not make sense to me. If it were Trump supporters or white racists they would have spray painted "Vote Clinton" so people would be angry with Clinton not Trump, they/he had it backwards. In Statement Analysis remember "their words will betray them" as was the situation in this case. In Forensics let the investigation run it's course before everyone jumps to conclusions and rash judgments.
JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — Mississippi authorities have arrested a man in the burning of an African-American church that was also spray-painted with the words, “Vote Trump ”Mississippi Department of Public Safety spokesman Warren Strain says Andrew McClinton of Leland, Mississippi, is African-American.
Andrew McClinton of Leland, Mississippi, was charged with first degree arson of a place of worship, said Warren Strain, spokesman for the Mississippi Department of Public Safety. McClinton is African-American.
McClinton was arrested in Greenville, where Hopewell Missionary Baptist Church was burned and vandalized Nov. 1, a week before the presidential election.
A Bishop at the church says man charged with burning black Mississippi church is a member of the church.
He is charged with first degree arson of a place of worship.
Special interest Article;
Anthony J. Iantosca, BCFE
Muslim teen who reported NYC subway harassment found safe 7 / 12
NEW HYDE PARK, N.Y. -- The Muslim teen who said she was verbally attacked by three drunk men on a New York subway last week and had been reported missing Friday has been found, CBS New York reports. Nassau County Police didn't say where Yasmin Seweid, 18, has been the last few days, but her family told WCBS-AM that she was safe.
Seweid was last seen leaving her New Hyde Park home on Wednesday, police said. She was wearing a black jacket, blue sweater, black yoga pants and black head scarf and carrying a bag of clothing.
Last Thursday, Seweid told WCBS-TV that she was on the subway heading home from a school event when she was verbally attacked by the men, who she said made references to President-elect Donald Trump and called her a terrorist.
They kept saying, You don't belong here, get out of this country, go back to your country, and finally they came really close and they were like, "Ëœ take that rag off your head, Seweid said."
I find this alleged harassment statement somewhat suspect. This young woman who disappeared for a few days is attempting to lay blame on "three" drunk men who harassed her. My first red flag is the number "three." Three is called a liars number. That is the first number a person will use when thinking of a number to come up with. Example; Three blind mice, Goldilocks and the three bears, make three wishes so on and so on. My second red flag is the men should have stated "get out of our country" since they wanted her to go back to "your" country. If there was a group of men they would talk as a group and with a group mentality.
I saw the same changing pronouns in the JonBenet Ramsey alleged kidnap letter. If you are acting as a group you will continue to act and speak with a group mentality. These three men acting as a "group" would continue to speak with a group mentality and use the word "our" country. In examining the pronouns in the JonBenet Ramsey alleged kidnap letter , we find this crime was not committed by a group. Your language will continually reflect there are several people involved. In the first paragraph in the JonBenet Ransey ransom letter, five times the writer used a plural pronoun. However, in lines #11 and #13, the writer used the singular pronoun "I." He/she should have written, "We will call you" and "We advised you to be rested." In line #17, he/she used the singular pronoun "my." Changing pronouns indicates deception. We can easily see this was not a group effort.
Third, "and finely they "came really close" and were "like" take that rag off your head." She is not stating that the men touched her or kidnapped her. The word "really" is not needed here, this is a qualifier or a word that indicates deception. A stronger statement would have been "the men surrounded me." Also the men would have been more demanding in their verbal assault Example; Get that Goddam rag off your head or we will take it off. The word "like" is stating that what happened and what she is stating happened are not the same.
If she was that terrified why not call police or scream for help, also why not run home? Where did she go? Parents and law enforcement would not say where she was only she was safe. Is she home safe? Only she was safe. I find her statement very equivocal There are no expressed emotions to her words. Like fear or being terrified after this event took place. She also did not give a clear description of the "three men." Where they white, black, tall, fat, shinny where they wearing white hoods? She is either making up the story to cover something else she was doing or looking for her fifteen minutes of fame.
Special interest Article;
Anthony J. Iantosca, BCFE
I posted a Statement Analysis article shown on my Academy site on 12/11/16 on the Muslim teen who was harassed on the subway by Trump supporters. Today she was arrested for filling a false police report. I have always expressed "Their words will betray them."
Muslim Student Arrested For Fake Hate Crime Report
Posted: Dec 14, 2016 5:50 PM
A Muslim teen in New York City who claimed to have been harassed on the subway by men chanting "Donald Trump" and told her to get out of the country has been arrested and charged with filing a false police report. Yasmin Seweid, a student at Baruch College, first reported the harassment on Facebook on December 2, and chided the bystanders who did not come to her aid. Seweid was charged with filing a false report on Wednesday.
Special interest Article;
Anthony J. Iantosca, BCFE
Lunenburg Massachusetts Racist Case
From day one I found this case to be a little suspect. I felt this case had all the hallmarks of someone who wanted a little attention. Spray painting racists words on the back of a house on the cement foundation where no one could see it, loses impact. It would also appear that spray painting on the cement foundation would cause very little damage and could be easily removed. That just did not make sense to me. A racist would have spray painted their hate on the front of the house on the siding for all to see. I stated to an Associate of mine when I was asked how will they find the person/persons responsible. I explained that there is a procedure when doing a Handwriting/Document Examination Case that should be followed. If executed properly the person/persons responsible will be found through their handwriting.
In a case of this nature the investigation starts at the home where the graffiti was found. Everyone in the home must be ruled out first. Then the investigation continues out from that starting point.
Law Enforcement is going into the house now weeks after the writing was found, that should have been done first. If innocent and not involved everyone in the house would have been more then happy to assist Law Enforcement in giving Handwriting Samples and spray painting the words on large paper sheets to duplicate the method in which the graffiti was spray painted. The innocent move forward and would have been more than happy to be ruled out first so the investigation could move forward in a timely manner.
Law Enforcement searched the house today, the News Media was parked outside and asked the father what was going on, The father statement was curious. He stated " You can sleep out here all night , I have no comment." Police have said the parents aren't cooperating with the investigation.
The normally "camera-friendly" Anthony Phillips was also not so friendly when he walked down his driveway.
A no-trespassing sign now sits on the property. I find this behavior very curious indeed. This case has all the hallmarks of an attention seeking ploy.
I will post the findings of the police investigation as information becomes available.
LUNENBURG, Mass. (WHDH)
Police have focused their investigation into the racist graffiti in Lunenburg on the mother, Andrea Brazier, of the boy who was targeted. Authorities now suggest that the entire incident could simply be a hoax, following a search warrant of the Phillips' home on Tuesday."Most of the leads that we have followed up throughout the investigation have led back towards the house," said Lt. Mike Luth, Lunenburg Police Dept.
Lunenburg police say Brazier is their only suspect.
The search warrant says that authorities took away ammunition from the house and two cans of spray paint. The warrant also says they were looking for examples of Brazier's handwriting "It's hard to believe that a person that lives in this community would do that to their own home and basically shock and devastate a whole town," said Stuart Leinson, son plays football.
Brazier's son Isaac was the only black player on the football team and after the family called police to report the graffiti, the school district canceled the football season. The town held a candlelight vigil vowing racism has no place in Lunenburg. Isaac Phillips transferred to a different school.The police investigation originally focused on football players as suspects, but the students were all cleared earlier this week. "I feel very sad for the seniors that did not get to play in the last two football games, which obviously would mean so much to them," Leinson said.
Police have not said how they will proceed with the case, or if there will be an arrest.
The superintendent of schools released a statement defending her decision to cancel the remainder of the football games. The superintendent said it was made with the information available at the time and not as a punishment but in the interest of the safety of the players and the students as well.
Special interest Article;
Anthony J. Iantosca, BCFE
I do not know where to begin on this alleged kidnapping gone bad. This poor child was murdered in her own home buy someone
yet to be identified. This murder is unsolved so I find it questionable that anyone including the Ramsey's are no longer suspects.
The staged ransom note found by Patsy Ramsey on the kitchen staircase that morning was a deliberate attempt to send investigators on a wild goose chase wasting valuable time and resources. The investigators would have seen right through this "ransom note" ploy if they had examined and conducted a Forensic Statement Analysis on the alleged ransom note.
Second asking John Ramsey to look through the house to see if anything was missing was a huge mistake. That was the responsibility of law enforcement. Why? So you do not have the possibility of cross contamination and if something was found, as it was in this case. John Ramsey found JonBenet in the basement. John Ramsey walked, stepped over and picked up his daughter and brought her back up stairs. John Ramsey also removed the tape covering JonBenet mouth. This action contaminated the crime scene. Law Enforcement should have taken numerous crime scene photos of JonBenet and the surrounding area for any and all trace evidence before moving the body. I also find it very interesting that John Ramsey waited for the police to ask him to search the house, any reasonable person would have torn the house apart looking for his daughter and outside the house as well.
Even if you had a ransom note stating that your daughter was kidnapped you would still search the house in the hope that you may find something that would help the investigators.
JonBenet was found with her favorite blanket covering her. This alone should have red flagged an investigator something was wrong.
Rapists and or murders do not take the time to care about their victims in such a loving / caring fashion. This is a subconscious sign of guilt. They rape you, kill you and leave you in a ditch or at least try to hide the body.
For someone to cover the body in her blanket tells me that someone who knew and cared for JonBenet killed her and felt guilt after the fact. Also this blanket was just washed and was in the dryer, how did the kidnappers know where to look? I say kidnappers because the alleged ransom note states such. This is where the ransom note becomes a key piece of forensic evidence.
I do not know what procedures were used when the document examiners acquired known handwriting samples called exemplars (formal/informal standards) of Patsy Ramsey and John Ramsey to compare with the ransom letter. From everything I have read many of the document examiners who rendered an opinion of the author of the ransom letter, never examined the original ransom letter. They conducted their examination from photo copies of unknown generation. This would be the first question a judge in a court of law would ask. If they did not examine the original ransom letter, their opinion would be dismissed unless they could explain why the original was not examined that would be accepted by the court. Also Patsy Ramsey was ambidextrous so I would imagine they required exemplars (formal standards) of Patsy Ramsey's known handwriting using her right and left hand.
I would hope they used a similar writing instrument that was used on the ransom letter a flair tip pen was used, so flair tip pen to flair tip pen. Written on the same paper and writing pad. All handwriting exemplars (informal standards) obtained from the Ramsey's should have been written in or near the time period of the ransom letter.
The most important procedure that a competent handwriting expert would ask before taking handwriting exemplars (formal standards) if either Patsy or John Ramsey were under the influence of alcohol, any prescription drugs or sedatives of any kind. All of these listed will alter a persons true handwriting.
There is the possibility that two people wrote the note in an attempt to disguise the handwriting of the true author of the ransom letter.
I would have taken this into consideration and had both John and Patsy Ramsey write the note together taking turns, if using the exact wording on a reproduced document is allowed by the state of Colorado. Many states will not allow exact wording, formal standards, used for comparison in questioned document case of this nature.
1. Mr. Ramsey,
2. Listen carefully! We are a group of individuals that represent
3. a small foreign faction. We xx respect your bussiness
4. but not the country that it serves. At this time we have
5. your daughter in our posession. She is safe and unharmed and
6. if you want her to see 1997, you must follow our instructions to
7. the letter.
8. You will withdraw $118,000.00 from your account. $100,000 will be
9. in $100 bills and the remaining $18,000 in $20 bills. Make sure
10. that you bring an adequate size attache to the bank. When you get
11. home you will put the money in a brown paper bag. I will call you
12. between 8 and 10 am tomorrow to instruct you on delivery. The
13. delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested. If we
14. monitor you getting the money early, we might call you early to
15. arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence a earlier
16. delivery pickup of your daughter.
17. Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate
18. execution of your daughter. You will also be denied her remains
19. for proper burial. The two gentlemen watching over your daughter
20. do not particularly like you so I advise you not to provoke them.
21. Speaking to anyone about your situation, such as Police, F.B.I.,
22. etc., will result in your daughter being beheaded. If we catch you
23. talking to a stray dog, she dies. If you alert bank authorities, she
24. dies. If the money is in any way marked or tampered with, she dies.
25. You will be scanned for electronic devices and if any are found, she
26. dies. You can try to deceive us but be warned that we are familiar
27. with Law enforcement countermeasures and tactics. You stand a 99%
28. chance of killing your daughter if you try to out smart us. Follow
29. our instructions and you stand a 100% chance of getting her back.
30. You and your family are under constant scrutiny as well as the
31. authorities. Don't try to grow a brain John. You are not the only
32. fat cat around so don't think that killing will be difficult. Don't
33. underestimate us John. Use that good southern common sense of yours.
34. It is up to you now John!
Now lets start off analyzing the first portion of the ransom letter. These psychopathic murders and rapists start off with,
How polite these murders were. Lets look at the pronouns used in this portion of the ransom letter; "We" "we" "we" "our" and the collective noun "group." This would indicate that more than one person was involved in this crime. This is a very important piece of evidence when analyzing a statement for possible deception, the pronouns should remain consistent throughout the statement. If you are a "group" you will remain and keep a "group" mentality.
Changing pronouns in the JonBenet Ramset allegged kidnap letter would indicate this allegged kidnapping was not committed by a group.. If you are acting as a group you will continue to act and speak with a group mentality. In examining the pronouns in the JonBenet Ramsey allegged kidnap letter, we find this crime was not committed by a group. Your language will continually reflect there are several people involved. In the first paragraph, five times the writer used a plural pronoun. However, in lines #11 and #13, the writer used the singular pronoun "I." He/she should have written, "We will call you" and "We advised you to be rested." In line #17, he/she used the singular pronoun "my." Changing pronouns indicates deception. We can easily see this was not a group effort.
We also have two misspelled words "bussiness" and "posession." I find it interesting that they misspelled very easy words because the author of the ransom note wanted investigators to believe they were foreigners but these so called foreigners were very good with their punctuation.
Something people who study ESL have a hard time with or misuse. Kidnappers would not care about their punctuation.
The most damaging evidence found in this bogus ransom letter is the following unique words and statement,
The kidnappers state, "If we monitor you getting the money early, we might call you early to arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence a earlier delivery pick-up of your daughter." The word "hence" is not a common word that most people use, the kidnappers used "and hence" the word "and" is not needed. When investigators were analyzing known handwriting samples from Patsy Ramsey they found a Christmas message written on December 14, 1997. The First United Methodist Church in Boulder, Colorado held a memorial service for JonBenet. There was a Christmas message from the Ramsey family that statement had the following words.
"Had there been no birth of Christ, there would be no hope of eternal life, and, hence, no hope of ever being with our loved ones again"
What are the chances of two different personalities and one being a foreigner use the exact same wording.
This ransom letter was staged by someone who wanted to confuse and interfere with a law enforcement investigation into the death of JonBenet Ramsey.
Kidnappers would be short and to the point such as;
"Ramsey we have your daughter get 500.000 by tomorrow or she is dead we will call you with instructions do not call the police or we will kill her"
Also their note would have been pre written before hand and they would have had a rape kit with everything they would have needed to commit the crime and not waist time looking for items around the house.
So based on the ransom note a "group" of kidnappers came in through a basement window yet cob webs were still in place in that same window. A group of kidnappers found JonBenet in her bed and took her downstairs and decided to sexually molest and then kill her. After the murder the kidnappers decided to go back up stairs spend time looking for a pen and paper and spend almost twenty minutes handwriting a two and a half page ransom note while everyone was still sleeping in their beds. They used Patsy Ramsey's note pad and her pen to write this note. They also used Patsy Ramsey's paint brush to make a wooden garrotte to strangle JonBenet. These first time kidnappers seemed to know their way around the Ramsey household quite well. Then they all went back down stairs and put a suitcase in front of the same window they came in from because they could not get back out? Why didn't one of the other kidnappers help push one another other back out the window? Again, all this going on, with a group of adults coming in and out the basement window and the cob webs were still intact on the outside window area. These cob webs would have been disturbed if someone had come in through the window.
Tell me something? Why not just go out the back door? Kidnappers would not waist all that time going in and out of a window they could not reach or had trouble reaching. So lets make as much noise as possible trying to balance ourselves on a suitcase that might not be sturdy and fall over making unwanted noise. No one came in that window and no one went out that window. There was only one person involved in this murder, with the help of an accomplice or someone who knew what happened the night Jonbenet was killed.