"I beg all pedophiles,child murderers & their families,you must've had an inkling that demon was in there,kill yourselves,save our babies! And shame on your families,who know you best for not getting you placed somewhere where you can't murder babies! Shame on them for ignoring that u have a monster deep down! Is your family proud?! My daughter is dead! You should've taken your own life,your family should've acted on signs,they are just as guilty."
"I beg all pedophiles,child murderers & their families,you must've had an inkling that demon was in there,kill yourselves,save our babies!
The message begins with the pronoun, "I", making it personal, and strong.
Notice the order:
1. pedophiles
2. child murderers
3. their families
listing "pedophiles" before "child murderers"
"pedophiles"-- If the subject was informed by LE her daughter had been sexually assaulted before being murdered, this would explain why she included "pedophiles".
However, if the subject was not informed by LE that her daughter had been sexually assaulted before being murdered, then why did she include "pedophiles" and why did she make them more important than "child murders"?
"You must have..." speaks to families with a message
an "inkling" is a small amount
that "demon" was in there. We see the word "demon" and not "a demon" nor even "the demon", but "demon" as used in a name. In the subject's personal, internal subjective dictionary, she calls him "demon", without capitalization. This is a "demon" she is familiar with, which is why he is just "demon" and not "a" demon.
What calls for the name "demon" by the subject? Previously, we saw the words "snake" and "devil" used. "Devil", with small "d" was used to describe a polygrapher who asked questions about the events and the location of Hailey Dunn. It is interesting to note the word "devil" and the word "demon" are sometimes used interchangeably. Here, "demon" is used, possibly, towards one of the suspects in a child murder case, while "devil" was used towards one of those who would help solve a child murder case.
"kill yourselves"
is plural, to the pedophiles, child murderers and families. The families are included because they must have had an "inkling"
It is interesting to note that the author calls for death for family members who may had an "inkling", that is, a small hint of knowledge.
"kill yourselves"
is plural, to the pedophiles, child murderers and families. The families are included because they must have had an "inkling"
It is interesting to note that the author calls for death for family members who may had an "inkling", that is, a small hint of knowledge.
And shame on your families,
"And" indicates a connection; that is, there is missing information between sentences.
Note that "shame" is called on "your families."
Note that after the release of the affidavit, on national television and formerly supportive guest called down "shame" upon the mother of Hailey Dunn.
Note that they are to "kill themselves" and they are to have "shame" upon them.
This act of suicide is related to "saving" "our" "babies"; so that if
pedophiles, child killers and families who had inklings, kill themselves, the babies who are "ours" (note the change from the pronoun, "I" which began the statement) can be saved.
who know you best for not getting you placed somewhere where you can't murder babies!
Here, the subject has turned from "inkling" to those who "know you best" being responsible for not "getting you placed", which is often a social services term.
Note that the person is a "child murderer" and not a "child killer"; with "murder" having a specific connotation that suggests a desire to murder children, previously known by family who know him best.
What does the subject know about her daughter's "murder" instead of her daughter's "killing" or "death"? What made it "murder" and not "death", by, for example, accident? The subject repeatedly uses the word "murder" rather than any other term.
Shame on them for ignoring
It began with "inkling" and went to those that knew you "best" and now it is that they "ignored" what they knew. To ignore is willful negligence. This leads to the question:
How does the subject know that family ignored pedophilia/child murder tendencies? What signs did he exhibit that caused her to accuse family?
Was this discussed with family?
Why weren't these things brought up more than 2 years ago?
This strongly indicates that the author of this message was aware of both pedophilia, and a desire to take the life; not an accidental overdose, but "murder"leading to:
1. What did the subject know?
2. When did the subject know?
3. Why didn't the subject take action?
4. Why didn't the subject give this information out more than 2 years ago?
5. Why did the subject repeatedly defend him, even to the point of lying to police?
6. Why choose, and repeat, the word "murder"?
This is to suggest that the subject has knowledge of the events of which she writes.
that u have a monster deep down!
Note the change from "you" to "u"
Note the change from "demon" to "a monster" with "demon" being specific, but "monster" is only "a" monster. Note also where this monster dwells: "deep down", which suggests hiding.
Is your family proud?!
We note any question within a statement as possibly the subject speaking to herself, asking herself this question? This is supported by the addition of an exclamation point, which is declaratory and not limited to just a question.
My daughter is dead!
Note from "our babies", non specific, to the very strong, "my daughter is dead!" with exclamation point.
You should've taken your own life,
"kill yourselves" is now the softer "taken your own life", with "you" being the recipient of the sentence, "life" being singular. This is now directed at one person. This is in context with "my daughter is dead" and assigns blame to one person who was "pedophile" and "child murderer"
your family should've acted on signs,
Note it was "inkling" and then family that knew him, and now it was "signs".
What "signs" should they have acted upon?
What signs did the subject act upon?
When did the subject take action?
they are just as guilty."
The subject assigns guilt of "child murder" of her "daughter" to a single person, and then adds guilt on to the family who had "inklings", "knew" him, and had "signs" but failed to act on.
It is interesting to note that the subject assigns guilt in murder to those who may have been negligent.
This leads to asking the subject questions to learn if the subject feels that she had inklings, knowledge, and signs, and that if neglect of any action means equal guilt.
It is interesting to note that the subject assigns guilt in murder to those who may have been negligent.
This leads to asking the subject questions to learn if the subject feels that she had inklings, knowledge, and signs, and that if neglect of any action means equal guilt.
Possible reason she posted this note...Take note especially of #1 if Shawn is still out and about and not inside doing a deal.
1) She wants Shawn to read this or more likely, a close family member of his to read it, with the hope that either Shawn takes his own life or he is killed by a family member who is persuaded by her words that any family member with an "inkling" should should feel shame and guilt and should have taken action.
If this were to happen, this would solve a few problems for Billie.
- --Shawn couldn't testify against her in court.
- --If he took his own life, it would appear to be an admission of guilt.
- --If a family member took his life it would support the fact he is guilty.
3) She's building her defense--not guilty by reason of insanity.
.jpg)
0 comments:
Post a Comment