Im going to prison or death sentence for killing my wife love you guys miss you guys takeCare Facebook people you will see me in the news” my wife was punching me and I am not going to stand anymore with the abuse so I did what I did I hope u understand me”
Here is the same statement, with emphasis added:
Im going to prison or death sentence for killing my wife love you guys miss you guys takeCare Facebook people you will see me in the news” my wife was punching me and I am not going to stand anymore with the abuse so I did what I did I hope u understand me”
"I'm going" is not "I am thinking I may go", but far more definitive. He knows.
"I'm going" is not "I am thinking I may go", but far more definitive. He knows.
Note first that he says "love you guys" so close to "my" wife. He loves the strangers, or faceless multitude on Facebook, but not his wife. It is interesting that he uses the possessive pronoun, "my" over the woman he killed, but not her name.
This is equivilent to an "Incomplete Social Introduction" (SCAN) indicating poor relationship, which is something of an understatement given his actions. The FB world may not know his wife's name, which would prompt its use, but its absence is noted.
He loves them and already "miss you guys" is present tense. It may be that he had more of artificial relationships (online) than he did in person.
"You will see me in the news" may indicate his desire for infamy (be known, even if in the negative). It is said that the worst sentence a human can face is being sentenced to "inconsequential" in this life. Prison or the death sentence is better than being of no consequence to anyone, so he addresses his audience with both "love" and longing "miss you"; though at the time, (present tense) he was engaging with them, likely recognizing that his time on the computer was about to end.
"my wife was punching me"; not "my wife punched me", as he uses "punching" (longer) and for him, this is sensitive and we are not left wondering why. He does not say "I couldn't take it any longer" (past tense) but "I am not going to stand" as if the event has yet to come. This inconsistency shows the weakness of his argument. The self defense his lawyer may attempt to prove will reflect this weakness.
This is equivilent to an "Incomplete Social Introduction" (SCAN) indicating poor relationship, which is something of an understatement given his actions. The FB world may not know his wife's name, which would prompt its use, but its absence is noted.
He loves them and already "miss you guys" is present tense. It may be that he had more of artificial relationships (online) than he did in person.
"You will see me in the news" may indicate his desire for infamy (be known, even if in the negative). It is said that the worst sentence a human can face is being sentenced to "inconsequential" in this life. Prison or the death sentence is better than being of no consequence to anyone, so he addresses his audience with both "love" and longing "miss you"; though at the time, (present tense) he was engaging with them, likely recognizing that his time on the computer was about to end.
"my wife was punching me"; not "my wife punched me", as he uses "punching" (longer) and for him, this is sensitive and we are not left wondering why. He does not say "I couldn't take it any longer" (past tense) but "I am not going to stand" as if the event has yet to come. This inconsistency shows the weakness of his argument. The self defense his lawyer may attempt to prove will reflect this weakness.
Note the need to explain the action. This is highlighted in the color blue which is the SCAN technique's simple method of highlighting the most sensitive parts of a statement.
I have seen many crimes solved simply by this use of color, holding the copy of the statement up to the light, seeing 2 or 3 "blues" in a cluster, and knowing that within this cluster is the answer being sought.
We highlight:
"so, since, therefore, because" in blue, as it gives the reason for something, and we highlight "left, departed" when it is a connecting verb as it shows that there is missing information, as the subject, in his mind, is in the place "leaving" rather than the place arriving. We seek to enter his mind and know what it is that he is thinking, even when it means missing information.
In Analytical Interviewing, the interviewer is taught to specifically target this area for questions. The "area" is the time frame in the subject's verbalized reality.
We see a man who appeared to have more invested in online or written relationships than he did in person. We also see a man who feels the need to both admit (not confess) his actions and justify them as well. A self proclaimed expert on marriage, he justifies his homicide with the word "abuse" regarding his wife. Deluded into thinking he was an expert on relationships, it is likely that people from FB may come forward to show instant messages, emails, or postings he made giving marital advice. Perhaps he will become a prison celebrity of sorts, or, due to envy, a target for other killers. In any case, his future is not bright.
Change of Language
Change of language should indicate a change in reality. We have you "guys" with love and being missed, but when it comes to the knowledge of his crime, via Facebook, he now changes them to "people", which may suggest that he sees a difference between his Facebook "friends" and the "people" who will then read this on Facebook. It is estimated that millions have read it.
Admission versus Confession
To admit to something is to acknowledge the deed. To "confess" (greek, homo logeo, that is, to 'say the same') is to not only acknowledge the action, but to place it within moral boundaries, accept that it is wrong and accept responsibility. It is to "say the same" or "agree with" the higher moral authority, which could be Divine, or, in the sense of the use of the Greek word, the 'legal' sense of the word, indicating awareness that it was not only done, but was against the law (immoral, illicit, wrong, etc).
Many will show an admission, but will not make confession. We find embedded admissions at times, within statements, or admissions by pronouns, "my victim", or "we were losing daylight", while claiming to be alone, but these are not confessions.
We find this in theft which is why interviewers are taught to avoid morally charged language, such as "Did you steal the money?"
A thief may feel that the company owed him the money he took, so in his internal, personal, subjective dictionary, he did not "steal" but "took" it as he was supposed to get that raise, or reimbursement or whatever it is that he feels justified. We will highlight in blue any need to explain why, or justify the action.
We see a man who appeared to have more invested in online or written relationships than he did in person. We also see a man who feels the need to both admit (not confess) his actions and justify them as well. A self proclaimed expert on marriage, he justifies his homicide with the word "abuse" regarding his wife. Deluded into thinking he was an expert on relationships, it is likely that people from FB may come forward to show instant messages, emails, or postings he made giving marital advice. Perhaps he will become a prison celebrity of sorts, or, due to envy, a target for other killers. In any case, his future is not bright.
Change of Language
Change of language should indicate a change in reality. We have you "guys" with love and being missed, but when it comes to the knowledge of his crime, via Facebook, he now changes them to "people", which may suggest that he sees a difference between his Facebook "friends" and the "people" who will then read this on Facebook. It is estimated that millions have read it.
Admission versus Confession
To admit to something is to acknowledge the deed. To "confess" (greek, homo logeo, that is, to 'say the same') is to not only acknowledge the action, but to place it within moral boundaries, accept that it is wrong and accept responsibility. It is to "say the same" or "agree with" the higher moral authority, which could be Divine, or, in the sense of the use of the Greek word, the 'legal' sense of the word, indicating awareness that it was not only done, but was against the law (immoral, illicit, wrong, etc).
Many will show an admission, but will not make confession. We find embedded admissions at times, within statements, or admissions by pronouns, "my victim", or "we were losing daylight", while claiming to be alone, but these are not confessions.
We find this in theft which is why interviewers are taught to avoid morally charged language, such as "Did you steal the money?"
A thief may feel that the company owed him the money he took, so in his internal, personal, subjective dictionary, he did not "steal" but "took" it as he was supposed to get that raise, or reimbursement or whatever it is that he feels justified. We will highlight in blue any need to explain why, or justify the action.
thanks, Randi!
.jpg)
0 comments:
Post a Comment