I am not shutting down.
I had to export my blog to preserve some things. I deleted it for the time being. Don't over-analyze it.
I was sent both a cease and desist as well as 2 copyright violation notices. I will not state who the cease and desist was from. Obviously, because it's a cease and desist. That person will no longer be discussed here, in the comments or otherwise. If your comment is deleted or does not get posted, this is why.
The copyright violations. One of them was for a picture of Trista that appeared in the Kennebec journal. That's valid. I removed the picture and linked to it (it's on the post called Trista Can't Hide Much Longer).
The second copyright violation was for the text messages. That's why that post had to be substantially revised. I could file a counternotice, and state that the text messages are not covered by copyright, but it's not worth the trouble. I've gone to great lengths to protect my identity, and getting involved with that copyright claim means I have to divulge my name and contact information. No thanks.
The text messages are already out there. I have to wonder who was so bothered by them? If they hurt Justin as much as you all said they did, no one would have a problem. The messages probably hurt Trista more than her camp is willing to admit. Anyway, the text messages are out there, still available on numerous blogs...
The person who took credit for harassing me into shutting down---you're a giant failure. Not only are you naming the wrong person, your harassment is juvenile and would not intimidate anyone into backing down. You have found someone's personal information, but it's not mine. I really hope that you have contacted that person's job, family members, and other people that you said you were going to. That's actionable in both civil and criminal courts. It's one thing to post about a public controversy, but it's another thing to find personal information about someone and contact third parties with the intent to defame them. Now that I know your motive, I'm going to post all of your comments as long as they don't contain that person's name. I would love for everyone to see the hundreds of crazy ass comments that you submit each day.
I don't have a home daycare. That's one of the dumbest things I've
read about myself. I don't have the patience to deal with kids like
that, God bless those who do. I take care of my own child, and that's
it. I wondered why someone kept posting the link to complain about a
daycare. LOL I don't have one, and that just shows how far off some of
you are in trying to find me.
I still have electricity, the internet, a laptop, etc. I have not been shut down by Blogger, because I have not violated any Terms of Service. Free speech is protected. I will not be censored, and the same behavior seen here is on other anti-Justin blogs.
Until it's all said and done, I plan to fight the good fight!
Here's to fighting the good fight!Glad to hear it, Obscure.
ReplyDelete:)
DeleteNot sure what all this is about, but glad you are closing up shop.
ReplyDeleteSorry. I meant to say glad you are NOT closing up shop.
DeleteLOL, well thanks!
DeleteIm sure Tori is just about fuming now that her little attempt to unmask you isnt working.....pathetic
ReplyDeleteNope Sorry, I am not fuming, I actually want her blog to stay up so the trolls don't come to my blog. I had nothing to do with the cease and desist order. That was someone else that Lies/Obscure/Whoever pissed off
DeleteLIES.
DeleteAre you saying I had something to do with the cease and desist order? I see I am still allowed to be talked about on this blog so that isn't me. I also know I don't care if you are shut down as much as you think that I care. I am not fuming about. Would I be sorry to see you go and feel the need to send you a parting gift? No but all you really are to me is an annoying mosquito buzzing around me ear.
DeleteI do find it amusing that you say you are doing nothing wrong and nothing illegal but yet you are receiving cease and desist letters and copyright warnings...
You had nothing to do with it, or you wouldn't be commenting or being discussed here. You do care. You've spent post after post, day after day, email after email gathering inaccurate information about me. It's funny, your attempt backfired in a way---you'll soon find out how.
DeleteIf I'm an annoying mosquito, why are you going out of your way to post here? I become a topic of discussion for your followers on EVERY single blog you post. You are hardly discussed here, unless I bring you up. What does that say?
Didn't you call for your readers to boycott here? Lead by example.
I find it amusing that someone who does not take care of her own child would devote so much time to finding someone else's. But hey...
Tori Gifford is the poster child with all that is wrong with this situation. She and Peter Hyatt and Nancy Grace should be put on a rocket made out of cow dung and slung into the far reaches of outer space where they can then claw one anothers eyes out. lol. Sorry, had to get that out. Those people are completely despicable. And I would have included Ashley Pouliot but every village needs an idiot.
DeleteIn case my first response didn't go through.
ReplyDeleteI'm thankful that you will not back down to all the intimidation. Not becausae of Justin or Trista, but for the right of free speech.
I admire your tenacity.
Contrary to other opinions I think this blog is VERY much in support of Ayla and what happened to her. All things and persons, should and must be considered.
It is not hard to fugure out who sent the copyright as to the text messages. It can oply be 1 of 2 persons.
Since the text still are on another blog, ...ummm you have the answer.
VERY telling isn't it.
I can't figure out WHO sent the copyright about the text messages. IF it was not Trista who sent it, then the person just perpetrated fraud and opened themselves up to big trouble...HMMMM
DeleteWhere is Jessica? Too bad she can't bring Ayla home and end this. But then Trista would lose custody for good and she wont allow that. What is that poor baby going through that they wont let Justing see her?
DeleteBack to Ayla.... So where would you actually think Jessica could hide Ayla..?
DeleteFunny how people want to blame ANYONE but Justin.
Where would you think Justin could hide Ayla?
DeleteAnd why hasn't she been found?
@JenStenMen
DeleteWhy is that funny? Sounds to me like those people just don't think he did it.
Actually, the anti-Justin bloggers are much worse. This is my first time following a case online, I did so because of the lack of information in the media. I felt fairly certain at the time that Justin was guilty, and I was wondering what else was out there that might suggest why he hadn't been arrested. As time goes on, I can see how there are doubts, as my own have certainly surfaced. We have been given little from LE in terms of evidence, and it does point at someone in the house; however, to assume that all of the 100+ pieces of evidence gathered are all even more incriminating would be foolish. LE has stated repeatedly no one or thing has been ruled out. Why? Because all the facts, and all the parties involved, are complicated. IMO Personally, I don't care for being spoon-fed ghoulish premeditated murder for profit stories involving a sweet baby. The idea that an ever-growing list of people are involved in either murder and/or disposal and/or coverup in Ayla's presumed (by them) death doesn't make sense. What also doesn't make sense is the suggestion that this blog was put up to taint a potential jury pool. I guess it's only supposed to be "tainted" in one direction. Seriously, not that many people read about this case online. Maine people, as a whole, aren't stupid. No one is going to be allowed to serve on a jury if they've been heavily reading about a case in the newspaper even, certainly not if they've been following it online.
ReplyDeleteI continue to hope Ayla is OK. Thank you for keeping open a place where those of us who want to think for ourselves can post. I appreciate, too, that Derek and Selena post here, I find their input and insights valuable.
Nice comment and I agree.
DeleteI completely agree. Very well put.
DeleteGlad to have you back. It's interesting the lengths people will go to defame others while shielding themselves.
ReplyDeleteDid you visit Ayla and Justin on Friday December 16th.
DeleteHey Derek.. Why don't you get off the net and go search for a missing baby named Ayla.. or did you forget who she is already?
Delete@JenStenMen
DeleteHighly doubtful Derek has forgotten Ayla. And although yes LE encouraged people to check their properties that is not where Ayla's friends, supporters and paternal family believe she will be found. They believe she is alive and well and hidden in someones home. And LE does not however allow people to go knock down peoples doors. As much as I am sure Trista supporters would live to see Justin supporters land in jail that is just not the way they are going to go about things. They are going to let LE do their job. And have faith in them. And none of them are ready to give up on Ayla that seems to be the Reynolds family department. They are the ones who want to wrap this up and get closure..
What I find interesting is that people say Justin is "hiding" But isn't that exactly what Trista is doing? What she has done from the start? She hides behind her family, her "fan club" who will not allow her to be questioned at all. As soon as anyone tries to question her they say how dare you? She is the mom. She is grieving really??! Why should she not have to answer to anything. Why should she escape the same microscope that the father has been under? And don't give me this she was taken from his house. That does not give her an out. Parents are always the first suspects in these cases. Both parents. So why not especially the parent who did not have her?
ReplyDeleteThank you for sticking with it throuh everything. Ultimately only those who are determined to search out every possibility are really on aylas side.
ReplyDeleteHow could the person mailing the cease and desist and copyright violations have the WRONG person if YOU received them?
ReplyDeleteThose things are not mailed. They come in the form of an email from Blogger.com. You can go here to see examples: http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi
DeleteThe only way anyone would get my contact information is if I chose to dispute the copyright violation. Text messages are not copywritten, but I want to keep my identity secret so I let it go.
Your identity isn't a secret though. I am confused ..
DeleteNo but the text messages ARE propriety, personal property and that is why you shouldn't have posted them.
DeletePersonal property of who? The person who sent them or the receiver? It's not clear in the LAW, and you know that.
DeleteGlad you are back! I was disappointed thinking that the online bullies got you shut down. Nice to see that you are a whole lot stronger and more determined than that. Hold your ground. The truth will prevail and Ayla will come home safe and sound. God bless.
ReplyDeleteWhat does A.L.S. mean?
ReplyDeleteWho Knows? Lies just seems to make crazy shit up all the time...
DeleteWell Obscure....your blogging enemy just helped to make me admire your work a little more.
ReplyDeleteIts clear to see that there are those out there who's purpose is to shut you up as well as make the Dipietro's look guilty. I guess those people are the type that don't want Ayla to come home after all!!! My mistake, I actually believed that regardless of our approach, we ALL wanted her to come home :(
It's funny LH, you were emailing me not too long ago claiming you weren't sure either parent was responsible but since the day you went into the chat room for a private chat with Obscure, you seemed to have jumped on the Trista/Jessica is guilty bandwagon. I find it sad almost how much you defend Obscure. I am not anyone's blogging enemy and have never had an issue with looking at both sides of the coin with valid reasons to back up why you think that way but to say Jessica may have taken Ayla because she is a bad mother or a drunk is really ridiculous and I am disapointed because I thought you were smarter than that...
DeleteWow, you really keep up with my activities for someone who claims to care so little. You find it sad how much this person defends me, but that person had nothing but good things to say about you during that chat session. She cannot possibly see both sides, and pick one---unless it happens to be the side you are on.
DeleteDid you graduate high school? You seem to be stuck at that level mentally.
Tori
DeleteI wasn't specifically aiming this at you. I think its possible that somebody else sent the cease and desist but admit that there is a possibility that it could be you.
I admire that Obscure hasn't gone running with his/her tail between her/his legs. You cop a lot of crap also and I also admire that you haven't gone into hiding either but because i don't say that over at J4A that makes me a bad lucifer right.
And right now i'll admit that i don't know who took Ayla and I said that at the time. As time goes by however there are a lot of inconsistencies in Trista's story but I can understand why you would be defensive for her considering your share of grief.
As for our emails i'm happy to send them to obscure for her to post for everyone to see - there's nothing in them that are contradictory to what i've posted here and if you remember correctly i was stating that we both want the same thing but were at different ends of the spectrum, that it was a shame that differences get in the way. At the time there was that bogus psychic with that terrible scenario (remember, you emailed that to me to read along with the "crime scene photos" and I had said that i hope to God that he's wrong but not once did i say anything negative about you. Pick yourself up, dust yourself off and stop attacking everybody because you'll lose any support network you have out there. Deep down I know YOU still want the same thing and that is for Ayla to be returned, right? I think that there are others who now are only concerned in proving the war over who's right and who's wrong. Whatever happened to having that end-vision and sticking with it.....
Obscure
DeleteI have to say a big "THANK YOU" to you.
Despite all the bickering back and forth, I believe that there is relevance to all the Ayla pages out there but I feel that I have an opinion here. my opinion is nothing more than words lingering in space, but what is nice to know is that "sometimes" my opinion is similarly shared with others. At least here I will not hang for my opinion.
THANK YOU FOR THAT OBSCURE
Well said LH
DeleteJ4A
DeleteAre you kidding me? The very things that make Jessica who she is are the things that define her character. Being a druggie, and bad mom all show lack of good judgement, lack of being able to make good choices in life. In fact it shows the very opposite a person who makes very bad choices in life. Someone like that very well may continue down that path in life when it comes to poor choices. Especially when they are still currently using drugs and not in a very stable frame of mind.
all Tori Gifford wants is for ayla to be returned home and she "has no issue with people looking at both sides"?? Please. If that was the case, then what the hell is her issue with those that have stated in their own closed group (not viewable to the general public) that they wish that both sides could be considered, and that both parents would be equally scrutinized, and that Justin and family were not wrongly convicted in the public? She has gone on a massive personal attack against those that just want to be supportive, help find Ayla, and want any and all possibilities to still be on the table. For the sake of Ayla. Don't let her fool you folks. She probably is totally unaware of her inconsistent logic.
DeleteUm, I posted something earlier this afternoon and it did not show up. ???
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I'm glad your blog is back, Lies.
I don't see anything else by you...not in spam or anywhere. I apologize!
Delete"It's one thing to post about a public controversy, but it's another thing to find personal information about someone and contact third parties with the intent to defame them." Wow, you are one to talk! I don't know that I have ever met someone that sees everyone else's shortcomings, but none of their own quite like you do. I mean, aren't we ALL third party people looking at your website???? Aren't you spending time EVERY DAY defaming the Reynolds, in particular Trista?? Boy, you really got it out for her! So anyway, taking time out of your day, time that could be spent with your child, to write and moderate a blog about a case that supposedly you have NOTHING to do with?!?? And in addition, have the balls to lecture someone else about defamation??? It's completely laughable!!!
ReplyDeleteTrista is a public figure, this is a public case.
DeleteI do not go around contacting her family/friends. In order to see the information on this blog, a person would have to SEEK it out. Therein lies the difference, smartass.
No. I posted it with the intent to INFORM. It's public information, and I am not tracking down her employer, spouse, neighbors, or friends. In order for anyone to read anything about Tori, they'd have to SEEK out this blog. I am not seeking them out, I have not contacted ANYONE.
DeleteTori openly discussed her own criminal history (although she lied about it) and the fact that her son is not currently being raised by her on her OWN BLOG. The number one defense to defamation is TRUTH. Nothing posted about her has been inaccurate, even she is not disputing that.
So, what's your point? Instead of defending Tori's upstanding character, you try to demean mine? I'm no criminal. :)
The post about me being in jail for unpaid fines was accurate and based on truth? Come on now. You removed it because you knew you could get in trouble for posting it. That is your MO, you post things that are crossing the line and then delete them afterwards. You are correct though, I have not disputed anything you say because it is pointless. You really know nothing about me and you can pretend you do based on half truths and things you read in the paper but until you walk a mile in my shoes, you don't know me. You spend an awful lot of time focused on me however and then when I retaliate it is me who is the big bully and trying to shut you down. I thought we had called a truce awhile back and then you fabricated a big story about how I was feeding you information on the side via email and posted fake emails from me. You even signed up for the gmail account and sent me an email claiming to be the person who "duped" you in order to get my signature to make my emails look authentic. The funny thing is you had remailer typed into your google search bar on the screenshot and the clock on your desktop was showing and you took the screenshot around the same time that you were insisting that I was lying and that the emails were from me. You were hoping that I would be so tempted to expose you that you made up a story that the emails from Jeff were phony too, they weren't so why would someone who was claiming to have duped you lie about the emails from Jeff knowing they were in fact real? You used the remailer program yourself to orchestrate the whole email thing and that is just psychotic. You did the same thing to another woman on the baby gaga site, emailed her father and fiance if I remember correctly. Strange if you ask me...
DeleteThere are so many lies in this paragraph I don't even know where to start.
Delete1. Someone posted on YOUR blog that you were in jail. I posted that here, with a question mark. I explicitly said I saw it on YOUR blog. It was a question, speculation. I never stated as fact that you were in jail AGAIN.
2. I cannot get in trouble for asking if you were in jail. Who would I be in trouble with?
3. You haven't disputed anything because it's THE TRUTH. I have provided links when I mentioned your criminal history. You admit that you don't have your son. Where is the lie? Where's the half-truth that I published? Beenverified.com does not provide half truths, and neither do the news article that contain your arrest/charge information.
4. The FACT that you are a criminal is not off limits for discussion. How is me discussing facts about your RECENT criminal history any different than you publishing things about Courtney, Justin, and/or Lance? Justin is rumored to be a street level drug dealer, according to you. You have no problem posting rumors and half truths about other people do you? The difference is you are a VERIFIED criminal. You have been adjudicated.
5. I don't have to walk a mile in your shoes. I prefer to stay on a path that won't lead me to JAIL.
6. Your emails have already been addressed. Why would I hope to be exposed? What would I gain from that? That's a really stupid assertion, but I expect that from someone like you. The emails from Jeff were not phony, and I never stated they were.
7. I am not on a baby gaga site. So you may remember correctly, but that does not pertain to me.
8. I never called you a big bully. If you are trying to bully me or shut me down, you haven't been very successful. You have scoured the web finding information about numerous people who have no association with me or this blog. There are people on YOUR blog who admit their purpose is to shut me down. You have amassed a group of followers who are two steps short of being dumber than you. Proud?
9. A blog war is more important to you than seeking justice, whether you admit it or not---it's obvious. I'm very clear about my motives, you should reexamine yours and act according to whatever you determine them to be.
10. WHAT IS A THEFT DEVICE, AND WHY DID YOU NEED ONE? lol
SINCE WE HAVE BOTH OWNERS OF BLOGS HERE AT THE SAME TIME, I HAVE A SUGGESTION...I'M PROBABLY GOING TO GET ALOT OF HATE COMMENTS BUT ITS WORTH A SHOT...I READ ON A PREVIOUS BLOG HERE THAT SOME PEOPLE ARE FOR IMMUNITY FOR EITHER PARTY IF THEY WOULD JUST BRING THIS BABY HOME...IF EVERYONE HERE IS TRULY ON AYLAS SIDE, LETS USE THE BLOGS TO SEE HOW EVERYONE FEELS ABOUT THIS.. I FOR ONE WOULD LOVE TO SEE THIS OVER, LETS USE THE BLOGS TO ASK THE REYNOLDS FAMILY IF THEY FEEL THE SAME...MAYBE LE WOULD CONSIDER IF THEY THOUGHT THE PUBLIC AND BOTH FAMILIES WERE PUSHING FOR IMMUNITY...LETS NOT LET THIS BABY BE AWAY FROM HER FAMILIES ANYMORE...LETS GET TOGETHER, BOTH BLOGS, AND DO WHATS RIGHT FOR THE BABY...LETS DEBATE THIS COMMENT WITH LOGIC AND NOT INSULTS PLEASE...MY GOD, WE'VE ALL HAD ENOUGH OF THE INSULTS....
DeleteAnon,
DeleteI am against the idea of immunity for anyone who is later found to have had something to do with Ayla's disappearance. I would not like to see immunity for anyone on EITHER side if they had something to do with this. The person responsible needs to be held accountable eventually. I don't even want to see immunity for someone who may have had a lesser role. If anyone hid anything, lied to the police, tampered with evidence, etc---then he or she should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
I think of immunity as a way to allow whoever did this to play their game and then suffer no consequences. It won't happen in this case anyway. If MSP/WPD have really spent the amount of money they claim to have spent on this investigation, they are going to have to prosecute someone to keep the faith/good will of their citizens. Offering immunity sends the message to the public that an agency/prosecutor is "soft" on crime. No one wants to be portrayed that way, so don't expect to see anybody given immunity.
Besides those things, giving immunity would enable other criminals to do heinous things and then hope for immunity.
That's my opinion. I think I did good, no insults or mudslinging anywhere. :)
Thankyou ...you did great! no insults...and what you said makes perfect sense. I forget that I'm probably one of the few that thinks this baby is alive and hidden, so when I speak of immunity, I'm not thinking heinous crime..Of couse, many feel that she is deceased, so without stating the obvious, we know where they stand and rightfully so...thanks for listening...
DeleteLOL
DeleteI don't like immunity for major crimes or minor ones. It gives criminals a free pass.
I don't really like the idea of immunity either. But I am going to play devils advocate here for a second and remind everyone that we sort of already do offer immunity in some cases to criminals. Take hostage situations. And is Ayla not a hostage of her kidnapper? Just something to think about.
DeleteI was sure your post about Carol Bengle Gilbert's piece would get busted but I guess not.
ReplyDeleteEven if it did, no big deal.
DeleteThat particular article was a ...Well I'm just going to say that a ligitimate journalist wouldn't have writen an article as such.
Agree 100% S. I thought the same thing. She can claim anything she wants but I don't believe she heard Jeff wrong when she wrote Trista went to Portland first then Waterville. I think thats what happened and thats how Trista was with her Dad at the Waterville PD and not Robert that day. I think they didnt expect the backlash from people and the questions that were raised (from even Trista supporters) so they had to do damage control. Not saying CBG deliberatly reported false information though. Maybe Tristas camp called her up and told her they were confused and didnt tell the story correctly.
DeleteOh, sure. Keep it classy.
ReplyDelete(climaxed)
Over it.
Seems to me that whoever wanted those texts taken down had something to hide. Say what you want about Justin but he has answered all questions asked of him by LE. And they know that. As much as they say someone in house has more knowledge of something they have not said that they have not answered all their questions. They can not say that because it would not be true. And Justin has not once tried to tell people to shut up or it is not fair that they ask questions of him. In fact I am quite sure he has said that although he does not like it or the things being said he understands it needs to be done. And that it has to be done of everyone to find his daughter and he can shoulder that if he has to. And in the midst of that has refused to mudsling at the mother of his child, even though he certainly could from what we see, because he maintains that when Ayla comes home that is not what he wants her to remember.
ReplyDelete@ Victor
Delete...... :)
Once more at a loss for words...cant add to that.
hmmmm I used the wrong signature..
DeleteI still cant add anything!
Very True. For all those saying that Justin was complaining about the questioning, etc. I have to tell you, I do talk to Justin and that has never happened. He has never complained about that actually. He has never once said that he's hiding from the media- it's just not as clear cut as his detractors think. He was totally available to the detectives/investigators from the word go. They always knew where he was and he always showed up for questioning when asked and spent weeks answering the same questions over and over. He never complained about that. He believed that LE was doing what they had to do and he just wanted it all to move faster. He was anxious to have it get to the next stage- the searching for ayla exclusively stage, because he wants to know Ayla is safe and have her home. Period. People have simply made up that he's angry about this that and the other thing said about him. I've been told that it's actually quite normal for some parents in these cases to never do media, that it's not a sign of guilt. It's a personality thing. I've been told that some parents rarely do it, and that they desperately want their children found and are later found to have not been guilty at all. It's a personality thing. He's not hiding, he simply is being. He's doing what he can. The answers to what to do aren't all that clear.
DeleteThanks Annon, for your insight into Justin.
DeleteI understand Justin's reluctance with doing media interviews, I'm sure I'd be the same way. It has a lot to do with ones personality.
Lol. I was all prepared to comment on secret admirer's nasty post and then saw your response and realized there was no need. You had it covered. I think her or his repulsive offensive is telling of their level of intellect. And instead of being annoyed we should offer resources for self help. :)
ReplyDeleteWhy approve that crap? I love reading here and I get you are taken a lot of heat right now but I don't like scrolling past
ReplyDeleteSorry it offends you, I guess I have a thicker skin. I won't approve such comments in the future, but for every comment like this one, there are about a dozen more that go straight to spam and you never see...
ReplyDeleteWon't see anything of the sort again. :)
I'm always appalled at how the other bloggers and commenters of those blogs claim that it is so unfair and wrong to say mean things about Trista and her family, yet they take it several steps further when it comes to Justin and his family. How do they not see what they are doing and how wrong it is? What has Justin really done other than refuse to play their games? They are just so mad that he will not answer their questions or parade himself around for their entertainment. Why should he? He talks to media, talks to the police, talks to the people helping him create awareness for Ayla and he has talked to Trista. If Trista could go on television or do a newspaper interview without calling him a murderer then the public would probably see more of him. Trista does not want Justin to talk. If Justin talks and answers questions then Trista becomes the liar. Hence, the bashing of Justin and media bullying being perpetrated by Trista's family. Trista knows exactly what kind of man and father Justin is and it's not the kind she portrays to the public. Trista would not be happy if Justin went out and answered all of everyone's questions about whys and whens. Would you, Trista?
ReplyDeleteYep.... that one made no sense.. keeping trying though and give yourself a pat of the back for effort.
DeleteMakes sense to me.
DeleteIt makes perfect sense if you actually care about facts and truth instead of Trista. I'm not in need of a pat on the back and unfortunately, the senseless spew that comes from your fingertips through the keyboard, is not worthy of a pat on the back so, no patting today. Keep trying, though. Maybe you will convince some other person their words aren't viable. It just won't be me.
DeleteI'm not mad that Justin "won't answer questions". You know why? Cause I know the end result will be ......Drumroll...... Justin answering questions! Justin will have to answer questions. The police, the lawyers, the courts are going to make him talk, there is no doubt about that. Justin D. WILL talk, it's just a matter of time.
DeleteHello,
Deletehow do you know that? Why is there no doubt? how do you know the end result? These are not antagonistic questions. I'm hopeful that if not you, someone will read your statement and then question it.
how can you know answers that no one else knows? The secondary problem here, beyond a precious girl being missing, is that there are, oh...50 people hanging around this case who think that they KNOW everything and can therefore bash endlessly the family they KNOW has done SOMETHING to the little girl.
I'm very interested to know HOW YOU KNOW. There is one reality here. No one knows. And time is a wasting. Get off your ass and do something to help or shut up. don't try to point my words back at me either. I rarely comment on one of these blogs, as I spend most all of my free time trying to help.
I can help you find the lies.
ReplyDeleteThere are so many lies in this paragraph I don't even know where to start.
A. "this paragraph" - "this" indicates closeness. You are either talking about your own comment or you wrote her comment as well. You are telling us upfront you are going to lie in your response so much you yourself do not know how many lies you will tell.
1. Someone posted on YOUR blog that you were in jail. I posted that here, with a question mark. I explicitly said I saw it on YOUR blog. It was a question, speculation. I never stated as fact that you were in jail AGAIN.
B. "Someone" - concealing gender/identity. Indicates deception and sensitivity. You could have said "IT was posted". "I explicitly" legal term which indicates you are thinking legally when you posted it, shows pre-meditation. "I saw it on" improper verb, indicates deception. If you had read the post on Justice's blog, you would have said so. You said you "saw" it. You wrote the post, then after it published you "looked", "saw" that it posted, then skiddaddled your little behind here to make your blog post about it.
2. I cannot get in trouble for asking if you were in jail. Who would I be in trouble with?
C. "I cannot get in trouble for asking if you were in jail." Vague, indicates deception. Although it is true you cannot get in trouble for "asking" but that is not what you did. You posted the rumor anonymously on her website, then went back to your own to "ask" meaning publish a rumor over the internet that you knew for a fact to be false in order to harrass and humiliate Justice.
3. You haven't disputed anything because it's THE TRUTH. I have provided links when I mentioned your criminal history. You admit that you don't have your son. Where is the lie? Where's the half-truth that I published? Beenverified.com does not provide half truths, and neither do the news article that contain your arrest/charge information.
D. I have no comment for this. No lies, just more harrassment and garbage from you. It's like those movie villians, who tell their plan and confess their crimes to the hero before they kill him, only to be overtaken and convicted by his own words. Unbelievable.
4. The FACT that you are a criminal is not off limits for discussion. How is me discussing facts about your RECENT criminal history any different than you publishing things about Courtney, Justin, and/or Lance? Justin is rumored to be a street level drug dealer, according to you. You have no problem posting rumors and half truths about other people do you? The difference is you are a VERIFIED criminal. You have been adjudicated.
E. "for discussion" - this is true, but that is not the issue here. "discussion" would entail talking. What you are doing is creating false rumors with the intent to humiliate and harrass. "discussing" - same issue. "me discussing" vs. "you publishing" - change of reality, indicates deception in this instance. Your question is meant to infer there is no difference, yet you clearly make the distinction yourself by the language you chose. If you thought they were the same you would have named them the same. You clearly know there is a big difference.
5. I don't have to walk a mile in your shoes. I prefer to stay on a path that won't lead me to JAIL.
F. "I prefer" weak assertion. You might "prefer", but you clearly know you aren't. "a path" - vague reference, indicates deception. If you were on the path, it would be "the" path or "my" path. But it is just "a" path.
To be continued...
6. Your emails have already been addressed. Why would I hope to be exposed? What would I gain from that? That's a really stupid assertion, but I expect that from someone like you. The emails from Jeff were not phony, and I never stated they were.
ReplyDeleteG. "I never" - again never does not mean didn't. You may "never have stated" but you may have posted it, emailed it, or simply published it.
7. I am not on a baby gaga site. So you may remember correctly, but that does not pertain to me.
H. "am not" does not mean "was not or were not". You are using a present tense to describe a past and current event. Indicates deception.
8. I never called you a big bully. If you are trying to bully me or shut me down, you haven't been very successful. You have scoured the web finding information about numerous people who have no association with me or this blog. There are people on YOUR blog who admit their purpose is to shut me down. You have amassed a group of followers who are two steps short of being dumber than you. Proud?
I. "I never" - this is getting redundant. A liars favorite word. See above comments about the word "never". "I never called" - called does not mean posted, published or insinuated.
9. A blog war is more important to you than seeking justice, whether you admit it or not---it's obvious. I'm very clear about my motives, you should reexamine yours and act according to whatever you determine them to be.
J. "very clear" - very is unnecessary, indicates deception.
10. WHAT IS A THEFT DEVICE, AND WHY DID YOU NEED ONE? lol
K. No comment here. You are a complete idiot.
I didn't count how many lies, I just pointed them out to you. You might need to take your shoes off so you can count that high.
I never POSTED, STATED, EMAILED, OR PUBLISHED that Jeffrey's emails were phony. I know they were real, Jeff has said they are real, so how am I being deceptive about this?
DeleteI have no knowledge of the baby gaga site, or whether or not someone emailed someone's father's fiance. If it is a current and past event, how in the world is deception indicated from using the present tense. Current and past would mean that the situation is ONGOING, therefore, presently happening.
Point to where I called Tori a big bully. If you cannot then your whole premise for deception doesn't matter.
My motives are very clearly stated on the "Basics of this Blog" page.
Don't act like you don't want to know what a "theft device" is, and why a person might need one. Inquiring minds want to know.
Count the lies, and point them out. Take it a step further and provide proof of such lies.
Do you care to analyze Tori's statement, or are you staying true to form with statement analysis being a one-sided venture based on which side you favor more?
Checkmate.
The fact that this "statement analysis" person is on J4A's side tells me all I need to know. Her character speaks very clearly for itself. And ps she calls herself a bully in her statement not obscure. Analysis that.
DeleteSA--My opinion...it's a bunch of hooey.
DeleteI will gladly oblige and analyze Justice's statement:
DeleteThe post about me being in jail for unpaid fines was accurate and based on truth?
A. Question, not a statement.
Come on now.
B. Incomplete sentence, not a statement.
You removed it because you knew you could get in trouble for posting it.
C. You removed "it" - it does not indicate closeness, which makes sense since she is describing anothers action. "it" is not as distancing as "that", no deception indicated.
That is your MO, you post things that are crossing the line and then delete them afterwards.
D. Here we see the subject use the word "that" distancing herself from MO, which is correct since she is talking about someone else. No other deception detected.
You are correct though, I have not disputed anything you say because it is pointless.
E. "I have not" - reliable denial.
You really know nothing about me and you can pretend you do based on half truths and things you read in the paper but until you walk a mile in my shoes, you don't know me.
F. "You really know nothing" - the word really is unnessesary, makes this statement sensitive. The subject is uncomfortable about how much you know. Deception detected.
To be continued.
You spend an awful lot of time focused on me however and then when I retaliate it is me who is the big bully and trying to shut you down.
DeleteG. "awful lot" - sensitive.
I thought we had called a truce awhile back and then you fabricated a big story about how I was feeding you information on the side via email and posted fake emails from me.
H. "Big story" - sensitive. "I was feeding you." - embedded confession. "fake emails" - incorrect tense. She could have said "faked emails" but she didn't - Deception detected.
You even signed up for the gmail account and sent me an email claiming to be the person who "duped" you in order to get my signature to make my emails look authentic.
I. No deception detected.
The funny thing is you had remailer typed into your google search bar on the screenshot and the clock on your desktop was showing and you took the screenshot around the same time that you were insisting that I was lying and that the emails were from me.
J. No deception detected.
You were hoping that I would be so tempted to expose you that you made up a story that the emails from Jeff were phony too, they weren't so why would someone who was claiming to have duped you lie about the emails from Jeff knowing they were in fact real?
K. Question, not a statement.
You used the remailer program yourself to orchestrate the whole email thing and that is just psychotic. You did the same thing to another woman on the baby gaga site, emailed her father and fiance if I remember correctly. Strange if you ask me...
L. No deception detected.
Ughhh, I thought that by staying off the SA sight I wouldn't be seeing that garbage again. Did somebody cry to Peter to "straighten you out" or did he just take the attempt upon himself being the man he is? SA presupposes everyone is the same and talks the same. Example: "Never" is a liar's favorite word? So, when we all get those forms to fill out at the doctor's that ask "how often do you...?" and one of the choices is "never" we are lying by checking that box? When the doctor asks a list of questions and one of them is "have you ever had a problem with alcohol?" and I say, "never" I'm lying?
DeletePerhaps Peter's time would be better spent reposting some old blogs and filler to keep that blog ticker going up and the money coming in. If we wanted to read his "assessments" we could go there for that.
I never POSTED, STATED, EMAILED, OR PUBLISHED that Jeffrey's emails were phony. I know they were real, Jeff has said they are real, so how am I being deceptive about this?
DeleteA. "I never" - yawn, excuse me. Never does mean you did not. You may have never posted, stated, emailed or published the emails while you were holding a mackeral in your mouth, and if you leave that part off the statement, it would be true. Never is a condition. We can only believe exactly what you tell us. A reliable denial is direct, past tense, event specific. Never is not event specific. Deception detected. "I know they were real", mixed tenses. You "know" right now that they "were" real. Did you alter them before you posted them? "Jeff has said..." mixed tenses but in this statement it would be correct. Jeff "has" sometime in the past said these "are" real. No deception detected.
I have no knowledge of the baby gaga site, or whether or not someone emailed someone's father's fiance.
B. "no knowledge" extra words. You could have said "I don't know about". Not a reliable denial. Deception detected.
If it is a current and past event, how in the world is deception indicated from using the present tense. Current and past would mean that the situation is ONGOING, therefore, presently happening.
C. See A. above. Tenses can change in a statement if there is a change in reality, as in the example of Jeff's statement above. The tense change makes sense, In your example it doesnt make sense. You got them mixed up. Deception detected.
Point to where I called Tori a big bully. If you cannot then your whole premise for deception doesn't matter.
D. Statement Analysis is not about proof. It is an "indicator" of deception. It is not my place to prove anything.
My motives are very clearly stated on the "Basics of this Blog" page.
E. Your motives are clear every time you open your mouth. Sorry. "My motives" - not specific. You claim the motives but you do not tell us they are all your motives, your current motives or motive about what. Deception detected.
Don't act like you don't want to know what a "theft device" is, and why a person might need one. Inquiring minds want to know.
F. Irrelevant.
Count the lies, and point them out. Take it a step further and provide proof of such lies.
G. See D above.
Do you care to analyze Tori's statement, or are you staying true to form with statement analysis being a one-sided venture based on which side you favor more?
H. I don't want to, but fair is fair.
Checkmate.
I. Might want to research this term.
@ poor thing
Deletehave you never heard of EMPHASIS. if you have to repeat yourself multiple times then you are going to do a lot of this.
I have never shot anyone but i never moved the gun from my car but i did find my pistol under the front seat of my other vehicle. I have no idea how that happened?
Oops, sorry, wrong reality.....
Liar
DeleteReading that was painful.
DeletePainful. . .
Delete@ poor thing 11.09
DeleteI could sit here and dissect your statements for you but i'm "really" past i mean passed overly long comments like yours. To make my point i'll show how you yourself are biased in your post:
Obscure
2. I cannot get in trouble for asking if you were in jail. Who would I be in trouble with?
Poor Thing
C. "I cannot get in trouble for asking if you were in jail." Vague, indicates deception. Although it is true you cannot get in trouble for "asking"
personal biased opinion begins---**but that is not what you did. You posted the rumor anonymously on her website**---SA psychic impressions & unarguably correct opinion (i mean, huge self-opinionated ego )detected!
then went back to your own to "ask"
**meaning publish**---Again, seriously, smarty-pants ego detected!
a rumor over the internet that you knew for a fact to be false in order to harrass and humiliate Justice.
Really Poor Thing, I'd like to see an UNBIASED piece from a SA, just once!!!
Hearing about blood of the baby whose father you sold life insurance to was painful.
Delete@original commenter ['poor thing']...
DeleteHI Peter! Getting bored on your blog? Wanting to entice new people over to hear your garbage? It's garbage. You are not right. You get a LOT wrong and anyone you've analyzed knows how full of sh*t you are. when you go on and on about someone and all the things you KNOW about them because of your SA skills, it sounds great to the uninformed. There is no litmus test!!! I would love it if in order to get my masters degree I could have just given myself a test, called it aced, and walked away with my degree in hand. Unfortunately I had to actually learn, achieve, be challenged, get some things wrong, correct it, and be tested again. In the real world there is an answer sheet and our work is held up against it. IN YOUR world, you make up a bunch of garbage, you tell everyone you are right, and carry links to your garbage to the far reaches of the internet in an attempt to soothe your needy ego and pathetic absence of goodness. Your equally lacking in integrity followers herald you as their king, and all is good in your world. But those you've analyzed can laugh as you point out things that have told you what their lies are....because they were not lies. Your work is faulty, and not useable. Anyone can get things right 50% of the time, and that is the best you have ever done overall. Unfortunately, ChristianMan ... you are annhilating our justice systems effectiveness and simultaneously causing deep pain to people you don't know. What does your God have to say about that?
Statement analysis is quackery. Plain and simple. Federal rules of evidence...the Frye Standard. It is not accepted in court, because it is not widely accepted in the field.
ReplyDeleteIt's so subjective. There are no statistics showing how often it's right or wrong. The internet Father of Statement Analysis has been wrong at least 3 times, just recently.
and picking the name "Poor thing." - as if he has anything to be condescending about
DeleteWhy are you holding back comments? I want to be famous too.
DeleteEdit edit edit
ReplyDeleteSome of us take lots of screen shots and some of us copy and timestamp our original comments.
to letter to the editor: ^
DeleteSo? It's Obscure's blog. If he/she does not want every idiotic comment sent to clutter up the blog, that is his/her prerogative.
Glad to see that you have a useful way to spend your time though. ;) I take lots of screen shots too. Maybe we can make a club? My screen shots are of all the changed stories and alterations to the Reynolds timeline. :D