Did Trista Make a Deal? – Statement Analysis®

by Grace4Ayla on February 12, 2013

As reported in the local media, Jeff Hanson, step-father and spokesman of Trista Reynolds has made a strange and cryptic announcement on the official Ayla Reynolds website concerning the meeting Trista had with Maine State Police early last month. The meeting was reportedly held on January 3, 2013 and its purpose was to update Trista on the progress of the investigation into her daughter’s disappearance.

Statement analysis of this announcement provides many interesting tidbits as we will soon see, but one fact stands out above all else: either Trista lied to Jeff on May 31, 2012, or Jeff lied to us in his email, either way, the river items did not lead investigators to their announcement that Ayla was likely deceased at that time… Or did they?

Let’s take a look at the official statement, and the subsequent Parting Ways post made on the United For Ayla blog and see what Jeff is really saying (or not saying).

Statement Analysis – Jeff’s Announcement on AylaReynolds.com

Trista met with Maine State Police last month and was shown photos of items found at the dam in Waterville. Trista could not identify the items as Ayla’s.

MSP also asked Trista not to release the details as it could jeopardize their case against the perpetrator(s), but was informed of unequivocal evidence that prompted the State Police’s conclusion that Ayla is no longer alive. Subsequently leading to the withdraw of the $30,000 reward.

There will never be real closure, even when the guilty are exposed, but perhaps there can be solace from knowing that Ayla’s suffering ended over a year ago, and have faith that she now resides in the light and basks in the radiance of love.

Just in general this is disturbing on so many levels. Jeff tells us once again that Ayla is dead, and yet gives us no real information. Instead, we must look at what Jeff isn’t saying.

First, let’s think about the expected versus the unexpected. Jeff is trying to lead us to believe that the river items have nothing to do with Ayla, but they now have “unequivocal evidence” that Ayla is deceased. Well, that’s the same thing they tried to claim on May 31, 2012, about the blood and river evidence. What about this time is different? Trista’s reaction. The first time, she had news crews filming her every tear. This time, she went into hiding.

  • Jeff begins by using the word with which indicates tension in this meeting between Trista and the police. Why would that be if Trista is merely the innocent mother?
  • The pronoun she is dropped when describing the shown photos, so we cannot say for certain that Trista was shown any photos. Perhaps she had her lawyer with her and he was also shown photos? Deception indicated.
  • Trista could not identify the items – this brings us to a second indication of deception. They were “items” when in conjunction with the photos, but the items when it came to what she couldn’t identify. Jeff does not explain why these items were cited in his May 31, 2012 email as part of MSP’s reason to announce that Ayla is deceased. He also does not indicate whether the items belong to Ayla. If he can’t say it, we can’t say if for him. He only says Trista couldn’t identify them.
  • He next says Trista was asked by MSP not to release the details but drops the pronoun for was informed of… This seems deliberately misleading. Is he saying that Trista was informed by MSP, or that MSP was informed of the “unequivocal evidence” that was apparently the real reason the May 31st announcement was made, and not the blood and river evidence that Jeff claimed Trista was told? Another lie from the Reynolds camp.

Why didn’t LE want Trista revealing this particular evidence? They were apparently fine with Trista revealing information about the amount of the blood, the life insurance policy, the three 911 calls, Justin barricading himself in his bathroom, and most recently, Justin DiPietro’s early morning call to Derek Tudela on Dec. 17, 2011 – So what is different now? Even though Jeff isn’t directly revealing the evidence with his words, isn’t he still jeopardizing the case and deliberately defying LE by announcing that there is such evidence at all? Or is he once again proving to LE *and us) that Trista cannot be trusted?

  • He ends this paragraph by bringing up the reward. To me, this is completely unexpected. The reward didn’t withdraw as Jeff states. It expired. Why is this important for Jeff to bring up? Was this perhaps the only reason he became involved?
  • He finishes with some sweet words about Ayla, but not before leaving us with a big clue. He uses the word exposed in relation to perpetrators. Jeff has claimed all along that he knows who killed Ayla – her father, Justin DiPietro. So, who is he referring to when he says when the guilty are exposed? Is it the one who is now in hiding?

Statement Analysis – Jeff’s Post on United 4 Ayla

I have posted an update on www.aylareynolds.com. I am aware of the implications, but I am impervious to the contestable assumptions that have run rampid in certain blogging communities. The simple fact is that Ayla lost her life in the Dipietro’s house and I am only interested in the justice of bringing Ayla home.

JohnP is now the owner of United for Ayla and it’s contents. Tori has declined the position several times, but as with Tori, John is a fair, patient, and considerate person. I could not think of anyone else better to admin U4A and to keep it up and running.. If even as a testimony to the people who fought for Ayla. Thank you all for your help and I hope one day your efforts will be rewarded in the justice of bringing Ayla home.

This post is more disturbing than the announcement. The title of the post, Parting Ways, suggests he is going to announce that he is leaving United For Ayla, but he doesn’t say that, so we can’t say it for him. What he does make very clear is that:

  1. John P now “owns” the blog and its content and
  2. Tori Gifford declined the position several times

It appears that Jeff is distancing himself from U4A and trying to spread blame to Tori while simultaneously blowing smoke up JohnP’s skirt as he dumps the responsibility (and liability) on him.

  • Jeff is aware of the implications (improper introduction) but declines to tell us what they are.
  • But – behold the underlying truth – Jeff feels he is impervious to the contestable assumptions. Note that he does not say the assumptions are false, only contestable. Deception indicated.
  • run rampid (rampant) in certain blogging communities. Jeff is telling us these assumptions have run rampant, but assumptions have no way to do that. Assumptions are made by people, so this is passive language. Certain is an attempt to hide the identity of the blogging communities. Deception indicated.
  • In one sentence, Jeff uses five legal words: implications, impervious, contestable, assumptions, and rampant. It sound like Jeff has been talking to a lawyer, or perhaps just thinking about legal ramifications?

What does Jeff really mean? What are the implications of the announcement that he is aware of but not the rest of us? His newest announcement really doesn’t say anything at all other than that MSP thinks Ayla is dead. We already knew that.

What is the big mystery and why does the announcement mean Jeff is impervious to the rumors that Trista is somehow involved in the disappearance of her daughter?

  • Simple fact – what are the complicated facts? Jeff is admitting there is more than one type.
  • Lost her life – this is very soft language coming from a man who has been very vocal in calling Justin DiPietro her murderer. What was the change in reality to cause this shift of words? If Trista is innocent, then Ayla was murdered – But if Trista is involved, Ayla merely lost her life? What an insult to what Ayla went through! Deception indicated.
  • I am only interested in the justice of bringing Ayla home – what happened to Justice for Ayla? Does Jeff now realize that true justice for Ayla would include punishment for him and Trista, so he is no longer interested in it?

What is “the justice of bringing Ayla home”? In order for Ayla to be brought home, the perpetrators would have to confess to what they did and lead investigators to her body. Frankly, I don’t see the DiPietros doing that any time soon. I also don’t see how making either of these statements are going to effect that end. They seem more designed to cover Jeff’s ass. However, if the unequivocal evidence is eye witness testimony, police could issue warrants, make arrests, and have some leverage for recovering Ayla’s remains.

  • John P is now owner of blog and contents – Why does he feel the need to make this announcement publicly? Does he think that it will take him off the hook legally? Tori Gifford started one blog, Jeff Hanson the other, then they merged. John P can “own” everything from here on out, but everything that came before is still the intellectual property and responsibility of the original authors.
  • Tori has declined the position many times – more evidence of legal speak. The owner of a blog is not a position. How could Tori decline? According to Tori, it was Trista Reynolds herself that didn’t want Tori having any more do with Ayla
  • testimony – another legal word.
  • fought – interesting word choice
  • Finally, Jeff thanks all for their help which is a change of reality from fought minimized down to help, then he only hopes the efforts will be rewarded with his new goal the justice of bringing Ayla home.

Look at his words. What is Jeff really trying to communicate? John now owns the blog, Tori didn’t want it, and it is now a testimony for those who “fought” for Ayla. Who fought for Ayla? We didn’t fight for Ayla. We fought for Justice For Ayla. What happened to Ayla happened a long time before we came along.

WHO FOUGHT FOR AYLA?

Not her mother. Trista Reynolds couldn’t be bothered to visit her baby, let alone fight for her. She could have taken Ayla back at any time and all Justin could have done was call CPS or file the same piece of paper she did. But Trista didn’t take her back. She left Ayla there with Justin, knowing exactly what he planned to do. She just didn’t know he would mess it all up and claim Ayla was kidnapped.

Checkmate

The only way Jeff Hanson and Trista Reynolds can get “the justice of bringing Ayla home” is by exposing Trista’s testimony that she was, in fact, involved in the plot to murder her daughter for the insurance money. This would give LE the smoking gun needed to force the DiPietros to give up Ayla’s remains and put an end to this ordeal.

In order to do this, I would suspect Trista would want to ask for some kind of deal. Perhaps she already has. Read Jeff’s comments under his U4A post. He is also distancing himself from Trista as well. Maybe this is why Jeff believes he is so impervious? He better hope so, because there are all kinds of justice in this world.

Previous post:

Next post: