Surrender Dorothy

by Grace4Ayla on March 11, 2013

Jeff Hanson, the official spokesperson for Trista Reynolds, has again made cryptic announcements on both the old official unofficial blog (United For Ayla) and the new official unoffical blog (Justice For Ayla at Blogspot).

At first glance, it appears Jeff is giving up hope in his quest for any kind of justice, but upon a closer reading it seems as though he may be offering up his idea of plausible story directly to Justin and Courtney themselves! Let’s slow down, as Kaaren Gough recommends, and see if we can figure out what Jeff is really saying.

Statment Analysis – Jeff Hanson’s Announcement 3/08/2013

The juicy stuff was released on United For Ayla.

I spoke with detectives assigned to Trista this past Tuesday and they relayed to me some things that I did not know and also verified some things I had already been told. So there are no changes (or retractions) in what I have already said. Though I did not want to waste their time with blog rumors, they did inform me of some things that should put a few of the rumors to rest.

Jeff starts out his first paragraph with “I,” and we see him stick to this first person narrative throughout this paragraph. “Spoke” denotes courtesy, gentleness, which we would expect if one were dealing with LE. Except Jeff goes on to say he spoke “with” them. Using the word “with” indicates tension in the meeting between Jeff and the detectives. He indicates that he spoke with multiple detectives with the use of the plural.

The next word Jeff uses is “assigned.” This is very telling to me. Why would MSP have specific detectives assigned to different witnesses? Wouldn’t one detective serve as a liaison for all of them? Wouldn’t he be different than the detectives assigned to say, forensic collection or interviewing? If MSP presented the case to the (unnamed) suspects, would they use different detectives to present the same evidence to the victim’s (not a suspect) mother? Would they show the same evidence?

I believe they did not show Trista the same evidence, by McCausland’s use of the word “a.” He said they showed Trista the evidence “a” mother “should” know, not the “frank” talk they had with the DiPietros.

Jeff then goes on to say the detectives are assigned “to Trista,” not “to the family.” (Why would Jeff be talking with them if he weren’t family? Is he now a witness?)

He points out “this past Tuesday” possibly trying to muddy the exact date. Does he mean Tuesday, March 5, or “last” Tuesday, in February? Deception possible. But apparently the detectives did not speak with him, because he clearly tells us they “relayed” only “some” things. If Jeff does not say they said these things to him, we can’t say it for him. Some of these things Jeff “did not know.”

Jeff goes on with the word “and” which often indicates missing information, and then he begins to drop pronouns – another indication of deception. He says “verified,” again obscuring the vehicle in which Jeff obtained this information. He does not tell us that MSP verified or said anything to him directly so far, so we can’t say it for him. What was verified? “Some things I had already been told.”

What are these things? Jeff says he was “told” these things, indicating tension. Who “told” Jeff in such a forceful manner? Jeff does not indicate whether the verification was that these “things” were true, or that he had been “told” these things. Very clever manipulation of words. Deception possible.

He begins the next sentence with “So,” a big red flag in statement analysis as it shows a need to convince or explain. He goes on with “there are no changes or retractions in what I have already said.” This is another very clever manipulation of words. He is trying to make us think, again, that MSP verified what Jeff has already reported on the blogs is true, without actually saying that. Instead he uses the words “changes or retractions” to lead us one way then hits us with the word “said.” We don’t know everything Jeff has “said” regarding this case. We only know what he has published.

His next sentence again begins with a red flag, “Though” which is another attempt to persuade and explain. “I did not want to waste their time with blog rumors.” This, in my opinion, is a slap in the face to John P. and Jeff’s loyal followers. These were not blog rumors, but direct statements made by Jeff Hanson on behalf of Trista Reynolds. To belittle verifying pertinent information regarding the disappearance of Ayla Bell Reynolds to mere “blog rumors” is beyond belief, especially when he was the one who started them!

By the way, I had the same aha moment with Jeff Hanson’s choice of the word “rumors” here as Kaaren Gough did with Mark Redwine. Why would he call them “rumors” when he tried to pass them off as truth?

Next Jeff goes on to say that they “informed” him, again avoiding use of words like said, told, or explained, which are close words, while “informed” is distinctly impersonal. The police “inform” the public.

Jeff says “some things” indicating he knows it isn’t everything. He also isn’t being very specific about what he is being told. Things, or facts?

“That should” is future tense, therefore unreliable. If it dispels a rumor, then it “will” dispel not “should.”

“Put a few” but not all of the rumors to rest, leaving room for some of the information to still be false.

“…of the rumors to rest.” Jeff still can’t bring himself to say that either Trista lied to him or he lied to his readers, instead he is blaming those same readers (and other blogs as well) for creating these “rumors” he now must dispel!

Justin told LE that on Friday afternoon (12/16/11) he was “hanging out with Ayla” and Christmas shopping. Courtney showed up at 8pm and she stayed in the basement with the kids while Justin went to the store for some wine, besides that he told MSP “nothing happened”, no party, no drug deals, etc..

In this section of the statement, I first notice that Jeff has now changed from first person narrative to third person. Why the change in reality?

“Justin told LE.” Here Jeff uses the word “told” indicating Justin forcefully explained this to the detectives, but how would he know that unless those were the words LE used with him? If they did, why would they explain the interview in that much detail, down to the tone of voice Justin used?

If you were reporting what you were told by LE, wouldn’t you begin with “LE said to me that…”? Instead, Jeff begins with “Justin told,” which is what I would expect to see if Jeff were telling us what Justin DiPietro reported to him.

Next, Jeff reports what happened on Friday afternoon, by using quotes. Who is he quoting? Is he trying to get us to infer that LE said to Jeff “Justin told us, and we quote,”he was hanging out with Ayla.” First of all, wouldn’t the quote be “I was” instead of “he was”?

Jeff: What did Justin tell you happened on the day and the evening of the 16th?

MSP: Justin told us he was “hanging out with Ayla” vs. Justin told us “I was hanging out with Ayla”

Why is Jeff putting special emphasis on this portion, “hanging out”?

He goes on to say “and Christmas shopping.” “and” could indicate missing information. Jeff does not say whether Ayla was with Justin at this point in the narrative, so perhaps this is the reason this portion wasn’t highlighted with quotes, although it had to have also come from Justin.

“Courtney showed up at 8pm and she stayed in the basement with the kids.” This sentence seems intentionally vague. What he does not say is which kids. Ayden and Gabby? Was Ayla there? Why wouldn’t Jeff want that point clarified?

At this point in Jeff’s statement we have no direct evidence of Ayla coming home from “hanging out” and shopping, nor that Courtney ever saw her.

“While Justin went out to the store for some wine.” I’m having trouble discerning which rumor this statement is putting to rest. Perhaps two birds with one stone? Justin did leave his house that night, and/or drinking is allowed in Phoebe’s house? Are we supposed to pick one?

“Besides that he told MSP “nothing happened.” Here again we see Jeff quoting someone he wants us to believe is Justin DiPietro “telling” (with force) “NOTHING HAPPENED.” That defies the laws of nature, as nothing cannot happen. Something happened that night, obviously. Ayla is missing.

Jeff goes on to list all the nothings that didn’t happen that night: “no party, no drug deals, etc.” Except this time, he isn’t quoting Justin, so this must be where he wants us to believe that MSP is saying that these things didn’t happen. But how would LE know if Justin hadn’t told them? “Etc.” is an especially nice touch, Jeff expects his readers to just fill in the blanks for everything else that didn’t happen that night.

Ayla could not have left the bedroom by herself as the door scraped the bottom of the floor. It was necessary to physically lift up the door and turn the knob simultaneously for the door to open, hardly possible for a child and impossible for a toddler with a fractured arm.

Next, we see Jeff detailing how Ayla Reynolds could not have left the bedroom she was in by herself. This information is not new, only the details. LE has repeatedly stated that Ayla did not walk out of that house by herself that night.

I have trouble believing that LE, after telling Trista about the amount of blood found, the life insurance policy, then asking her to wear a wire, would have held back this information about a sticky door until now. (Here, I am assuming that Jeff was gaining clarification for things Trista may have “miscontrued” during her January 3 meeting, not that he was asking for new information.)

Jeff explains why Ayla couldn’t have escaped her room alone, but he does not say MSP told him these things. How does Jeff know? Would Trista be strong enough to open this door? If all three adults in the house were passed out on wine, any adult with a key or an unlocked door could walk in and take Ayla, even if they didn’t know the door would stick. But how would this person know the trick? And why put a toddler in a room where it was so difficult to get the door open, and then drink to oblivion? What if there were a fire? If they were still drunk, could they have gotten that door open?

Also the bedroom window still had dust and artifacts in place therefore could not be an access point to support an abduction theory.

Jeff begins again with a red flag, the word “Also.”

I repeat, these may be investigative details, but they pale in comparison to the blood and life insurance evidence Jeff has previously leaked in this case. It makes no sense to me why Jeff would want these abduction speculations clarified at this point in time. Jeff Hanson has maintained all along that Justin DiPietro murdered Ayla Reynolds, and yet when Jeff has a chance to speak with the detectives, he focuses on “blog rumors” about abduction? MSP has said time and time again a kidnapping did not occur. Those detectives must have thought Jeff was mentally deficient.

Mid-way through the sentence we see another red flag, “therefore,” another attempt to explain and persuade. If Jeff is merely repeating what he heard from MSP, why all the deception indicators? He isn’t quoting Justin DiPietro.

After the red flag he drops pronouns again, leaving us to wonder what “could not be.” If he doesn’t say the window, we can’t say it for him. Furthermore, he is minimizing “the entry point” (if the DiPietros are to be believed) of the abductor to “an access point” as if it were common to enter through the window. I suppose in a kidnapping it would be.

Jeff then goes on to reveal his real attitude about this abduction issue when he labels the abduction a “theory.” Well, if he already believed it was only a theory, why did he choose to make this the focus of his discussion with LE? Surely he could have asked more pertinent questions such as “When do you think there will be an arrest? What happens next? How close are you to finding Ayla?” I realize Jeff is limited in what he can relay to us, but it disturbs me that finding Ayla is so far from his focus.

People have asked me what I think happened to Ayla, and I usually turn the question back to them, and everyone has a different version, but they all say pretty much the same thing.. Justin had an accident with Ayla.

For me, here is where it gets strange. Jeff clearly demonstrates one of the principles of statement analysis. Answering a question with a question makes the question sensitive and therefore doubly important.

Well, you say, Jeff lost his grand-daughter, wouldn’t that make it sensitive to you? Yes it would. But it isn’t what I would expect a grandfather to say. I would expect “I don’t know. I wish I knew. I know I’m going to find out. I hope she is ok, I hope the police are wrong, I hope, I hope, I hope…”

But Jeff’s choice of words strikes me as Jeff asking in order to find a plausible explanation. It doesn’t sound like someone looking for the truth. So is Jeff saying this is what he believes as well? That Justin had an accident with Ayla?

I’ve looked at these photos of Justin, Courtney and Elisha and have read every detail of what they have said in the past… and I just cannot fathom why they would “cover up” an accident with Ayla. Why would they do that… unless it was not an accident? Could be that they were more afraid of the iron fist of Pheobe’s than LE (of course without Phoebes’ involvement I believe Ayla would be with Trista today dancing to “moves like Jaggers“).

No, he does not. He “cannot fathom” why they would cover up an accident “with Ayla.” Wouldn’t they be covering up for Justin, not with Ayla? Ayla is not helping to cover up her own death.

Jeff again asks the question “Why would they do that” only to answer it himself with “unless it was not an accident.”
This might lead one to believe that Jeff himself does think it was an accident, but he does not tell us so. He goes on to offer up an explanation for that which he just told us he couldn’t “fathom.” He wants us to assume that they would be more afraid of Phoebe finding out they were a) drinking or b) neglecting Ayla to the point she died, than they are of facing first degree murder charges? If it were an accident due to neglect (they were passed out and Ayla fell and bled to death) then the penalties would be much less severe. Why risk such a trial, even in a state with no death penalty?

Jeff next inserts his belief that Phoebe is directly involved without saying how. Was Phoebe involved in Ayla’s custody placement with Justin, Ayla’s “accident,” or the plot to kill the baby for the life insurance money? If he doesn’t tell us, we can’t infer. All we can say is that Jeff believes Phoebe is involved.

Maybe they thought that no one would be the wiser. They had no idea that this case would go national and that they would be at the center of their own deception, hindsight is always 20/20

Again Jeff offers us an explanation of something he cannot fathom. He claims “They had no idea,” of the chance of publicity. Personally, I call BS on this, because when is an adorable missing toddler not National News?

The evidence collected throughout the Dipietro’s property can not be explained with a kidnapping. I’ve been over the scenario a thousand times and there is just no way. The only saving grace for Justin and company is that if the blood involved happened over a period of time, as there is no way to determine the age of blood, but that would imply continuous abuse and neglect and you still have to ignore the other evidence we have been told, to say nothing about what is still being withheld. Until last Tuesday, we were not even aware of the bedroom door and the window, there is more.

I find this to be another bizarre passage from Jeff. Why is he still wrestling with the kidnapping scenario at this stage? This is beginning to feel less like a search for the truth and more like a comeuppance to Obscure and the blog who purports that Trista Reynolds kidnapped Ayla. He even comes up with a way for Justin to explain away the blood but reveals that there is other evidence that he cannot leak, some he wasn’t even aware of “Until last Tuesday,” clearly indicating that “some” of what he is discussing Jeff already knew! Jeff also changes pronouns here. Who is we?

Passing out flyers and hiring a detective is all well and good, but Justin, Courtney and Elisha lost Ayla on their watch and I have not seen or heard of any of them taking accountability for neglecting Ayla, only laughter and dirty looks far from the scrutiny of the public eye.

Here we see Jeff mention “hiring a detective.” I heard that Phoebe and Elisha “hired” a lawyer, but you would think that if Justin believed in the abduction theory so much that he hired a private detective to search for Ayla this would be something he would shout from the rooftops? This is something I’ve heard mumbled about other suspected murderers such as OJ Simpson and John Ramsey. “Where are all the private detectives out looking for the real murderers?” These two men could well afford many private eyes. Poor Justin has had to work three jobs to pay for his. Without any luck, apparently. I hope it wasn’t a psychic detective!

“Justin, Courtney and Elisha lost Ayla.” Here Jeff uses a word to suggest an accident, even after he told us (we thought) that he didn’t believe it was an accident.

“On their watch” this language seems to reflect the agreement between Trista and Justin that Ayla stay with her father, yet Jeff maintained earlier that without Phoebes involvement Ayla would still be with Trista.

“And I have not seen or heard of any of them taking accountability” – I am not sure how Jeff expects to “see” this, but the use of the word “accountability” is interesting. He avoids using the word “responsible (for)” instead using the more personal word “accountable (to).” Who would Justin, Courtney or Elisha be accountable to in the event of an accident due to neglect? Law enforcement.

Jeff drops pronouns again as he goes on with “only laughter and dirty looks far from the scrutiny of the public eye.” I think Jeff is starting to get real here. I believe he is mad that he stuck his neck out with the blogs and with Trista and the interviews, only to be duped time and time again. He believed that Justin would release the body to a pre-arranged person and they would not only split the reward money but the life insurance policy as well, when police believed it was an abduction.

Except police knew it wasn’t an abduction, and they also suspected Trista was in on the plot. The released certain information to Trista purely for tactical reasons. They had to release the blood information to her because it had been leaked to the media, but they did not give her an amount. They also asked her about her own blood found, and the life insurance policy. If they did not suspect Trista then, I am sure they did after seeing her immediately tell Justin about the blood. Trista did not know about Ayla’s blood. Justin may have lied to her about Ayla’s cause of death.

They would have you believe that they are the victims, “we didn’t do it the kidnapper did”. Well guess what kids, the Maine State Police does not believe your fairy tale and they are completely focused on your wake up call.

Jeff further boggles the mind with more nonsense. Justin has known that MSP doesn’t buy his bullshit story from month two. Why is Jeff hammering this moot point now?

Next we see Jeff minimize Ayla’s possible murderers to simply calling them “kids.”

I can not look at Ayla’s website anymore as it only makes me angry now and I can only spend so much time on the blogs because it literally drains me, physically and emotionally. It begins to affect my job and the relationships with the people I have around me. So I have to leave you for awhile. I’ll be back in a few days to answer any questions that I can. Take care and be safe.

Why would Ayla’s website make Jeff mad? Is this the expected emotion? Mad at whom? Jeff slips up on tenses when he claims this “anger” affects his job and relationships, then starts the next sentence with a red flag word “So.” He says he has to leave “you” but who is you? He clarifies it will be a few days, and he will answer what he “can.” Jeff finishes with “Take care and be safe,” but again doesn’t tell us who he is speaking to. Is he still speaking to the “kids”?

This latest “last” post of Jeff’s is merely another example of how Jeff Hanson and Justin DiPietro have used the blogs to communicate with each other.

What is Jeff really saying?

The Saga Continues

At the end of the Wizard of Oz, the Wizard offers to take Dorothy home in his hot air balloon, but just before lift off Toto escapes her arms and jumps out of the basket. Dorothy climbs out after him but the balloon had been untied and the Wizard flew away without her.

I think Jeff is bidding the same farewell to Trista, Justin, Courtney, Phoebe and Elisha. He’s done all he can for them, there is nothing more in his bag of tricks.

And guess what? Dorothy didn’t slay the wicked witch of the east. She is still circling above Oz with only one thought in her mind.


{ 0 comments… add one now }

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: