Wednesday, June 14, 2017

Bree Nece Statement on Anti Trump Attack

real bruises

Is this account truthful?

Here is  basic analysis to get to the conclusion of learning if Bree Nece has told the truth about being a victim of a political assault.  




I.  The Statement 
II. The Statement with Emphasis and Analysis
III. the Conclusion of the Matter 

My sister and i had such an amazing night at the New Kids on the Block concert in Seattle. Unfortunately the night ended bad. This is the work of a " man". After leaving the concert we were walking toward our hotel room. We were approached by 2 men and a woman. It was ok at first until the woman asked where we were from. She then said " Well i hope you didn't vote for Trump" when i admitted that i had, she then called us a racist.. The two men with her verbally attacked us as well. She physically approached me and a fight ensued. One of the 'men' was on top of me punching as my sister watched helplessly. As she tried to pull him off me, the other " man" punched her in the face. He stood up and kicked me in the face and ribs. Ive never in my life had so much rage in trying to protect my little sister. I then was the helpless one.. I conceal and carry , but i didn't this night because concert arenas don't allow guns. The "man" came back for more, slammed me on the concrete and drug me by my hair across the sidewalk..There were 3 witnesses and the two " men" were takin to jail and released the next day. This is a growing problem in our country with political differences that are causing violence perpetrated by our media. It has caused these fringe groups like "Antifa" and other extreme leftist groups to start preying on us. I stood up. I fought. And I did not back down. I voted for Trump. And I am damn proud of it!!! I will take these cowards to court even if it takes a lifetime. . I love you sister so much.Gina Nino

II. The Statement With Analysis 

My sister and i had such an amazing night at the New Kids on the Block concert in Seattle. 

This is where the subject began her account.  She wants us to know she was not alone, the specific performing act and the location.  Note the lower case "i" used.  

She tells us that it was "an amazing" night.  

This is not where we expect an unprovoked hate crime to begin.  This is Narrative Building language, such as police commonly call "story telling."

Remember:  we presuppose that the subject is truthful and that her words will guide us.  In this sense, we trust the language to guide us to what happened.  

"New Kids on the Block" is very important to her.  This  now alerts us to:

a.  possible attention seeking
b.  seeking favorable response from any fans of this particular band (persuasion).  Seeking to curry favor with some (including those who voted for Donald Trump) tells us that the subject has a need to seek approval. 
c.  possible personality trait of manipulation.  This is something we find in substance abuse, as well as other personality traits that use manipulation.  



Unfortunately the night ended bad. 

An attack is not "unfortunate" in the language of trauma.  "Unfortunate" minimizes the setting for us before we get to what happened. 

Remember, we are letting her words guide us. 

In the flow of information she now tells us of chronology.  The "amazing night" is now shown to have "ended bad" (sic).  This does not negate the amazing night. 

In an unprovoked hate crime attack, the incident is unexpected, which increases trauma, its impact, and its visibility through language.  

We can continue to believe her that she and her sister had an amazing night and it is only the end of it which was bad.  

This is not consistent with trauma.  Trauma results from unknown and unexpected (no time to prepare).  

We must now be alert that this was possibly not an entirely unexpected event.  (surprise element).  For example, in a fight, combatants square off and have an expectation of both being assaulted and assaulting another.  

In an attack, there is not anticipation of assault in the moment before the attack. 


This is the work of a " man". 

The attack is now called a "work", which suggests the processing of events.  It is conclusory language. 
Note also rule 6b of quotes as she assigns a different meaning to the word "man" than normally understood. 

This is sometimes used to insult the manhood of a male who fights a woman. 

It is not something we expect to see in an attack.  

In the assigning of a different meaning of "man", the subject shows disrespect for him.  

In a totally unexpected attack, there is no concern with insult, nor is there an expectation that the assailant will have gentleman qualities, or rules by which he is governed.  This use of "man" shows that the man's behavior is not considered appropriate by the victim. 

This, itself, in an attack, is both unexpected and unnecessary.  

In statement analysis, unnecessary words are vitally important to the analysis.  It is additional information that the subject feels important to tell us.  

When a person attacks another, the attacker's qualities are not in question nor in need of address: he is an attacker and this, alone, tells his character.  

The she feels it necessary to visit his characteristics tells us that there was interaction between them that she is not disclosing but that she expected better behavior from him. 

This is not consistent with an unknown attacker. 


After leaving the concert we were walking toward our hotel room. We were approached by 2 men and a woman. 

Here the pace is slowed down.  Instead of saying, "we were attacked", the subject is setting the stage, which is Narrative Building (or story telling).  

"Approached" continues to slow down the pace as does their "walking" toward their hotel room. 

She felt it necessary to tell us in which direction she was headed.  

This unnecessary information is only unnecessary to us; but not to her. 

Therefore, we may now wonder if the subject intended on going somewhere other than her hotel room. 


It was ok at first until the woman asked where we were from. 

Here with the pace slowed, we have interaction, which affirms the analysis from above.  

The element addressed here is time.  She does not tell us how much time elapsed nor what was "okay" at first.  This is missing information.  


She then said " Well i hope you didn't vote for Trump" when i admitted that i had, she then called us racist.. 

"then" speaks to the passing of time, with "well" showing a pause.  There was much more discussed here that she is not telling us.  

Note "admitted" is to show not only reluctance, but more processing of time within conversation.  

Note the inconsistency within the pronoun.  She "admitted" that she, herself, voted for Trump, but then she called "us", (more than one) "a" racist. 

The article and the pronoun are inconsistent.  This is something we flag for deception.  

The two men with her verbally attacked us as well. 

Being called "racist" is considered by her a verbal attack. Note  "as well" indicates that something brought the two men into the conversation.  

She physically approached me and a fight ensued.

Note that before, they "approached" but here, she "physically" approached.  This is a change of language.  

Note that "and a fight ensued" is to employ passivity in speech.  This is an indication that she is deliberately concealing who instituted the fight. 

We believe her. 

We now know that she was not attacked but she got into a fight.  By deliberately avoiding telling us who caused the fight, along with the other deceptive indicators, we may now conclude that our subject has a reason why she does not want to tell us who started the fight.  

It is a fight and not a hate attack.  


 One of the 'men' was on top of me punching as my sister watched helplessly. As she tried to pull him off me, the other " man" punched her in the face. 

She continues to classify the 'men' (wrong quotation marks) which tells us she expected better from them. 

This is not expected in an attack (it is unnecessary) but it is not needed in a "fight" unless she had expected the male (s) to stay out of her fight with the woman.  

Note the sister as "helpless" yet "tried" to pull him off. 

It would not surprise me to learn that the man tried to intervene in the fight between the subject and the woman who "physically" approached her.  

Her need to insult suggests this.  

Her repetition of insult affirms it. 


He stood up and kicked me in the face and ribs. 

That he "stood up" tells us that she may have had him on the ground. 

The structure of this sentence is reliable.  He likely kicked her in the face and ribs.  


Ive never in my life had so much rage in trying to protect my little sister. 

Here we have editorializing of her emotions.  


I then was the helpless one.. I conceal and carry , but i didn't this night because concert arenas don't allow guns.

Note here the pronoun "I" 


 The "man" came back for more, 

This phrase will warrant amplification from the subject.  From the context, we must now wonder if the man had separated them, was attacked again by our subject, moved away from her, but that she taunted him to come "back for more", or did something aggressive (like "physically approach" him) to cause this.  




slammed me on the concrete and drug me by my hair across the sidewalk..There were 3 witnesses and the two " men" were takin to jail and released the next day. 


The structure here suggests reliability.  There is likely a police report filed.  This does not mean she is truthful.  

Next the great night with only a bad portion at the end, turns to attention seeking behavior:  

This is a growing problem in our country with political differences that are causing violence perpetrated by our media. It has caused these fringe groups like "Antifa" and other extreme leftist groups to start preying on us. 

This is to use a deflection, telling us her need to deflect which affirms her as the aggressor.  

Antifa is a dangerous violent movement where logic is voided and moral narcissism used to fuel assaults.  

It is unrelated to our subject's account.  



I stood up. I fought. And I did not back down. I voted for Trump. And I am damn proud of it!!!

This is inconsistent with her "admitting" earlier.  It does, however, further affirm the analysis of her instigating and keeping the fight going. 

 I will take these cowards to court even if it takes a lifetime. . 

This sentence suggests affirmation about her persistence in having him come "back for more."  


I love you sister so much.Gina Nino

Analysis conclusion:   Deception Indicated

The subject was not a victim of a hate crime, that is, a politically motivated assault.  She is deceptively withholding important facts of the account of what happened.  

It was not an assault. 

The subject got into a fight and likely the instigator.  

Who is responsible for starting a fight?  It is not always the one who throws the first punch but he (or she) who requires the first punch be thrown.  

There may have been elements of politics verbally in the altercation, but she has given a one-sided version.  The deception is within what is missing

The use of "man" tells us that she, herself, is in conflict with her own understanding of the roles of masculinity and femininity further affirming her role as instigator.  She wants to require the male to take a distinctly gentlemanly role, which is not to hit a woman,  but she refuses, in this, to take the role of a lady, meaning not to imitate the male and fight physically. 

This further affirms her guilt besides giving us a great deal more insight into what happened.  

The fight was between women and she expected it to remain this way.  This may be because she perceived herself as "winning" until the "man" intervened.  

It would be fascinating to read statements from the accused.  

She started the fight and very likely kept it going when it may have been broken up.  She likely required the first punch.  Hence, "physically approached" may have been in response to a threat or insult that she is concealing.  

I am concerned that the subject may have been under the influence. 

It is very likely that those arrested told a different account than our subject.  

She is not truthful in that she is withholding information and she is giving a false narrative to a fight, portraying it as a political assault. 

It is "fake hate."  

She likely was very good at escalating the trouble. 



For deception detecting training example, please see some of the video examples on You Tube here and here.  

Email hyattanalysis@gmail.com to enroll in training at home.

Our home course is complete and the lectures are on MP3.  It includes the workbook and ebook, where you receive 12 months of e support of your work.  

You will also receive one free invitation training link to Go To Meeting where you do team analysis.   

The end result is teaching you not only the principles, but the appropriate application of principles and working at or near 100% accuracy in detecting deception.  




Our ongoing live monthly training for those enrolled, is eligible for CEUs (Continuing Education Units) from the University of Maine for professional licenses.  

95 comments:

But I am a robot! said...

Wow, the new name turns up a new version of events:

#####copy-paste####

Raging Freedom’s CEO reached out to Trump supporter Bree Nece personally for an interview.

Nece claims she was brutally beaten by two men after speaking to a woman who asked her who she voted for.

“We are currently waiting on the DA to answer back. In the mean time we are working with business owners in the area to retrieve video of the incident” Bree stated.

Her and her sister were walking home from a restaurant when she met a new “friend”. This individual said during a casual conversation “I hope you aren’t a Trump supporter” and she replied that she had voted for him.

At this point the woman screamed “Racist” at the top of her lungs and proceeded to call 2 men over to her. Her henchmen brutally knocked her to the ground and punched her in the face.


They then got up and were distracted for a second, and then proceeded to kick Bree.

Bree claims this was simply because she stated “I voted for Trump”.

There were 3 witnesses who saw the incident take place.

Police arrested both men involved with the incident.

She seeks to prosecute the men for their egregious actions against her.

Further updates will be given soon. Raging Freedom is here to report what the MSM won’t — Anti conservative bias incidents are happening all across the country and it is Raging Freedom’s solemn goal to give these individuals a voice.

We can only have faith in the criminal justice system that these two sickening “men” will be brought to justice.

Sources: Bree Nece
###end copy paste ###

Link for reference
https://ragingfreedom.com/2017/06/13/woman-brutally-beaten-for-simply-admitting-to-being-trump-supporter/

But I am a robot! said...

From some other site, back to the concert version, but look at this so-called fact-checking:

####copy paste ######

This story was brought to our attention by a person that saw Gina’s Facebook post. We independently researched it and wrote our story based on the findings. What we’ve reported is based off what is posted to the Facebook account.

#####end copy-paste ####

Independent research is reading the Facebook account??? And it notes that not a single regular media source is reporting it. Also, the Gina Nino version makes no mention of a military husband; you'd think that would be all over a fake outrage incident!

She again claims she didn't carry her weapon (although correct terminology is used here) because of having attended the concert, but the restaurant in the other version probably doesn't search, metal detect or wand check its customers, so why wasn't she carrying her trusty weapon in that narrative?

Link: http://dailyherald.news/vets-wife-violently-beaten-tolerant-male-liberals-voting-trump/

Anonymous said...

Peter wrote " It would not surprise me to learn that the man tried to intervene in the fight between the subject and the woman who "physically" approached her."

I think you are correct Peter.
I am wondering if she actually was fighting the sister and if she herself threw the first punch.
I find her statement "I have never had so much rage in trying to defend my sister" odd, particularly in context.

Linguistically, it seems convoluted as the "rage" is not linked within the sentence to "men", rage towards "the men" who were allegedly attacking her and her sister.
Within the sentence, there are the words "rage" and "sister".
It just seems a much more natural way for her to state it would be "I was so enraged they were hurting my sister, I fought them as hard as I could.
Fist fights are so intense, and it is strange in that sentence that her passionate fighting has no object at which it is directed. I dunno. She is speaking of physical fighting yet no object within the sentence.

Peter Hyatt said...

Fake hate is always a deception. I like Kit Perez' comment. She read some more posts and affirmed the brief profile and made an astute comment about ownership of fake hate.

Truth needs no assistance. Truth needs no threats, either.

I hope readers are judging things politicians float to them that are defended by coercion.

I am not a scientist but when a politician tells me either I believe something or I am full of hatred, I need to pause to think...though not for long.

I reposted this due to correction of the name.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

I have not heard the interview but one who did said she contradicted herself in it.

But I am a robot! said...

I am so sick of the divisive crap, lies, manipulation and half-reporting from both sides! It would be nice to read a single article unrelated to politics, without morons devolving into drooling accusations of "libtard" or "trumptard" and anyone who disagrees or who supports a different sports team, celebrity, etc., "must be a Trump voter, Clinton voter, Obama voter, Bernie supporter..."

The more polarized we become, the more we destroy ourselves and become a weaker target. I wouldn't have picked Trump for President; his only redeeming quality in my mind is that he isn't Hillary, who seems far more dishonest, greedy, and completely lacking in basic common sense.
But once he's elected, to not hope for his success, to actively root for his failure, is to root for the failure of our country. That is the definition of traitor. And sadly, we have more and more traitors on both sides; Obama faced the same dogged opposition and betrayal as Trump is battling now.

Both sides doggedly support obviously corrupt politicians only because of the letter after their names, and both sides' greedy politicians continue to pick our pockets while we all scream insults at one another and refuse to see blatant dishonesty on "our side" while refusing to acknowledge –– and actively obstructing –– good works by the other side.

Both have embarrassingly biased media outlets who only mention the political party when the other side screws up.

Anonymous said...

Peter, I posted your analysis on her FB page. She never replied to it. She just blocked me along with the post. I look forward to seeing the eventual outcome to this story. I'm betting you are right on the money.

Hey Jude said...

I looked at her Facebook - Gina Nino is the sister she wrote about. She describes it as 'mine and Gina's story'.

'I had an interview with Fox news to share mine and Gina's story. We wont back down from this until we get justice. Thank you family and friends for your support. We love you so very much.'

tania cadogan said...

Typo. real BRUISES not real bruses

Anonymous said...

Hey all, I'm Meyer Nece, husband of Bree Nece. To bad I can't post pics on here or I would show you all the police report and the card they gave her with the Seattle police officer's badge numbers involved on the scene with the incident number which reads: Ofc Kurz 8473, Ofc Nelson 7602, Incident number 17-204978, West Precint 810 W. Virginia St, Seattle, WA,98101-4401. The woman beaters are as of right now being charged with non aggrevated assault because they didn't break any bones. Prosecutors contacted her today and asked if she wanted to do a anti harassment order and she said yes. There were witnesses. The pretrial is set for July 31st. Glad you all had fun picking apart her post trying to make it fake. It's very much real. We are also trying to get security footage from surrounding businesses as well. Take care.

Anonymous said...

Meyer, I am curious...was Bree drinking that night, or using drugs? Does she have a past history of drug abuse or of fighting? Any arrests?

Does she argue politics with others?

Is she someone you deem trustworthy an honest, or does she have a history of lying to you?

I do hope justice is served for whomever the innocent party is.

Anonymous said...

I'm not surprised. Women who pluck their eyebrows like that are bad news and are best avoided.

Anonymous said...

Sicko victim blamers!

Her tale reads like a good news/bad news/and wait for the good news some day.

My first thought was not she had history of drug abuse, but a way of telling "bad" news that most appeals to the social norms of today...with a twist of humor.

I fell out of the airplane. Oh, that's bad. There was a haystack below. Oh, that's good. Nope, I missed the haystack. Oh, that's bad. Nope, that's good. How can that be good? I missed the pitchfork, too.

Just an example.

She sounded emotionally charged when she fired off that post, and rightfully so. I'd be if I'd just been beaten like a stepchild after such a lovely evening

Anonymous said...

Hey all, I'm Meyer Nece, husband of Bree Nece. To bad I can't post pics on here or I would show you all the police report and the card they gave her with the Seattle police officer's badge numbers involved on the scene with the incident number which reads: Ofc Kurz 8473, Ofc Nelson 7602, Incident number 17-204978, West Precint 810 W. Virginia St, Seattle, WA,98101-4401. The woman beaters are as of right now being charged with non aggrevated assault because they didn't break any bones. Prosecutors contacted her today and asked if she wanted to do a anti harassment order and she said yes. There were witnesses. The pretrial is set for July 31st. Glad you all had fun picking apart her post trying to make it fake. It's very much real. We are also trying to get security footage from surrounding businesses as well. Take care.

elf said...

Sir, did you read the above article? No one said an altercation didn't occur, only that it didn't occur the way your wife has stated. Perhaps if you perused this site you could see how her statement may raise some questions as to the veracity of her statement.

Anonymous said...

Meyer, was your wife given any medical attention (taken to a hospital)? I hope she was given x-ray, CAT scan, as kicks to the face/head can cause serious injury along with concussion. Ive seen a fair number of fist fights, and one of the worst things Ive seen is someone getting in the head while he was on the ground. His eyes immediately rolled back in his head and he immediately became unconscious and stayed that way for 5-10 min. Many people have commented that he has never been quite the same since then. This was decades ago, but the act of kicking someone in the head is an incredibly serious assault--in fact the guy who kicked this other guy in the head thought he had killed him and his in his friend's basement for a week I found out later.
I would suggest she get checked out at hospital. That is a very serious head injury to be kicked in the head.

Anonymous said...

Should say "he hid in his friend's basement" in post above

elf said...

Upon reading Mr Nece statement above I noticed one thing... he said "woman beaters" yet both his wife and sister in law were hit by the two men and he didn't mention that another female was involved and also assaulted his wife. Why wouldn't the other woman be charged as well? One thought I have is maybe since he didn't mention the other woman being charged with assault is because she was the victim of his wife assaulting her first. But I'm just guessing at that...

Anonymous said...

They can probably charge the head kicker guy with assault with attempt to kill.
I do think it's weird that Meyer only mentioned what the women are NOT being charged with; however no mention of what the men ARE being charged with. You would think that info would be first and foremost in his post defending the veracity of his wife's statement. jmo

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 12:49 a.m.... actually he did say the "woman beaters" are being charged with "non aggrevated assault."

Meyer, her story jumps around in places, as far as how the fight went down. She doesn't describe things to make it easy to follow, such as how she wound up on the ground, where did the men come from, etc.

Could you ask her to please come on here and be more descriptive?

Also, which businesses have you contacted about cameras? Have they been forthcoming? When will you know the name of the men? What about the woman..was she charged with anything? Was your wife or her sister charged? Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Meyer said "Glad you all had fun picking apart her post trying to make it fake. It's very much real. We are also trying to get security footage from surrounding businesses as well. Take care."

If you look at the statement, all he is telling us is that her "post" is "real". Not necessarily that what she said happened is real. Why no definitive statement such as "My wife was assaulted!" ?
jmo

Anonymous said...

@12:55 I stand corrected. However that particular statement of his is sensitive according to SCAN. It's intent was to tell us WHY they are not being charged with aggravated assault when noone here asked about that. It makes the "fact" that they are supposedly being charged with "no aggravated assault" sensitive.
Why doesnt he tell us what the men are being charged with? You would think he's be fuming at those men and want to share what they are being charged with.

Anonymous said...

Doesnt she say initially that this whole beating was the work of a "man" (singular and also mocking his masculinity). So interesting.

Anonymous said...

Meyer's facebook post:

My wife was jumped because she voted Trump. Cowards!! Rage is what I feel along with helplessness. The two cowards that beat her were arrested by Seattle Police. This a growing problem. The case number is 17-204978. Share.

Anonymous said...

She also says "I then was the helpless one."

I feel for her, you can feel she feels vulnerable and afraid. She feels small, helpless. This "man" also "drug her by her hair"...that's very personal, to grab someone's hair and drag them. Her words seem to imply she had taken steps (concealed carry) to not feel "helpless" in the past.

Anonymous said...

Interesting 1:11....
Meyer, did you attend the New Kids concert?

Anonymous said...

I just reread her statement, and Im going to go with her initial statement that this was the work of a "man" (singular) who assaulted her in an atypical "personal" way (drug her by her hair). It is evident she is concealing his identity...much of the details of meeting the "3" are fabricated.

Anonymous said...

She also states the "man" "came back for more" (to inflict more violence). In my opinion this could suggest familialarity with her assaulter....this is the language of a personalized assault, not a stranger assault imo.

Anonymous said...

Paramedics were on the scene. They checked her out. Officers took pictures. It is amazing how you all are not looking into the facts I gave you. I was not at the concert, obviously.

Anonymous said...

Where were you?

Anonymous said...

At home.

Peter Hyatt said...

The arrests and the bruises are real. This is not in doubt. It is her role in the altercation that shows deception

Video will not show this unless there is audio.

Peter

Anonymous said...

The husband gave an incomplete GO number. I don't know if it was intentional or not, but the actual GO number is 2017-204978. If you look up the case you will find the following. The incident did not happen "leaving from the concert," but in fact it happened at 2:19am. The concert had been over for several hours. I may be missing something, but it appears to me that there were no arrests made and it was referred to City Attorney Law Dept.

SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT
GENERAL OFFENSE HARDCOPY (ORIGINAL RELEASE)
WEB RELEASE - SOME REDACTIONS PER RCW 42.56.240
GO 2017-204978 (REFERRED -CITY ATTNY 1313 - 0 ASSLT-NONAGG
LAW DEPT BY FOLLOW-UP UNIT)


General Offense Information
Operational status : REFERRED -CITY ATTNY LAW DEPT BY FOLLOW-UP UNIT
Reported on : Jun-08-2017 (Thu.) 0310
Occurred on : Jun-08-2017 (Thu.) 0219
Approved on : Jun-08-2017 (Thu.) by : 7441 - HILL
Report submitted by : 8472 - HOGG
Org unit : WEST PCT 3RD W - DAVID
Location : 20XX BLOCK OF 5 AV
Municipality : SEATTLE
District : M Beat : M2 Grid : 2355
Offenses (Completed/Attempted)
Offense : #1 1313-0 ASSLT-NONAGG - COMPLETED
Location :
** END OF HARDCOPY **

Anonymous said...

I found a couple of things to be significant. the 2:19 AM is interesting in that bars in WA. State close at 2 AM. This leads me to believe the "victim' was leaving a bar at closing and not coming from the concert. I also found the husbands use of the phrase "fake story" to be interesting as that term currently is a very political term and would suggest the husband and wife are a very political family.

Anonymous said...

Concert ended at 12:30am. They went to go get something eat at palace kitchen. They encountered the three after they left the restaurant on the way back to their hotel, King's Inn. The prosecutors contacted her yesterday. There are witnesses that were there. Pre-trial is set for July 31st.

Anonymous said...

If she were drunk don't you think they would've arrested her for public intox?

Peter Hyatt said...

I don't think she was drunk.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous,

We are likely to hear much more about what happened when the two arrested speak.

The analysis shows that there was a fight, as she said, "a fight ensued."

There were two arrested.

The point of the analysis is that she deliberately withheld her part in what happened. It is not that she told her side, but her language shows she is deliberately withholding some information regarding what happened.

For example, she wrote about being labeled about Donald Trump. This is likely reliable, but what did she say that caused her to "admit" (conversational) that she voted for D Trump?

These two may be guilty but there is more to what happened than what she wrote. It will come out.

I don't think her husband deliberately tried to mislead with the above info; just error.

Peter

Anonymous said...

So, there is at least one deception in her story. She was in fact not coming from the concert, but is now coming from a restaurant.

"there are witnesses that were there." There were witnesses to what? What are they going to say they saw? We don't know.

"Pre-trial is set for July 31st." Is it a pretrial hearing or a probable cause hearing for fourth degree misdemeanor assault?

"If she were drunk don't you think they would've arrested her for public intox?" I don't know. Would they? It doesn't appear they arrested anyone that night.

Anonymous said...

The way her eyes are blacked, she should be tested for a skull fracture, as the blood pools in the eyes that way when that happens.

I think she instigated the fight. What are video cams showing? What exactly was said? Peter is right, without audio it's hard to know exactly how it went down.

She shouldn't have lied about the timing. She made it sound like she was walking from the concert and was basically jumped because she said she voted for Trump. I really doubt someone just randomly walked up to her and asked her who she voted for, and then started beating on her. Most likely, she met these people between the time the concert ended, and when she started back to the hotel.

Mejer, you didn't answer the question...had she been drinking? Just because she wasn't arrested for public intoxication doesn't mean she hadn't been drinking. Does she have a habit of being loud, obnoxious, or trying to fight when she's had alcohol?

Ask yourself these questions. Ask her for more details on how this really happened. Help her figure it out. She needs to take responsibility for her part of it if she is responsible. Pushing for their arrest/punishment may also bring on charges for her if she hurt them and played a part in this. Help her to help herself.

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous said...
The way her eyes are blacked, she should be tested for a skull fracture, as the blood pools in the eyes that way when that happens.

I think she instigated the fight. What are video cams showing? What exactly was said? Peter is right, without audio it's hard to know exactly how it went down.

She shouldn't have lied about the timing. She made it sound like she was walking from the concert and was basically jumped because she said she voted for Trump. I really doubt someone just randomly walked up to her and asked her who she voted for, and then started beating on her. Most likely, she met these people between the time the concert ended, and when she started back to the hotel.

Mejer, you didn't answer the question...had she been drinking? Just because she wasn't arrested for public intoxication doesn't mean she hadn't been drinking. Does she have a habit of being loud, obnoxious, or trying to fight when she's had alcohol?

Ask yourself these questions. Ask her for more details on how this really happened. Help her figure it out. She needs to take responsibility for her part of it if she is responsible. Pushing for their arrest/punishment may also bring on charges for her if she hurt them and played a part in this. Help her to help herself.



strong post.

Peter

Anonymous said...

She might have had a beer at restaurant, not sure, but she was not intoxicated. We've gotten her checked out, thank you for your concern on that. The conversation between her and the female started good actually. It went South when she said "I hope you didn't vote for Trump" and Bree said actually "I did" not expecting her obviously to start flipping out about it. The video will show the female that approached her physically instigating the fight putting her into a position of self defense. Can't go into much detail then that as we are speaking with prosecutors. Thanks Peter.

Anonymous said...

@8:06, Thank you. I pointed that out earlier that the word "leaving" indicated missing time.
I also pointed out that he did not state what the men were charged with as well as stating what the women were charged with in a sensitive way using the word "because" to explain why they werent charged with something more serious.
I think I have a good idea looking at the language at what actually DID happen.
The clue to solving this may lie in one of her first sentences BEFORE any confrontation begins.

Anonymous said...

Look carefully at these intro sentences keeping in mind what Peter has taught about priority

My sister and i had such an amazing night at the New Kids on the Block concert in Seattle. Unfortunately the night ended bad. This is the work of a " man".

Read the above sentences as if NOTHING else has been written and ask yourself "what happened"?

Anonymous said...

I believe her post was written to conceal the identity of her attacker.
Theoretically, if she in fact started the fight, the injuries she received go way beyond self-defense. She is claiming that a man with the woman pounded on her, kicked in the face, slammed her on the concrete and dragged her by her hair. Whoever inflicted her injuries was not acting in self-defense. She got clobbered by a man.
We are seeing the word "left" again. The husband states that all this happened after she "left" the restaurant. So, again there is missing time.
When was the picture above taken? As the bruises look older than 24 hours imo.

Anonymous said...

I asked him above in thread "Where were you?"
His reply was "At home".
If it were me in his shoes and I was stating the truth about everything and I was being challenged as to my honesty, I would have replied strongly "I was at home."
"At home" is not reliable bc there is no "I" in the statement.
I would just keep that in mind when reading what her husband says happened. Why is his statement about where he himself was when a "man" beat his wife unreliable?

Anonymous said...

"She <>physically approached me, and <> fight ensued.

How does one approach someone non-physically?
"Fight ensued" is passive language.

Here is what I think. Bree did have a conversation with a woman and may even have discussed Donald Trump, but it did not turn into a fistfight between her or the other "men". Yet someone pounded on Bree and did give her those injuries.

Peter Hyatt said...

She said "a fight ensued."

We believe her.

I also believe politics was all part of this altercation.

To classify it as an attack because of voting for Trump is not true.

Peter

Anonymous said...

Peter, I do believe a fight ensued (very evident from the bruising). I just question WHO she fought with and exactly when it occurred, and I wonder if the story she has told regarding the three is a fabrication (which could help explain some passive language as well as an unclear description of what happened during the brawl) to conceal the true identity of the attacker. (I do believe she encountered a woman and conversed with her.)
I agree with you that she was not attacked due to her voting for Donald Trump.

Peter Hyatt said...

I don't see the number 3 as deceptive.

The passivity would not have been related to the number, but to specific responsibility. The Donald Trump element makes for a good cover story and her second use of manipulation.

As to who she specifically fought...I'm with you; it is not certain. That she was involved and she needed to use the passive voice, tells us that she is removing herself from the responsibility.

the number 3 thing --I often wish I had not posted it. It is strictly due to a fabrication where one must choose a number. There must be other elements present.

This is an interesting case and when the video comes out, people will say, "but you said she was deceptive!" to which I will have to repeat myself and urge them to read the analysis.

She used truth, but concealed her role. This is why I had to write that her injuries were real, as faux medical experts try to do what real medical experts recoil from: dating bruises.

Peter

Anonymous said...

" It was ok at first until the woman asked where we were from. "

I wonder what prompted the woman to ask this. Was there some sort of time pressure going on where Bree or someone with her said "nice talking to you, we'd better go, we have a long drive home in the morning"
And then the woman said "oh, where are you from?"

Or did Bree or someone with her ask the lady for directions & the lady said "oh where are you from?"

Did somehow the topic of Donald Trump came up & Bree said "yes I voted for him" and it was not the woman who got enraged about this, but rather Bree's hubby?

If Bree's hubby was not with them how could he possibly know "she may have had a beer, not sure..."

If I am not with someone I do not offer up what they may have drank and well as the number of drinks they may have had even if I know what the individual prefers to drink, so how would the husband know she may have had "a beer"? He then says "not sure", but being "not sure" means you are "not certain" yet it does imply some knowledge of what Bree drank at the restaurant.
I wonder if the husband was there at some point that night.

Anonymous said...

Peter, Im not doubting the story based on her use of three, I didnt mean to imply that.

Anonymous said...

They called "us" "a" racist.

Anonymous said...

http://ussanews.com/News1/2017/06/15/woman-badly-beaten-by-anti-trumpers-in-seattle/

This article offers more info and also contains Meyer Nece's statement on what happened:

Seattle, Washington – Bree Nece and her sister Gina went to a New Kids on the Block concert in Seattle on June 7. On the way back to their hotel, Bree was beaten by anti-Trumpers, maybe Antifa.

The headliners didn’t actually take the stage until 9 p.m. but the ladies got to meet Donnie Wahlberg and his band and thought of it as one of the high points of their lives. They were hungry when the concert let out after midnight, so they went to find something to eat.

They left the Palace Kitchen restaurant on 5th street and started to walk back to the their hotel, the King’s Inn. By then it was close to 2 a.m. on June 8. Bree and Gina stopped to look over their photos from the evening and reminisce about the concert.

[[“They were approached by a woman (mid or late 30’s, white, blonde hair) accompanied by two men. She handed her a yellow balloon, which was odd. She was very nice though and they proceeded to have a good conversation about the concert and such. She asked Bree where she was from.

She told her Tri Cities, WA. Tri Cities, WA is considered “Eastern” Washington which tends to be more conservative. She said to her oh, I hope you didn’t vote Trump. Bree said, well yes I did. This woman then went into a complete meltdown and started calling Bree and Gina racist and other obscenities…


All three of them were verbally attacking her. The woman pressed forward towards my wife and a fight ensued. The husband then proceeded to get on top of my wife and started beating her with both fist. Her sister Gina tried to pull him off but she was punched by the other man. After he was finally done, they left and went around the corner.

Bree and her sister were gathering up their things and trying to figure out what just happened. Their leftover food from restaurant was scattered everywhere. They then came back around the corner and the man that was beating Bree grabbed her by her hair and dragged her down the sidewalk about 12ft. He then proceeded kicking her. During the whole beating obviously Gina was screaming for help the whole time. There were three witnesses that did nothing. The three then started back towards a white van.” Meyer Nece, Bree’s husband]]


Police showed up just in time to arrest the two men for “Non-aggravated Assault” which is a misdemeanor. If they weren’t wanted on warrants, they were probably out of jail within hours. The Seattle PD case# is 2017-204978 and shows two arrested, but does not give the names of the perpetrators. The actual police report may not be generated until Friday, June 16, according to the Seattle PD.
Bree and Gina will be pressing charges.

Bree doesn’t remember the name of the group the woman said she was with, she only remembers it was an “antifascist” group: that means Antifa, or one of their sister groups. Seattle is bustling with leftists, and Antifa is extremely active there.

Police are looking for surveillance videos of the incident from surrounding businesses. There were three witnesses to the beating, one of which was a woman too small to help much. The other two were males. All 3 gave their statements to police.

So be careful when you go to Seattle. The hate-filled leftists are on the prowl. And there may be no one to help you if you get in a situation.
The post Woman Badly Beaten by Anti-Trumpers in Seattle appeared first on Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children.

Anonymous said...

The Palace Kitchen closes at 1 a.m. so what happened between closing and the attack? The timing of this and saying they randomly started talking to these people on the street just does not pass muster.

Anonymous said...

It sounds like a domestic violence assault to me.
All it sounds like to me is another variation of "What happened!? How'd you get all those bruises?"

"I walked into a wall."
"The school bully beat me up".
"I fell on my face."
"3 random people beat the living shit out of me because I voted Trump."

Someone clobbered Bree.
How come when Bree & her sister went around the corner they didnt call the cops? Instead they "tried to figure out what just happened" and then went back around the corner and were reattached, Bree being dragged 12 feet by her hair!
If it were me, I would know exactly what happened--someone beat the hell out I of me. But I might "try to figure what just happened" aka. come up with a story if I didnt want the real attacker to get in trouble.
jmo

Anonymous said...

Notice in Bree's husbands version at 4:42,, Bree & the sister go around the corner after the beating, and try to gather up their stuff bc their leftover containers were scattered everywhere. How were they able to leave the area where the leftover containers were "scattered" and simultaneously "gather them up"?
Bree's husband is using confusion tactics in his lying for a reason.
You like to bullshit dont you? Do normal people get so confused they cant see the forest through the trees due to your verbal manipulation? It AINT gonna work here.

Anonymous said...

Why doesnt the police report give the name of the perps? We're they under age 18? Or is bc it was DV?

Anonymous said...

If she was dragged 12 ft on concrete, she must have severe lacerations/scrapes.

Anonymous said...

I am confused at 4:42 p.m. Did Bree and her sister come back around the corner, or did the 2 men and the woman come back around the corner? Also, why say "obviously Gena was screaming for help the entire time". "OBVIOUSLY" is trying to be persuasive. I don't understand this wording and the need to mention that?

Anonymous said...

@ Anonymous 6:26, the article at 4:42 says a more completed arrest report may be released tomorrow 6/16. Maybe that will show the names?

But I am a robot! said...

Peter, I get your concern about overly fixating on the number 3, but (i.e.; this part's important :^D ) there is a difference between it putting an analyst on alert as they listen further, and inferring, "A HA! She said three, liar liar pants on fire! Just fry the maggot now!"

As to the Anonymous calling himself Meyer Nece, the prosecutors asking if the women want to file an anti-harassment order isn't anywhere close to confirming that random stranger men violently assaulted the women –– it is something expected after an altercation between people who already know each other, and are in some way in each others' lives, whether neighbors, relationships with common people, former friends/partners, etc.
Were the other men and woman also offered that option?

The stories also remain inconsistent: which sister tried to pull the "man" off of the other? And in some of the accounts, the woman and two men approached the sisters; in the most recent revision, the woman approached the two alone, coerced the Trump vote confession, then screamed loudly to summon her "henchmen" as if they were hiding to make her appear unthreatening.

The claim she "summoned henchmen" as if on cue doesn't match with the new version that a seemingly pleasant, friendly, reasonably lucid woman suddenly went ballistic as if unexpectedly set off.

FYI, if and when any anti-harassment or other court cases are on record, they'll be listed at one of these links:

dw.courts.wa.gov/

many cities transferring to:

https://odysseyportal.courts.wa.gov/ODYPORTAL/?p=0

But I am a robot! said...

Peter, you've written that vehicles are the exception to a subject's mentioning the color of an object being sensitive. However, for some reason, his statement of the unhelpful, then apparently talkative witnesses retreating toward a white van still jumps out at me as an odd detail to include.

Does the exception still apply when the vehicle doesn't belong to the subject and didn't play any part in the incident? Or does the mention in this context jump out at you, or at any others in here?
Possibly just a need to persuade that the account is true, but unless the witnesses are supposedly tied to the suspects, what difference would it make what color and make of vehicle associated with them?

Anonymous said...

@7:13, I doubt it.
Bree's husband said the 3 headed towards a white van after assault. Then he says later that they (cops) were able to catch 2 just in the knick of time. Which one was it?
This is typical mind f&ck abuser manipulation tactics as far as the storyline being so confusing, full of holes and difficult to follow.
Im very familiar with this style of lying.

Anonymous said...

@7;45, One thing I have learned from personal experience, people often use the color "white" when they are lying. I don't know if this is known in SA, but it's something Ive experienced on my life.

Anonymous said...

the "yellow" baloon is an interesting detail too. I believe there was a yellow balloon & I believe it may have been what started off the assault.
I don't believe there was a "white van".

Violet said...

But I am a robot @7:47, I got the impression that the three walking towards the white van were the attackers, not the 3 witnesses?

Anonymous at 8:11 PM, the yellow balloon stood out to me as well. Bree never mentioned it in her version of the story. Isn't yellow the color of hope?

I also don't trust "white van". It made me think of a box van, you know the type your Mom always says don't park near because kidnappers drive those around? Do you think that has anything to do with implying they were involved with the Antifa group? I am not familiar with that group, so I am not sure if they are known for showing up in a certain vehicle?

BTW, I seen on one FB post that someone told her to go to seek her victim compensation fund that the state of WA gives out, and told her she could get up to $10K. Maybe her story was also motivated by money?

Anonymous said...

I just reread Peter's analysis, and he has it right on the money that Bree's attacker has to be known to her.
If the attacker is known to her and male and the attack happened out of town, how many possibilities are there?
Note the sensitivity from hubby regarding the gift of the yellow balloon...hubby states Bree thought that was "weird". How weird is that though? Ive had random people (especially people at festive occassions) give me a flower or something like that...probably just being friendly. It's really not weird to give a balloon, just someone being friendly. But it is sensitive to hubby. Is it possible that a group stopped to chat with Bree and her companions and one of them gave Bree a balloon (perhaps one of the males), and this sparked jealousy and rage in Bree's hubby?
The story may have been concocted to explain the bruises. Was Donald Trump discussed at some point? Sure. Why not weave that into the story?
Notice the hubby shows "concern" for us saying "Take care." Very odd, I certainly would not be polite to us if his wife was clobbered by strangers and we are questioning the truth of it. In his FB post someone posted here, he also expresses concern only for himself stating he feels "rage and helpless".

Anonymous said...

Sad that Ive seen so many fist fights, but anyway, guys breaking up girl fights never do that kind of thing ie. pounding the woman's face. They always go into "manly protective mode" and separate the women using minimal force ie holding them back.
Bree's injuries remind me of a fight I saw where a much stronger guy got the other guy down on the ground quick and then continued sadistically kicking and punching the guy as the guy lay there helpless.
Her injuries are not from a girl fight getting broken up. They are from someone (a guy) much stronger getting her down on the ground where he can freely just pummel her.

Violet said...

Yes, she was hit really hard. There has to be more to this story than simply voting for Trump. She needs to tell the truth about what really happened. This could destroy someone else's future.

After thinking more about it, I take back what I said about this possibly being partly motivated about money. I don't think that had anything to do with it.

Anonymous said...

That's correct Violet. They could ruin someone else's future.

But I am a robot! said...

Thanks everyone who also hit on the white van detail.

Violet, are you saying I misread the account, and it reports that the three who retreated to the white van are the suspects, or that you sense that's what actually happened despite it being reported as the alleged witnesses?
What makes you change your thinking about money being at least a partial motivator? I'd forgotten about the crime victims' compensation fund,and if they smell $10K along with the attention to their pathetic cause, sounds like an irresistible bonus to this type of character.

Thanks to whichever Anonymous quoted what is reportedly Meyer Nece's Facebook post. Did anyone else notice the last word pleading "Share" which is probably the primary motivation, along with stirring up more violence, hate and divisiveness?

Violet said...

But I am a robot, I may have misread it, but I thought he meant it was the 3 assailants who headed back to the white van. I just reread it and I am still confused as to which group of 3 he was referring to.

I changed my mind on the money being a partial motivator because neither of them mentioned anything about money; re: medical or legal costs, being out of work, how much they had spent on their evening, etc.

I did notice how he asked people to share the post. They have certainly gotten people's emotions fired up and her post has thousands of comments, arguments, and threats. Mission accomplished.

It's obvious that her timeline if off and her version of how the fight happened has huge gaps. The truth will come out.

I looked at her sister's FB and she hasn't posted anything public about it, and she seems much more open to diversity and acceptance.

CptKD said...

To begin with ...
It's "Too bad I can't post pics on here ..."
&
I could go on 'correcting' your Grammatical mistakes & Other 'Writing' Errors - Though I'm sure, it'd all be for naught & Simply a waste of my time ...

You have misunderstood, the value of Statement Analysis!
Along with the FACTS, and VERACITY, that a Statement once analyzed can bring to the Analysts & Blog Readers.

Don't 'EXPECT' an apology - From Peter or Anyone Else, HERE!
THAT's not going to happen, and you are sorely mistaken, if you believe that you are entitled to one!

We seek out the TRUTH Here & Tend to usually GET TO IT!

Therefore, your 'Rant' above may have served perhaps some 'Purpose' for you - Perhaps for your 'Wife' too ...

From where I sit, however; It made you come off like some Bully-BRUTE!
Which I'm beginning to think, is something that may just be part of 'HOW' You Folks 'Roll'!

Now, you take care!

CptKD said...

TOUCHÉ (* On the 'Strong Post' Comment!)
I thought the same!
GREAT Questions!

But I am a robot! said...

When the name was first changed from Gina Nino to Bree Nece, I'd inferred they're the same person using different names, mostly because both tell the same first-person account as if they were the one directly asked about voting for Trump, and describe the other woman varying between standing there helplessly, and trying to pry the singular "man" off of their sister. Both claim "I fought back!" in the singular, while claiming it was a group attack.

Based on this, the many other inconsistencies and the language about "anti-harassment" paperwork, which usually relates to parties who know each other and must co-exist on some level (neighbors, kids attend same school, domestic altercation, etc.), I'm starting to wonder if the husband isn't involved in some of the bruises –– a recent photo of his hands might be interesting.

It also will be telling if the other party is offered anti-harassment paperwork, and if either or both sides follows through. (they'll show on the above WA state court records sites if so)

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous said...
Sad that Ive seen so many fist fights, but anyway, guys breaking up girl fights never do that kind of thing ie. pounding the woman's face. They always go into "manly protective mode" and separate the women using minimal force ie holding them back.
Bree's injuries remind me of a fight I saw where a much stronger guy got the other guy down on the ground quick and then continued sadistically kicking and punching the guy as the guy lay there helpless.
Her injuries are not from a girl fight getting broken up. They are from someone (a guy) much stronger getting her down on the ground where he can freely just pummel her.
June 15, 2017 at 11:07 PM


Visit some of the video websites such as live leaks and others.

A few years ago, I would have agreed with you. Now there is an entire culture raised without fathers, where the males not only do not break up fights, but urge the female combatants on.

so much for the feminist anti-male agenda, as violence continues to increase and more and more perpetrators are female.

We're not in Kansas, anymore.

Peter

But I am a robot! said...

The Anonymous claiming to be Meyer Nece also seems to have read the comments and tried (unsuccessfully, since this is Statement Analysis) to address the many holes in the first few versions: people don't generally strike up conversations with others who are walking along, so whichever is currently claiming to be the Trump voter now stopped in the middle of a downtown Seattle street at 2:20 am to look at their photos on their expensive phone. With their arms full of leftover Chinese food, on the way back to their hotel room, which presumably has a safely locking door –– sure, ok!

The three approaching strangers became a lone friendly woman bearing a yellow balloon, who extracted a Trump vote confession, then screamed loudly for her two henchmen to come out of nowhere and commence the beat down.

Now tbe woman, or the three strangers, or whomever the current version is claiming, randomly asked where they're from because the east side of the state is more conservative, yeah, that makes perfect sense, too.


Anonymous said...

Robot, Ive been to Seattle & it is a pretty friendly place, and if anything, people are way more laid back than here in the Northeast. There is no road rage, people chitchat with the checkout person in a grocery store for 5-10 minutes after they are done paying and the people waiting in line just wait patiently.
That being said, there is also a lot of heroine use, with entire sections of the city filled with people on the sidewalks totally strung out on heroine.
Also, while walking through the city, I did not notice people approaching me to chitchat anymore so than in the NE which means they dont stop to chitchat.
The important point though is that in hubby's version, the random strangers begin discussing the New Kids concert EVEN though the story has been changed such that Bree & her sister run into the strangers hours after the concert ended, so why would random strangers who also attended the New Kids concert still be mulling about and/or assume someone they run into had attended the New Kids concert hours after it ended?
Here's a thought: Is there any possibility that "yellow balloon" is leakage of heroin use/possession considering isnt heroine sometimes sold in balloons?
Also I do think hubby had something to do with Bree getting those injuries.

Anonymous said...

I just googled it, and yes, heroin is usually sold in balloons on the West Coast.
"Yellow balloon" enters hubby's language, stating the strangers gave Bree a "yellow balloon" and she thought that was weird.
Possible scenario: Hubby is back at hotel room. Bree & her sister go out on the streets to buy heroin, they get ripped off and sold fake heroin or not enough, they bring it back to hubby, he goes ballistic and pounds on Bree, (This is purely hypothetical.)

Anonymous said...

There is getting to be a lot of weirdos on here. To not believe there was a white van when a police report has been filed is absurd. Believing her husband had something to do with the beatdown though he was nowhere near is outrageous-especially when there are witnesses and video describing the assailants. What is most outrageous is such interest garnered off a Facebook post whom she thought only close friends would read.

So, they turn out not to be Antifa...then what?

The beatdown occurred.

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous said...
There is getting to be a lot of weirdos on here. To not believe there was a white van when a police report has been filed is absurd. Believing her husband had something to do with the beatdown though he was nowhere near is outrageous-especially when there are witnesses and video describing the assailants. What is most outrageous is such interest garnered off a Facebook post whom she thought only close friends would read.

So, they turn out not to be Antifa...then what?

The beatdown occurred.
June 17, 2017 at 6:39 AM



No "beatdown" but "a fight ensued."

The fight, injuries and police report are all real. There was very likely political things yelled at each other, too.

The issue is what is missing, not what was stated. The things about husband, van, money, etc, are nonsense.

Peter

Anonymous said...

Anon, How do you know husband was nowhere near?
How do you know there is video?
How do you know there are witnesses?

Bree's language shows she was familiar with her assailant. How does that match up with random people in a different city?

It doesnt.

Anonymous said...

The husband, who was allegedly not there, reports that the strangers gave Bree a YELLOW baloon, not simply "a balloon".
His inclusion of the color suggests he handled the balloon. How if he was not there? Did Bree retrieve it from the sky after the vicious beatdown? Remember, she dropped everything, the take home food containers, etc. did she not also release the balloon while being beaten? Why does the husband report the color of the balloon?

Anonymous said...

Yes Donald Trumps name could have come up. Does this explain anything about what happened? No.
How come in both Bree and hubby's versions there is NO descriptive language regarding the assailants?
For example:
"A big man"
"A 'man with a leather jacket"
"The shorter guy"

There is nothing. No descriptive info. No info even about size even though that becomes very important info to someone being attacked. A huge guy is scarier than a small guy, etc.
Something does not add up regarding the three being the attackers.

Also, one dragged her 12 ft by her hair? I mean, just wow! It's. very difficult to believe a stranger would do that.

Anonymous said...

Bree said "I will take these cowards to court even if it takes a lifetime."

Yeah, that sure sounds like they have a case going through the courts. NOT!

Anonymous said...

I would just like to say that when I first read Bree's statement, I did not have the time to read through Peter's analysis, but I noticed that Bree's linguistics showed that she was familiar with her attacker, and I hurriedly commented stating that. Later on, I read through Peter's analysis and saw that he has noticed the same thing linguistically, only he noticed more tells than I did and analyzed the piece very skillfully.

All I can say it, I hope that Peter is not doubting his original analysis regarding Bree's attacker being known to her. I myself do not question anything in an analysis regardless of who comes on here saying "please" "thank you" "take care". The linguistic evidence is strong that Bree knew her attacker and that the attacker is male.

The "fight" was very unequal in terms of strength. From Bree's injuries as well as her describing the attack as far as what was inflicted on her, Bree was down on the ground for most of it and was getting kicked and punched in the face.

Bree knew her attacker. Does that mean we know who did it? No. But was it random strangers who gave her a balloon and then kicked the crap out of her over Trump. No. Did Trump's name and politics come up somewhere in the course of the night. Yes.

I can ignore the fact that the linguistics indicate that Bree knew her attacker just as Peter indicated in his analysis!

Anonymous said...

Should say "I can't ignore"

Anonymous said...

"Taken to jail" does not equal "arrested".
They may have been brought in for questioning, etc. Also "released" does not equal "bailed out" or "released on own recognizance". "Released" implies they are free now, case closed.

Anonymous said...

Something about the lack of descriptors of the female and 2 males in some odd way, reminds me of the lack of descriptors of DeOrr at the campground, which I pointed out, suggested DeOrr was never at the campground. The sheriff also reached that conclusion later on .
My feeling is that these 3 individuals do exist and that Bree did talk to them at some point but that they were not part of the fight. Just a thought...I could be wrong.

Anonymous said...

Meyer here....we are speaking with prosecutors, the men envolved are being prosecuted. Pre-trial is July 31st.

Anonymous said...

Right. You don't say "the men who attacked your wife". You say "the men involved". Were the men involved arrested? What were they charged with? Do you know if they posted bail or were they released on their own recognizance? Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Also, why are prosecutors talking to you at this point? Havent charges been filed against the men? Isnt the state prosecuting them? Why are they talking to you? What is the nature/purpose of their conversations with you if you don't mind sharing? Thanks.

But I am a robot! said...

Quoting one of a million random Anonymous posters who can't simply pick a non-registered name and go with it:

"There is getting to be a lot of weirdos on here. To not believe there was a white van when a police report has been filed is absurd."
~~~~~

What is beyond absurd is thinking a subject's account in a police report magically makes it true and proven –– the report will be any details the officers personally witnessed, and the officer quoting what subjects reported happened that the police did not witness. No trained police officer will report anything as fact that they did not witness themselves.

Anonymous said...

2:48, the police caught them in the knick of time just before they jumped in the white van