Lucy Johnson was a mother of 2 children, pregnant with her 3rd, when she was shot twice in the head, and her home set on fire. Michael Mead, the father of the unborn child, was arrested for her murder, and when tried, was found not guilty.
Statement Analysis of two of his letters; one written upon arrest, and the other upon the not-guilty verdict both show deception and guilt of the killing. In particular, the pronoun "my" takes possession of something that no innocent person will take ownership of: guilt. You may read analysis here:
http://seamusoriley.blogspot.com/2011/07/lucy-johnson-murder-michael-mead.html
What follows is an email which gives further insight into who Mead is. The setting is a newspaper article about him in which he was reading the comments posted by someone which was sensitive to him. The apparent target of the email is an ex; not Lucy Johnson.
Statement Analysis allows us to discern truth from deception. Deception, in order to be defined as "deception" must be deliberate. A mistaken idea, or a wrong assertion will not show deception. Even a coerced confession of a crime not committed will show deception. The origin of Statement Analysis is found in antiquity, first in the writing of Solomon. Statement Analysis, under various names (Scientific Content Analysis, SCAN, Discourse Analysis, Forensic Statement Analysis, Linguistic Analysis, etc), not only comes from the principle that "out of the abundance of the heart" (heart: seat of intellect and affections) the mouth speaks", but also allows a psychological profile to emerge, naturally.
Here, we see Mead's attitude towards his subject of his email. First is the email itself, then repeated for emphasis (underling, etc) with Statement Analysis in bold type.
"When you do say something about the fact she was fired from Forest Hill Church on Park Road for ADULTERY, the ultimate of sins. Ask her if we need to call David Chadwick, Sr. pastor of Forest Hill Church as a witnes s. As a matter of fact a week after we split in August 2005 she was caught in bed with another man. She’s been in therapy for 23 years. She’s bi-polar. Ask her why her oldest son Justin chose to live with me for 4 months after the final separation. Tell her you know how she treated Christian. Ask her how come she hasn’t had any contact with Christian, whom she adopted in 4 years, not a card, a letter, nothing. Ask her how come her parental rights to Christian have been terminated."
What insight is found within analysis of this email regarding the writer (subject)?
We note that the tone of the letter is hostile and accusatory, wishing to denigrate a woman.
"When you do say something about the fact she was fired from Forest Hill Church on Park Road for ADULTERY, the ultimate of sins.
Note that "adultery" is in all capital letters by the author giving it emphasis.
He describes adultery as the the "ultimate" of sins; and not murder, nor the lying that accompanies murder. Note that "when you do say something" presupposes that "something" will be said about the target of his email. The "something" is why she was fired. The subject wishes this to be announced so that the victim will be publicly shamed and embarrassed. This shows a need for revenge on his part.
The first question that arises: Adultery committed against whom? The answer is not in the email itself. Does the subject consider himself the victim of the "ultimate" sin? Or, does the subject, himself, wish to show that the victim is the "ultimate" sinner who is not worthy of him? By using the word "ultimate", he places adultery above all other evils; not something the Bible does.
Please note that it is "you", not himself, who will say "something." Pronouns are vital and must be observed carefully. Here, it is addressed to "you" but, we have a change:
Ask her if we need to call David Chadwick, Sr. pastor of Forest Hill Church as a witnes s.
He wants this said, but it is no longer "you" who will say it, he now considers himself part of the group that needs to prove the "ultimate" sin; he uses the pronoun "we".
The change of pronoun will alert us to deception by the subject.
Note that it is "we" that "needs" to call. This shows weakness on his part, and a desire to make this plural, and then to have the number grow from the "we" of two (you and the subject) to adding a 3rd person, as a "witness"
This is a 'gang up' mentality of a weak-minded (and cruel) individual. It is not enough for him to accuse her, he wants help and he wants a witness.
If the 'victim' of adultery is the subject, he would have to be married in order for her to commit adultery against him. If he is not married to her at the time of this writing, it should be carefully noted that this is a position he claims for himself, but only in regard to the "ultimate" sin. If he is writing about a different woman, it would have to be one he was married to at the time. In any case, whoever the woman is that he is writing about, he reveals deep insult and acute rage.
As a matter of fact a week after we split in August 2005 she was caught in bed with another man.
"as a matter of fact" is used when the subject wishes for something to be taken for granted, without question. Yet "she was caught" is passive language. Passivity seeks to conceal identity or responsibility. Who caught her? Was it the subject, himself? If so, what circumstances would lead him, after a "split" to "catch" ("caught") her in bed with "another" man? This suggests stalking or stalking-like behavior on his part.
She’s been in therapy for 23 years. She’s bi-polar.
Note that because she has been in therapy for 23 years, it is something that he views, not as someone seeking help, but as a weakness; then he says "she's bi-polar." From the tone of the letter, it is likely that these two things were private to her, but something he wishes to broadcast to humiliate her.
Note that his anger begins with sexuality as he considers her actions the "ultimate" of sins because it would be against him, even though he is not her husband. This is a display of ego-centric thinking on his part, something a child outgrows early in life. He is likely projecting his mental health issues upon her.
The "we" in his sentence is concerning as "we" indicates unity or cooperation and if they were not apart, by still using "we", may suggest a mental process of still being connected, and under his control.
Ask her why her oldest son Justin chose to live with me for 4 months after the final separation.
He takes a 23 year old's decision to stay with him for 4 months as a badge of honor in 'defeating' her. The social introduction shows a likely good relationship. (title first, then name)
Consider that he is piling upon her his scorn:
1. The "ultimate" sinner
2. Needs witnesses
3. Sought help for years
4. May have had diagnosis
5. He then uses a relationship with her son, for only a short duration, as a further means to humiliate or denigrate her.
This is an angry man. If his denigration of her isn't enough, he seeks to add more:
Tell her you know how she treated Christian. Ask her how come she hasn’t had any contact with Christian, whom she adopted in 4 years, not a card, a letter, nothing. Ask her how come her parental rights to Christian have been terminated."
He wants her "told"; that is, to be informed, to her face. The insult he wishes to put upon her is deep and personal.
Note that the name, "Christian" is repeated 3 times here, indicating a sensitivity between Christian and the subject (writer of the email).
"You know" because "you" have been informed....by him?
The subject blisters with anger, and likely has some sexual issues of his own of which he rages against her.
Lucy Johnson likely feared this man, and his email shows that she had reason to fear him. His anger and rage flow from inadequacy and perceived slight of the "ultimate" sin which he perceives himself as the ultimate victim of this 'insult.'
For more information on how a woman can escape a violent man, please see Susan Murphy Milano's works, including her website as well as the Crime Wire team.
No comments:
Post a Comment