http://www.news.com.au/national/my-kiesha-was-taken-by-a-childless-couple-says-mum-kristi-abrahams/story-e6frfkvr-1225931281194
I read that article yesterday, but was too busy at work to post about it. I check the net everyday for news.
According to violence-prevention expert, Gavin DeBecker, in his best-selling book,
The Gift Of Fear, you can often tell when someone is lying or trying to convince you that they are being truthful, when they willingly (without being asked) provide what he calls "
TOO MANY DETAILS" in a conversation or explanation. Directly lifted from his book, BBM:
TOO MANY DETAILS
People who want to deceive you, I explain to Kelly, will often use a simple technique that has a simple name: too many details. The man’s use of the story about the cat he left unfed in a friend’s apartment: too many details. His reference to leaving the door open, “like ladies do in old movies”: too many details. His volunteering that he is always late (“broken watch, not my fault”
: too many details.
When people are telling the truth, they don’t feel doubted, so they don’t feel the need for additional support in the form of details.
When people lie, however, even if what they say sounds credible to you, it doesn’t sound credible to them, so they keep talking.
...The defense is to remain consciously
aware of the context in which details are offered.
Context is always apparent at the start of an interaction and usually apparent at the end of one, but
too many details can make us lose sight of it. ...Every type of con relies upon
distracting us from the obvious.
Kelly had so many details thrown at her that she lost sight of this simple context: The man was an absolute stranger. Whenever the train got going fast enough that she was uncomfortable, whenever she might have seen what was happening, like his taking the shopping bag from her hand even though she said no, he slowed the train down with some new irrelevance.
He used catchy details to come to be perceived as someone familiar to her, someone she could trust.
The person who recognizes the strategy of Too Many Details
sees the forest while simultaneously being able to see the few trees that really matter. The defense for too many details is simple: Bring the context into conscious thought.
In another interview, of which I cannot locate online, and this one listed above, Kristi is using
TOO MANY DETAILS. Someone else posted about this, quoting Kristi about the books she reads to Keisha, among other details that seemed unimportant, not useful or relevant. Here are the 2 that stuck out to me in the most recent article/interview posted above:
Example 1:
"Someone has taken her, I think it was a couple who couldn't have kids of their own."
Her examining the
exact motive of her daughter's disappearance is detailed, and frankly, random. Most people (parents) assume stranger abduction RIGHT AWAY. It seems very "creative" of her to assume a couple who couldn't have kids would take her.
And--great point everyone about how a couple would take a BABY not a grown child. Most people would want to start off with a baby---or would want someone that cannot snitch on them.
Kristi is trying to shift the blame off of her and onto an alleged "perp".
Example 2:
"I just want her back so we can play her favourite Hannah Montana CD like we used to, and dance and sing."
These are personal details that are unrelated to the situation. Why do we need to know about them listening to a Hanna Montana CD? Do they really miss dancing with her that much to mention it, as if that is the ONLY thing they are looking forward to? What about wanting her back so that you can hold her and kiss her?? Do you miss her smile, laugh? I understand if listening to that CD was a favorite activity of theirs, that they would surely miss doing with her...but it just seemed so out of place, so random to mention THAT detail.
I believe when Kyron's parents were interviewed, they were ASKED about Kyron, and what he likes to do, so people can use those hobbies and interests to help locate him, or for him to appear "human" to a perp.
If Kristi uses personal details to give the public a portrait of Kiesha--to help find her--then I have no qualms about that. However, Kristi continues to provide random details in interviews that just seem out of place and NOT related to describing Keisha for the benefit of located or humanizing her. She does this willingly, not after being asked. (No one is saying, "Describe Keisha for me, and what she likes to do, or what you two like to do together.")
Kristi also seems to give details that involve BOTH her and Keisha, as if she is trying to convince us that they have a loving mother-daughter relationship.
I hope I am making sense or not over-reacting?
If someone could re-post other examples of TOO MANY DETAILS in Kristi's interviews, I would greatly appreciate it---my time is limited here at work, lol.
Kiesha, we are so sorry. We hope justice for you comes soon
