Un studiu de specialitate despre minciunile familiei Anghel

Buna ziua,

Am scris acest articol din simplul motiv ca am observat foarte multe detalii suspecte in relatarile familiei lui Ionut Anghel, copilul despre care se spune ca a fost ucis de cainii maidanezi.
Fiind pasionata de psihologie, de patologia minciunii, de studiul comportamentelor umane si a tiparelor de exprimare, am studiat acest caz impreuna cu o prietena apropiata care este studenta la psihologie si care ca si mine, nu se lasa manipulata de mass-media si gandeste pentru ea insasi.
Am urmarit toate clipurile video in care apareau parintii sau bunica lui Ionut si le-am analizat foarte atente amandoua. Le-am vazut si revazut de multe ori si am constatat semne evidente de minciuna si tensiune pe care cred ca un poligraf le-ar demonstra cu usurinta. Este vorba de gesturi fizice, de pozitia corpului, de cuvintele folosite, de inflexiunile din voce, de linia discursului, de expresia faciala, de emotiile transmise (in acest caz emotiile care lipsesc) si de expresia din privirea celor implicati. Detalii care scapa oricarui om de rand care nu are o intuitie buna sau o pasiune pentru psihicul uman.
Insa noi le-am sesizat si le-am notat pe toate. Deci, iata de ce aceasta poveste a copilului ucis de caini este putreda pana in esenta ei si de ce oamenii  care o relateaza sunt doar niste actori nepriceputi.
Am reluat firul evenimentelor.
BUNICA
Prima care a aparut in presa a fost bunica celor doi copii, care a relatat ce s-a intamplat.
Aici este un video pe baza caruia am facut analiza ce va urma:
http://a1.ro/news/social/bunica-lui-ionut-a-povestit-la-acces-direct-ultimile-clipe-ale-nepotelului.html
Inca din primele secunde ale interviului, bunica incepe un discurs parca gata invatat sa il spuna pe de rost.  “Cum sa nu plang… toate, toate mi s-au intamplat mie. Si familiei mele care suntem indurerati. Nu stiu ce sa mai facem noi. Nu putem sa il uitam niciodata, nimeni nu il poate inlocui pe Ionut. Toate sunt trecatoare dar acest copil nu se poate uita niciodata.”
Cuvintele folosite sunt sabloane, sunt cuvinte care au o tenta filosofica, cuvinte fortate, spuse ca un discurs invatat. Cand reporterul intreaba de ce plange, probabil, raspunsul ei este:  “toate mi s-au intamplat mie”.  Motivul suferintei bunicii este neclar, este suspect. Ea plange pentru ca i s-au intamplat ei lucruri. E adevarat ca ea este responsabila pentru aceasta situatie, insa tin sa reamintesc tuturor ca nu ei i s-a intamplat ceva, ci lui Ionut. Un raspuns mai uman ar fi fost: “plang pentru ca mi-a murit nepotelul” sau “ plang pentru ce i s-a intamplat lui Ionut.”
Vrea si cauta dinadins sa puna accentul pe suferinta familiei: “ suntem indurerati. Nu stiu ce sa mai facem NOI.” Consider ca in acest caz, suferinta familiei se vede, este evidenta si nu este necesar ca cei implicati sa mentioneze cat sunt de indurerati. S-ar vedea destul prin disperarea lor, prin lacrimi, prin emotiile transmise, prin expresia faciala devastata. Expresia  “Nu stiu ce sa mai facem noi” suna fortat si zisa parca dinadins, cu rolul sa impresioneze.  Apoi urmeaza partea cea mai interesanta. Partea in care practic se incrimineaza. Desi nimeni nu a presuspus ca ar fi usor de uitat sau cazul sa uite, bunica face o afirmatie inutila: “Nu putem sa il uitam niciodata, nimeni nu il poate inlocui pe Ionut. Toate sunt trecatoare dar acest copil nu se poate uita niciodata.” A se observa nota filosofica din raspuns. O persoana indoliata, indurerata, care tocmai a trecut printr-o tragedie, nu are puterea interioara de a isi calcula cuvintele asa.
Am mai observat si pauzele din discurs, balbele si ezitarile. Semne ale unui discurs tensionat, semne care indica o persoana care  minte, care acum construieste o poveste si cauta cuvintele cele mai convingatoare.
In plus, oricine poate observa ca aceasta femeie nu plange. Se preface. Nu exista lacrimi. Nu exista durere in ochi. Nu exista tremur in voce. Nu exista energia si emotia unui om care plange indurerat. Eu de obicei empatizez foarte usor cand ma uit la stiri si vad oameni indurerati. Plang cu ei, la fel de tare. Insa acesta a fost primul detaliu care mi-a atras atentia atunci cand am vazut prima oara declaratiile bunicii. Aceasta femeie plangea si nu imi transmitea nimic. Nu era credibila. Drama ei nu ma facea sa plang. Pentru ca ea de fapt spunea o poveste pe de rost. Emotiile lipseau cu desavarsire.
A se observa si cum isi atinge parul. Semn de incertidudine si de minciuna. In momentul in care mint, oamenii au ticuri nervoase care le tradeaza tensiunea nervoasa, frica de a nu fi prinsi.
Imediat cand reporterul schimba intrebarea, starea bunicii se schimba brusc, devine relaxata si poate povesti cu detasare ce s-a intamplat. Ca si cum gata, rolul ei de a plange s-a terminat. Tot ce pot percepe eu care o analizez este ca joaca un rol. Nu stiu de ce, dar il joaca.
In continuare povesteste detasata si relaxata, ca si cum ar povesti un film, nu ce s-a intamplat cu nepotii ei. Foloseste aceleasi expresii stereotipice parca invatate pe de rost si are ezitari in discurs, fapt ce tradeaza adevarul ca ea isi infloreste povestea pe parcurs.
Repetitiile din discurs demonstreaza ca se justifica inutil si doreste sa puna accentul pe scenariu: ziua, locul, ce a zis cineva etc. Face un efort in acest sens. Relateaza detalii nesemnificative, lipsite de importanta si emotie: incepe relatarea de vineri desi aceasta nu era ziua tragediei, mentioneaza ca le da de mancare la ora 12, ca a spalat copiii pe maini, le-a zis ca ii duce in parc, copiii au ramas la ea, ea s-a dus pe alee, se uita catre tramvai, o doamna a aparut, un domn inalt, politistul a inchis statia, dialoguri irelevante dintre persoanele implicate etc. Ceea ce inseamna doar ca umple spatii din scenariu. Are un scenariu slab, o idee centrala in jurul careia construieste ad-hoc.  Nimic din povestea ei nu pare veridic si ea insasi nu pare sa se identifice cu povestea. Pe parcursul povestii, nu o apuca plansul, nu are emotii, nu ii tremura vocea, nu ii este greu sa relateze ceva dureros. Un om sanatos psihic, atunci cand povesteste o tragedie, retraieste in creierul sau tragedia si emotiile aferente ei si le reda automat atunci cand repovesteste. Este un automatism natural. Insa la ea nu exista acest automatism. Se observa clar lipsa oricarei emotii. Si explicatia conform careia ar fi calma datorita calmantelor pur si simplu nu este veridica. Un om aflat sub efectul calmantelor nu este lucid 100% cum este ea, ci are pleoapele lasate, are ochii tulburi, are musculatura faciala flasca, are discursul lent si greoi. Nu exista semne de calmante care isi fac efectul. Aceasta persoana este calma si detasata in mod natural. Nu se identifica cu povestea spusa pentru ca nu a trait-o in mod direct. Reactiile ei emotionale o dau de gol.
Observ in continuare ca isi cauta alibi. Repeta expresii precum: “ si gardianul a ascultat” sau “stie toate masinile acelea de politie ce hal am plans de tare si cat am tipat de tare”, “toti 6 m-au vazut in ce stare eram” etc. Vrea sa puna accentul pe faptul ca a avut martori. Martori ca cineva a auzit ce a spus baietelul de 6 ani despre fratele lui si ca ea a plans tare. De ce ar fi vrut sa puna accentul ca a fost vazuta plangand?
Noua ni s-a parut fals si modul in care sustine ea ca s-a exprimat Andrei, copilul de 6 ani: “Bunica, Ionut nu mai este. Cel putin 4-5 caini l-au mancat, erau pe el”. Un copil de 6 ani traumatizat care tocmai si-a vazut fratele sfasiat si ucis de caini ar fi trebuit sa fie in soc, incapabil sa vorbeasca, tremurand si afectat la maxim. In orice caz, nu ar fi constientizat in socul avut ca fratele sau nu mai este.  De asemenea, un copil care si-a vazut fratele sfasiat de caini nu tipa dupa ajutor? Nu ii spune omului care l-a adus inapoi sa se duca sa il ajute pe fratele sau? Un copil normal l-ar fi dus de mana pe acel om pana la fratele lui sa il ajute.
Si cel mai socant, este modul cum incheie bunica povestea: a fost la sectie si a depus declaratii si ea are constiinta impacata ca a facut tot ce a putut.  EA ARE CONSTIINTA IMPACATA.  Sunt doua posibile motive pentru care ea are constiinta impacata: ori are o dereglare psihica si nu e capabila de emotii, ori minte.
Am observat expresia faciala a acestei femei si la inmormantare. Nici o lacrima, nici o framantare, nici o emotie. Oameni straini plangand in jur si ea impasibila.
Acestea au fost observatiile asupra bunicii.
PARINTII
Trecand la parinti, constat aceeasi raceala, aceeasi lipsa de emotii.
In acest clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RbHRDk-4X4 , parintii sunt detasati emotional. Nu plang, nu par ca au plans. Nu par nedormiti. Mama copilului este aranjata si machiata. Povesteste totul atat de relaxata si cu o figura inexpresiva. Privirea ei este rece si nu exprima nimic, nici durere, nici revolta. Afirmatiile ei nu vin din durere, din dorinta de razbunare a mortii copilului – sentimente absolut normale pentru o mama care tocmai si-a pierdut copilul in mod tragic. Afirmatiile ei referitoare la gestionarea problemei cainilor maidanezi suna a pura propaganda. La fel si afirmatiile tatalui. Niciunul nu isi exprima durerea vizavi de uciderea copilului lor de catre maidanezi. Nu vor sa se faca dreptate, nu vor sa se razbune. Ar fi fost complet natural ca tatal sa se duca sa omoare cu mana lui cainii care i-au atacat copilul. In ultimele zile tot aud parinti disperati care zic ca daca prind vreun caine il omoara cu mainile lor. Parinti ai caror copii nu au fost in pericol si nu au murit. Si totusi, acesti doi parinti in doliu nu simt sa rupa gatul niciunui caine.  Imi aduc aminte clar, cum intrebat fiind ce va face acum, prima afirmatie facuta de tatal copilului in fata reporterilor a fost: “ Ce sa facem? Asta este.” Cum adica asta este??? Cum un parinte care pana azi avea un copil sanatos pe care il iubea si tocmai si l-a pierdut pe veci intr-un mod oribil, spune: “asta este”?? Chiar nu pare nimanui dubios?
Observati cum tatal se incrunta si isi tuguiaza buzele in mod fortat, incercand sa para suparat. Incercati sa vedeti cum in ochii lui nu e durere, nu sunt lacrimi.
Ce ma inspaimanta pe mine este figura  acelei mame. O mama care nu sufera. O mama care nu se tavaleste pe jos de durere. O mama care vorbeste detasat si propune rational solutii pentru eradicarea problemei maidanezilor. Mie imi pare doar o persoana care face o campanie pentru o idee. In spatele ei nu sunt sentimente de durere, sunt doar cuvinte calculate cu raceala.
Si inca o un detaliu: ei nu mentioneaza numele copilului lor. Nu ii auzi sa spuna cu caldura si durere: “Ionut, Ionut al nostru” sau “ copilul meu”, “copilul nostru.” Nu sunt atasati emotional de acest copil. Si este foarte, foarte dubios. Ei se refera la copii in general, copiii din Bucuresti care sa nu ajunga si ei sa fie muscati. Cui ii pasa de copiii altora cand lui tocmai i-a murit copilul?
Si mai ales: cine are timp de aparut fresh si machiat la TV dupa o inmormantare? Care parinte sta pe la televiziuni in loc sa fie acasa devastat si intrebandu-se care mai e scopul vietii lui acum? Cum ar putea sa dea timpul inapoi? Cum ar putea sa isi aduca copilasul inapoi?  Intrebari inutile de altfel, dar intrebari naturale si normale, pline de sentiment si de durere, pe care orice parinte si le pune.
In urmatorul video, mama lui Ionut afirma ca celalalt copil e in soc si ca nu a avut timp de el pana acum. Dar acum? Acum ce cauta la TV in loc sa fie acasa cu copilul ei care este in stare de soc? Cum se poate ca o mama sa isi lase ea copilul traumatizat sa stea acasa asteptand-o?
http://a1.ro/news/social/parintii-lui-ionut.html
Mai departe, mergand la reportajul  de la inmormantare, constatam cum multi oameni veniti sa asiste, straini, nu rude, plang si sufera, iar familia lui Ionut  este in continuare rece si detasata.  Este frapant cum acei oameni doar prezenti , nu si conectati prin legaturi de sange, pot plange, se pot exprima, si cum la polul opus, familia Anghel  este calma. Si din nou, acesti oameni NU sunt sub efectul calmantelor.
http://www.cancan.ro/actualitate/ce-nu-s-a-vazut-la-inmormantarea-copilului-omorat-de-maidanezi-sute-de-oameni-au-venit-sa-l-conduca-pe-ultimul-drum.html
Observ, cum ma si asteptam, ca sicriul a fost inchis. Cel putin asta se vede din imagini. Un sicriu inchis in care nu se stie ce este.  Nu vreau sa merg mai departe de atat.  A vazut cineva cadavrul copilului? A iesit raportul medico-legal?
Sunt multe alte detalii suspecte in intreg cazul, precum ar fi: presa sustine ca Ionut ar fi fost ucis si gasit in parcul Tei, desi s-a zis ulterior ca a fost gasit la 1 km de parc, pe terenul abandonat al unei societati; drumul anevoios cu lungime de 1 km dintre parc si locul accidentului, inaccesibil cu usurinta unor copii; lipsa martorilor – oameni din parc, vecini, rude, care sa vina sa faca afirmatii; fratele cel mare, Andrei nu a aparut la televizor si cele relatate de el devin de fapt cele relatate de bunica etc.
Sunt aspecte evidente in acest caz, pe care majoritatea romanilor, orbiti de drama acestei morti, nu le mai judeca la rece. Se identifica cu durerea acestei familii care culmea, nu da dovada de nici o urma de suferinta, si  uita sa mai fie oameni rationali, cu putere de discernamant – exact acea calitate pe care ei spun ca ii diferentiaza de caini, de animale.
In contextul actual, avand in vedere situatia cu Rosia Montana, tot acest caz al lui Ionut, mie, ca om care a judecat detasat si la rece, imi pare o campanie de distragere a atentiei publicului de la problemele mai grave ale tarii, o campanile de sensibilizare a publicului si de ce nu? – o pre-campanie electorala.  Altfel, zic si eu ca un om de rand, normal, am fi vazut parinti in genunchi, devastati, in lacrimi, lesinati de plans si de calmante, doritori sa isi faca dreptate, si am fi vazut o bunica cu ochii rosi, cu mustrari de constiinta, terminata psihic de situatie.
Nu stiu ce s-a intamplat de fapt, dar un lucru stiu sigur: familia Anghel minte si nu sufera.
Si in urma teatrului  lor de prost gust, zilnic apar victime peste victime: caini nevinovati si blanzi ucisi pe nedrept si oameni muscati de caini pentru ca toti au luat-o razna din cauza isteriei generale cauzate de aceasta moarte si au inceput sa atace animalele, iar animalele riposteaza.
Daca nici aceasta analiza nu va  ridica semne de intrebare, atunci inseamna ca mass-media chiar are success in a spala poporul pe creier.
Cat timp veti mai permite sa fiti atat de usor manipulabili? Degeaba tipa in timpane de o multime de ani imnul romanilor: “Desteapta-te romane, din somnul cel de moarte”…

Diana Dumitru

xnici:  Va multumesc ca ati avut curiozitatea sa cercetati aceasta problema a minciunii si ca mi-ati trimis acest studiu pentru a-l publica pe blog. Va sunt recunoscatoare ca prin intermediul a doi specialisti in patologia minciunii ni se confirma ceea ce am simtit cu totii: totul este un teatru ieftin pus in scena de niste actori prosti.





Hello,


I wrote this article simply because I noticed many suspicious details Ionut Anghel family stories , the child who is said to have been killed by stray dogs .
Being passionate about psychology, pathology lies, the study of human behavior and patterns of expression , we studied this case with a close friend who is a student of psychology and who like me , did not manipulated by the media and think for herself.
I watched all the videos appearing Ionut's parents and grandmother and we carefully consider both. I've seen and reviewed many times and found obvious signs of lying and tension that I think a polygraph would show them easily . It is physical gestures , body posture , the words used , the inflections of voice, speech line of facial expression of emotions transmitted ( in this case emotions are missing ) and the expression in the eyes of those involved . Details that escape any ordinary man who has no intuition or a passion for the human psyche.
But we have noticed and we have noted them all. So that's why the story of the child killed by dogs is rotten to its essence and tells people they are just incompetent actors .
We resumed the events .
GRANDMA
First appeared in the press was the grandmother of the two children , who reported what happened.
Here is a video I made based on which analysis will follow :


From the first seconds of the interview, the grandmother begins a speech ready if learned to say by heart . " How not to cry ... all , all I have happened to me. And my family who are grieving . I do not know what we are doing . We can not ever forget it , no one can replace Ionut . All are transient but the baby can not forget. "
The words used are templates are words that have a touch philosophical words forced , said that a learned discourse . When the reporter asks why complain perhaps her response is: " I ​​have all happened to me ." The reason is unclear grandparents suffering is suspect. She 's crying because her things happened . It is true that she is responsible for this situation , but I must remind everyone that its not something happened to him , but Ionut . A human response would have been : " I weep for dead nephew " or " cry for what happened to Ionut . "
Wants and seeks deliberately to focus on family distress : " We are saddened . I do not know what we are doing . " We believe that in this case, the family is seen suffering is obvious and does not need to mention how involved are grieving . You see enough through their desperation , the tears , the emotions transmitted by facial expression devastated . The phrase " I do not know what we are doing " sounds forced and called if purposely , with the role to impress . Then comes the interesting part . The criminalizing the practice is . Although nobody presuspus it would be easy to forget or forget where the grandmother is a useless statement : "We can not ever forget it , no one can replace Ionut . All are transient but the baby can not forget. " Observe the answer philosophical note . A person mourning , grieving , who has just gone through a tragedy , no inner strength to calculate their words so .
I also noticed the speech pauses , stutters and hesitations . Signs of a speech tense signs of a person in mind , now builds a story most compelling and search words .
In addition , anyone can see that this woman does not cry . Pretending. There are no tears . There is no pain in the eye. No shiver in his voice . There is energy and emotion of a man pained cries . I usually empathize very easily when I watch the news and see people grieving . I cry with them as much . But this was the first detail that caught my attention when I first saw grandparents statements . This woman was crying and I do not transmitting anything. It was not credible. Drama they make me cry . Because she actually tells a story by heart . Emotions missing.
Observe and how they touch your hair. Sign incertidudine and lie. When lying , people have nervous tics that betray their nervous tension , fear of being caught.
Change immediately when the reporter question , grandmother condition suddenly changes , it becomes loose and can relate to what happened detachment . As ready to cry her role over. All I can perceive an analysis is that it plays a role. Do not know why , but it plays .
Further tells detached and relaxed , as if a film story , not what happened to her grandchildren . Use the same stereotypical phrases like memorized and has hesitations in speech , which reveals the truth that it blooms its story along.
Rehearsals of speech demonstrates that justify unnecessary and wants to focus on the scenario : on the place that someone said so . Make an effort in this regard . Reports insignificant details , unimportant and emotion : the story starts on Friday though it was not the day of the tragedy, mentions that give them food at 12, the children washed their hands , told them that takes them to the park , children remained at her, she went into the alley , looking to tram a lady appeared , a tall gentleman , police closed the station , irrelevant dialogue between those involved , etc. . Which means just fill spaces in the script . It has a weak script , a central idea around which ad- hoc builds . None of her story itself does not seem truthful and does not seem to identify with the story . Throughout the story , do not start crying , no emotion, no shaking voice , he is not hard to relate something painful. A sane man when recounts a tragedy relive the tragedy and emotions related brain them and play automatically when retells . It is a natural automatism . But it does not exist this automatism . It clearly shows the lack of any emotion. And the explanation that would be calm because painkillers simply not true . A man under the effect of painkillers is not 100 % clear as it is, but has left eyelids , his eyes troubled is flaccid facial muscles , speech is slow and heavy. No signs of pain killers that take their effect . This person is naturally calm and detached . Not identify with the story told for not lived it directly. Emotional reactions they give away.
Further notes that is looking for an alibi. Repeat phrases such as " the warden heard " or "knows all those police cars what a mess I cried hard and I screamed as loud ", " all six saw me in that state were" etc . He wants to focus on the fact that he had witnessed . Tuesday that someone has heard the boy of 6 years his brother and that she cried aloud . Why he wanted to emphasize that he was seen crying ?
To us it seemed fake and how to express her support Andrew, 6 year old : "Grandma , Ionut gone. At least 4-5 dogs they ate were on him. " A 6 year old traumatized just saw his brother killed by dogs torn and ought to be in shock, unable to speak , shivering and affected the most . In any case , it would be realized in shock that his brother had gone. Also , a child who has seen his brother torn by dogs do not yell for help ? Do not tell the man who led them back to take his brother to help him ? A normal child would be taken by hand to the man 's brother to help him.
And most shocking is how the story ends grandmother : he was at the station and made ​​statements conscience and she did everything she could . It has a clear conscience. There are two possible reasons why she has conscience : or has a mental disorder and is not capable of emotions or mind.
I noticed this woman's facial expression and the funeral . No tears , no kneading , no emotion . Strangers and crying about it impasse.
These were observations of grandparents .
PARENTS
Moving from parents, consisted same cold , the same lack of emotion.
In this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RbHRDk-4X4 , parents are emotionally detached . Do not cry, do not seem to have plans. There seem sleepless . Mother is arranged and makeup . Tell all so relaxed and with an expressionless face . Her look is cool and does not express anything, no pain, no rebellion . Her statements do not come from pain, the desire for revenge of the death of the child - feeling absolutely normal for a mother who has just lost a child tragically . Her statements on the management of stray dog ​​problem sounds like pure propaganda . Likewise, claims father . Neither expresses pain killing their child across the street dogs . They will not be done right, not want revenge . It would be completely natural father to go and kill his hand dogs have attacked children . In the last days of hearing desperate parents who say that if you get any dog kills their hands . Parents whose children were not threatening and did not die . Yet , these two parents in mourning do not feel any dog to break his neck . I remember clearly how being asked what he would do now , the first statement made by the child's father in front of reporters was " What do we do ? That's it. " How come this is ? ? ? As a parent who even today have a healthy baby and just loved you and lost forever in a horrible way , says " it is " ? Just seems fishy to anyone ?
Notice how his father frowned tuguiaza forcibly lips , trying to look angry . Try to see how in his eyes no pain , no tears .
What really frightens me is that mother figure . A mother who does not suffer . A mother who does not wallow away the pain. A mother who speaks detached and propose rational solutions to eradicate the problem of stray dogs . Me I'm just a person who makes a campaign idea. Behind her are feelings of pain, are just words coldly calculated .
And one detail : they do not mention the name of their child. Do you hear them say with warmth and pain , " Ionut Ionut our" or " my child" , " our baby . " There are emotionally attached to the child . And it's very, very doubtful . They refer to children in general , children in Bucharest that they do not grow and be bitten . Who cares about other people's children when his child has just died ?
And especially : who appeared fresh and makeup for the TV after a funeral ? What parent sits on the TV instead of being at home devastated and wondering what's the point of his life now? How could he turn back time ? How could bring their baby back ? Otherwise unnecessary questions , but questions natural and normal , full of feeling and pain that every parent and ask them .
In the following video , the mother of the other child 's Ionut says in shock and did not have time for it yet . But now ? Now you look on TV instead of being at home with her child is in shock ? How can a mother leave her child traumatized her to stay at home waiting for her ?
http://a1.ro/news/social/parintii-lui-ionut.html
Furthermore, going to report on the funeral , we find how many people come to assist foreigners, not relatives, crying and suffering , and his family is still Ionut cold and detached . It is striking how those people just currently not connected by ties of blood , can cry, they can express themselves , and as the opposite , Anghel family is calm . And again , these people are under the influence of painkillers .


I notice , as I expected, the coffin was closed. At least it shows in the pictures . A closed casket not know what is . I will not go further than that. Has anyone seen the child 's body ? A forensic report came out ?
There are many suspicious details throughout the case , such as : media says Ionut were killed and found in Linden Park , although it later said it was found 1 km from the park, abandoned land of a company , go hard length of 1 km of the park and the accident , easily accessible to children , lack of witnesses - people in the park , neighbors, relatives who come to make claims , big brother , Andrew has appeared on television and those related to it are actually reported by the grandmother etc. .
There are obvious issues in this case , which most Romans, blinded by the drama of this dead, cold not judge them . Identify with the pain of this family which ironically, not to have any trace of suffering, and look to be rational people , with the power of discernment - exactly the quality that they say sets them apart from dogs , animals .
In the current context, in view of the Rosia Montana all Ionut 's case , I , as a man who judged detached and cold , I'm a public campaign distraction from more serious problems of the country, a campaign public awareness and why not ? - A pre- election campaign . Otherwise, what I say as an ordinary man , of course , I have seen parents knees , devastated , in tears , fainting, crying and calm , eager to make his point , and I have seen a grandmother with red eyes , with qualms of consciousness , psychic completed situation.
I do not know what actually happened , but one thing I do know : the family Anghel mind and not suffering .
And after their theater gaudy daily casualties occur over victims : innocent and gentle dogs killed people unjustly and bitten by dogs because they all went crazy because of general hysteria caused by this death and began attacking animals and the animals fight back .
If neither this analysis will raise questions , then it means that the media does have success in a brain wash people .
While you afford to be so easily manipulated ? Eardrums screaming in vain for a lot of years anthem Romans : "Wake up , Romanian, from your deadly sleep " ...


Diana Dumitru


xnici : Thank you for having had the curiosity to investigate this problem lies and that I have sent this study to publish on the blog. We are grateful that through two specialists in pathology lies we are told what we all felt : it is a cheap theater staged some actors pr