Distancing Language and Sexual Assault

July 15, 2015, 7:26 am

≫ Next: Statement Analysis: 911 Call of Missing 2 Year Old

≪ Previous: Understanding Human Nature: Relentlessly Greedy

$

0

0

                        "Distancing Langauge and Sexual Assault" 

by Peter Hyatt 

     



The pronoun, "you" is often associated with distancing language, and rightly so.  Sometimes it is physical distance (geography), while other times it indicates emotional or psychological distance.

For the analyst, distancing language may be readily spotted, but it may be more difficult to classify.

Some use of the word "you" is called:

"Appropriately Distant", which is to say, 'universal.'

"If you drive too fast, you're going to end up with a ticket" is an example of distancing language that is appropriate, as the subject is speaking in a universal manner.  "You" is not "If I drive too fast..." which signals, "distance", but the word "you" applies to any driver.

"If you treat others the way you want to be treated, things go a lot better"is a 'universal' distance, that is, applied to all.  This makes it very personal when someone says, "If I treat people the way I want to be treated..."and quite important.

Athletes are notorious for using distancing language, even when there is nothing "universal" about hitting (or missing) a 97 mph fast ball.

"You put the bat on the ball and you see what happens" sounds universal, but it is only universal  for ball players.

But in failure, the analyst may conclude that the distancing language is a form of minimization.

"You try your best out there, and sometimes you strike out", says the ball player who took the "Golden Sombreo",  a most rare infamous distinction of having struck out each time up.  Few will say, "I tried my best but I stuck out 4 times."

In fact, when you are attempting to discern the distancing language, as context is key, you must always note when someone consistently uses the word "you", suddenly says, "I" in the statement; making this portion of the statement very important to the subject

The analyst makes the call based upon years of experience.  Period.  There is no substitute, no matter how well the principles are memorized.

When the topic is 'up close and personal', the word "you" now becomes critical in 'entering into' or understanding the statement.

Some of the most "up close and personal" topics include:

a.  Parenting or something related to one's children
b.  Violence
c   Home theft or invasion (assault in the home, break ins, stalking, etc) where the "home", that is, the place of 'safety' and rest, is no longer secure.  This can include language associated with the bedroom as well.
d.  Murder

The grandmother of a "missing" child knew her granddaughter had not been kidnapped as claimed, and was covering for her son who likely sold her a story of an "accident." She said,

"It's when you're waiting for the police to call you" and later, in attempting to bolster the "kidnapping" hoax, she said, "it's someone watching your home..."

In both cases, there is nothing universal about a missing child, nor about a home being 'watched' or 'cased'; this, with the entire statement, was indicated for deception, in the case of Ayla Reynolds.

Question:  What about "identity theft"?  Isn't this very personal?

Answer:  I have not had enough statements regarding identity theft to date, to have a strong opinion on it.  I likely will, as more cases are studied.

Question:  What about "Rape" and distancing language?

"Rape", however, being a most acute "up close and personal" form of evasion, can actually produce distancing language; not as a signal of deception, but as a signal of minimization/denial.  This is why the language of sexual assault is a study unto itself.

"You freeze.  You just wait till its over.  You just tell yourself to breathe..."

It goes pyschologicalyly even further:

"The rape occurred..." is found in both truthful and deceptive statements.

How can you know, therefore, the difference, since passive language is used?  This makes sexual assault heavily reliant upon pronouns, and specific indictors.

In the allegations against Bill Cosby, we had several full interviews and were able to discern through the process of analysis that Cosby did, in fact, rape the victims analyzed.

Following the assailant, "Bill Cosby" means to see the relationship between the accused and the victim.

When is he:

a.  Bill Cosby
b.  Bill
c.  Mr. Cosby
d.  Cosby
e.  him, he

In a victim's interview, she used all of these terms, so we simply ask, "When is he 'Bill Cosby'?" and if, in context, the rape took place, is there a change?

We learned that when the assault was described, he was no longer "Bill" (friendly, first name) but "Cosby" and sometimes just the pronoun use.  Prior to the assault, during times he was courting her for fame, he started as "Bill Cosby", introduced, but then onto the familiar "Bill"; but once the assault took place, there is a change that represents a change in reality.  No more is the word "we" found between them.  "We" may have gone to dinner, but after the assault, the "we" is gone, and so is all personal and friendly words used.

This is consistent.  It is also why the context is key.

Also, extreme distancing language can take place where the subject is lying about rape.

"The rape occurred..." is passive voice.  Rape does not just "occur" but "he raped me."

This phrase, and similar ones, show up in both truthful and deceptive.  Context becomes key.

Principle:

Passivity in language is used to conceal or hide identity and/or responsibility.  "The gun went off" is to avoid saying who pulled the trigger.  "The gun was in the bed" avoids saying who put the gun in the bed.  Passivity conceals.  When, for example, a gun went off in a crowd and the subject does not know the identity, passivity is appropriately used.

Here comes the curveball:

When a rape victim is truthful but uses passive language the interviewer must consider that the victim experienced sexual abuse in childhood that was very early, possibly even pre-speech.

This is to say that if you, the detective, believe that the victim was raped, and she uses passivity, explore background.  Here is why:

When a child is a victim of sexual abuse, the child may disassociate during the assault especially if the sexual abuse was continual.

This means that the child is being sexually abused, but during the abuse, uses her imagination to naturally 'escape' or distance herself (the brain protecting itself from the trauma, even if the sexual assault did not induce pain) from the event, itself.

Picture a one time assault where the child, confused and wondering, simply thinks about being at a park.

Now, picture it happening again.  The assailant is sexually molesting her, including touch that might even feel 'good' (this often makes the repercussions worse), and she is, in her mind, "at the park."

Now, picture it happening over and over, including the fact that she does not possess the linguistic sophistication to express what she is experiencing. 

This is the element of "silence" which is often attributed to threats by the rapist.  "If you tell anyone, daddy is going to leave you", "you don't want your uncle going to jail, do you?"all the way up to, "if you tell anyone, mommy is going to die."

These are real "silencing" threats but they are not the only limitation to speech;

the brain must process, linguistically, as we are created to do, otherwise:  the damage to the brain is even worse.

Picture a child silenced by fear, and you can understand why "mouth" and words like "being heard" are so sensitive.

But picture a child who is too young to articulate what has happened to her, and you have the ultimate damage due to silencing.  Not only can the brain not process through language, the brain does not have the ability to process what has happened.

It seems that, in many cases, at this point, the body takes over and "processes" the vileness done to the child and mental health experts scratch their heads at why the 15 year old is having random, dangerous indiscriminate sex, and utterly destroying herself.  As they seek to get her to speak, she is not "resisting" telling you (the expert) about it,

She is incapable of doing so, or so it seems.

Hence, the extreme value of a mental health or social services professional proficient in Statement Analysis can offer more help than anyone else because she (or he) knows the linguistic signals, has studied them, and can offer relief to the victim, even allowing the victim to vent about not having the words.

They do sound like "liars" and can be dismissed, especially if collateral interviews deny any sexual abuse, but the trained professional can also recognize something body language analysts love to say:

the body doesn't lie.

In this sense, I agree.

Back to our child and the park.

Question:  Where is the child during the assault?

Answer:  She is at the park.

Question;  How, then, does she know she was assaulted?

Answer:   Because she 'watched it' happen.

This shows itself in the language of passivity, with some samples sounding as if the victim was 'floating above the room' or a 'fly on the wall' and can even employ not just second person language, but third person.

Question:  Isn't this extremely rare?

Answer:   Not as much as I wish.

I analyzed a letter from an elderly mother to her grown daughter, who had experienced horrific sexual abuse.  There was the expected minimization, some denial, some casting of blame, and even some passivity.  The mother blamed herself, but added that she was sorry for not being "intelligent enough" to spot the abuse.

What is this?

An abdicating or neglectful parent feels almost unbearable guilt.  Just like a child victim, the parent also has a brain that tries to protect itself from trauma and it is traumatic to consider one turned her back upon a child so that the child could be sexually abused.  This comes in many forms and ways, including mothers who, if they tell, lose their homes, income, status in the community, etc.  This often infuriates the victim.

In protecting one's own status, the guilty parent sometimes re victimizes the child.  How?

"I'm sorry I was not intelligent enough to read the signs" actually does more than just seek to cast off some blame:  it makes the victim feel sorry for the negligent parent.  Victims do not need any help in feeling bad.  Many blame themselves for "destroying" the perpetrator's life, even though they may have been a toddler when the abuse began!   This "apology" is not seeking forgiveness, but is a form of manipulation, increasing the pain of the victim.

Yet, there is more.

We note signs within the note, as in the statements of so many neglectful mothers, that they, themselves, were victims of childhood sexual abuse.

This is the generational 'blindness' that often takes place and even in denial, the next generation of children are put at risk.

The intelligence level notwithstanding, it has happened to women of all backgrounds.  Some overcome and some do not.  All suffer, however.

When a victim uses distancing language, there must be a 'slowing down' of moving towards a conclusion of deception in analysis.

I have analyzed more than a few statements of rape that were false allegations.  It happens and we often look for the word "left" to enter the language of the false accuser after the alleged assault as sometimes it points to the reason why the allegation was made.  The alleged perpetrator's "leaving" is very sensitive, and in context, is rarely associated with "rushing, time, traffic, etc" that is our norm. In each of the statements where I concluded false allegation of rape, an admission (or confession) was obtained.  In public statements analyzed, prosecutors have dropped the cases.  The overall conclusion of the analysis was not "iffy" but deception was readily seen, even when the accuser had a history of childhood sexual abuse.  This perseveration also came through in the language.  Only once did a subject deny childhood sexual abuse, to only later admit it.

There is no substitute for years of practice in analysis, to uncover why distance language exists, and what has caused it, for those with formal training.

It is sometimes a signal of guilt in a parent of a missing child, "that boy"; or it can be something as innocuous as a poor report card, or just 'universal' language.

The context is key and in sexual assault, this is another reminder that we need not only deep, detailed analysis of very small points, but also of the large context of the statement.

A counselor or therapist with proficiency in Statement Analysis is worth his or her weight in gold.

---

Statement Analysis: 911 Call of Missing 2 Year Old

July 16, 2015, 6:37 am

≫ Next: Is Crystal Rogers Deceased?

≪ Previous: Distancing Language and Sexual Assault

$

0

0

On July 10th, 2015, this little boy went missing from camp.  Here we have the 911 call from the mother, for analysis.


http://www.eastidahonews.com/2015/07/mothers-911-phone-call-released-my-2-year-old-son-we-cant-find-him

Statement Analysis of a 911 call is no different than analysis of any other statement in that:

1.  We presume innocence on the part of the caller.  This is not a legal or ethical assumption, but a linguistic assumption.

2.  We next use this assumption to 'enter into' or understand the language of the caller via the setting.

A little boy is missing.  He is just under the age of 3.

The parents likely feel guilty about not knowing the location of their child, and they must be very nervous both for the child and for the obvious implication.  In context, we note who was present, and the topographical layout of the scene; so that if it is a campsite at a lake, "water", "woods" and so on, are part of the expectation.   If we find indicators of sensitivity, we look to see if these indicators of sensitivity are explained either by the subject, or by the context of the call.

3.  We set up an expectation of words.  What do we expect the caller (parent) to say?  We may even make a written list of what we expect to hear before listening to the call, and exactly how we expect it to sound.

As we listen to what the parent says, the 'expected' words pass by us without cause for concern.

4.  Should we hear what is not expected; that is, words, phrases, or information that is not something that either we, or most people, would say in this circumstance, we are 'awakened' or 'alarmed' or 'confronted' by these words and will carefully note the words and ask, "What would cause a parent of a missing child to say this?", in speculation, based upon the context.

Some points to consider about the call.

1.  "What's the address of your emergency?"

The call begins with the 911 operator asking the location.  The immediate address is not given but begins with a pause.

A pause is a sensitivity indictor.  We now ask, "Why would the parent of a missing child need to pause in answering the question about location?" 

We look to see if the answer is in the language.

In a home address, this is the expected:  a direct answer will be given without pause.  "1515 Mockingbird Lane" should be given without any need to think (pause).  At a camp ground, or remote site, a pause to give the location is expected.  A pause, such as, "hmmm" or "Uh..." or even "What is the address here?" is expected if the caller is at a remote site.  It is, therefore, a sensitivity indicator that is explained in context.

"an hour?" is asked by the operator, making it sensitive.  This is also explained in context:  the 911 operator did not hear the answer.  This is confirmed by the audio, or by the repeated number of times (in the text) that the 911 operator needed to ask questions.

2.  "My two year old son, we can't find him."

a.  "my"  The pronoun "my" takes ownership and is the language of biological parents.  It is likely that the caller is the biological mother and not a step parent.

b.  "we"

3.  "We can't find him" shares guilt/responsibility.  This can either be the guilty feeling for him being lost, or more detailed guilt.


2.  "What is he wearing?"

"He was wearing cowboy boots..."

She referenced the child in the past tense.  We must consider this in context.

This tells us:

a.  The mother knows or believes he is dead; or
b.  The mother is thinking of what he was wearing an hour ago, specifically (since this followed after having to repeat "an hour" to the operator)
c.  The mother may think the child takes off his boots, clothing, regularly
d.  unknown:  to be determined.

We note that the references in the past tense that point to guilty knowledge are generally about character, or life, and not about specific clothing, or having specific items with the child, such as "he had her blankie with her..." or "she had her cell phone" and so on.  These refer to the specific time period last seen.

Next note that  she went to him as a "person" she said, "he's got shaggy blond hair", in the present tense as part of the free editing process (she was not asked) and is within the same context.

Physical description of what one is wearing, or has with him, can be past tense, appropriately, since that is what the person saw or thought, the child had on.  It is when the subject (parent) speaks of the child's character, rules for life, etc, that the past tense reference becomes a red flag.

In an attribute that is ongoing, "he's..." but only in the clothing, "he was..."; which is not a conclusive point within itself.  Had she said,"he had shaggy blond hair", it would have been different.

Analysis Conclusion:

There is nothing in the 911 call to suggest guilty knowledge on the part of the mother.  

Is Crystal Rogers Deceased?

July 16, 2015, 12:20 pm

≫ Next: "Honestly" in Statement Analysis

≪ Previous: Statement Analysis: 911 Call of Missing 2 Year Old

$

0

0

Question for analysis:  Is Crystal Rogers deceased?

This is the ultimate fear of the family of any missing person, but more so when they consider that someone close to their loved one, is not truthful about what happened.  

When the loved one of a missing person refers to the missing in the past tense, it can be an indication that the person knows, or believes, that the missing one is dead.  We ask, "Have the police told you anything to cause you to believe this?", and we look at:

*the relationship to the missing person

*the length of time that has passed

The relationship to the missing person is critical as mothers, for example, will be longer in "denial" than fathers, refusing to accept the death of their missing child.  (See Solomon's decision in analysis).  

If the person has not been missing long, and police have not revealed anything to convince the subject that the missing person is dead, a single "slip of the tongue", due to the speed of transmission, can tell us that the person has guilty knowledge of the death of the missing. 

Susan Smith, on television, pleading for her sons' safe return, referenced them as dead. 

"Caylee loved the park", said Casey Anthony, to police. 

"Hailey wasn't allowed to go out along at night..." Billie Jean Dunn.  

Yet, there is still other indicators where, although the subject carefully avoids a past tense reference, suggests by his language that the missing person is dead, often by 'de-personalizing' her, and by assigning her 'activities' after death, that indicates a 'lack of commitment' to the activities.  

When someone is deceased in a statement, a guilty party, wishes to deceive the listener/reader/investigator, etc, will try to portray them as 'alive' and 'active' but in this attempt to persuade, sometimes inadvertently reveals that the person is, in fact, deceased.  

We now listen further to the interview given on national television to seek if we can answer this question.  

The original analysis is from the published, HLN interview.  This article presupposes that the reader is familiar with the case, the analysis, and with general principles of Statement Analysis, with the following link of the case here:  

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2015/07/statement-analysis-of-brooks-houck.html

If you are an investigator or human resources professional and wish for formal training, please see 

Hyatt Analysis Services for training opportunities.  The analysis published here is an abbreviation of work submitted to law enforcement, prosecutors, attorneys, corporations, etc, and is for general knowledge.  All subjects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and the analysis represents the personal viewpoint of myself.  Analytical Interviewing is a legally sound, open ended interview based upon analysis of statements. It is taught initially in one and two day seminars, at home courses, and online, and is followed up with much required practice and ongoing training.  It is not an easy science, but once grasped, is a powerful tool in discerning truth from deception, and obtaining content.  As a blog open to the public, the only statements used are those that are either published publicly, or redacted statements that are used with permission.  If at any time, law enforcement wishes analysis to be deleted, it is removed from this blog without comment to the public.  

********************************************************************************

Bobby Fischer once said that chess is a lesson.  Sometimes you give a lesson, and sometimes you are taught a lesson.

Deception is like this:  We can see that one is deceptive, but we do not always know what has caused the deception.  Each case is a lesson in not only Statement Analysis, but human nature.  

A few scenarios as to why we do not rush in a conclusion:  

a.  A father of a missing child is deceptive about the occasion of his daughter going missing.  She is later found murdered at the hands of a sex offender.  

He was, in deed, deceptive, but not about the murder.  He was deceptive about substance abuse and the negligence that caused her to go missing.  

b.  A man is deceptive about his missing wife.  He was cheating on her and she left in turmoil only to meet up with a killer.  

The analyst must always consider:  Is the subject deceptive, but still not have "done it"?

Years ago, I had a statement regarding theft in which the subject was deceptive...about theft.  There was something in my analysis that didn't sit well with me and sent it off for review to several analysts; which is always a good practice.  All came back with "deception indicated" but one said, "it is deceptive indicated, but see if another crime had taken place."

I approached the company and asked but was met with, "Yes, but that is not what we called you in on.  It is unrelated."

It wasn't.  

The subject was deceptive but not about the lesser crime, but was overflowing with sensitivity indicators because she had given her boyfriend access to the building in a much larger crime.  

In the case of missing 35 year old Crystal Rogers, the man engaged to be married, Brooks Houck, was interviewed by Nancy Grace.  

He is indicated for deception in the disappearance of Crystal Rogers, leaving us to ask why the need to deceive while she is missing. 

Is it because he caused her disappearance?

Is it because of some attendant guilt, such as, an argument or fight that caused her to run off and meet with foul play?

It is hoped that, for example, lesser guilt would be ignored and truth spoken, but it is not always the case.  Self protection is a strong motivator for deception.  Therefore, we must look carefully at the areas of sensitivity and not rush to a conclusion.  

I have been asked about "inconclusive" results in a polygraph and take the opportunity to address it here. 

"Analytical Interviewing" is a title given to an interview which is very unlikely to produce a result of "inconclusive" and for good reason. 

Statement Analysis recognizes that each one of us has a private language, all to ourselves.  In training, a single word is chosen and attendees give description of such, which produces a subjective response; that is, a "back" to one person, is a "shoulder" to the person sitting next to him, and "sexual relations"to one person is any physical contact that you would not have with your mother or aunt, while it is "intercourse"to President Clinton.  In the child molestation case cited, a repeat offender passed his polygraph simply because of this principle:

Each one of us has an internal, subjective, personal dictionary.  The Analytical Interview recognizes this and has the subject, himself, define his own words prior to the polygraph.  This is because the physiological reaction is not to a question, but the words as defined by the subject,  within a question.  

Case:  Claim against employer; assault by manager.  Manager under polygraph by insurance investigator fighting claim:  

Question:   "Did you hit _____ _______   in the back?" 

Answer    "No"

Polygraph needle:   low or  little movement  

Conclusion:  inconclusive 

Same question, using the subject's own wording:

Question:  "Did you hit ____ _______ on the shoulder?"

Answer:   "No"

Polygraph needle:   acute movement 

Conclusion:  significant stress at this question 

The pre-screening interview is one in which the subject does 80% or more of the talking.  At the conclusion, the test questions are agreed upon by both the subject and the polygrapher and employ only the subject's wording.  This is why a repeat offender passed his polygraph when asked about molesting a little girl.  He "molested" no one.  He "tickled" her in her private region.  He was bold in insisting he be polygraphed when he was told that she had accused him of molestation. 

His statement indicated when and where he did it.  This matched the victim's statement. 

 He said, "I did not molest ___" easily and often.  

This is a very strong denial and it is why President Clinton would have passed a polygraph had he been asked if he had "sexual relations" with Ms. Lewinsky.  

The Ramsey attorneys "polygraph" shopped until they found one to pass them and sign an agreement to never release what questions were asked.  It was specifically designed to pass them, after repeated failures.  It is not different than a court not liking the findings of two court appointed psychologists and sending one back for a third.  

Brooks Houck.  

Let's look at the pace of the Interview,  rather than the full analysis which you can find:  HERE

The pace is not a subjective "feel" which many intuitive investigators can adequately describe.  In "pace", I refer to the specific teaching within Statement Analysis that uses a calculator and is taught in the training.  

First, we note that Houck:

1.  Did not deny causing Crystal Rogers' disappearance.  

Had he said, "I did not cause Crystal's disappearance"in the Free Editing Process, he would have put himself into the category that says, 

He is only 10% likely to have done it. 

This one sentence, produced freely by the subject (in the interview, if asked, "Did you cause Crystal's disappearance?" it means:

a.  The subject (Houck) caused the interviewer to have to ask this question.  We then ask, "Did he know he was suspected?" If so, by not offering it early on, we move our needle towards guilt, statistically.  

b.  This statement must not come in parroted language:

"Did you cause Crystal's disappearance?"answered by "I didn't cause Crystal's disappearance"can be true, but is it not reliable because it parroted the language of the interviewer. 

The reason we do 20% or less of the talking is to not contaminate the statement by allowing the subject to use our wording.  

c.  "Truth"

Let's say that rumors had abound that Brooks Houck was involved and he knows this.  Mr. Houck is called in for the interview. 

He enters the room and says, "I didn't cause Crystal's disappearance"without waiting to be asked nor by using the Interviewer's own language. 

Causing Crystal's disappearance is the 800 lb gorilla in the living room; very difficult to ignore.  The innocent (this word, in context, is not judicial innocence, something deceptive people often use, but is a 'de facto' innocence:  he did not do it. ) 

Let's assume he did not do it and is then asked, "Why should we believe you?", his answer will 'move the needle' for us:

a.  "You should believe me because I am telling the truth"

b.  "You should believe me because I don't lie"

c.  "You should believe me because people can tell you how honest I am"

d.  "You should believe me because I had not reason to do this" 

It is answer (a) that, if combined with a reliable denial, freely given, that moves him above 99% statistically to having not "done it"

We like to hear:

1.  The pronoun "I"

2.  The word "told" (strongest) or "telling" (if live in the interview)

3.  The word "truth", not "truthful" but "truth."

If looking back at his denial and says, "I told the truth"that is, in recognition of his original "Reliable Denial", it is fool-proof.  He didn't do it.  

We do not like the word "lie" in any form in the answer.  It does not clear the subject. 

We must note that in the interview with Nancy Grace, no matter how much excessive (therefore, damaging or limiting) talking a TV host does, the subject was unable or unwilling to issue a Reliable Denial.

In training seminars, it is challenging, in the first few hours, to convince some within law enforcement of the statistical conclusions of the Reliable Denial.  

After a few samples, however, with analysis done, the "light bulb" goes on, and especially those with lots of 'street experience' (domestics), they begin to lose their weakening resistance.  It begins the same:

"That's too simplistic" is the first response; 

"That's what the subject said in the interview!" is the second.  "Sure, he denied it all through the interview." (This will soon become evident that he did not). 

The first falls by the wayside when they see how guilty party after guilty party violated the 3 component rule of the reliable denial. 

The second falls easily when the transcript is analyzed, especially in an interview the officer conducted. 

This teaches the principle of "dulled listening" that we all do. 

A exceptionally sharp interviewer conducted a drug investigation.  This was just prior to her training in Statement Analysis.  I spoke to her before the interview and asked her to make sure her notes are precise:  the words written must match the audio.  

The interview was lengthy (approaching 4 hours) and the Interviewer emerged and said, "I don't think she did it." 

Unbeknownst to the investigator, I by-passed the secretary in setting up the interview.  (a technique I share in seminars for good reason).  The subject was very willing to be interviewed, and although I told her that it was not going to be me who interviewed her, she talked on and on.  

Analytical Interviewing 101:  Do not interrupt.  If someone wants to talk, let 'em.  

Although I was "only" calling to set up the day, time and location, I listened and as is my course, took notes.  I had heard passivity and an unreliable denial.  I 'knew' she had 'done' the crime.  Unfortunately, I did not do a good job of concealing my opinion from the Interviewer.  (She reads poker faces well).  She was 'ready' to assert the subject's innocence and quell my doubt.  

I asked the Interviewer to go and refresh herself, have some water, or better, something to eat, and then we would 'debrief' the interview.  

Blood sugar levels or lack of food causes exhaustion.  

Collected and having had something to eat, we sat down to go over her voluminous notes that appeared impeccably taken. 

"I know that thing you teach about denial.  She denied it easily and without a lot of words."

I said, "Great!  let's go over it together from your notes." I  get a sense of relief when an innocent person is cleared, but had no expectation in this case. 

I asked, "She said "I didn't take the drugs"as we talked about, using the formula?

She said, "Yes, and I took careful notes."

We then reviewed each "denial" that was issued in four hours of interviewing.  

The Interviewer was shocked to learn that the subject did not, a single time, issue the reliable denial. 

In the follow up interview, the subject confessed.  

The Interviewer had found great empathy for the subject and was emotionally committed to clearing her, but came face to face with the statistical truth:  the Reliable Denial must have all three components but if it has four, or two, it is not reliable.  For the most part, each time the subject said, with a kind look upon her face, "I wouldn't do such a thing"and "I never took the drugs"and "I've never stolen anything in my life", she piled up 4 hours worth of unreliable denials.  

In training, even the most obstinate opponent comes to surrender to the truth.  This is a major turning point and when a detective has years of experience, and excellent intuition, he becomes addicted to Statement Analysis.  His or her experience and intuition, when met with Statement Analysis and Analytical Interviewing, becomes a strong man...

now on steroids.  

He becomes a "power house" who's intuition is now governed by "rules"; many of which he instinctively knew and used, but is now focused with laser-like precision, confident of the principles, and able to explain why he knew the subject was lying.  

There is that "light bulb" or "crisis experience" for some, as no one likes being lied to, and now I can over come the lying, and the resistance in the interviewing, by following the same guidelines in every case assigned to me as well as having a host of other detectives approaching him or her for assistance.  

It is a career changer.  

 In this case, we expected Brooks Houck (the subject) to tell Nancy Grace (the Interviewer) that he did not cause the disappearance of his fiancé.  

It is our expectation.  

It is also the 800 lb gorilla in the living room, with everyone waiting for him to say so. 

Yet, regarding the "cause", we deal with component number three:

1.  The pronoun "I"
2.  The past tense "did not" or "didn't" (Reid's distinction between the two is not accurate)
3.  The allegation specifically answered.

By denying "causing" her to "disappear" we may have:

a.  harm
b.  violence
c.  murder

but we may also have:

d.  something that caused her to run off, such as an argument, that led to her demise.  We must be open to this possibility.

The family is waiting upon answers.
These all violate the formula of Reliable Denial.  They may be true, but we cannot conclude, statistically, anything from them:  

"I would never harm Crystal."
"I didn't do nothing to anybody."
"I know I didn't cause Crystal's disappearance."
"I never  harmed that woman."
"I am innocent."
"I am 100% honest in everything I say."
"I am 100% not guilty in this."

Sometimes an "unreliable denial" accompanies a reliable denial.

"I didn't take the drugs." Later in the interview, the subject says, " I've never even used drugs in my life!"

The first part is reliable.  It is "stand alone" that is, not coupled with the latter statement which would have moved it, statistically, by "adding" to the denial.

If you have ever been accused of something you didn't do, and the action accused is something that you have never done in your life, you might find both of these statements in your language.



Secondly, after noting that he did not deny causing Crystal's disappearance, we look at the "pace" of the interview.  

In training, we measure statements by their "form", that is, with the mathematical application of "25/50/25" noting that a truthful account of "what happened" will have approximately:

25% of the words (or lines) dedicated to the pre-event;
50% of the words (or lines) dedicated to what actually happened;
25% of the remaining words (or lines) dedicated to what happened afterwards, including calling 911, and so on.  

Any strong deviation is noted for deception, with an overwhelming statistic that says "front loaded statements are the most cited imbalance in deception" meaning that most statements that are "tested deceptive on their form" have lengthy introductions such as:

The subject used 65% of his words telling us what happened before he got to the main event, and only 20% of his words to say what happened.  This was then concluded by 15% of the statement dedicated to what happened right after the main event.  65/20/15 is "Unreliable Form" in the measurement.  

We also measure the Pace of a Statement in not only indicating deception but learning precisely where to aim our questions, within a statement, to find out the details of the deception.  This can make a detective's job efficient and accurate in ways not previously thought possible. 

Here is some of the questions from the interview that suggest measuring the pace:  

GRACE: Mr. Houck, what happened the night Crystal goes missing exactly?  

"Exactly" is not necessary and signals 'suspicion' to him.  This let him know that the 800 lb. gorilla in the living room needs to be addressed.  Houck knew, as the last person to see her, that he is under suspicion.  

Guilty people do, in deed, show up for polygraphs and television interviews.  They have a need to persuade that belies weakened confidence; a confidence that comes from knowing "it can't be proven because I didn't do it" type of thinking.  Recall the ancient, "the righteous are as bold as a lion" while the "unrighteous" try to put on a show of boldness.  

Avoid tipping your hand to subjects.  The question is "the night":  

Note:  NG called her "Crystal", making it easy for him to parrot her name.  

HOUCK: Earlier that day, she showed rental property. She went to Wal- Mart.  

There is much to discuss in this response, alone, so for detail, please see the analysis.  Recall that his blog only analyzes public statements.  This statement was on national television and by appearing, Mr. Houck invites listeners to have an opinion:

Do you believe me, or not?

Here, we give answer, but with the reason why we believe, or not believe, someone.  

Boundary Issues:

When someone goes outside the boundary of the question, the information given is highly sensitive. 

For example, he was asked what happened "the night" Crystal went missing.  

Question:  Did he answer what happened "the night"?

Answer:  No, he avoided it.  

Conclusion:  The question, "what happened the night she went missing?" is a very sensitive question to Brooks Houck.

We say, off the cuff, that when someone does not answer a question, he has answered the question. 

I always remind a subject that he has right to the presence of a lawyer.  This has, sometimes, been met with chagrin from fellow investigators who remind me, "He's already said he didn't need a lawyer, what are you doing reminding him?"

I know what I am doing.  

I am protecting his rights and treating him the way I would want my own son to be treated.  

Plus, in Analytical Interviewing, he could have a team of lawyers present and I'll still get the information.  My experience in court tells me that it is a powerful statement.  Even when an attorney present says to his client, "Don't answer that question!"I respond to the subject, "I will note that he does not want you to answer me when I asked..."

The liar will speak up.  They do.  

Remember:  They have been practicing their craft their entire lives and are so used to success that their pride demands that they continue to speak out. 

The truthful person who "did it", hates the burden of silence, as well, and often will speak up.  This usually ends in a plea bargain of sorts since the person feels guilt, and does not want to lie, but more than anything else:  wants closure.  

He answered her question about the "night" by avoiding it entirely, instead choosing to "back up" his time line to include the day.  

Critical here is that I do not know if Nancy Grace interrupted him with her next question.  This is a disaster if your goal is information.  It reminds me of the story of the stolen safe where the "analytical detective" was called in, late at night, after the others could not get the subject to confess.  He came in, groggy, and listen to the subject talk for hours about fishing...his fishing pole, his technique, his lures, his bait and so on.  

As he blathered on and on about fishing, he also mentioned his favorite fishing spot. 

The detective, with his training, sent divers to that location and recovered the stolen money.  This is "leakage" and it comes when you let someone talk. 

The events were not of the "night" (avoidance = sensitivity) but he began of the day (new information that appears irrelevant is now "doubly important") to the Interviewer.   

1.  "She showed rental property"

2.  "She went to Walmart."



He is stalling getting to the night, which speaks to "measuring the pace of a statement."

In the United States, we use 8.5" by 11" paper.  The average written statement is one to one and one half pages, and generally covers between 12 and 16 hours of time.  Therefore, the mathematical formula is:

1.  An average of 3 lines of information dedicated to each passing hour of time within the statement. This is called Lines Per Hour (LPH) and can be measured by Words Per Hour (WPH) with the same results.  

2.  Where the lines per hour goes below 1 line per hour, deception is likely present at this point of the statement.  Therefore, this sentence, for example, or period of time, is critical and if the investigator "only knows" that, for example, between "2PM and 3PM, the subject wrote only a few words, skipping over it quickly" therefore:

keeps asking about "What happened at 2 o'clock?" only to find the subject getting annoyed, the detective continues in his questioning, but refuses to leave this hour.  

"I know you already told me what you did at 2.  Tell me again."

On to,  "I want to go back to 2 o'clock again." (increase in agitation) 

And then:  "Yes, thank you.  At 2 o'clock, you said..."

The subject, having committed the crime between the hour of 2PM and 3PM, now believes that you, (the investigator/interviewer/detective/therapist/HR professional/insurance investigator/journalist)
knows he did it and is more likely to admit (or confess) because he cannot bear you being "one up" on him, that is, "superior" to him. 

Why is this?

This is something many interviewers know without training, but are helped by the training. 

The liar holds you in contempt, just as the liar holds the world in contempt.  

When the liar was in kindergarten and got away with his lie, he felt 'superior' to his teacher.  Next, he felt superior to his Little League coach, his pastor, his parents, his...and over time, this superiority shows itself not only in his language, but his body language, with the elevated chin ("looking down one's nose) and even in his walk.  

For him to sit across the room from you and to have you "know" something that he did not "tell you", that is, he did not directly reveal, triggers the arrogance within him.  

The only way to feel "superior" would be to do the one thing that a liar cannot do. 

Question:  What is the one thing a liar cannot do?

Answer:   A liar is unable to lie about his his lie.  

Thus, the principle of "no man can lie twice" in Statement Analysis.  
Thus, the wisdom of the overly simplistic questions such as, 

"How did you feel when you were told that police suspected you?" and similar questions.  

Thus, the wisdom of "Why should we believe you?"in the 99.9% plus statistic.  

When lines per hour goes to 1 Line per hour or less, the interview is focused right there which causes the subject to think, "This guy knows!"

3.  Where the lines per hour (LPH) goes above 9 lines in an hour, we know that it is very likely that deception is present later on in the statement.  This is because:

a.  Lying causes stress as it interrupts the speed of transmission of words
b.  Being caught in a crime causes stress; therefore; talking about the crime is stressful, so the subject slows down the pace of the statement or he slows down the pace of the interview to avoid getting to the most stressful part of the day (or night). 

In training, I give out real (redacted) statements where the subject wrote things like, 


"At 1PM, I went to lunch with a friend and got back to the office at 2PM.  At 2, met with boss.  At 4PM, I had to file all the paperwork related to the sale that happened last month.   At 5PM, I was done for the day and packed up the final envelops for overnight staff to handle."

This portion showed time from 1PM to 5PM, or four hours of her day.  

Note:

1.  1PM to 2PM:   17 words.  
2.  2PM to 4PM:    5 words.  
3.  4PM to 5PM:    18 words. 

(This is only an exert)

Even from this abbreviated portion of her day, you can see that from 1PM to 2PM she gives details of her day which took her 17 words to do so.  At 4PM she gives an account of her work day and used 18 words, similar to 1PM. 

Yet, from 2PM until 4PM, a span of two hours, she used only 5 words. 

Based only upon this:

a.  1PM to 2PM is 17 words per hour
b.  2PM to 4PM is 2.5 words per hour
c.  4PM to 5PM is 18 words per hour. 

The interviewer is going to aim his questions during this time period as the most sensitive part of the day to the subject.  Those familiar with statement analysis already know: 

*Her relationship with her boss, during this period of time, is very negative.  This is due to the principle of social relationships.  Here, it is not "my boss, Mr. Smith", but " boss" which not only has the missing article, "the" but deprives him of his name, and his status to her (no possessive pronoun "my"). 

*Her meeting with the boss has no pronoun which means that whatever took place, in this period of time means:

a.  She may not have met with him; therefore this must be confirmed.  
b.  If she met with him, she has "removed herself" psychologically, the way teens drop pronouns to their moms or teachers when they do not wish to be caught.  

Statement Analysis measures time within a statement and also the element of time known as "pace" of a statement to discern if the subject is deceptive via withholding information. 

Even with interruption by Nancy Grace, we can see that there is a need to 'slow down the pace' of the statement about what happened "the night" Crystal went missing.  

This means that:

a.  The "night" is something he wishes to avoid
b.  He is likely telling the truth about where she was
c.  He did not do anything that would produce severe guilt (directly related to her disappearance   during this time period while she was at Walmart, even though it is important to him.  *He had the need to say he was not there at that time). 

This slowing down of the pace, that is, avoidance of "getting to the night time" indicates that deception is coming, and that deception is not present "now", that is at this point.  He may be withholding information, for example, about any phone contact or physical contact someone else (or himself, via phone) had with her, at that time, but it is an indirect cause (such as an argument) but not something that has a strong need to avoid.  If, for example, they argued on the phone, he is not saying so, but in comparison to the night, it is 'less' stressful than what happened that night.  

This may appear complex but human relations are complex and it takes time and effort to get to the truth.  


GRACE: With who?  (sic)

HOUCK: We have established a timeline of all the facts and events.  

Even if he did not hear her, he still avoids the night.  Remember, she asked for the night, "exactly" in her question.  He also 'retreated' to the pronoun "we" rather than to speak for himself.  

Mothers of 3rd graders know this one well.  "What did you do, Johnny?" is met with "We all..."and Momma has an idea in her head that her little Johnny wishes to 'spread around' some of the guilt and responsibility for whatever it is that he did.  


GRACE: Who did she go to Wal-Mart with, Brooks?  (sic) 

HOUCK: I was not there at Wal-Mart with them. She had some of the children with her.  

No use of the name, "Crystal", thus far. 
Instead of answering the question first, his order reveals priority:  he wishes to remove himself from the question.  NG did not say, "Did you go with her?" but asked the more general (better; legally sound, etc) "Who did she go to Walmart with, Brooks?"

Our order tells priority:  the question is answered (reducing sensitivity to it via answering) but it is psychologically a priority to Brooks Houck that he create distance between himself and Crystal.  Here is it "physical" distance, while above, with the word "that", it was emotional or psychological. 
("Can you give me a pencil? No, not that one, but this one"where the closer one is called for.  This is the nature of "this" and "that" in language.  Also note that when someone says, "I didn't do that"the next question should always be, "What did you do?"as children often "did something" but it just wasn't "that"which was done.  This is another of those "parental instinct" matters that highlight how children are born with the inclination to lie and must be taught not to). 

GRACE: Mm-hmm. OK.  

She is 'on the spot' with cameras and a ticking clock with a commercial break.  This is not easy.  Yet, she likely was thinking, 'Why would he need to first tell me he wasn't there?' to herself.  It's odd and the 'awkward' feel that people get is often an indication of sensitivity.  


HOUCK: Yes, ma`am.  

GRACE: That`s important, Brooks, because as you know, with your interest in law enforcement, it establishes a timeline. So that was Friday around 4:00 p.m. then what happened after Wal-Mart?  

She returned to her original question that has been thus avoided:  what happened the night she disappeared?

To avoid answering a question is to indicate sensitivity to the question.  It allows the person to avoid the internal stress of direct lying and it seeks to change the topic to move away from the stressful portion found within a specific time, which here, is "the night..."

HOUCK: When she left Wal-Mart on Friday, late afternoon, early evening, she showed a rental property that we have listed, in the Kentucky standard, in a large ad, multiple properties. She then left that and preceded home.  

No use of the name "Crystal" yet. 

See specific analysis for detail.  For here, however, we note that he continues to add in detail (all relevant but lesser importance than what the question asked for:  that night, exactly) slowing himself and Nancy Grace from arriving at the "night" time portion of the question.  

This is to raise the "lines per hour" or "words per hour" (the pace of the Interview) which tells us:

He is avoiding getting to the period of time Nancy asked him about:  "the night":  

GRACE: So that was Friday evening. What time did she get home, Brooks?  

His avoidance, via slowing the pace down with extra detail, is 'forcing' the Interviewer to now ask specific questions.  

We begin with open-ended, legally sound questions, and only move to more specific when the subject is reluctant or unwilling to tell us of his own accord.  This is where we must use extreme caution to not contaminate his statement with our language.  

HOUCK: After 5:00.  

Note the original question was not only about "the night" but NG asked for "exactness" in his answer.  He, of great detail of who placed the ad, where the ad was placed and the size of its content compared to other ads, has gotten to the beginning of "the night" and is suddenly vague.  This is a change to be noted by the Interviewer. 

GRACE: After 5:00. And what, if anything, did she do at that time?  
Every interview, including job hiring, 911 calls, journalism, etc, is a lesson, which is an opportunity to learn. 

Every interview also has a 'concessionary feel' to it, where the Interviewer is left with one of two impressions:

Either the subject is working with me to help the flow of information or he is not. 

He is either facilitating information or he is hindering it.  See former police chief William McCollum's 911 call in which he shot his wife, New Year's eve, 2014, analysis for the "pulling of teeth" interview in which the subject does everything he can to withhold information while attempting to appear 'cooperative.' 



HOUCK: It was a normal -- normal evening. At that point, she showed the property and came home.  

I present a number of examples in training where the word "normal" is used in the free editing process.  In every example, whether it be about a situation, or about a person, himself, the conclusion fits the principle:  
The subject is telling Nancy Grace, as well as the audience (which includes investigators) that he knows that this night was anything but normal. 

What did he just reveal?
Had she said, "Was it just a normal evening?", his use of "normal" would not be flagged for sensitivity, but parroting language.  (This is why if you introduce "normal", you, as the Interviewer, lose information). 

He is proclaiming without saying,'I have knowledge that I do not want to share with you that this night was not normal, therefore, I want you to think it was normal, but it wasn't.  I am nervous about this, because it is a lie, so I stutter on it while I am not one who stutters generally.  This night was not even close to normal, but I hope you think it was.  Maybe now you can see why I have slowed down the pace and am avoiding getting to the night that you wanted to know about especially since you suspect me with your use of 'exactly' as if I would not be exact in my answer.  I have a need to persuade you and everyone listening that this was normal. '

Please note this is not a quote; as indicated in the punctuation.  

The "need to persuade" (NTP) which is appropriately used in sales, job applications, etc, is a weakness in the context of actual innocence and truth telling.  

GRACE: Well, what day of the week was this?  

HOUCK: This was on Friday, would have been July 3rd, 2015.  

We would not conclude closeness from "this" because he repeated her word.  It does stand as a good example, however, for us to see parroting language in action. 
Parroting is normal and appropriate, and it is a strong habit of us all.  This is why it is imperative to be trained how to frame questions based upon analysis. 


GRACE: Did you have July 4th plans?  

HOUCK: Yes, we did.  

GRACE: What were they? 

HOUCK: My uncle, Fabian Ballard, and Loreto, about 49, had a large gathering at his home. My mother has a very large family, there`s 13 brothers and sisters, and we -- we had planned on going there on Saturday, July 4th.  

See full analysis.  

Note complete social introduction of uncle with (1) possessive pronoun "my" (2) title "uncle" and (3) name given.  This is to indicate a very good relationship between the subject and his uncle at the time of this statement.  

This is not simply a study in introductions, but should be noted that he has not yet used the name, "Crystal" in the interview.  

Please continue to note, however, that he is giving out details that are unnecessary as he 'eats up the clock' of the interview, slowing the pace down, avoiding getting to the area that was the topic of the original question:  the night she went missing. 

His avoidance is extreme.  What is missing?  The height and weight of relatives? It seems silly because it is a tactic of delay and it is an insight into the subject's personality:

He is detail orientated. 
He is also likely to be reported to be, by friends and/or family, a habitually deceptive person.  This is evident in that he is intelligent, and knows what he is doing in the pace setting.  This comes from years of successfully "getting one over" others. 



GRACE: Did you go?  
HOUCK: Yes, I did. I went with my family.  

GRACE: And what time that was?  

Trying still to get him to the sensitive time period that was asked when all of this began. 

HOUCK: That was about 5:00 or 5:30 on Saturday --  
GRACE: OK. Let me understand the timeline, Mr. Houck.  

 So on Friday night, she shows a property in the evening, well, the evening, she gets home after 5:00.  

HOUCK: No. Incorrect. Incorrect.  
GRACE: No? OK. Explain.  
HOUCK: Friday evening.  
GRACE: Friday? Yes, that`s what I said.  
HOUCK: July 3rd.  
GRACE: Correct. That`s what I said.  

HOUCK: She showed the property. And then on -- you asked me if we had plans just on July 4th, which was in the following day on Saturday.  

He shows his detailed orientated personality and a strictness to 'staying in script.'

A self reference, "like I said" or "like I told the other officer" is a signal that the subject is speaking, not from experiential memory, but memory of what was said earlier.  Here, he shows he remembers the words of NG. 


GRACE: Right. Right. That`s what I just said.  

HOUCK: Yes, ma`am.  

GRACE: So Friday evening, she shows the property at a multi-property spot that had been advertised in the standard. She gets home after 5:00 and what children, if any, did she have with her at that time?  

NG was listening.  

HOUCK: Two children.  

Here the flow is from a short answer but I cannot tell if she interrupted him or he was now in the "pulling teeth" mode of resistance, not through delay (passive) but through minimization (saying as little as possible). 

The abundance of detail signals the greater intellect of the two.  The short, curt, responses from former chief McCollum, in avoiding even using the words "wife" and "Maggie" (her name) show a discomfort with deception.  This subject, with his abundance of detail, shows confidence in his script.  He may not have been prepared for this portion.  


GRACE: And --  

HOUCK: The other two children had already been dropped off at their dad`s house.  

GRACE: And what did you guys do for supper that night?  
In Statement Analysis, food is important.  For example, "I woke up, had coffee..." includes "coffee."

Simply, when we hear "coffee", we seek to learn if the person was not alone, since most of us drink coffee, but when someone feels the need to include it in their statement, they are often thinking of the conversation or presence of someone else during that time period.  In the rare times when someone denies the presence of another, it has come up that they were deceptive due to infidelity.  


HOUCK: We just ate here -- we ate here at the house.  
The location is important to him.  This brings us a bit of focus at the "house" (not "home")

GRACE: Did she cook?  

HOUCK: For about an hour and a half and then we left here about 7:30.  

A strong signal of missing information of something prior to 7:30. 

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: Did she cook that night?  

HOUCK: You`re cutting out on me. I didn`t hear what you just said, ma`am.  

GRACE: Oh, I`m sorry. Did she cook that night, Brooks?  

HOUCK: She did not. We just ate here at the house. It wasn`t anything special or new anything like that. We knew that we had plans, wasn`t going to kill a lot of -- kill a lot of time and then we proceeded -- we proceeded out there to the family farm.  

No use of name, "Crystal", nor "my fiancé" either.

"She did not" is strong.  This indicates a confidence here that comes when one is telling the truth. 

The subject reports what they didn't have to eat, and specifies that it wasn't "special" or "new." He avoided using the word "normal" as attempt to persuade.  That the meal was not anything "special" or "new" is very likely to be truthful. 

It is alarming that while his girlfriend, of whom he is engaged and is the mother of his child, is missing, he used the phrase "to kill time" in his language. 

Remember:  We all have, on average about 25,000 words in our internal dictionary.  When we are telling someone what happened, the brain chooses only a few words from this massive dictionary, and chooses where to place them, what tenses to use, and what words not to use:

The process takes place in the brain in less than a micro-second in time.  

In other words, the process of what words to use, what words not to use, what information to give, what information not to give, where to place the words, and what conjugation of the words to use, to best communicate, is all done with incredible speed by the brain. 

This gives us our high rate of accuracy in Statement Analysis surpassing, even, a well trained polygrapher. 

Now, the "brain knows what it knows" (Kaaryn Gough) and while talking the person who "did it" does not want to reveal " I did it" but wants to avoid it.  While doing this exercise in avoidance, the person is still thinking about what he did; the brain is in 'double duty' mode. 

This is sometimes used in humor but it reflects a tangible possibility:  While trying to deceive one may inadvertently "leak out" what actually happened. 

In the murder of Dylan Redwine, his father Mark employed terminology that although intended one thing, revealed another:  he revealed an unintended death that came as a result of arguing with his young son, likely about his mother, Elaine, whom Dylan loved and likely defended to his father, enraging the narcissistic deviant and the "silencing", physically, of Dylan.  

That he said the word "kill" is not only unexpected given the circumstances, but that his brain produced it twice is alarming.  The word "kill" is, therefore, "sensitive" to him, as any repletion would be, but given the unnecessary use of it ("kill time") 
AND that it comes in a broken sentence we have:

1.  The introduction of the word "kill" itself, is by him and not by the Interviewer.  It is his word.  This is an indication of the Free Editing Process.  

2.  The sensitivity found in repetition of the word "kill" 
3.  The unnecessary element of "kill time" in the sentence
4.  The self-censoring of the broken sentence "kill"
5.  The form of introduction is in the negative, that is, what they were not going to do, rather than what they would do
6.  The time period of entrance into the "night" which he sought to delay 

This comes together to a most alarming portion of the statement, itself:

In the follow up interview, I would let the subject "explain himself" regarding this point.  Next, I would use the phrase myself.  This is a form of "challenge" to the deceptive subject, and is one of which the ego often drives them to "interview sabotage", which is why most confessions or admissions come in the subsequent interview.  

If he killed her, he certainly "telegraphed it" linguistically here.  

Note that he has not used her name, nor title, nor possessive pronoun.  


Crystal did not go with him.  We now note that there is a separation between him and Crystal. 

He went with "his" family, not hers, nor "ours." He introduced a new word into the text. 


GRACE: OK. Now. On July 4th I thought was the family farm get-together, no?  

HOUCK: Well, the Fourth, that right there is another family member.  

GRACE: Oh, I get it.  

HOUCK: That we went to.  

GRACE: I get it. So that night, you get back and what was she doing when you went to bed?  

HOUCK: She was playing games on her phone.  

He is finally pushed to "the night" after an acutely slowed down pace and still will not use her name.  This is critical distancing language from a "missing""loved one" by the one closest to her.  

She "was playing" (ongoing, passing of time) and not She "played on her phone." 

What does this difference imply?

Note that Crystal is not "Crystal" nor any other name, but "she", still, at this point.  We are in "the night" that was so avoided, and now we are getting short answers to the question; gone are the details of the advertisements, or ages of relatives, but the pace is 

strongly quickened here.  


GRACE: Really? OK. Where was the baby?  

HOUCK: The baby was still up.  
For the baby to be "still" up, would tell us one of two things:

a.  "still" up because this is not the norm for the baby to be up this late.  This is the most natural thing for any of us to say.  We were trying to get him to sleep but recognizing that he was "still" up tells us that it is beyond the norm or the attempted. 

b.  IF this is the baby's norm, then we have a major red flag:  What was he "still" up for, that is, in comparison to an event?  This is ONLY applicable if it is the baby's norm to be up late.  

GRACE: OK. And who -- who had the baby while she was playing games?  


HOUCK: He was just running loose in the house.  

He avoided the question entirely, making the question itself sensitive.  He does not say that Crystal was watching the baby.  

Question:  Was Crystal able to watch the baby at this time?

GRACE: OK.  

HOUCK: If a light`s still on in the living room, he is not going to go to bed until all the lights are out. So if there`s still activity going on in the home, he is going to stay it up with me.  

He does not say the light was on, nor does he say much of anything other than what generally happens.  This is outside the boundary of telling us what happened and shows a need to explain   What kept the baby up?  He does NOT say directly  

Also:  Statement Analysis recognizes the correlation to "lights" in statements, to sexual activity.  This is introduced by him, not by Crystal and must be explored in the investigation.  see analysis for more. 

He does not say the lights were on and the baby was still up, but only a hypothetical scenario.  This is to avoid saying it directly and to move outside the boundary of "what happened the night she went missing?" question posed to him, originally, and through follow up questions.  


GRACE: Now what time did you go to bed and was she still up playing games on her phone?  

avoid asking compound questions.  They allow the subject to pick and choose what he wants to answer. Here, he did this very thing:  

HOUCK: She was still up playing games on her phone. And it was really close to midnight.  

He does not answer the first question.  He did not say what time he went to bed nor if he went to bed.  

This is to avoid saying, "she played on her phone" in the past tense.  

Why "playing games" and not "played"?

GRACE: OK. And was the baby still awake?  

HOUCK: Yes, ma`am.  

No details.  He is moving the pace along quickly; the opposite of the pace set early on, and consistent with the theory of "deception coming later on in the statement" at the point where the pace is slowed down, giving us the signal of upcoming deception.  

GRACE: So you go to bed. She is playing phone games and -- was she playing with another person or just by herself?  

HOUCK: I`m not aware if she was, you know, texting anybody else or talking to anybody else. I`m under the impression she was just playing one of the games on her phone.  
He has not used her name and a separation began when she "did not go" with (he used "we") them.  

Is she dead at this time?

"Else" could be himself or someone else, but he does not report her having said anything at this time, to anyone.  Is she capable of speaking?

GRACE: And when did you realize --  

(CROSSTALK)

HOUCK: Just standard and normal for her to do that.  

Insult, even subtlety, is a signal of guilt as extremities, such as a missing person, produces the magnanimous 'forgiveness' of letting 'bygones be bygones' because 'all I care about is her!' in thinking. 

Whatever Crystal was doing (or not doing), is signaled here by him to be anything but normal. 

We may have just seen linguistic indication that Crystal was not alive, as nothing is ascribed to her in the terms used earlier.  Even if he does not want to use details, his earlier, truthful speech used regular past tense verbs.  Here, he does not, and the change of language represents a change of reality. 

GRACE: Brooks, when did you realize, Brooks Houck, that she was gone?  

HOUCK: The very next -- the very next morning.  

"very next" is:

1.  repeated
2.  self censored = missing information that he tried to stop.  

He has still not used her name.  In analysis we find that once someone is dead, their 'activities' in a statement are vague, sensitive, and then we watch what produces her name:  

GRACE: So you slept through the whole night and did not realize that she was gone?  


HOUCK: That`s true.  

[20:47:21] GRACE: Joining me right now in addition to her parents, Tom and Sherry Ballard, her boyfriend that she lived with there in their three-bedroom suburban home, Brooks Houck is with us.  So, Brooks, you go to bed and she is still playing games on her phone. The next morning around 8:00, you noticed that she`s missing. Did you report her missing?  


HOUCK: No, ma`am.  

GRACE: Why?  

HOUCK: That is a great question and one that I definitely want the public and the media -- I was not in the least little bit alarmed in any way, shape or form. We have had a stressed relationship at times. And one of the ways that Crystal has always chose to cope or deal with that is by going to -- a young woman`s name, Sabrina, that is her cousin, her dad`s brother`s daughter, whom she is very close to, she spent the night there on several occasion.  

You already have the analysis on this answer in detail.  Please refer to it for understanding of the commentary to conclude this article.  

Her name has finally been produced, therefore, we look at the context of its entry into her language:

With him involved, Crystal Rogers is not:

"my fiancé, Crystal", which has the 3 components of a complete social introduction and a good relationship.  

In fact, in his answers, she is not ever "my" anything, (girlfriend or fiance') meaning that he takes no ownership of her. 

Nor is she "Crystal", that is, a person with a name until (this is very important) she is with someone else, "Sabrina", who gets not only a name, but title, (cousin), which is much more than Crystal received from him.  

With him, she is without name, possessive pronoun, and without title. 

With someone, she is "Crystal."

Also note, she is a "person" (Crystal) not presently, but in the past, of what she had previously done, yet even here avoids a specific past; just a general what she used to do.  I examine this a bit more, including the subtle insult, below.  



GRACE: When you say several, do you mean one, three, 20?  

HOUCK: In the neighborhood of four to six.  

GRACE: OK.  

HOUCK: Something like that.  

Brooks, did you go on to the July 4th get-together that day?  

HOUCK: Yes, I did.  

This is not the analysis, by way of reminder, but we are viewing the possibility that Crystal may no longer be alive, within the words of Brooks Houck.  

GRACE: Even though you didn`t know where she was?  

The challenge is not knowing her location.  Does he know her location?

HOUCK: Well, I was expecting -- I had put in a phone call that morning and then around lunch and usually, the maximum period of time that she has stayed gone has only been like a day to a day and a half, at the most. And as a result of that, I thought that she would --  

The analysis addressed the issue of 'scripting' which you may review.  Here, however, we are asking, "Is Crystal alive" during this period of time?

We note that he does not say "I called Crystal"

We note that he does not say "I called her", which is to directly call her, using the pronoun that he has been more comfortable using.  

In fact, he does not call "anyone."

In statement analysis, we say that the investigator must list "all the names" in a statement, on the margin of the paper. 

This list includes "phone calls" for a simple reason:

Phone calls or "phones" are people, in communication. 

Here, he does not call "Crystal" but only "puts in a phone call" (which sounds both scripted and alibi building--see analysis)  

GRACE: Did you try to call her?  


HOUCK: -- join us. I`m sorry, I didn`t hear you, ma`am.    GRACE: Did you try to call her during that time?  


HOUCK: Not while I was there -- there at the -- at the Fourth. I called her prior to leaving to head in that direction, yes, ma`am.  

Here, he is asked a follow up and must revisit "putting in a call" and says, 

1.  "Not while I was there", which begins in the negative, regarding location.  

2.  "I called her prior to leaving to head in that direction", 

This is instead of saying, "I called her" or simply, "yes."

The first avoided a person, but here, he calls a person (avoiding her name) but the location becomes critical:  not there, but before (chronological order comes from experiential memory), which emphasize time. 

If she was dead, putting in a call is an indication that he knows she is dead. 

Objection:  But next he says he called her; doesn't that nullify your theory?

Answer:  He parroted Nancy Grace.  

When we recall what we did, truthfully, we report back what we did from experiential memory, using chronological order. 

He began his assertion of "putting in a call" which is to avoid a person. This came from his own words.  When Nancy Grace asked specifically, "did you call her?" he then answers with her words, reducing his own commitment.  

You cannot call a dead person.  

He parroted her, but this is not true, and this produces an awkward response:    

When pressed, he gives location, first, and then, changes chronological order, indicating deception, leading us to ask, again, about not only scripting answers (which do not come from experiential memory, but from a script, which can get lost in memory) but if this deceptive response is because Crystal could not be called; Crystal, herself, rather than her phone.  

3. "prior to leaving to head..." is "leaving" of a place, giving it "blue" (high sensitivity) connected to why, not where, he was heading.  "to head in that direction" is to explain why he was going in a specific direction 

This suggests that he had another direction to another place in mind and it is awkward sounding because it did not proceed from experiential memory.  "Putting in a call" is his language, "call to her" is Nancy Grace's language.  

To "put in a call" does sound scripted and obligatory, but it may be consistent with her death coming that night "very close to midnight."

GRACE: Some people have accused you of not being involved enough in the search efforts. What`s your response?    

HOUCK: That is a great question and one I certainly appreciate you asking me. And that is all of my effort in searching for her has been done behind the scene. With the Nelson County Sheriff`s Office.  

Noted that he avoided issuing a denial.  In Statement Analysis, if a subject cannot bring himself to say he did not do it, we will not say it for him.  

 GRACE: What? What?  

HOUCK: Detective Snow who is leading the investigation and Jason Allison who is a deputy there assisting him along with the Kentucky State Police Agency Post Number 12.  

Names are used to persuade just how 'cooperative' he is underscoring the need to persuade.

GRACE: My question was what you had been doing with them. Let me ask you this. I know that you agreed to take a polygraph. Did you pass?  

HOUCK: Because of the way that the lines or whatever were they, they determined it to be inconclusive. I`m not exactly sure what that means. 
But they did tell me it does mean that I wasn`t lying or I didn`t pass it or I didn`t fail it. They just ruled it inconclusive and that is exactly the way it stands.  
I have been 100 percent completely honest with everyone. I have been 100 percent cooperative in everything that has been asked of me. I have not asked for any kind of legal advice or assistance or an attorney of any nature. I`m 100 percent completely innocent in this. And I have exhausted 
my efforts with the law enforcement agencies to gather all the facts necessary to allow me to have a clean name again.  That`s very important to me. I have not responded to a lot of the negativity and all of this animosity because I want the emphasis to remain on Crystal`s safe return home. And that`s where I want it to stay focused in that area rather than dealing with any of the animosity between the families.  

see analysis. 

We have "Crystal" again. 

During the entire period before "the night she went missing", the name "Crystal" is avoided.  
Nor does he say "my", nor "Girlfriend/fiance" in his language.  

When "Crystal" emerges, she is not with him, nor in contact with him, she is at a cousin's house (in his language). 
Here, where is Crystal?  It (the name, "Crystal")  is now, finally, associated with Brooks Houck, and in context, is about cleaning his name with her safe return. 


GRACE: To Tommy and Sherry Ballard, Crystal`s mom and dad, to Miss Ballard, I want to talk about her car and her getting out of that car, and leaving the car in the ignition with her cell phone and pocketbook and a diaper bag still in the car and getting out on the side of the road. What 
do you make of that? Because there is no way I would do that.  

S. BALLARD: I don`t think Crystal would, either. I can`t see her getting out the car. I can`t see remember once her leaving her baby at home. I can`t see her getting out of the car in the dark, not with a cell phone in her hand or something anyway. She had AAA. She had no reason to get out 
of the car. I just -- it don`t make sense.  

I left in this one answer just to show how easy it is for someone to use Crystal's name, making it extreme distancing language by its avoidance in the language of Brooks Houck.  

GRACE: It doesn`t make sense to me, either, Mr. and Miss Ballard. 

Analysis Conclusion:

Is Crystal Rogers deceased?

The only information to go on to answer this question is the words from the televised interview, which was short, by Nancy Grace in which she interviewed Crystal Rogers' fiance and father of one of her children, Brooks Houck.  Therefore, answering this question is limited and challenging, but an opinion does emerge. 

1.  Distancing language 

While Crystal was not missing, she was never referred to as "Crystal", nor as "my girlfriend" or "my fiance'" or any term of endearment.  She was only "she" and "her" which is distancing language.  You can see how readily family used her name in comparison. 
If your loved one was missing, could you go as long without using your loved one's name, title, and connection to you?  (the connection is seen in the pronoun "my").  

To avoid using the social introduction is to psychologically distance himself from her.  Who does this?
a.  Guilty parties.  This guilt could be from having caused her death, or having argued with her, causing her to fun off, and meet up with trouble.  
b.  People who cannot bear to talk about the deceased due to pain.  Sometimes, people overwhelmed with grief, are in utter denial, while others simply distance themselves from something painful. 
In this case, we have not heard of anything prior to the interview in which police told Houck that Crystal was deceased.  

Therefore, the distancing language used is concerning.  It indicates, in the very least, an acutely volatile relationship; one that is so damaged, that her status of "missing" does not cause the "let's forgive and forget because this is too important" form of crisis that is common.  

For example, a mother and daughter are not on speaking terms and mother is rushed to the hospital.  The daughter leaves work rushing also, letting "bygones be bygones" with the medical crisis as the reference point.  They could 'care less' about their arguments, in light of the 'wake up call' of the present distress.  

Brooks Houck shows not only  a very bad relationship in his words; one so bad that even her status of missing does not cause him to "put away the differences, and just find her!" mentality but something else, as well:  

Next, 

"Crystal" is a "person" while "she" is distancing language, within Statement Analysis.  When is Crystal Rogers "she" and when is she "Crystal" in his answers?  You saw family say "Crystal" and then once referenced, she was appropriately "she" in the answer.  

We first note that there is no "Crystal" from the time he began "earlier that day" until the end of the event:  in fact, if we stay to the event only, she was never "Crystal."

When did "Crystal" appear?

2.  Crystal "appears" in his statement, but not  after"the night she went missing" in his language but outside of the entire statement in which he tells what happens in answer to the original question. 

She is not "Crystal" conducting real estate, going to Walmart or "playing" on her phone (not "played").  Remember, we are entering his portrayal of reality; not reality.  We are seeking to enter into his mind, not the facts.  

She showed a rental. 
She went to Walmart.  
But once the night came, she did not "played on her phone" but "was playing" (ongoing) yet will still de-personalized by not having a name. 

Her name emerges outside of "what happened", and in two settings:

1.  When she is with her cousin, she is "Crystal" (not not "when she was with" because he does not reference a specific time, only what she 'does' when she gets upset, with the negative portrayal of a mother abandoning her children.  Please note that any subtle blaming of the victim by a suspect is a red flag of guilt, showing a rough conscience.  

2.  When she can "clean" his name by her same return, she will become "Crystal" again, that is, she will be given a "name" in his language.  I do not bet on her coming home to clean his name.  

You will note that he puts her on her phone, "playing games", that is, he:

a.  has no knowledge of what game she played
b.  admits that no one, not even himself, was watching the baby 
c.  reports no quotes from her
d.  reports no communication from her to anyone else, including text messaging

He linguistically mutes Crystal Rogers. 

Brooks Houck is deceptively withholding information regarding the disappearance of Crystal Houck. 

He consistently used distancing language to Crystal, and was incapable or unwilling to issue a Reliable Denial (RD).  He has indicated no connection to Crystal, nor to the children, but makes sure that we know he has a connection to the rental property.  Brooks Houck is not telling everything he knows about what happened to Crystal.  

He resists getting to "the night" in question by slowing down the pace, and he is indicated for deception in the analysis, via withholding information.  

Is Crystal deceased?

I do not know if she is deceased, however, the portrayal which Brooks Houck uses suggests that she is, and that he, himself, has a need to deceive, and more so, a need to distance himself from her , but then, he is willing to 'bring her to life' as a 'person' (using her name) in two places only; both hypothetical and both outside of the boundary of the question, "what happened the night...?"

Also, that "night" in question, he gives us no indication she is alive with truthful, past tense statements.  She went to Walmart.  She showed rentals.  These are straightforward statements that are statistically, very likely to be true. 

When he gets to the night in question, the detail orientated subject stops detail, and after dinner, "I'm under the impression she was just playing on her phone" is to use additional language to answer the question instead of saying, "I don't know" or "no, she didn't talk to anyone."

This has the feel of avoiding a direct stress producing lie.  

Here is the summary:

1.  In the interview, he slows down the pace early on.  This is an indication of upcoming deception, which is stress producing and desirable to avoid. 
2.  Once he arrives at the stressful point, his use of detail disappears and he uses short sentences, with the exception of his own assertion of innocence and truth, which are all heavily weighted in persuasion, indicative of deception. 
3.  How someone describes a dead person in Statement Analysis shows a change in language which points to a possible time of death. 
a.  Before "the night", he used pure past tense language.  
b.  On "the night", we have little activity and only "was playing" rather than "played"
c.  We have her connected to people, including her kids before;
d.  That night, she is connected to no one; not even the baby 
e.  We have no quotes, nothing a living person would say, or even be seen typing, or texting
f.  We have no detail, from one who gave us lots of detail of the "game" that she was alleged to have been "playing"
g.  We have no use of her name, in the entire narrative of "what happened"; this is to de-personalize her utterly. 
h.  Then, when not part of "what happened", she is "Crystal" but not associated with him, but a cousin, and outside the narrative; 
i.  She is "Crystal" only if she comes home safely and clears his name. 

This is extreme distancing language and he does not say what he was doing when no one was watching the baby.  

She "was playing games" (not "she played" which would have ended at a certain time, suggesting that she may have, for a short time, played a game on the phone but that is not all she did) and not watching the baby, but he does not say what he was doing instead of watching the baby. 

There is not conclusive linguistic evidence to say that Crystal is deceased, but his need to persuade, his loss of detail when he arrives at the sensitive portion of the statement, as well as his deception, bring the question to the forefront, and it is something that must be considered.  

If she is a runaway, or if she is a runaway who met with foul play, it is expected that Brooks Houck would have issued a reliable denial, and even admitted that they fought and this caused her to take off.  

In his answers, Crystal has "no voice", that is, in dealing with her in connection to him, he gives us no indication of what she said or thought, while never allowing her to be "my", and "fiancé'" or "girlfriend", nor even "Crystal" until she is no longer in his presence, that is, with her cousin, or while missing.  

The linguistic signal of change "pre death" and "post death" is not strong by itself.  Hence, my lack of firm commitment to an answer. 

However, given that he shows no closeness to her, even under such an extreme circumstance, as well as the analysis, itself, showing deception, it is difficult to see this ending well.  

This may indicate that his use of "kill time" was, indeed, "leakage" within language rather than poorly chosen words.  

"Honestly" in Statement Analysis

July 17, 2015, 7:41 am

≫ Next: President Obama's Ramadan Speech

≪ Previous: Is Crystal Rogers Deceased?

$

0

0

You've likely heard this expression more than a few times in the past month.  It is a common expression, or even to some, a 'figure of speech' and it is associated with deception.

A quick read would conclude, "the person said,'honestly', so it means he is lying."

This is incorrect.

To use the phrase, "honestly" indicates a change of sorts, for the subject.  It is associated with deception, but the deception itself cannot be gleaned from this single indicator.

Here are some examples,

"Honestly, you don't need this medication any longer" said a doctor to elderly female patient.

What did this signify?

It may be that the doctor, due to laws of confidentiality, as well as the incessant flow of patients who self-diagnose, causing him to carefully watch his words, is attempting to reach his patient, perhaps in a world of placebo and confidentiality.

In fact, professionals who practice confidentiality (including medical, social services, and even law enforcement) regular are deceptive via withholding information.  It is not an unethical deception, but a practical one:  they routinely withhold information from people, including information that they are thinking about at the time of the statement which may give linguistic indication of such.

The word "honestly" shows that the subject is not always honest.  This can be a professional deception, as in a case where a young prosecutor goes home, thinking about a case that weighs heavily upon him, with a burden to unload, knowing he cannot talk about it.  Perhaps even more pressure is upon a therapist who has a bizarre case, or even a celebrity, who has confided a dark secret.  The therapist, like all humans, has a need to talk, but cannot.  If she is talking to family, while thinking about what the celebrity told her, she may be willfully attempting to avoid disclosing what is on her mind:

it may likely show up in her language.

"Honestly" is also the language of 'polite deception' in society, as "Honestly, your hair style looks nice" from a normally reserved or quiet person who is breaking his habit of non-commenting.

"Honestly" is also frequently found in the language of criminals and in a police statement, it is often an indicator that the subject has not been honest up to this point in the statement.

Rather than conclude "deception", it is more a "take note!" warning to the reader/analyst.

In a police statement, the setting (context) is an accusation.  This is important to remember in the "expected versus unexpected."

In all figures of speech, as well as habits, we ask:

"What has caused this to arise here?" followed by "What caused it not to arise elsewhere?"

"You know" is a good example.

Does the person say it every sentence?  Doubtful.

We note what topic causes it to present itself in the language, as well as all the other assertions that did not cause it to be used.  "You know" is a signal that, at this point in the statement where it has arisen, the subject is acutely aware of the Interviewer's presence at this point.  In public speaking, substitute "the Interviewer" for "the audience" and the same principle applies.

What topic was part of the sentence that caused this awareness to increase?  Why this topic, and not other topics?

Then we begin our series of internal rhetorical questions of "why?"quietly, or in our note taking, with the intention of re-visiting the specific wording that produced "you know" in the subject's language.

Therefore, we note "you know" everywhere in a statement.

When you hear "honestly", it may be:

a.  The person has been less than honest or "forthcoming" prior to this;
b.  The person is being honest at this point, wanting to be believed;
c.  The person is now deceptive, calling up a strengthening word to buttress the weakness of deception;
d.  The person has an association with deception
e.  The person has a professional association with deception, such as professionals (Try asking a HR professional personal informant about a fellow employee and you'll hear this word because the professional withholds personal information from others routinely)
f.  The person has an association with social deception
g.  The person is a criminal
h.  The person is a sales person who routinely is deceptive
i.   etc
j.  etc
k.  etc

The many variables all require due diligence and not a rush to judgement in deception indication.

President Obama's Ramadan Speech

July 18, 2015, 7:51 am

≫ Next: Statement Analysis: DeOrre's Parents' Interview Part One

≪ Previous: "Honestly" in Statement Analysis

$

0

0

Ramadan has come to an end.  For the "religion of peace" the totals for these 30 days, those killed in the name of the religion, as obedience to the Koran:

Dead:  2988

Injured:  3696

Terror attacks:   314

Suicide Bombings:  63   (this includes "Allah Akbars")

The number of dead in the name of Judaism, Christianity, and all other religions:   0

This speech was made closely after the killing of Marines by Mohammad Abdulazeez  instead, returned to revisit the shooting at the church last month that created racial animosity in the nation.  This is not to only insult the families of the dead, but to continue to stir the racial strife in America, in spite of the many calls to stop.

Note that he does not mention the dead Marines, nor their loved ones.  Initially, we were told "not to rush" to judgment, which led people to ask, "Since we are being told not to rush to judgement, is this a signal that it is Islamic terror?" and "What is the name of the shooter?".

In the wake of the dead killed in the name of Islam, Obama ignore the dead, but again lectures Americans about  "respecting" all religions.  This is the very tolerance that the Koran condemns and refuses to show to other religions.  The hypocrisy towards us could not be stronger, but the consistency in leaving Americans hostage to the Islamic State of Iran, while deliberately arming our Islamic enemy, could be no stronger.

"Michelle and I would like to extend our warmest wishes to Muslims in the United States and around the world celebrating Eid-ul-Fitr. As Muslims mark the end of the month, they are reminded that Ramadan is a time to reflect spiritually, build communally, and aid those in need. While Eid marks the end of Ramadan, it marks a new beginning for each individual – a reason to celebrate and express gratitude on this holiday.

For millions of Muslims, the morning of Eid is marked with the call to prayer echoing through cities and towns across the globe. Millions of people head to local mosques for special Eid prayers followed by festive gatherings, gift exchanges, and feasts among friends, neighbors and families. The diversity of traditions paint the vibrant images we see from around the world capturing the spirit and excitement of Eid – colorful dresses or white garments decorating the masses of people standing in lines for prayer, lanterns and ornaments lighting up bazaars and neighborhoods, intricate henna designs painted on hands of young girls and women, and an abundance of delectable foods and aromatic cuisines.

As Muslim Americans celebrate Eid across America, the holiday is a reminder to every American of the importance of respecting those of all faiths and beliefs. This past year New York City Public Schools announced adding Eid to their official school calendars alongside Christmas, Hanukkah and other holidays – an acknowledgement of the great diversity and inclusiveness that adds to the richness of our nation. During this year’s White House Iftar, I had the opportunity to meet inspiring young Muslim Americans who are leading efforts for greater understanding and unity across diverse communities. Following the Iftar, one of the young attendees helped spearhead an effort that raised more than $75,000 for the churches burned in the wake of the shooting at Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina. Americans of all faiths and beliefs must stand together to protect our democracy and strengthen our country as a whole.

Michelle and I hope today brings joy to all of your homes, both here in the U.S. and around the world. From my family to yours, Eid Mubarak!"

Statement Analysis: DeOrre's Parents' Interview Part One

July 19, 2015, 5:30 am

≫ Next: Did Brooks Houck Act Alone?

≪ Previous: President Obama's Ramadan Speech

$

0

0

The following is statement analysis of the interview by the parents of missing toddler, DeOrre, who went missing this past week in Idaho. This is Part One 

Was DeOrre kidnapped?

Did the parents do something to him?

Did wildlife get him?

Did he drown?

Was DeOrre a victim of ongoing child abuse, especially neglect.  

Did he meet an accident, only to have someone cover up what happened?

Statement Analysis is in bold type and we are in debt to Juliet for transcription.  

There has been much speculation on this case, and the analysis of the mother's 911 call did not indicate deception.  This opinion is limited to the 911 call only . We will listen to what she says here, although her husband did most of the talking.  She has told media that she will search "until he is found", which is different than what guilty people sometimes say, including "I will never stop searching", and "we will search our entire lives for you", indicating that they have no expectation that their missing loved one will ever be found.  

Analysis Question:

This analysis will not be heavily detailed, but will focus specifically  to learn if either parent, or both parents, possess guilty knowledge of their son's disappearance.  This is our analysis question:

Do the parents possess guilty knowledge of their son's disappearance?

Beneath this, we look for signals of veracity and deception.  It can be that parents can be innocent, yet still deceptive, for example, if they delayed calling 911, or were using drugs and neglected the child, and other attendant issues.  

We also look to see how the parents relate to the missing child, linguistically, and if there is any change in how they relate to him.  We listen carefully to the pronouns.  

I:  Interviewer

D:  Father

J:   Mother 

******************************************************************************

Interviewer: Alright, DeOrre, take us back, was it Friday?
Jessica: Yes.

DeOrre Sr:.i'm not sure what day it is today!
I : today's Monday. 

This is not expected as "the clock" and "D-Day" are often very important to the hormone-elevated parents.  The exception may be due to extreme fatigue.  Generally, the loved ones are on high alert, and know exactly how many hours, including days, that the loved one is missing.  

J: It was Friday.
D: Friday, about 2.26 was when I, was it 2.26?

This is to assert an exact time, while not remembering the day of the week.  

Should the same parent know exactly the hours (culmalative) the child has been missing ?

J: It was 2.36 when I called.

She corrects him with precision.  It is likely that someone looked at the cell phone to note the precise time, perhaps in preparation for the interview, or due to the "clock" ticking, concern.  We let the words guide us towards a conclusion.  

D : 2.36 when she called and I was in the truck hauling down to the road trying to get service because I didn't think one bar would get it. So I, she got very very lucky. I was blessed that she was able to get service because I didn't think, I didn't want to try and risk getting half way through my talking to 911 and have it cut off. So I went down to where I knew I could get a little service, about a half mile down the road. 


The interview is with both parents seated next to each other; therefore, the use of "we" is appropriate.  With this established, when either parent moves from "we" to the pronoun "I", it becomes even more important to the subject.  (For new readers, the "subject" is the one speaking).  

We have an extreme point of sensitivity and it is about the father being inside the truck.  Let's explore this. 

We note that the father, "D", explains why he did something without being asked.  This indicates a need to explain why he drove in his truck.   This means that he thought to himself, "I better explain why I was in the truck because they are going to ask me about it."

Therefore, we assign the reason why someone did something only when not asked, to the color blue which is the highest level of sensitivity in analysis.  Should we find two colors of blue close together, the sensitivity becomes extreme to the subject.   We will get to this.  

First:  

The exact time was off and was corrected by the mother.  He did not remember the day, but used the word "about" when giving the exact time. There is nothing "about" when stating "2:26" as "about" is used to estimate.  We use estimation with round numbers, and round times. 

"It was about 2:30" is consistent.  

"About 2:26" not only shows preparation, (and failed memory or communication) but to say "about" shows the inconsistency of using estimation and exactness.  

The time when police were called is a sensitive topic, but this is not as sensitive as the truck.  

The Truck

Please note:  placing himself in his truck is very important to the father, so much so that he twice explains why he was in the truck. 

This is very sensitive to him, as is the time line.  

Why is it so important to him that we, the audience know, he was in his truck?

Even without training, the journalist should recognize his need to explain and his repetition and simply ask about the truck again.  With training, the interviewer pounces, but even without, many recognize the sensitivity intuitively. 

That he was "hauling" is not only unnecessary to say (no one would consider this a leisurely drive) but it is also 'story telling', which is to make us consider the location of the emotions within his statement.  

The father in the truck has produced intense sensitivity in his language.  

Uh, we searched for - after about twenty minutes in a dead panic, not knowing where he was in such a small area, and not knowing, never being there, I knew I was in trouble.

He began with "we searched" indicating unity, but then gives an 'editorializing', or inclusion of emotion ("dead panic").  The emotion here is not necessary since the child is missing.  

Emotions in the "logical" portion of a statement are often put there artificially unless something has caused the subject to debrief and process the emotions. 

What causes emotions to enter due to processing?

a.  the passage of time. 

When enough times passes, it becomes more difficult to conclude "artificial placement" of emotions.  In truthful accounts, especially fresh, or told for the first time, the emotions come in the "after" portion of the statement.  Such as:

I could not find him;
we searched everywhere in the area;
I called 911. 
I was in a panic. 

This shows that the emotions take time to process, especially since parents are on "auto pilot", that is, zoned to find their child. 

What it makes us wonder is if they really were in a "dead panic", or they wish to convince us that they were.  We look for their words to guide us, and for the journalist to ask.  

b.  The repetition of the account. 

Once the account has been told, emotions have had time to settle in, and in repetition of an account, the emotion is then sometimes added in the "logical" portion.  

I do not know if this father has repeated this account enough times to have processed emotions.  I do not think enough time has passed, by this point, so my question has to do with how often he has repeated this account.  

"dead panic", however, is not a word ("dead") we expect a parent of a missing child to use.  

"I knew I was in trouble"is an interesting statement. 

Is this an admission of guilt and worry over oneself, or is it the words of a father taking responsibility, ultimately, for his son's plight?

Some very responsible parents will take full ownership and responsibility of the situation, making his son's disappearance his own trouble. 

It is also possible that this is 'leakage', that is to say, he, himself, is in trouble.  

 Um, so wedecided to call search and rescue, uh, and that's when I drove down. 

"Um" is a pause, giving one time to think.  In working from experiential memory, is this necessary?

Next, "we decided" shows both the unity of "we", but also that they 'came to a decision', which is to say:  There was a delay in calling for help.  

I never like "we called" therefore, whenever I have heard it, I asked, "Did you both call?" as I want clarification.  It is possible that both called, or two calls were made, but I want this to be clear.  I have found, too often, "we called 911" to be in the language of the guilty as only one called, and the one who made the call, uses "I", but the other, the guilty, may wish to be seen as "part of the innocent" person's cooperation with police.  This goes for all sorts of crimes. 

Please note that when a child goes missing, there will be sensitivity indicators, as well as even signs of guilt, in both innocent and guilty parents.   We seek to discern the difference via context. 

For innocent parents, there is also an expectation of minimization.  To have a child go missing some adult must have been neglectful, in most all situations. 

For a child to go missing, highly responsible adults will blame themselves, even when the child did not go missing on said adult's watch.  This is because the highly responsible adult will hold herself, for example, responsible for letting the neglectful person watch their child in the first place. 

Years ago, Kyron Horman went missing.  Statement Analysis indicated step mother Terri Horman for deception and this deception was specifically about what happened to Kryon.  

Desiree Young was Kyron's biological mother, who blamed herself, as responsible mothers do, even for getting sick, and being unable to care for him, which is how he ended up in Terri Horman's hands.  

We must be on our guard for natural minimization and guilt, in the innocent parent's language. 

That "we decided" not only suggests a delay (during the 'debate') but likely due to fear of, first, over-reacting ("he's got to be here!), and, possibly, fear of being blamed.  

There was a delay in calling and they initially did not "agree" about making the call.  

Fear of being blamed is also something that shows itself, in the specific sensitivity indicators, and must be categorized in context.  

"we" turns into "I" when driving; that is, likely driving without his wife.  

I do not know who "search and rescue" is:  is this the result of calling 911, or did they have another number, specific to Search and Rescue?

Next, "that's when" speaks to time.  He returns to the truck, further making this a very sensitive point to him.  

The truck, the truck, the truck...it is repeated in his language, and it is something that is of great importance to him and even includes editorializing language, which often belies the need to persuade.  

She tried getting a signal out - um, as soon as I got a hold of the,, I kind of, they told me that she was on the other line with them and they had our location, and they were on our way. They, they were amazing, they are amazing and they still continue to be. Ah, Lhema High County Sherriff and Salmon Search and Rescue, you could not ask for a better group of people, volunteers, and search and rescue, and just everybody. You couldn't ask for better people - so sincere, so concerned, and they were - everybody was emotionally attached to this, as you, anybody would be of a two year old. 

Lots of self censoring by him as seen in broken sentences. This is to stop himself, mid sentence.  Is this his normal habit, as a "baseline", or is it specifically triggered by the topic?

a.  "Tried" in the past tense, often indicates failure.  

b.  Praise of authorities. 

This is something that is not expected at this time.  

Parents want their child found.  When not found, they see authorities as having "failed" them, and it is not time for praise.  

When do we find praise of "authorities"?

1.  We find that authorities are praised by the innocent when the child is found safe.

2.  We find that authorities are praised by the innocent parent when the child is found no longer alive, after a long period of time has passed, and the parent has significantly grieved and processed the trauma, and recall, at moments of sheer terror, kind faces, or the 'small cup of water' offered in consolation.  This is similar to language in parents who outlived their child, and warm themselves with memories of the wake or funeral, and remember the kind comments of friends and relatives.  It generally takes time, however, to hear this. 

3.  We find the praise of authorities who fail to find a child by the guilty (those indicated for deception regarding the disappearance of the child):  the guilty did not want the child found, hence, the praise.  

4.  We find the praise of authorities who fail to find a child in the language of the guilty who reveal a desperate need to "make friends" with "police" (that is, "authority") and quickly align themselves.  

They sometimes even "name drop", and talk about how good "Sgt. Smith" was, and so on.  This can belie a need to be seen as 'part of the solution' rather than the cause of the problem. 

See the analysis of Brooks Houck, where on the Nancy Grace Show, he answered criticism for not searching for Crystal Rogers with both name- dropping and his own behind the scenes, searching, reminiscent of Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson.  

The father may have been treated well, but because at the time of this statement, his son had not been found, the praise is not expected.  

"Was attached" may indicate that he is thinking of the specific time period during the search; this is evidenced in how he breaks up time period of them being "amazing" including the future.  

The praise of unsuccessful searching is concerning.  

Next:  

How will the father relate to his son?

We will listen carefully on what names, pronouns, etc, he uses.  We will listen carefully to see if his son is described in a 

a.  positive light  (expected) 

b.  negative light (guilty parents will find a subtle way to blame the victim)

c.  deified, or "angelic" manner.  This is sometimes done, romanticizing about a child which is more associated with death, where the parent loses the reality that exists in all of us, as the imperfections are forgotten, and the deceased is now deified in language.  When a child is missing, we do not want to hear the child blamed, nor defied.  

He's pretty small for his age but he moves pretty good, and thatwas our concern. 

a.  That he is "pretty small" is not a negative, as it is 'rebutted' by the word "but", in describing how well he moves.  

b.  Note next that he uses the word "that", which is distancing language; and

c.  He uses the past tense "was"

Taking the distancing language of "that" and the past tense "was", it suggest that this is not his concern, any longer. 

d.  Next note that this is not his concern but "our" concern. 

"He's pretty small for his age but he moves pretty good and this is my concern..." or even "this is our concern";

Question:  Has anything changed that has led the father to believe that he no longer left the area on his own?

If so, (kidnapping), the past tense use here is appropriately consistent. 

Thus far, there is nothing within the language to indicate child abuse on the part of the parents.  This does not mean guilt or innocence, but of how they relate to their son indicates quality of relationship.  
It does not preclude a kidnapping, nor does it preclude an accident and cover up.  It simply shows that there is not a signal *yet* that the child was unwanted.   See Baby Ayla analysis to indicate ongoing, chronic child abuse and neglect.  

He, uh, was right with us, where it's at, I mean I thought it would be perfect to go camping there because it's enclosed by walls and mountains, and there's not much space around there he could go, and our biggest concern was the creek, which was knee deep and a few feet wide, but he's a little guy.

The need to explain the location is sensitive and this may be the words that are consistent with very responsible parents.   It may be that he blames himself for choosing this location, therefore, he feels the need to explain (justify) its choosing:  enclosed by walls and mountains (positive) and not much space (negative; what there isn't).

"Our" concern is consistent with above.  

Note that context of the concern is the creek, and he is specific about it, its depth and its depth in relation to his son's size.  

Thus far, he has not used his son's name, only using "he", but here he is a "little guy", which is consistent with being small for his age, and the concern about the water.  

"He" is used and we must make note that, in context, most of the information from the father is about the search and not his son.  The volume of words is carefully looked at:  

 Um, they finally, yesterday, we were able to put that to rest and have HC Sheriff Dave and the rest of the sheriffs have put out that there is, they assured me, there is 100% chance that he is not anywhere in that water, around that water. They have torn that creek upside down and in and out. The divers have gone through with wetsuits, along with the helicopter - that was the world's most advanced search and rescue helicopter, volunteered out of Montana, and those guys were just amazing, the accuracy they had with the night vision ability it has and the heat range it can see,, they were - . The one guy, I can't remember his name, um, I've met so many people, so many good people, but he was - his own safety, he was, he was more or less,, he was strapped in, he was on the side of that helicopter, looking, and I - he was looking down. I remember them telling me they asked search and rescue to look over, because there was an orange insect repellant can, they think by the bank, and they were dead on, that's what it was, how accurate these guys are.

Follow the pronouns:  When he says "they", he immediately stops himself and says "we", connecting himself to authorities.  

Here we have additional information that is related to the above praise of authorities.  He gives a detailed view as to why he called this "amazing";

He worried about the water (creek) to the point where he conceded that the place was safely chosen with it being an exception, yet even comparing it to his son's body size. 

The searching of the creek impressed him, including what sounds like a man hanging from a helicopter "his own safety" being in his language.  

He gave specific details about night vision, heat range, and his language indicates that it may be that the technology "amazed" him more than the people, operating the technology.  

The praise of authorities in an unsuccessful search is not expected.  

Was it, perhaps, the coming together of his own fear of the water for his son's small size, coupled with the technology employed, along with the relief of knowing his son did not drown, that caused this praise?

We must consider the different possibilities while seeking to be guided by his own language.  

We also note the word "dead" again in his language.  Here, from a helicopter, the technology located a small can and in describing its accuracy, they were "dead on."

This is his second use of "dead" and it may be part of his baseline language.   First "dead panic" and here "dead on" are both not words expected, but they may be a normal part of his linguistic code of expressions.  

We have not heard him use his son's name.  This is not expected, but in context, thus far, the priority of the father's words is upon the search efforts, therefore, little has been said about his son, leaving us without much to measure, thus far, about his son, in terms of how he relates to him, linguistically.  

The word "son" and "daughter" are critical in child abuse cases, as well as missing children cases.  We find that guilty parents will sometimes avoid using "son", and especially "my son" while the son is in 'danger' in the statement.  "Our" son is acceptable when two parents are seated together, but "my son" is stronger especially if the context is danger, uncertainty, etc.  

Some guilty parents will avoid "my son" until the child is "safe", that is, "in heaven" or "no longer suffering" but during the period of time of the crime, or the period of time when the child was "missing", sometimes the parent will avoid this use, especially if it is before the child was killed.  

We can have a bizarre reversal of this, as Casey Anthony comes to mind, but perhaps a good example for Statement Analysis readers and students is:

Interviews of the mother of "Baby Lisa", Deborah Bradley.  See especially her first interview with media.  She avoided using Lisa's name, as well as "my daughter" or "my baby", to an extreme level of distancing language.  

J: They thought it was, it might have been, a part of a shoe, or something, but they said, go check that out.

D: These guys search miles, so the miles radius they have - it's very rocky terrain, it's very open, it's not -.the helicopter they used is used to back very deep Montana, it is designed for a lot worse situations than this, and there was not a trace of my son found - there still isn't but the search is on, that's - the hearsay of things has kind of gotten way out of hand, the search is so far as it's been put on, that it's been suspended, and that is not entirely sure or true. Sheriff Dave of Lhema HC, I just spoke with him on the phone this morning - he has got horseback riders and trackers up there right now, and very advanced professionals. I'll be going up, and I've just come down to get any resources I can get to go back, right on back up today. Um, what questions do you guys have?

Please note that he says "my son"while the child is not found.  This is to take ownership with "my" and "son" (title) during the time when we find guilty parents moving away from their child.  

He continues to rave about the efficiency and adds horseback riders to the helicopter and use of technology, further giving linguistic indication of why has was "amazed", that is, to praise authorities. 

This is an example of letting the subject speak for himself.  We were not expecting praise because his son is not found, but he explains the praise, not for failure, but for:

a.  thoroughness
b.  relief that he, himself, did not cause his son to drown in choosing the location
c.  technological wonders
d.  scope (largeness) and coordination of the various arms of the search  

He addressed the "hearsay" that the search had been called off.  

He is bothered by "hearsay."

Let's examine this. 

When parents are bothered by "hearsay" or "rumors" or "social media suspicions", it is often a red flag.  Innocent parents react little; while guilty parents can go to extremes to counter public opinion, such as being humiliated on the Nancy Grace Show because of being exposed for lying, but still returning.  (See Billie Jean Dunn). 

Here, he is bothered by it, but what is "it"?

"It" is the "hearsay" that the search for his son is called off.  This is the context of being bothered. 

The topic justifies the reaction:  if the public hears the search has been called off, the public will no longer search.  

The reaction is justified.  

Had it been rumors that he was responsible, our expectation would have been that he issue a Reliable Denial.  (please see explanation of Reliable Denial via search at this blog).  

The father then asks if the station has any questions.  This shows an openness and willingness to answer anything. 

Please note that guilty parents often seek to exercise control over the flow of information.  This sometimes shows itself in desperation.  

We have the positive (innocent) use of "my son" by a father, who is speaking with his wife present.  This is very strong. 

We do not have him speaking much about the child, but continues his focus of language upon the search details. 
Interviewer: Tell us a little bit about, first of all, how are you guys holding up? I know everybody, a lot of people, are praying for you all.

DeOrre Sr.: Friends and family, and hoping to be strong for him.

Jessica:. Pretty...the support around us is what's, I know, keeping us together because if we didn't have all of our family - the minute I called my mom, and she was up there in a matter of hours and the same with the rest of our family, they were just up there, around us.

D: Luckily, we - a few phone calls Is all it took at first, and we had, as Sheriff David said in the news, a hundred and seventy five plus people up there in the grid searches, volunteers, uh, professionals, and anybody I called. The service up there is very hearsay - here, there - it's camping, you know. Um, we're trying to hold up the best we can, but with - we have hope, is the thing. Hope is what keeps it going because the search is not over, the search is not done. We will find him, no matter what.

a.  He continues to be impressed with the search, and here gives the large number in the turn out.  

b.  Note the drive behind the search.  "The search is not over.   The search is not done.  We will find him, no matter what" with "we" coming in the same answer as "one hundred and seventy five plus people"

When a parent tells us that they will "never stop searching", we should believe that they have no expectation of recovery.  



I: You were in the truck so you were the first to realize, ' Oh, no, DeOrr is not here.'

D: No, we both did, I -

J: We both did.

Recall "we decided" is something that indicates a delay, a possible debate or discussion and the joint sharing of responsibility.  This is a sensitive point to them both.  

There is likely strong guilt but not necessarily guilt for causing the disappearance. 

D: After twenty minutes of up and down the creek and up and around the camp, and he wasn't there, that's when I got in my pick up truck and drove down the road to try and get some service.

J: - especially after screaming his name, we have nicknames for him, no sound of him, no crying.

This is an important point about the mother:

Everyone (or most everyone) has nicknames for their toddler.  

Did you notice that the mother has no need to quote herself using the nicknames?

this is very important.  

The use of nicknames in a statement can indicate a bad relationship, similar to one reporting, "I said, 'I love you' and kissed them goodnight" does in a police statement. 

objection:  How can such a thing as "I love you" and "kissing them goodnight" indicate a bad relationship?  I say that and I kiss my kids!

Answer:  We all do, or in Maine, "so doesn't everyone."

The difference is is that those who feel the need in a police statement to make a point of declaring their love and affection belie a poor or strained relationship as seen in the need of boasting. 

You likely tell your kids you love them and kiss them goodnight but you likely do not feel the need to press this point home in a statement given to police as a point of "proving" how much you love them.  The need to persuade, itself, indicates weakness.  

In Statement Analysis, we deal, not with reality, but verbalized perception of reality.  



D:.he's a goer and a mover but he does not go away from his parents, he does not.

This is a positive and actually not an insult as he both praises his ability to move, and recognizes that he doesn't drift too far from his parents.  

Neglected children are often praised by their neglectful parents for having zero stranger anxiety, with the negligent parents noting how "independent" the child is. 

In this case, a guilty father would be sabotaging his alibi of kidnapping in this statement.  Since DeOrre has not been found, and kidnaping is a possibility, it would be more consistent with guilt if the father and mother both said, "he would run off with someone."

They do not. 

Note the mother's affirmation:  


J: Yes, he's very attached to us.

I like this better than "we are very close" not because the closeness can be a two-way street (it is) but because:

a.  she is talking about her child's behavior while missing
b.  She shows no need to include herself, as parent, to the attachment 
c.  His age is very young and utterly dependent upon an adult for survival. 


I: So this is unusual.

D: Very unusual, sir.

Both shoot down the alibi of kidnapping.  

J: And we didn't hear people around us, we didn't see anybody, we have -
Off camera: social media, that needs to be addressed.

I: Yes, social media can be a good thing but it can also -

D: That's, that's one of the -

J:.We just don't want anything to twist it

I: Yes, we don't want to twist it, so clear up any rumors that you've seen or heard

J: We've-

Off camera [inaudible] - we 
need to talk about -

J: One thing that concerned me -

D: We wanna get to that. Most of the biggest rumors that are going around is - I mean, I have heard everything from the - I mean, why you would make up a rumor that has to do with a three year old is - if you're not going to help, please, don't - if it's not helpful - it's -

J: Yeah.

D: This is a two, almost three year old we're talking about, please help us. But I've heard everything from my company won't let me come home off the road to look for my son - I was there the entire time, and my employer, four hours after my son went missing, has been up there day and night, has not slowed down - um, and that, that one bothered me, and then they just came, they got worse, and they got worse, and they got worse - but that's a handful of bad with a bunch of good. The amount of support is overwhelming, and it's good.

"Please help us" comes in the context of social media; and social media had reported the search was called off.  This directly ties in the concern that people would stop searching with the plea for help.  

Note the concern about his company being slandered bothered him, as well.  

Question:  What, in his language, is "good"?  

Answer:  the amount of support, being overwhelming, is good. 

Interviewer : is there any rumors or anything you've seen that you want to clear up, Jessica?

As in all missing child cases, it is better to ask, directly, about their own involvement, to let them issue a denial.  



Jessica: I just, somebody at the store, um at Leador, said, it was one of the ladies that had worked at the store, said that they saw, um, a gentleman and a younger blonde boy matching our description of our son, really filthy, buying candy for him, and he was just bawling, in a black truck. That is the only other...

DeOrre Sr.: There's a problem, my pick-up truck is black..

This is an unexpected statement.  Is he saying this is a problem because he was seen driving his son, filthy, buying candy or is it a problem simply because it does not make sense?

Jessica: he drives a black truck.

DeOrre Sr.: as a family, we went down to get a few things. It was me, but they claim it was at six o clock...that afternoon, evening, but we..were...

Jessica: Earlier, it was earlier that day

DeOrre Sr.: ..with search and rescue until what, a quarter to four..?

Jessica: yeah..

DeOrre Sr.: we didn't, we never, haven't left the camp since one o clock that afternoon, so it's just a lot of hearsay, and..

interviewer: was anybody camping round you?

D: that we don't know is...I come to find, I didn't know the area, and I didn't know, I ..there, it's very open but you can't see much ...there's a road that goes up and along the top - we're camped underneath the reservoir, basically right below it, and you can go up above the reservoir, and I didn't even know the road was, did that, I didn't know the road was up there, and as I travelled up there myself, I could've found out [?] I could see everything that was going on at the campsite, but you can't see out - you can't see up, you can't see round and if anyone comes to the bottom of your camp ground you can't even see they are...
interviewer: So they could've come to your...

The father's habit of speech is to speak rapidly and lots of self censoring.  We note that this does not seem to change or shift much, from topic to topic.  

Note the change from "we" to "I" being very important to him:  it is about the area.  It is likely, according to the language, that he is very sensitive about having chosen this spot for his family to camp.  

D: they could've come in and you could never know it. The water was not very, it was not a fast running creek, but it is quite loud moving through the logs and things like that, so hearing range is not all that far either..so's you couldn't hear anyone coming up either.
Interviewer: so he was just kind of playing, you guys were doing your thing and then you noticed...

D: he was playing with grandpa

J: he, yeah, he was with my grandfather

D:.he was over, he was getting ready for a nap, uh say it was almost, by that time it was almost two, and he usually takes his nap, um...we was just, yeah, we decided we were going to go a little exploring, and he was going to be good with grandpa by the campfire, we weren't more than fifty..

J: ten minutes

D: fifty yards away and ten minutes, but for time, we, I, seen him to the point I figured out he was gone and I come back up to the creek and I actually seen, there were some things down by there, some little minnows that I thought he would just love, so when I come back up to get him and I yelled over to grandpa, um, where, you know, where is little DeOrr? He, immediately shock. He says, he came up to you, because it's such a small area. That's what a lot of people, they don't understand, they just assume how could you let your child out of your sight? This area is pretty well blocked in and you can see, you, there is no way you couldn't not see him, in what we thought, and just a split second your whole world is upside down and - vanished, there's not a trace found. That's the reason why they, this been called on the news a suspension, because it is not a suspension, but there's not s single trace of him. This child loses stuff. He's two, almost three, anybody who has a child that age range knows, they leave trails, they lose stuff..

J: shoes come off..anything

D: There's just nothing. There's a possibility that he may be with somebody, and that's giving us some hope. It's a bad thing that he will be not with us right now but it also means there is a good chance that he is alive and with somebody, so we're trying every aspect we can, any aspect we can..

Interviewer: is that what your gut tells you?

D: Yes. As his father I believe and I think after being up there, and a lot of people agree with me a lot, that he is no longer up the mountain anymore. The searching advances they used, and was just very thorough for miles, there wasn't a stone left unturned, there still isn't, and we're going to continue to search, but being his father also, that's what my heart and my gut tell me but I'm not sure, so that's where I'm asking the public's help -anything - I'm, Lhima HC Sherriff are handling this but they're not designed for systems quite like this, they've got two phone lines, and please be patient, they're doing the best they can, and we all are, and we will find him.

"As his father" may be why "I" and "trouble" enters:  taking responsibility.  Also, "as his father" takes ownership of the child while the child is missing.  
Note also, "as his father" can be an expression of responsibility, and instinct:

"I believe and I think after being up there..." is weak, and shows an insecurity and need to "have others join in" with "a lot of people agree with me a lot"

This is to say that he is very insecure, which is expected due to the failure to find his son. 

He couples himself with the county sheriff; not as an investigator, (which guilty sometimes do, seeking to impress the listener that they are not being kept out of the loop of info), but as in coordinating a search and gives the specific reason:  they have two phone lines.  

Note:  "we will find him" also shows no doubt, after much weakness and doubt about him no longer being on the mountain.  This may be to suggest a belief that he has been kidnapped. 

End of Part One

What have we learned thus far?

There is linguistic indication that the parents had some form of argument when they first discussed the child being missing and it was directly related to some delay in calling 911.  

The father does most of the talking, while the mother does less.  The mother does not give signals of deception, but in context, this is a small sample, compared to the father.

The father's use of "my son" precludes child abuse particularly because it comes during the time of the child missing.  What does this tell us?

If the father has done anything to the child, it was not intentional.  The same could be said if the grandfather or someone else did something by accident; was not watching him when he fell into water, and so on. 

The child is not likely a victim of ongoing child abuse.   This means a possible accident, or unintended event, (manmade or wildlife)  or a kidnapping, but not a victim of ongoing child abuse.  This is based upon the strength of the pronoun as well as other references, including the 'limited' search time; that is to say, confidence in finding him, without the "open ended" sayings such as, "We will never stop searching for him..." and "I will spend the rest of my life searching for you..." with its fatalistic overtones.  

The father's intense focus upon the rescue operation shows someone who was impressed with "toys" as grown men can be, with lots of interest in specifics, including the helicopter, night vision, and so on.  This is in stark contrast between the number of words dedicated to this topic when compared to the number of words compared to his son.  It is also concerning in that although it could be seen as confidence in the searching professionalism, it is far more information than is about his son.  This is not expected unless words were dedicated to this work's conclusion.  It was not. 

The self-censoring and change of pronoun is duly noted, especially for topics.  

We also have the word "dead" used twice; which in context, is most unexpected and unsettling. 

The father and mother both express confidence in the search and plead for it to not end. 

Question:  What do you make of no reliable denial?

Answer:    There is no context for it.  

The portion of the interview where the "hearsay" is brought up is about the search being called off.  Had the interviewer guided it, even gently, we would have likely have known via the denial or lack of denial.  

Trained journalists provide great information when they seek it.  This is useful for investigators, as well.  In this case, we see no evidence of training, as there is:

a.  no follow up in sensitive points

b.  no questions about the language he used

c.  no challenges 

d.  Control:

the subject shows how he controls the interviewer (not the interview) by turning the tables with asking if media had questions for him.  Was the interviewer unprepared?  Did he miss all the indications of sensitivity including the delay in calling for assistance?  
Did he not want to ask about calling "Search and Rescue"?

We let the subject "control the interview", but not us.  By the  we mean that we let the subject talk on and on, but not at the expense of noting his sensitivity and missing grand opportunities for information. 

We let them speak on and on (a good point) but we ask the relevant questions and do not let ourselves be 'de railed' in the way he was. (the major failure, thus far, in the interview). 

Thus far, the Interviewer has not gone to this point, which is critical and should be central for the Interviewer:  clear the parents, especially the father, and then move in the same extending circles in the interview, as law enforcement does in its investigation, and as search and rescue does in its own action.  It is the most natural and sensible manner.  

The Interviewer fails to raise suspicion nor does he ask outright: "Have you taken a polygraph?" 

"What would you say to people who suspect you might have had an accident and hidden your son?"in any form. 


Lastly, the father' extreme need to place himself in the truck:  

What caused this sensitivity?

Is it because of the report from a local?  If so, why would this be so sensitive to him?  This may be the context, but the sensitivity is high enough to cause him repetition.  

Or, is it something else?

If it is about the neighbor's report, is he so concerned about it because he thinks it will hinder the search?

Or, is there a more nefarious reason?

Why the story-telling narrative, replete with description language of emotions?  The need to show urgency may be due to guilt over the debate of calling 911, producing a delay in time.  

****************************************************************************



In Part Two, the Interviewer finally gets 'personal' about the parents.   Will he finally dig for information?

Did Brooks Houck Act Alone?

July 20, 2015, 7:57 am

≫ Next: Part Two of DeOrre Parents' Interview

≪ Previous: Statement Analysis: DeOrre's Parents' Interview Part One

$

0

0

                      Did Brooks Houck Act Alone?
by Peter Hyatt

In examining any statement, I only publish at this blog statements that are in the public domain.

This is because I work training law enforcement around the country, (as well as corporate America, and the private sector, especially in hiring) and assist in analysis on many cases.  The analysis, therefore, is only the words publicly reported, and analysis is not done, even on public statements, if the local or hosting department wishes it not to be there.

The blog works as an excellent tool for not only teaching analysis, but for advertising the trainings, but both of these elements are trumped by the integrity of a case.  There are times when, on advice of a prosector, even public transcripts are not analyzed, at least until the case is adjudicated.  Hence, my silence in commenting on some cases.

It is likely that when someone hears this phrase, "I am 100% innocent", they have a sense that the subject (speaker) has a need to add in emphasis about innocence.  Some will recall OJ Simpson, or even Joey Buttafuoco of "Amy Fischer" fame, for what it means to add emphasis to a denial. News media generally reports, "So and So Denies Involvement" but when the article is read, the trained eye finds no denial by the accused or suspected.

Guilty people often say, "I am innocent" while avoiding the structure of a sentence that would be a direct denial of the action.  To say, "I am innocent" is to deny the judicial outcome.  This is not to deny the action.

In the following statement, we have elements that need examination, piece by piece (analysis) to then be brought together (conclusion), as is our order:  breaking down the whole, examining each particle, and putting the particles back together again.


“I’m 100 percent completely innocent in this and I have exhausted my efforts with the law enforcement agencies to gather all the facts necessary to allow me to have a clean name again,” Brooks Houck told the nation on the Nancy Grace Show.  


1.  We have a denial of the judicial conclusion, not the act, or any act, associated with the disappearance of 35 year old Crystal Rogers. 

2.  We do not have, nor did we have, at any time in the televised interview, a denial of the action. 

Statement Analysis recognizes the deception found within denial is often found in the alteration of the most simplistic of denials.  This "often finds" is qualified by many statistics and many examples that show:

An innocent person, that is, one who did not "do it", will deny that action, itself, and perhaps add in the judicial conclusion.  

A deceptive person will alter his denial to avoid a direct lie. 

If a person asserts, "I did not do it", with "it" specifically identified, using no other additional wording, the person is "very likely" to have not done it.  If this same person looks upon his own denial (what is called a "Reliable Denial" in analysis training) and says, "I told the truth", the person is 99.9% likely, statistically, to be innocent, in that, he did not "do it."

It is that when the speed of transmission takes place, the person who is actually guilty, in some form, adds words in, indicating a need to persuade via deception, that we find our information, often within the chosen words of the deceptive person. 

Question for Analysis:  Did Brooks Houck act alone?

At no time did Brooks Houck address the 800 lb. gorilla in the living room:  his involvement in the disappearance of Crystal Rogers.  

We have a rule that goes:  "If the subject is unwilling or unable to say he didn't do it, we will not say it for him. "


“I’m 100 percent completely innocent in this and I have exhausted my efforts with the law enforcement agencies to gather all the facts necessary to allow me to have a clean name again."

This assertion is not a reliable denial and is indicative of deception. Yet, I wish to focus upon the word "this" within his statement.  

Readers have correctly identified the word "clean" with sexual abuse, in that teachers, social workers and investigators all recognize that 'water' is the element of 'cleaning', and the feeling of being 'dirty' is not limited to the victim, but can extend to both, which is why a teacher, for example, takes notice of a child who suddenly begins to wash her hands repeatedly.  

It is the same in language.  

It can point to sexual homicide, or guilt associated with sexual activity.  As the mother of his child, sexual activity is an element in this case, and the subject (Brooks Houck) has a need to feel "clean", in so much that it entered his language. 

Psychologists have shown simple studies of the use of the words "this" and "that", especially by children. We know that in choosing one or the other, while speaking freely, the brain chooses the appropriate term in less than a microsecond.  

"This" indicates closeness, while "That" indicates distance.  

"I  graduated from the University of California at Los Angeles about two years ago with a degree in Engineering" said a job applicant.  

I noted that the pronoun "I" could not be any further away from "Engineering" (capitalized) in the sentence than it is.  This is to create distance, emotionally, from Engineering.  What would cause the distance?

a.  Failure to land a job in Engineering
b.  Failure at Engineering
c.  Discovery of a dislike for Engineering and a desire for a new career direction.  
d.  Unknown, to be determined in the interview process 

Later, it was learned that it was (c) --the subject hated it.  

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky."shows not only the same theme of distancing language, but the additional word "woman", rather than "person" (or nothing at all) confirms that she was a "woman" to him, not a "person" but also that he added in further distancing language with "that" in his sentence.  

We have "this" versus "that" in psychological and even geographical distancing, found within language.  

Psychologists found that "where there is a 'this', there is a 'that'; and where there is a 'that', there is a 'this.'

Consider the following:

The teacher called and told the mother that her little Johnny ran up to Susie and pulled her pig tails.  When Johnny got home, mother said, "Johnny!  Your teacher called and told me that you ran up to Susie and pulled her pigtails!"

Johnny said, "I didn't do that."

Mother, well versed in Statement Analysis intuitively, as mothers are known to be, saw through his unreliable denial and said, "Well, what did you do?"

Johnny admitted he had pulled Susie's pig tails. 

He denied, however, running up to her.  She was right in front of him on line for recess.  

Where there is a 'that', we ask about 'this' and when we find in language that an effort has been made to persuade, and there is an additional word used, we know we must follow through in the interview. 

Brooks Houck is "100% innocent in "this", which then tells us that there is something else he is thinking about, a "that", in which he cannot say he is "100% innocent in.

True enough, the phrase, "100%" is often found in deception, and should the subject be known to use the phrase, "110%" in anything, we know that in his personal, subjective, internal dictionary, 100% is not complete.  

OJ said that Nicole was "200%" in better workout shape than women her age, (or a percentage above 100%) which revealed his own personal dictionary showing that "100%" is not complete.  

In Brooks Houck, he is "100% innocent" in something, but at the time of saying this to national television, he is not 100% innocent in something else.  In "this", he is, but in "that", he is not.  

If in "this" he is "100% innocent" than "someone else holds the guilt", even though he is thinking of "that", of which he is unable to make the same statement. 

This suggests that Brooks Houck may have had some assistance in the disappearance of Crystal Rogers, that holds "associated guilt."

This could be anything but is only found in the interview (or transcripts, via analysis)  and this "anything" ranges from:

a.  Hiring someone to cause her disappearance
b.  Assistance in planning (actual details) 
c.  Assistance  (passive listening) in plotting, that is, the person did not try to stop him
d.  Assistance in cover up
e.  Information on forensics, advice, counsel 
f.   etc

There could be many other ways someone is not 100% innocent, in his mind, and it could be just about anything, but he is, at the time of this statement, actively denying something specific in comparison to something else. 

When analyzing transcripts in law enforcement, the motive often appears, and sometimes, even the details of the crime and subsequent cover up, emerge.  This is called "leakage" in Statement Analysis and requires not only training, but often a "second set of eyes" verifying the analysis, knowing that the original analysis will yield up to 40% more content when a subsequent analysis is done, where the analyst has had an emotional and intellectual "break" from the "trail" he followed originally.  For more of this, please do a search on "The 40% Rule" in this blog.  

Brooks Houck likely had assistance from someone and it must be considered that the person who assisted him may have done so unwittingly.  If, for example, he asked questions about statistics, evidence, investigations, and so on, the person who answered may have had no hint that he was to commit a crime, and inadvertently assisted him, so that his conscience, in its own desire to 'spread around guilt' is thinking of this assistance.  Of course, it could be much more active and nefarious, or it could even be in his internet searches.  Recall the 'assistance' of the man who researched how long a baby lasts in a hot car before dying...prior to his own child's death.  

This means that interviewers must seek to speak to those who were in contact with Houck in the weeks prior to Crystal's disappearance as well as do an exhaustive post mortem of his computer access.  

We all give out our information in the words we choose.  Houck is not the first person to go on national television with the inability to deny the action while denying the judicial conclusion, nor is he the first to "signal" or "telegraph" relevant information about the case.  

When mother of missing 13 year old Hailey Dunn spoke of her "toothache", something a parent frantically searching for her child, is not likely to mention, I told investigators, "drugs is involved in the case", which ended up being a drug related sexual homicide.  In that case, drugs, child pornography, and violence where the unholy trinity of Hailey's demise. 

Here, Houcks has a need to "clean", not "clear", his name, and avoids denying involvement in any portion of her disappearance.  

Part Two of DeOrre Parents' Interview

July 21, 2015, 5:42 am

≫ Next: Does Analysis Teach Criminals To Lie ?

≪ Previous: Did Brooks Houck Act Alone?

$

0

0

This is part two of the analysis of missing 2 year old's parents' interview.  Part one is 

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2015/07/statement-analysis-deorres-parents.html

There are some concerning things from the father, including the praise of failed searches, his constant change of pronouns and self censoring, and his use of unexpected phrases, such as "dead" (twice).  

There is a highly sensitive portion of his statement regarding him in his truck. 

Analysis showed that there was a disagreement between mother and father (with, perhaps, other family too) regarding calling 911.  Someone in the family did not want 911 called immediately. 

This could be anything from guilt, up to confidence that DeOrre would be found quickly.  The delay is seen in the language and is a sensitive point to the father, though perhaps not to the mother.  Her  911 call did not show deception, nor "guilty" knowledge.  This means that in the call, deception is not there, but it is limited to that particular 911 call, and nothing else.  It is the statement analyzed.  

Here the analysis continues in bold type with emphasis added to the statement for clarity.  

I:  Interviewer
D:  DeOrre, the father
J:   Mother 

I : do you plan to hold a vigil down here? I guess you haven't even thought about it. Do you want the community in Idaho Falls to rally? I know they don't want a lot of people up there.

D: that's what we're not real sure. I don't, yet again, as a father who's very concerned, with the whole family, we'll tell you 'yes, if we can get the whole state of Idaho up there we would love to' - but in such a small area that has been combed and combed and combed, something may have been missed but I don't know. 

The subject has done a lot of 'self-censoring' or interrupting of himself, which may indicate missing information.  It would be interesting to learn if this is his normal speech pattern, but this could only be learned in listening to him on a topic unrelated to the disappearance of his son. 

Please note that he says, "as a father who's very concerned" is a need to persuade his audience that his is concerned.  This is sensitive. 

What makes him feel a need to be perceived as a "very concerned" father, so much so, that he is repetitive with it?

Speaking for himself and for his wife, seated with him, the word "we" is appropriate.  While using "we" as a norm, based upon this standard, the use of "I" becomes very important.  

The pronoun "I" comes in "I don't know", of which context is him not knowing if his son could still be there, but missed since they searched "combed", "combed" and "combed" (3 times).  

The broken "I" earlier, where he introduces himself as a father (see above), this broken "I" is not completed.  

I've been trying,,,I'm gonna be getting with the Lhima HC Sherriff in Snake River, sorry, the Salmon - Snake and River-.Salmon Search and Rescue, to see what their thoughts on everything is, and trust me with such a small area, one hundred and seventy five people, there was nowhere to park, nowhere to walk, there was grid searches up from one end - there's ridges from one side to the other and they're not very far apart, and they was all searched, all the way down to the bottom all the way above the reservoir. The rest itself, not a lot of people know the place. The reservoir itself isn't but maybe a few feet deep. If you're up on top you can see the bottom of the centre. If you're looking at the middle you can see the bottom of it, so everything has been 100% thoroughly checked but nobody can guarantee me 100% so I'm gonna keep looking.

"I've been trying...I'm gonna be getting with the Lhima HC Sheriff" is an incomplete sentence, with missing information. 
1.  "I've been trying", in context, is connected to the Sheriff Dept (law enforcement).  He self censors, and it appears that this may be to avoid a direct lie: 

He did not, at this point in the statement, "try" to contact this specific Sheriff Dept (or Sheriff), so he 'corrects' his information with "I'm gonna", which is future tense. 

This is concerning as it indicates a need to place himself as "with the good guys" in helping.  

Next, we see the word "sorry" in his language. 

In Statement Analysis, we highlight the word "sorry" no matter what the context is, when we are viewing a possible suspect in a crime.  

It could be "leakage" regardless of context. 

It shows up in the language of the guilty. 

An example that comes to mind is Casey Anthony.  Many use this expression politely and it is not associated with guilt; therefore it is simply something we note because:

It often shows up in the language of those guilty of having committed a crime in which they are "sorry", one way or another, for.  This "sorrow" may be for the action, or it may be for getting caught (the consequence). 

If it is leakage, it is likely indicative of an unintended death, as "my son", that is, in part one, we saw that the father referenced his child as "my son" in a critical point in the statement, something habitual child abusers avoid.  

Did DeOrre meet his death accidentally, only to now have his father involved in covering the accident?  It is a possibility. 

One of the reasons I say that if something happened, it was unintentional is due to the appropriate and instinctive use of "my son" but there are other reasons.  Please note:

a.  There is no subtle blaming of the child;
b.  There is no subtle insult of the child, even when talking of his limitations

Guilty parties find strange ways to blame the child, including, "fussy", or "you know teenagers" and so on.  Nothing in the language shows a bad relationship between parents and child.  

If Jessica, his wife, knew of it, she did not show it in her 911 call.  

If kidnapped, "sorry" should be discarded and the sensitivity of the father could be related to the guilt of having to chose the location from which his son was kidnapped.  The sensitivity is there:  the challenge is to learn why.  Responsible parents blame themselves for everything, even to the point of having accepted a job and moving the family to the state where the tragedy occurred.  The sensitivity is not due to guilt of the crime, but of having, overall, been responsible.  This sometimes is the case.  

We remain open and wish the subject to guide us.  The interviewer utterly failed to address the biggest issue, and had a perfect opportunity when the father talked about an eye witness seeing him in his truck.  

Here that is again from Part One:  

Jessica: I just, somebody at the store, um at Leador, said, it was one of the ladies that had worked at the store, said that they saw, um, a gentleman and a younger blonde boy matching our description of our son, really filthy, buying candy for him, and he was just bawling, in a black truck. That is the only other...

"I just" is stopped.  She does not complete her sentence.  This topic is sensitive to her.  Why?  Since she did not show deception, is she uncomfortable because it makes the father uncomfortable?

"...said that they saw, umm, a gentleman and a younger blood boy matching our description of our son, really filthy, buying candy for him, and he was just bawling, in a black truck..."

The pause signals a slow down in the process of transmission and it produces the word "gentleman." 

This is interesting.  Is this the language of the worker at the store?  Or, is this new?  "Gentleman" does not say young or old and this father is young.  

Note also that the "younger blonde boy" did not match "my son", nor even "our son" but it only matched "our description of our son", which is different (distancing) than matching "my" son (expected by a biological mother).  It is that the parents are seated together, talking for each other, but there is still an expectation of the powerful maternal instinct. 

The maternal instinct, no matter how powerful a paternal instinct, is seen as stronger.  Recall a "mother bear robbed of its whelps" in history, along with Solomon's note worthy decision, and that mothers will remain in "denial" longer than fathers, in language of acceptance of the death of a missing child.  

It is not what I expected to hear at this point.  Perhaps it is that the mother distances herself because there is no doubt in her mind that it is not her son.  Perhaps.  

The interview begs for clarity and follow up questions.  

DeOrre Sr.: There's a problem, my pick-up truck is black..

This is an unexpected statement.  Is he saying this is a problem because he was seen driving his son, filthy, buying candy or is it a problem simply because it does not make sense?

Why is it a "problem"?  

Better yet, why didn't the interviewer ask him at this point?

Also:  as my expectation is to hear a biological mother say "my" at this point and not "our", please note that "our" is more often the language of step parenting but when it is biological and not two parents speaking together as one, it is often a signal that the parents have seriously discussed divorce; hence, distancing language. 

Is it possible that even the delay in calling 911 along with the pressure of a lost child has caused this in the mother's language?  Listen to what she says next: 

Jessica: he drives a black truck.

Not, "my husband drives a black truck" or plainly, "DeOrre drives a black truck..." but "he."

It is not a 'smoking gun' of evidence, but just a tiny element that causes me to pause and wonder.  This case is a mystery.  

DeOrre Sr.: as a family, we went down to get a few things. It was me, but they claim it was at six o clock...that afternoon, evening, but we..were...

Note the immediate "rebuttal" of sorts:

1.  He drives a black pick up truck" answered with:

2.  Not, "yes I do" but "as a family" (plural) "we went down" and then why "we went down" giving the reason why they went down, followed by:

3.  Admission, "It was me"followed by rebuttal:

4.  "but" and to the time period. 

This is not to deny going but to classify it within time, but before time, company.  

Jessica: Earlier, it was earlier that day

DeOrre Sr.: ..with search and rescue until what, a quarter to four..?

Jessica: yeah..

DeOrre Sr.: we didn't, we never, haven't left the camp since one o clock that afternoon, so it's just a lot of hearsay, and..

This statement is very concerning.  

a.  "we didn't" is stopped. 

b.  "we never" is stopped.

c.  "haven't left" is a dropped pronoun, removing himself from this.  

d.  Note the need to dismiss as "hearsay"

This should have caused the Interviewer to ask him if he had driven with his son, alone, at any time in the day.  Sometimes time frames can be mix ups, but it is the responsibility of the Interviewer to ask.  


The poor quality of the interview leaves not only the father in control of information, but leaves the reader with more questions than answers.  It is very poorly done.  

interviewer: was anybody camping round you?

D: that we don't know is...I come to find, I didn't know the area, and I didn't know, I ..there, it's very open but you can't see much ...there's a road that goes up and along the top - we're camped underneath the reservoir, basically right below it, and you can go up above the reservoir, and I didn't even know the road was, did that, I didn't know the road was up there, and as I travelled up there myself, I could've found out [?] I could see everything that was going on at the campsite, but you can't see out - you can't see up, you can't see round and if anyone comes to the bottom of your camp ground you can't even see they are...
interviewer: So they could've come to your...

The father's habit of speech is to speak rapidly and lots of self censoring.  We note that this does not seem to change or shift much, from topic to topic.  We note the self censoring coupled with broken pronouns.  It is concerning.  

"I come to hear" is present tense. 

Note the change from "we" to "I" being very important to him:  it is about the area.  It is likely, according to the language, that he is very sensitive about having chosen this spot for his family to camp.  

Overall, he allows for the sound to help conceal someone:

D: they could've come in and you could never know it. The water was not very, it was not a fast running creek, but it is quite loud moving through the logs and things like that, so hearing range is not all that far either..so's you couldn't hear anyone coming up either.


Interviewer: so he was just kind of playing, you guys were doing your thing and then you noticed...

D: he was playing with grandpa

J: he, yeah, he was with my grandfather

The parents relate to him differently.  "Grandpa" is a word a child might use, while "my" shows the biological being more likely.  "Grandpa" often a term of endearment, suggests that the father does not have, at this point, animosity (blame) towards Grandpa.  I wonder if Jessica felt the same.  

********end of clipped section of part one***************************

Jessica: we'll continue to look until he is found - we don't care how long it takes, we, and we think as many people that have shared the story and continue to share his pictures and things like that, if somebody has him, they'll eventually bring him back...and they will come forward with some sort of information.

Guilty parents sometimes say they will "never stop searching." 

D: somebody will come forward wondering where this child has come from. That may not be the case, but it could be, so that's why we're trying to look at this aspect as well.

The use of the word child could:

a.  Be a signal that he, father, was a victim of child abuse in his life
b.  a signal of abuse of the son, which is not consistent with other language 
c.  a signal of fear that a child molester has him 

it is associated with child abuse, but it is in the follow up questions that we learn the details, should the context not tell us. 

I: and you want people to keep sharing?

The interviewer's own inexperience, or nervousness could be the reason for this.  It is difficult to learn and often helpful to have video taped sessions reviewed, something very few enjoy, but most all say helps them grow in their use of the principles of analytical interviewing.  

J: yes, please keep sharing photos.

D: yes. Keep sharing his photos, keep him in your mind, your hearts and your prayers, and just keep looking, keep your eyes open, please. Social media in general, in public just keep your eyes open and keep sharing.

I: tell me about the blanket.

Jessica: this is his blanket. He doesn't go anywhere without his blanket, his cup, or his monkey, and all three of them were left at the campground. And since he..

D: All three has to be with him.

It is not unusual for husbands and wives to finish each others' sentences.  The majority of finishing sentences comes from wives. Here, he is the dominant speaker 

J: Yes.

D: He will trip over them if he has to, but they are going with him, and this is the first time since he's been born, pretty much, that he's been without these things...and that's another reason why we were wondering.

I would have liked to hear the child's name.  If this is an accident/cover up, the guilt can cause such distancing language.  

J: Yes, because this is the blanket that we brought him home in from the hospital, this is his, this is what comforts him and at all times.

D: This is an exact replica of a security blanket, for everybody this is his actual blanket - he does not go anywhere without it, that's our other concern of why.

J: Yeah, and I..

Interviewer: should he be out there and happen to see this, what would you say?

Keep in mind that the Interviewer directed them to speak directly to their son: 

D: We're looking for you, son, and we will find y,oh, and we love you more than anything in the world. You have a lot of people who love you and who are looking for you, buddy, we'll find you - Daddy will find you.

J: We won't stop looking until we get you home.

I: [inaudible].- is there anything you want to add?

J: Just if somebody has him, please don't hurt him, just bring him home safely to us.

Mother introduces "hurt" 

D: No matter what it takes.

J: ..where he belongs. Even if you have to just leave him at a store where somebody else will see him and bring him home safely to us. I don't - just drop him off somewhere where -

D: And if that's not the case..

J: - somebody is at so they can see him and bring him home.

D: And if that may not be the case, I will, we will search for you, and search for you, and search for you, until we find you, no matter how long it takes, no matter what we gotta overcome, we will find you,son.

Next, a synopsis of the case and conclusion of Statement Analysis 

---

Does Analysis Teach Criminals To Lie ?

July 21, 2015, 6:42 am

≫ Next: Pop Quiz: Body Posture in Statement Analysis

≪ Previous: Part Two of DeOrre Parents' Interview

$

0

0

"Teaching Criminals To Lie"

                                                                by Peter Hyatt

Once, someone said I was  teaching future murderers how to lie on 911 calls in a domestic homicide cases.

In this discussion, I failed to persuade him that in domestic homicides, it was not likely that the perpetrator of a domestic homicide would:

a.  Study how to deceive a 911 operator in a future, planned homicide
b.  Come across this blog entry
c.  Learn how to apply them
d.  Avoid the free editing process in answering questions from the 911 operator
e.  Avoid being interviewed after the report to 911 because the interview would drag him into a place where scripting and Statement Analysis training would fail him.


Question:  Can publication of analysis teach a criminal how to lie?

Answer:   No.

In fact, we, the "Interviewer" in law enforcement, civil investigations, insurance investigations, human resources investigations, and so on, are more likely to teach a subject how to lie, than any training or publication of analysis.  I will show exactly how this is.

First, what about the publication of analysis?

There are two answers to this, one being a principle of analysis:

In the free editing process, it is close to  impossible to lie outright.

Example:

Jonbenet Ramsey case. 

Some facts and assertions :

Jonbenet Ramsey, 6,  was murdered in her home right after Christmas, 1996, either before or after midnight, with the parents choosing "December 25" on her tombstone.

John Ramsey did not fit the profile of a killer, as former FBI profiler and author John Douglas asserted.

John and Patsy Ramsey did not cooperate with the investigation as innocent parents would.  This included refusal to be interviewed separately, obtaining lawyers immediately, and so on.  Later, this included failed polygraphs and "polygraph" shopping to find one who would pass them, and refuse, for life, to reveal a specific question asked in the polygraph.  The fall out from the case was wide spread.

John and Patsy Ramsey were indicted in the death, via child abuse, of Jonbenet, by a Grand Jury.

District Attorney Alex Hunter refused to sign the indictment, effectively completing his sabotage of the investigation, in cooperation with Ramseys' attorneys.

Statement Analysis revealed:

1.  The Ransom note was deceptive, in that it was not a genuine directive to pay a ransom in exchange for the child.

2.  The author of the ransom note wrote specifically to mislead the investigation highlighting the need to deceive.

3.  John and Patsy Ramsey were both indicated for deception in their statements

4.  Sexual abuse was associated with their language of the Ramseys, which coincided with Jonbenet's history of bed wetting, urinary tract infections and the sexualization of the child, via the beauty pageant circuit.

What did John Ramsey say to a national audience?

"I did not kill my daughter, Jonbenet."

This is not only a reliable denial, but uses the complete social introduction of

a.  "my" (possessive pronoun)
b.  "daughter" (title)
c.  "Jonbenet" (name)

This indicates a good relationship.

The denial has:

a.  The pronoun "I"
b.  The past tense "did not"
c.  The specific allegation "kill"

The Statement Analysis principles thus indicate, from this statement, that John Ramsey did not kill Jonbenet, and he had a good, father-daughter relationship.

It is also completely unreliable.

How can this be so?

The average person has an internal vocabulary of 25,000 words.  John Ramsey, an intelligent man, likely has even more.  When speaking freely, he must go into this vast library of words and choose only a few, leaving out the vast majority, order them properly, and use appropriate tenses and syntax.

All this must be in less than a microsecond of transmission from the brain.

In the free editing process, this rapid transmission is the basis for our success:  it is why we look at the mumbling of "umm" or "well" as a pause, or disruption in the speed of transmission. It is the need to pause, itself, that we 'pounce' upon with our questions.  ("pounce", but not necessarily immediately, as waiting is often wise).

Ramsey did not make this statement freely, early, or of his own accord when the body of Jonbenet was first found.

In fact, Statement Analysis had already been published in media by the time he made this statement, months after the murder, in correlation with his attorneys. This publication included radio broadcasts.

It was not made in the free editing process no more than Amanda Knox' denial in her recent book (even if she wrote it) while refusing to be truthful in so many opportunities prior to the book.

For John Ramsey, it was a carefully prepared statement after much coaching by his attorneys.  If you were his attorneys and knew the truth, would you not read or listen to analysis, and counter it?

Next, and even more importantly:

Even when a criminal understands that he must issue a reliable denial, by bringing him into the Free Editing Process (FEP), that is, when he is freely speaking on his own, he will still give away the truth.

Should he have the need to disrupt the speed of transmission to say, "I did not kill my daughter, Jonbenet", or in a recent case, should Brooks Houck have been informed of analysis of his statement online, it will not preclude him from the same principles of language we are all subject to.  

All the liar can do is parrot a lie.

Former police chief William McCollum shot his wife, New Year's Eve, this past year.  Statement Analysis indicated him for deception, specifically about how the gun got into his bed, and for "extreme psychological distancing" from his wife and victim, Maggie McCollum.

                                The analysis did not conclude that he shot her intentionally.

The analysis concluded, however, that he deliberately lied about how the gun got into his bed, and that the situation of the shooting was one of which triggered his anger.  What does this mean, practically?

It means animosity towards the victim and deception which could have caused investigators to understand:  this guy threatened his wife, brought the gun to bed to terrorize her, even if it went off while moving it.

He made it through an entire 911 call giving the least possible amount of information, and avoided using his wife's name, the pronoun "my" and the word "wife." It is a stunning example of distancing language.  He likely did not shoot her on purpose (she would not have survived) but this was not all there was to the story.

What might he say today?

"I did not shoot my wife, Maggie, on purpose" giving us words he refused to give during the Free Editing Process and the extraneous scenario of a 911 call.


He did not shoot his wife intentionally, but he did bring the gun into the bed intentionally.  

paralyzed from the waist down

Parroting Language. 

Parroting language is language in which we repeat another's words.  It should be understood, psychologically, by all Interviewers, criminal and civil, that:

a.  Parroting Language is not reliable
b.  Parroting Language reduces internal stress for the subject 

It is less stressful to parrot back answers, even more so than "yes or no" questions, within an interview.

It is why we ask legally sound, open ended questions and avoid with all effort, the introduction of language to the Interview.

Literally, we teach subjects to lie in the interview process and can even teach one how to pass a polygraph. 

This is one of the most least understood principles impacting a polygrapher.   The polygrapher must learn or decode the subject's own language.

Each one of us has our own internal subjective dictionary and the polygrapher must listen, and be the one who parrots.

How we phrase our questions often teaches the subject:

a.  what we know
b.  what evidence exists
c.  what others have said about him
d.  what is in our minds
e.  the direction of the investigation
f.  whether or not he should continue to talk to us

in short, how we phrase our questions teaches him to lie.

Even patrol recognizes the purpose of, "Do you know why I pulled you over?" up to

"Do you know why we are here for an interview?" to allow the subject to reveal knowledge and not the other way around. 

Next:

Parroting language is not only deemed "unreliable" (which it is) but there is more to parroting language than just being unreliable:

It is the need to parrot which makes it sensitive, by itself. 

Each time the subject has to withdraw himself from freely choosing his own words, he is avoiding the question at hand further affirming to us:  we have a guilty person before us.

We, the Interviewer, can literally teach a suspect how to lie by the words we choose in our interview process, which is why the interview training (Analytical Interviewing) is:

a.  Based upon Statement Analysis
b.  Requires 'hands on' practice of interviewing, step by step
c.  Is legally sound, protecting all rights
d.  Is approved by union officials, attorneys, etc
e.  Clears the innocent

Even when a defense attorney interrupts the answer, the interruption, itself, is necessary and yields information for us.

In the case of Brooks Houck, he was unwilling or incapable of issuing a reliable denial in the disappearance of 35 year old.  Should he return to the show and say, "I just want to state this from the beginning, I did not..."even the untrained would say, "Isn't this a bit late?"

In Hailey Dunn's murder, mother, Billie Jean Dunn and her attorney, not only had the analysis, but carried it around with them in printed versions.  This still did not stop her from being indicated for deception.

Why not?

Because we, as humans, have a very difficult time lying and once we are in the free editing process, other than parroting, we are going to give ourselves away in deception.

Understanding Statement Analysis, it is so that reading the analysis can only produce parroting, but once he is moved into the free editing process, the information we week to conclude the case will either come out via his words, or he will refuse to cooperate.  By going on national television and not issuing a RD, revisiting the show, making the statement, should not preclude Nancy Grace from asking open ended questions as well as specific questions based upon his answers.

It is very difficult for a human to lie effectively, and it is not simply based upon "conscience" and it does not mean that sociopaths get a "pass" on this.

Sociopaths also feel the stress of lying because of the source of the stress is not the conscience (which is useful in interviewing the larger population) but due to the disruption in the speed of transmission.

Sociopaths' language reveals the "need to deceive" even if it is just for self-protection and not for empathetic reasons.  We humans have an incredibly vast way of self-justification, but even if no desire for self-justification exists, and there is no fear of being caught, there is still the fact that information translated into language that does not come from experiential memory will slow down the speed of transmission, causing a stressful reaction in language.  

"What does it matter?"

As to conscience, it can be minimized, or even deadened, but the language will reveal this, and as a study, it is of great value to Human Resource professionals in hiring, particularly when weeding out potential thieves from employment.

Those who appear unfazed by empathy for fellow humans ("What does it matter?") or even those who care little for consequence, still reveal themselves in language.

Lawyers who defend, successfully, criminals, can attempt to minimize the impact upon conscience by telling themselves that they are "only" doing their job, protecting the rights of their client, fulfilling their duties, etc.  But what might an attorney, for example, who saw the Ramseys repeatedly fail polygraphs until they "found" just the right one?

Answer this question by putting yourself in their shoes.  What might you tell yourself in order to sleep?  Would you say, "They're not murderers.  It wasn't intentional", or "I'm not the one that passed them, the polygrahper was", or, "I can't apologize for being good at my craft" or any of a host of excuses?

Analysis does not teach criminals to lie.  Poorly trained Interviewers, however, just might.  Once a criminal knows the language of the polygrapher does not match his own, he can "beat" the test by getting it to either not catch him outright, or to give "inconclusive" as a result. If the entire session is recorded, you are likely to hear the pre-screening interview have too many words spoken by the polygrapher to be an uncontaminated interview.  

A man who wishes to murder his wife, for example, rather than be destroyed financially and lose custody of his kids may plan such a thing.  He may 'study' the topic of missing persons, online.  He (or she), for example, may study "chloroform" and even use it, as was the case of Casey Anthony, and an attorney will come up with lies to disregard it, (as if a defense attorney's original call was to use deception as a tool to 'win the game') or even deceptively persuade a jury that it was for something else, but eventually, in the free editing process, the truth comes out.

This is an essential part of the training, and elevates interviewers to the point of excellence, rather than to rely upon someone else, which includes submitting a strong interview to a district attorney for prosecution; one in which is very difficult to ignore, as Statement Analysis, now in writing, "analytical report writing) is strong, and will suggest to clear minded individuals, that the person "did it" without the weakness of persuasive language.

The training is intense, but so are the results.

Let them parrot all they want, but once they are talking freely, we will get the information we need to get to the truth.

Pop Quiz: Body Posture in Statement Analysis

July 22, 2015, 5:47 am

≫ Next: Statement Analysis of Mother Who's Toddler Cried for Forty Minutes in Portland Maine

≪ Previous: Does Analysis Teach Criminals To Lie ?

$

0

0

"I was seated between two beautiful women" was said by me, recently, employing the 'body posture' within the sentence.  I now write it here, for you.

What does it mean?

I want you to analyze this truthful statement with your conclusion before reading the rest of the article.  

You're on the honor system to do this.

Done?

Now scroll down for today's  Statement Analysis  lesson.



















******************************************************************************

Body posture within a statement is flagged, via underlining, for a specific reason.  Here is a sentence that will exhibit plainly, why this is.

1.  "My boss said for me to be at work at 9am."

2.  "My boss told me to be at work at 9am."

3.  "My boss stood and told me to be at work at 9am." 


What the sense in the three above statements is noted even though each one is a communication from one in authority to a subordinate regarding being at work at the same time.

The difference in these three sentences is noted in Statement Analysis.  To the "dulled listening" that is done by most all (the untrained world), the meaning is the same.

Statement Analysis says that every word has meaning, and, as a rule, hard and fast, there is no such thing as a synonym in analysis.  The difference comes from within the subject

Recall:

Each person has their own internal, subjective personal dictionary, of about 25,000 words.  Those of higher intelligence may have as many as 35,000, but on average, 25,000 is a 'safe' number.

When asked, "What did you do this morning?" the subject:

1.  Cannot say everyone that he did.  It is impossible to do so.  It would be incessant in description, therefore, the person must, first of all, decide what information he wishes to share, and what information to leave out;  this speaks to priority;

2.  Must give the order of the information, with ease coming from chronological order, as it happened, which is not taxing for the memory;

3.  Must decide, out of 25,000, which words to use;

4.  Of these specific words, the tenses must be chosen;

5.  The subject must decide where each word goes, next to which word, to make sense

of which all of this takes place in less than a micro-second in time.

This is called the "speed of transmission" as the brain, the warehouser of 25,000 words, takes precisely what it wants, in the order it wants, with the syntax it wants, in an amazingly short amount of time.

The speed of transmission is perfected through years of speaking.  Therefore, when someone says "we", it is 100% guaranteed that the brain knows it is not just one person, alone, being reference to another.

It is also why we highlight "umm" or any pause to think, as a 'slowing down' of the speed.

Now compute this with the broken sentences of self-censoring, and take it even further into deception.

To lie means to disrupt this speedy process.  The disruption is the principle cause of internal stress for the subject which negates the 'sociopaths do not feel stress for lying' argument.

With this speed of transmission, in an open statement, there are no synonyms used as their might be when someone is doing creative writing.

The best way to "prove" this is the most practical way.

When you hear someone use a change of language, point it out to him or her and ask what caused the change of language.

If you hear someone go from being a "man" to a "person, or a "person" to a "guy", for example, (If you have read enough here to move yourself away from the dulled listening, you will 'hear' it live eventually) and ask about it.  Even "jewelry" that became a "necklace" has significant meaning.

You are likely to hear, "Huh?", and "I didn't change my language" and "I didn't realize I did that" and so on.

In this speed of transmission we have the free editing process easily recognized:  the person is speaking without forethought, that is, "live" or "on the fly" (to hockey fans) and not stopping to consider each word.  This is where we may note the pace of which someone regularly speaks going through a dramatic slow down as significant enough to be "sensitive" to the person.

Now consider hearing one of the three original sentences:


1.  "My boss said for me to be at work at 9am."

2.  "My boss told me to be at work at 9am."

3.  "My boss stood and told me to be at work at 9am." 

In the first sentence, the person just "said it." The person ("subject") did not pause to ask himself, "hmmm, should I use "said" or should I use "told"?" but rather quickly, without disruption, used "said" as the preferred choice.  Certainly the person with 25,000 words in his head knows the word "told", too, but chose "said", instead, without disrupting the speed of transmission.

The second person either:

a.  Said the exact same thing as the other two; or

b.  Gave us additional information from the slight variation in wording.

Statement Analysis teaches (b)

This person said, "My boss told me to be at work at 9am"instead of the word "said."

In the English language, we find that "told" is used more often in:

a.  Authoritative situations

b.  One way informing

c.  Arguments 

d.  Instructional 

It has a 'firmer' feel to it, and may even be less 'polite' than "said." In the second sentence, it is authoritatively communicated and is most certainly not a request.  In fact, this simple difference in wording is likely causing some readers to think that:

1.  The use of  "told" instead of "said" may even intimate possible consequences for being late.  

2.  The subject may have a history of being late; or

3.  Others in the company have been late; 

4.  The boss may be difficult, demanding, punctual, hypocritical, harsh, and so on, or may have a short fuse...

and on and on we go because "told" has ow raised questions for us that "said" may not have.  

The difference between sentence one and sentence two may have a difference in personalities, temperament and situations!  These two sentences do not communicate the exact same thing.  

The third sentence (3) goes even further:

"My boss stood and told me to be at work at 9am"not only carries the weight of "told" over "said" but as the subject is going into memory, and into the 25,000 word dictionary, he is adding a word that is not necessary to complete the sentence. 

Statement Analysis principle:  Unnecessary words are deemed very important to analysis.  

That the third sentence brought in, via memory, the boss' body posture, we note that this is likely due to an "increase of tension" on the part of the subject, as he recalls and tells us "what happened" via the high speed process transmitting language from the brain to the tongue. 

If sentence two raised questions about atmosphere, mood, and even history, sentence three adds "tension" to the picture, and for the trained Interviewer ("Analytical Interviewing") this addition of body posture as seen in just one word, will cause Interviewer to ask follow up questions and not simply 'move on' in the interview process.  

It was important enough for the subject to add it in, it is important enough for us to learn why. 

Sometimes the context itself can tell us why without having to ask, but sentence three has given us additional information, while the dulled listening that is normally done in society, has missed it. 

Hyper-analysis.  "I was seated between two beautiful women" uses body posture.  "This must have been "very tense"; perhaps his wife was jealous, or...".  

Hmm.  We must always remain open minded when we find principle, as to the reason for its application. 

The two women were my wife and daughter, not two strangers, described as "beautiful women" as a wrong understanding might have led someone to believe:  my wife peers with anger, explaining why body posture was in my wording.  Not so. 

Getting ready to attend a church in Bucksport, Maine,  my wife and daughter inadvertently dressed in blue skirts with red sweaters.  Both love fashion, and thought they were 'pushing the envelop' with blue and red, but neither realized how closely they had dressed until we were about out the door.

Analysis Conclusion:

I was actually recalling sitting together, feeling proud of them when I said the above statement, and later wrote it in the article.

 We visited a church we had not visited in years which meant the last time we visited, Christina was a lot shorter than Heather.  This posture was in my mind, when I wrote the statement:  how I used to put them on either side of me, at this location, when Christina was much younger.  It was a pleasant memory.  However, upon visiting and seeing people I had not seen in years, I felt a bit of apprehension.  What would they say?  Would they think, "he's gotten old"?  What would I feel when I see others, especially some of advanced years?  Would they be in health?  Would the same wisdom of the ages be in their voices?  Did they miss us?  Would they feel a bit...negative, for having not had us visit in so long?   This was compounded by the fact that I know that Heather felt a bit nervous, and it was further compounded to by my knowledge that Christina was going to be told, likely several times, "you've grown!" which might be a bit awkward.

There was an increase in 'tension' in the wording,  though not altogether negative.  There are a lot of different ways I could have expressed my sentiment, but my brain went to body posture, and although not terribly serious, it still shows an increase in emotion, without pre thought, within my words.

Visiting the church was a great experience and one that, in spite of the drive, was repeated.

When we cite principle, we must stretch our imaginations to wonder why, and be open for any possibility, seeking to learn the reality from the context, and in cases where there is no context, specifically from the Analytical Interview.

Had I heard this statement, I would have needed to ask questions:

Where were you?
What were you doing?
Who was there?
Had you seen them before?
What are they like?
What do they think of you?
What was the interaction like?

and so on....

Statement Analysis of Mother Who's Toddler Cried for Forty Minutes in Portland Maine

July 22, 2015, 4:39 pm

≫ Next: Exercise: Victim Status and Deceptive Scams

≪ Previous: Pop Quiz: Body Posture in Statement Analysis

$

0

0

                                                 What a story! A "she said; she said" battle.  

Having been born and raised in New York, but living the last decade in Maine, I know that culturally, they are two very different places with  two very different expectations in public.  

I am also a parent of six children and two grandchildren.  I did not raise my voice in disciplining my children, as yelling at children (other than to be heard over noise), was not my way of child raising.  I found that lowering my voice was far more effective.  There is no excuse for yelling at the child and this analysis of the mother's statement does not justify the yelling.  

Two wrongs do not make a right, and the diner owner has admitted yelling at the child, so the wrong is acknowledged there.  But what of the mother's story?

Let's look at it to see:  Was she negligent?  Was she rude to the other patrons by not attending to her child?  What about the father?  Were these two so absorbed in conversation that they neglected the needs of one who is incapable of self care?

A diner owner could take no more and finally yelled at a toddler who, she claimed, had cried for 40 minutes straight and subsequently, the dinner owner  lambasted over social media with some saying that they would boycott her diner.

Who yells at a toddler?  versus Who lets their toddler cry for 40 minutes straight?

Diner:  The parents did not care about their toddler and let her cry for 40 minutes straight.  I yelled at the child to stop and she did.

An eyewitness claimed that the parents ordered pancakes for the toddler, but instead of consistently  feeding her, instead just kept talking at each other while the child screamed on and on.


Now, the mother is getting involved and has had her side of the story.

Question for analysis:  is the mother telling the truth?  Did she really let the child cry on and on for 40 minutes, as alleged?

Statement Analysis is in bold type with italics and underlining added for emphasis.

Form:  The statement is 643 words, including the title, "I'm the mom..."

A truthful account of an event is often found in the form of what Statement Analysis calls the 25/50/25 formula where

1.  25% of the words tells us the setting;
2. 50% of the words tells us what happened;
3.  25% of the words tells us what followed the event.

Decades of research has found that whether it is spoken or written, truthful people end up with a percentage close to this, and that when someone is deceptive, they often are 'out of balance' with a heavy weighed introduction.  When the majority of words are about "after' what happened, the conclusion is:  the story is not over, that is, the writer may have intentions beyond what has been written.

This account:

627 words after title, from "what happened"

1.  229 words introduction       36%
2.  124 words main event         20%
3.  274 words post encounter   44%

Principle:  Deviation from 25% 50% 25% is Unreliable.

I’m the mom whose encounter with an angry Maine diner owner went viral. Here’s what happened.

Making national news was the last thing we expected on our quiet summer getaway to Maine this week.

Where someone chooses to being their statement is always important; sometimes, it is even the reason for writing.  It is interesting to note that she began her statement with "making national news" and that she includes the word "quiet" in this opening sentence. 

Principle:  Opening sentence = importance and sometimes reveals motive. 

Please note that "this is what happened" is part of the title, and answers the question, "What happened?" This is precisely where we look for a statement to begin:  following the question, "What happened?" to glean information. 

Here, it is very important to the writer that this story went national. 

This causes us, in analysis, to ask, "Why?  Why is it important to the writer that this story went national?"

We listen for her to guide us to an answer. 

One rainy morning, my husband, baby daughter and I went out for breakfast. We had stayed overnight in Portland, a place close to our hearts where my husband spent a lot of time in the Coast Guard. He suggested wegrab breakfast at this diner he knew of. We figured it would have quick service and be family friendly.

She does not use her husband's name, nor the baby daughter's name, which is incomplete social introduction, but it may be that she did not want to since this is "national" news.  "My husband", although lacking even his first name, still has "my" in the possessive pronoun.  

Note to "grab" breakfast would be to move quickly. 

Note the pronouns:  "we had stayed..." and "we grab", but in choosing the diner, he suggested.  This is important enough for her to mention it to us, the audience.  This brings our attention to both of them, and how they relate to one another.  

She confirms "grab" with "quick service", which is now repeated.  

Principle:  Repetition indicates sensitivity. 

Why the need to tell us that she was looking for a fast meal, so much so that it is repeated as a theme with "grab" and "quick"?

Note that "family friendly" is an assumption that "we" made; not her.  
Question:  Has the writer eaten at restaurants that she would consider not "family friendly"?
I would also like to learn:  
Has the writer experienced trouble at other restaurants, as a mother? 

Remember the context of which she is writing this statement for national publication. 

Note that she wants the national audience to know he was in the Coast Guard.  

When we arrived, we were told there would be a 30-minute wait for a table. While not ideal, we knew that on a Saturday morning in a tourist town, there would likely be a wait everywhere.

We finally got a table and ordered food. I ordered pancakes for my daughter, which took about 40 minutes to arrive.

Follow the pronouns: 

"When we arrived"

"We were told"

"We knew"

"We finally got a table"

then, "I" ordered pancakes for my daughter. 

She does not say, "we ordered breakfast." 

Each person has their own internal dictionary.  It contains about 25,000 words on average.  When they relate "what happened", they must choose what words to use and what information to share.  No one can tell us everything that happened, so she must choose which to tell us and which to leave out; this speaks to priority. 

She leaves out what she had for breakfast. 
She leaves out what her husband had for breakfast. 
She broke off the string of "we" (pronouns) to bring forth the strong, "I", making it personal.  

Why the need to tell us what she ordered for her daughter?
If it is important, why does she not tell us what she ordered for herself, or for her husband?

It is important to her that her audience know that they, as parents, did not order, but she, herself, as mother, did, and not for herself, or her husband, but only her daughter. 
This is an assertion of herself as a mother. 

One might wonder if she has been accused of neglect as she has a need to assert her daughter's breakfast as her own choice, important enough to mention detail, while excluding her breakfast and her husband's breakfast. 
Did they eat at the diner?

She also used the number "40" in "40 minutes", as a delay. 

Question:  What is the delay she describes?

Answer:  It is a delay of her daughter's breakfast only; not the breakfast for others. We do not know if they ate breakfast even though "we" is used repeatedly about the place chosen to eat.  

One may question if the mother went to the restaurant with intention other than eating:  were these parents arguing, for instance, and wanted a place to sit to talk while the baby was occupied?
Why the need to tell us the 40 minute delay after the 30 minute wait? 
She specifically chose "40 minutes" as the delay time for her daughter's breakfast.  
It is also the length of time that the diner owner claimed the mother let her child cry through, without soothing or quieting her.  

Please note that "my daughter" is the expected from a biological parent.  It is the norm, so that we must follow it, expecting it to remain.  Should it change, there will be a change in reality.  

 At this point, my21-month-old was getting antsy, as I imagine most would when they have to sit in one place and wait for a long time. 

Note that "my" continues, in relation to the child, but the child is now given a new 'title', that is, a "21-month old", to emphasize the exact age. 

Note "I imagine" is used instead of "as most would..." 

Does the writer need to "imagine" this?

Or, does she have friends with toddlers who act differently than her own?

Please note:  "when they have to sit in one place and wait for a long time" tells us that the parents made her sit in one place for a long time.  They did not take her for a walk around, nor hold her, rock hit, sit her on their laps, and so on. 
This is an important piece of information for readers as it comes from the mother, herself. 

She wasn’t having a meltdown, so we decided to stay in our corner booth rather than go outside in the rain. 

They based their decision on something that wasn't happening.  This is an indication of deception.  
They could have based their decision to stay put, on what did not happen:  this is innumerable.  "We decide to stay in our corner booth because she did not need a diaper change"
"We decided to stay in our corner booth because no one wasn't doing anything..."
This 'marking of time on what did not happen" was the deceptive norm for Billie Jean Dunn and her New Year's Eve party.  
I have asked people:  "Where were you when you did not win the lottery?" They answer, "huh?

I then ask, "Where were you on 9/11?"

That is to say:  we do not mark time by what did not happen, but by what did happen. 

Here is where an issue arises regarding veracity.  Recall our "form" test showed "Unreliable"

1.  She "wasn't having a meltdown" is in the negative.  
Principle:  What one reports in the negative is always important. 
Did anyone say she was having a "meltdown"?
Also, we need to learn the writer's own personal, subjective internal dictionary about what a "meltdown" is. 
Since it is reported in the negative, we must ask:
Was she having a meltdown, with "meltdown" described by the writer's family?
Was she close to having a meltdown?

2.  "We decided" now brings the pronoun "we" back, after she, herself, ordered for her child.  "We decided" indicates that this would be a discussion, or even a debate, that led to a decision. 

3.  Note that only reported alternative to staying in the corner booth was to go outside in the rain.  
How did they get there?  Since they had other restaurants in mind, choosing this one because it was emotionally connected to her husband, was there no alternative but rain?
This is to say:  no car to take the child to?

4.  That a "decision" was necessary, it is an indication that a situation arose in which a "decision" had to be made.  This is to tell us that something happened here. 

5.  That something happened here is indicative in the change of language.  
At this point, she is no longer "my daughter" to the writer. 
Question:  What has happened that has caused the writer to take away the status of being a "daughter" and change her into a "21-month old"?

Answer:   "She wasn't having a meltdown."

This is to say that the child's behavior caused the mother to change her from a "daughter" status, to a "21-month old" that is in her imagination, like others.  

Principle: A change of language is indicative of a change in reality. 

In the noisy dinerI didn’t see anyone looking at us or think we were causing a disturbance. (If that had been the case, we would have gladly taken our baby outside.)

It is no longer a "restaurant" but a "noisy" diner.  
Note that truthful people tell us what happened and not what did not happen. 
Note that she said, "I didn't see anyone looking at us", which means that she was looking at others. 
Note she says, "or think we were causing a disturbance" which is to say she knew what others were not looking at and not thinking.  
This is where truthful people report what they saw, what was said, and so on, but dishonest people tell us what did not happen, including what others did not "think."
Note the introduction of "disturbance" in her language.  

Now note, most importantly, the change in pronouns:
"we would have gladly taken our baby outside."
1.  "we" and not "I"
2.  "baby" and not "daughter" nor "21-month old"
3.  The "disturbance" that did not happen has produced the pronoun "our", that is, to 'share' ownership of the child. 
This is found in the language of biological parents when:
a.  They are being jointly interviewed, speaking collectively
b.  Have a need to share, usually something negative (bad grades)
c.  Have discussed divorce or separation

In this scenario, the writer has introduced the language of divorce while adding the word "disturbance" and being dishonest about the reaction of others.  The "disturbance" was likely between husband and wife, while the child continued to "meltdown" without the subject telling us that she or her husband intervened.  
Also note that she didn't see anyone, but she does not say her husband did not see anyone looking at the "disturbance"; 
Note the embedded "we were causing a disturbance" is not only an admission, but it suggests that it was not just the child that was "melting down" but there was trouble between husband and wife. 

When the food came, my daughter was still fussing. My husband and I decided that we would eat our food quickly then leave.

Now, while "fussing" she is back to being "my daughter." 

Disturbance is "our" but with the lesser term, she reclaims her child as her own. 
Note the word "still" tells us that something was going on before this time. 
Note that instead of "we decided" there is another change of reality:  "My husband ad I decided we would eat our food quickly then leave"; 
a.  "My husband and I" during this time of escalation
b.  They made a decision:  to eat their food quickly and then leave.  But recall that they had already decided to choose a place that would be "quick service" and fast.  This is also something that is not honest.  
c.  "and leave" begs the question:  What else would you do after eating but leave?  The only difference would be if you had other plans at the restaurant. 
Did they go for a different reason?

Out of nowhere, Marcy’s Diner owner Darla Neugebauer threw to-go containers at my husband and yelled, “Either she goes or you go!”

Note that in the national audience, the writer wants the city, state and exact name of the Diner and the full name of the owner, published.  She wants to make certain that detail is known by all, and not just a worker, woman or owner, but the specifics.  This is very important to the writer. 

Note the quote, "either she goes or you go" is to be examined: 

a.  To whom was this directed?

b.  Did the speaker of this quote mean that either the child leaves, or the mother leaves and the child and father stay?

c.  Is this an "either or" statement?  Would there really be a possibility that the child could stay if the mother left?
d.  Did she quote the owner accurately?

We hadn’t seen this woman before and didn’t know who she was. She seemed so unprofessional that we didn’t take it seriously. Our waitress seemed embarrassed by the owner’s behavior too.
Note that the "woman" was not unprofessional, but only "seemed" so unprofessional. 
If you were told either you go or your child goes, would you take it "seriously"?

I continued feeding my childbecause the food was finally on the table. 

1.  She "continued" but only because the food was finally on the table.  To "continue" is to have begun something.  

When people are truthful, they report things chronologically.  Dishonest people are sometimes caught because they go out of chronological order because what they report did not happen as stated.  
2.  Note that "my daughter" is now "my child."
The word "child" is closely associated in language with child abuse; sometimes it is used because the mother was a victim of child abuse, with a high percentage being sexual abuse, while at other times it is an indication of the child, herself, having suffered child abuse (physical, emotional, sexual, neglect). 
The mother associated child abuse while talking of her own child, here.  This is also a change from "my daughter" and "21-month old."
One should wonder if anyone has called, or threatened to call Child Protective Services, on this mother.  

3.  "Because."

When someone is reporting "what happened" and move to explaining "why" they did something, it is very sensitive.  It means that they want to answer the question before it is even asked.  What would cause the feeding of the child to be so sensitive?
Please note that a witness came forth and reported that the parents were not regularly feeding the child, and had ignored her screams for 40 minutes, while only focusing on each other.  

A few minutes later, Neugebauer, now behind the grill, slammed her hands on the counter. She pointed at my baby’s face and screamed, “You need to shut the hell up!”

My husband replied, “Are you serious? Are you really yelling at a toddler right now?”

Note she calls her "Neugebauer" with no title.  This is to show negative emotion.  
Note that she is now "my baby" and it was her baby's "face" that is the recipient of the point.  

Question:  Why mention the face?
Answer:  The face is where insult is targeted.  The mother felt the insult along with the baby being screamed at.  That is to say: 
Screaming at the baby is wrong and shocking but the mother may be focusing on the element of insult with it.  
Note "my husband replied" using "replied" and not something stronger.  
If you were the husband, would you have only "replied"?  
The expected is "told", that is, strong, authoritative rebuke at the protection of his daughter.  That is not the language of the mother, however. 

“As serious as a heart attack,” she said, with fury in her eyes.

I’ll never forget the look of fear on my baby’s face.
Hence the feel of insult ("face") 

It was then that I turned to my daughter and said calmly, “This is exactly how I’m raising you not to be.”

Here the mother quotes herself as saying something that is age and sophistication inappropriate  for the child's age. 
Note the need to add "calmly" to her language.  This is to suggest something unnecessary and different.  

We then paid the bill, tipped the waitress 25 percent and left.

Note the need to tell us the percentage of the tip. 

Note that the word "left" is indicative of missing information at this point.  

I thought that was that. But after I left a Facebook post about my experience on the Marcy’s Diner page, 

The word "but" refutes or minimizes that which preceded it. 
If she thought "that was that", that is to say, "the issue is over", she, herself, refutes her own assertion with the word "but" which effectively acknowledges that this would have been over, but she intended it not to be over.  This is to tell us her motive for writing. 

Neugebauer responded with a nasty, profanity-laden attack where she called my baby an “IT,” a beast and a rotten child. News outlets picked it up, and  the story quickly spread. All of a sudden, thousands of strangers were commenting on my parenting skills.

What got lost is that it’s never okay to yell at a baby, especially if you own a restaurant. 

Please note that she qualifies yelling at a baby being "never okay" with "especially if you own a restaurant" which has an emphasis upon ownership of a business.  

Why the need to add this?  
Question:  Is "ownership" of a restaurant important to the writer? 
 Answer:  it is.  

This is unnecessary to the story; to us, it would not matter to us  if it was a waitress, a cook, one who managed the eatery, or status as an owner, since it is about yelling at a toddler.  This is the expected main event for who would ever want their own daughter yelled at?  This is why truthful and reliable accounts are 50% of the wording.  

That is is unnecessary but part of the language  and is very important. 

Some may now wonder:   Does the New York mother intend on suing?

Principle:  Unnecessary information is very important.  It is only unnecessary to us.  Once we understand the subject, we will understand what made it necessary. 

Question:  Is this why the first sentence about the story going "national" is so important to the writer?

Question:  Can you think of  professions that are especially not okay to yell at kids?

What might you think of?

I think of:  

Teachers, doctors, day care providers, nurses, cafeteria workers, and so on. 

Restaurant owners are not on my list.  For the writer, it is "especially" restaurant owners.  

You should care about providing good service to their patrons. Neugebauer could have come over politely and told us our baby was disruptive. 

Note "Neugebaur" is without a title.  

Principle:  Incomplete social introduction indicates negative relationship.  

Please next note that "our baby was disruptive" is an embedded admission that the child was disruptive.  To whom was she disruptive?

Note the pronoun "our":

Principle: When a biological parent uses the pronoun "our" and is not speaking for both parents (as in a joint interview) it is a signal that the parents may have discussed divorcing or separating.  

She should not have thrown things or yelled or cursed.

I want to raise my daughter to be good on airplanes and in restaurants and other public places. 

Note the change from "our" to "my" here.  

Note that this is to say that her daughter is not good on airplanes nor in restaurants, but it is something that she "wants" to accomplish.  This should be taken with the embedded admission above.  She has not raised her daughter to this standard, even though she addressed her child as an adult with adult language. 
Question;  Does this mother not properly understand child development?
Does this mother have unrealistic expectations?

She is a normal toddler who is funny and curious and well-behaved. 

This is to say that she believes, or has been told, that her child's behavior may not always be "normal."

Principle:  When one uses the term "normal" it is a signal that something "not so normal" has taken place, is about to take place, or one has been labeled "less than normal" or "abnormal" at some time in the past. 

It is very likely that this parent has been heavily criticized in her parenting skills (or lack thereof) and/or in her care of the child even to the point of being told that she is not being a "normal" parent or attending to the "normal" actions of a toddler. 
That she is "funny" is not in question, which she listed first. 
That she is "curious" is not in question, which she listed second.
That she is "well behaved" is not in question :  the allegation here is not that a child screamed for 40 minutes, but that the parents did not intervene and comfort the child, instead focused only upon each other, without concern for their daughter, nor the comfort of the patrons, nor the owners or workers. 

Is she perfect? No. Am I a perfect parent? Certainly not. 

This is very interesting here.  We have:

a.  Change of language

b.  Negative description of a child.

1.  Change of language:

"Is she perfect?" is answered by "no" but "Am I a perfect parent" is not answered with "no" but with "certainly" and "not." This is to suggest a difference between the two denials. 

Is she perfect?  The answer, "no" is expected.  No child is perfect nor is any parent perfect.  Yet, the same question, when applied to herself (not her husband) does not use "no" but "not", (denial) which is now made sensitive by "certainly."

"Certainly" is a word we use when we do not wish to be questioned.  This suggests to us that there is a very big difference between the denials, and the mother's "imperfection" is very different than the child's imperfection, but needs more emphasis. 

This mother is telling us that she has done things as a parent that

a.  She knows is wrong

b.  Others (perhaps her own parents) have called her attention to

c.  She has argued and denied, using "no one is perfect" in her refusal to alter her ways.  

She is telling us something strong here, about herself. 

Note the absence of her husband's parenting skills.  Why did she not say, "Are we perfect parents? No."

This is to put the onus of taking care of the child upon her, only. 

This is consistent with the instinctive word "our", in that she has considered what it will be like to be a single mother caring for the child, should they separate. 

Note also that she said, "Am I a perfect parent?" instead of, "Am I a perfect mother?"  This is likely a very sensitive point to her; a source of discomfort.  

Principle:  A change of language indicates a change of reality. 

But I do know that these things happen. Babies cry and sometimes moms make the call between a tantrum in the loud diner or going out into the rain. 

First, note "moms make the call" and not "parents" nor "dads" excludes the father. 

Embedded Confessions. 

Statements sometimes contain "embedded confessions" where the subject ends up admitting the allegation.  Here we find the example of how the truth "leaked" out from her own mouth.  

She set up an "either or" situation.  What are the two choices?
a. "tantrum in the loud diner"
b.  going out in the rain

Objection:  She is speaking hypothetically
Answer:  it is "the" diner; not "a" diner.  

Principle:  Articles, like Pronouns, are instinctive, and 100% reliable for analysis.  They do not lie.  

Note  next the embedded admission that her child had a "tantrum" and mom chose the tantrum over going outside in the rain.  This is also to recognize that the tantrum would impact others, but the rain would impact her and she would have had to sit in her car to calm her child down.  She does not attribute parental duties to the father.   She does not offer other choices including:
c.  holding her
d.  rocking her
e.  walking with her
f.  talking to her
and so on. 
Either she has a tantrum in the loud diner, or they go out in the rain.  

We know what she chose to do. 

As parents, we sometimes rely on the kindness and empathy of strangers, who know we’re doing the best we can.

It’s compassion I try to model for my daughter. I wish others would do the same.

Please note "strangers" is added here.  Yet before, she knew that no one was looking at them and no one was thinking about the trouble caused.  This is an inconsistency.  Why would they, in this story of just eating breakfast a their daughter being a bit "fussy" need the "kindness and empathy of strangers"?  

Note the entrance of the word "compassion." By this point, readers may be wondering if the mother had any compassion upon her child, or compassion upon other patrons.  

Note she does not say she showed compassion to her child, or to anyone else, it is only something she "tries to model" instead of saying,

"I model compassion for my daughter."

This is to avoid saying it directly. 

Conclusion:

The mother's account is not reliable.  The diner owner yelled at the child inappropriately and admitted it.  The counter claim was that the parents allowed their child to scream and cry, incessantly, for 40 minutes.  Others said that the parents were negligent, not only in tending to their daughter, but even feeding her.  
To this, the mother's own words agree.  There is, within her account, indication of not caring for her child, and refusing to care for her, especially if it meant picking her up, and carrying her outside, to the car.  She is deceptive about other patrons, as she wrote in the negative and gave us indications of deception. 

The mother has likely been accused previously of neglecting her child, and may have had confrontations with loved ones or family members about her lack of care and has, perhaps, refused to make changes.  

It is also likely that the time in the Diner was an unhappy one for the couple who, according to the statement, both ignored a crying child, in need of comfort and redirection.  Neither got up, neither held her, neither took her outside, and neither appeared to care for the child, the patrons, nor the owner, who finally snapped, inappropriately at the child, instead of directing her words to the negligent parents.  

The witness who said parents were not consistently feeding the child but ignoring her, is confirmed with the mother's statement about "continuing" to feed her "because" the food had just arrived.  This awkward feel is what intuitive people sense, and they are correct as it agrees with analysis.  

The mother has likely not endeared herself with readers of the "national" audience and should she decide to file a suit in Maine, may have a difficult time presenting herself in the role of warm hearted, caring victim-mother.  

The mother's negligence does not excuse the diner's owner's actions.  

The father's abdication of being a father and husband is evidenced in the mother's own statement.  
Their family should not be surprised should they separate and divorce papers allege serious child abuse.   Her statement to her child, intended to impress the audience, is age and sophistication disparate for the child's age. 
That the Diner screamer is an "owner" is quite important to the writer, as she intended, deliberately, to stir something up on Facebook, according to her words, and may intend to file suit against the Diner, or go the route of "Go Fund Me" but it may be, more than anything else, that the mother has projected her own negligence and abuse onto a situation where one screaming at her child, in comparison, made her feel less abusive. 

CPS may have been threatened to be called on her, or it may be that friends, and or, close family,  have struggled to convince mother to take better care of her daughter,  but have likely met with more arguments rather than any change.  

It reminds me of the parents at a sporting event of children. 
All parents cheer, but the tiny few who go to excessive extremes, (always remembered by others) to be seen as "the most supporting parents", are often the most neglectful or abusive,  indicating  a powerful need to "show off" due to their own guilt, convincing themselves and others, that they are "good" parents, when, in fact, they are anything but.  It is human nature.  

This mother's assertion reveals a child who was melting down, crying, having a tantrum, like children can do, but unlike others, did not have parental intervention.  

She marks time and events on what did not happen, which is what deceptive people say when they are lying; it is as awkward as it sounds.  This is when she lost chronological order of eating, which also sounds awkward to hearers or readers.  

The form tested as "unreliable" with its small portion devoted to "what happened" and the analysis confirmed the test results.  Her account is unreliable. 
Both claim the owner screamed and this is true. 
The owner's assertion about the neglectful parents is truthful, while the mother's attempt to portray a family with only a "fussy" toddler is not truthful.  

They "made her" sit there, without intervention or comfort.  This, the mother attests to by her own words, of which, should she file suit, or seek money, may be used against her. 

*****************************************************************************My 

Exercise: Victim Status and Deceptive Scams

July 23, 2015, 10:33 am

≫ Next: "Water" and "Doors" in Statement Analysis

≪ Previous: Statement Analysis of Mother Who's Toddler Cried for Forty Minutes in Portland Maine

$

0

0

Create a victim class and watch how many seek to exploit it.

How many of you have worked with someone who basically either refuses his or her duties, or does the minimal, knowing full well that should a challenge arise, victim status will be used to silence constructive criticism?

It's become common place.

Here is a good opportunity for some "101" analysis.   The article is from the Daily Mail about a case we covered last month in which a Baltimore woman had raised $43,000 only to suddenly stop allowing donations (there is no sane reason to stop the inflow of money) because she learned that analysis had proven that she, herself, wrote the "hate" letter.

She not only held the LGBT community in contempt,  presupposing them to be without discernment, but she projected her own intolerance and hatred of Christian faith in her writing.  This was found to be consistent with other 'rants' of intolerance.

The Daily Mail listed her response as 'denial' of the allegation.

Your assignment is the following:

1.  Using copy/paste, Begin your report with the basic allegation and ask and answer:

"Did the subject deny the allegation?" This is your opening line and should be included in your conclusion.

2.  Analyse the quotes of hers;

3.  Analyze the quotes of police;

4.  Write your "Analytical Report" with your conclusion directed to a specific audience:  Your findings are to be written to the untrained eye.

My point is that the DA didn't even even need the analysis to prove to a jury that she was the author of the note, given the volume of sample investigators obtained from a wide outlet of sources to the point where a reasonable person would need no persuasion in finding her guilty.  The analysis would have only strengthened an already relatively easy case.

You are writing in a way that explains your findings to the average juror, sans Casey Anthony Jury .

I labeled "Quote 1" and "Quote 2", with this in mind:  Quote 2 has a good deal of information within it.

If anonymous, pick a pen name so that you can be responded to should you wish for commentary.

Mom who raised $43,000 claiming her homophobic neighbor was intimidating her over her 'relentlessly gay yard' is accused of FAKING threats herself

• Baltimore mother-of-four Julie Baker said she got an angry letter from her Christian neighbor about her front yard earlier this month
• Anonymous writer objected to colored lamps spelling 'love, family' 
• The letter called her yard 'relentlessly gay' and told her to 'tone it down'
• Baker raised $48,000 to make her yard 'even more relentlessly gay' 
• She is accused of writing the letter herself, based on similarities in grammatical errors between the letter and her own writing on GoFundMe
• Detectives report Baker was unable to produce the letter when asked for it
• Baker claims she has 'not been anything but authentic'

A Baltimore mom who raised over $43,000 after claiming her Christian neighbors threatened her over her 'relentlessly gay' front yard has now been accused of contriving the plot as part of a GoFundMe scam.

Several discrepancies have surfaced in the story of Julie Baker, a widowed mother-of-four who lives on the outskirts of the city and identifies as bisexual.

Baker said she received a note signed by 'A Concerned Home Owner' that attacked her colorful yard - which used lamps to spell out 'love' and 'ohana', a Hawaiian word for 'family' - for 'becoming Relenetlessly Gay!'

She then launched a campaign to make the yard 'even more relentlessly gay' and received $43,396 in online donations in just 14 days. However inconsistencies and suspicions have since been raised.

Baker then abruptly closed the account, saying she had raised 'more than plenty' of money. 

'Relentlessly gay': Julie Baker, a Baltimore woman who has these lamps in her yard, claimed a neighbor sent her an angry message demanding that she 'tone it down', but she is now accused of contriving the story

Hoax?: This is the letter Baker claims to have been sent, but comparisons have been made between it and Baker's own writing

Julie Baker vowed to make her home 'even more relentlessly gay' and raised over $43,000 to do so. But several discrepancies have surfaced in her story 

At the top of the list is the fact that both Baker and the letter she allegedly received appear to feature the same improper use of capitalization.

The letter incorrectly capitalizes words such as 'others,' and 'forced'.

Then, Baker capitalized words such as 'home', 'relent' and 'hatred' on her GoFundMe page. 

According to Queerty, Baker consistently capitalizes words on her Facebook page, where she often goes on rants about Christian's being opposed to gay marriage.

Quote 1:  

(The police) have no reason to believe that I have done anything wrong or been anything but authentic' 

This prompted 'myth-busting' website Snopes to start an investigation.

The site contacted the police, and a detective reportedly told them 'that Baker was either unwilling or unable to produce the letter in question, and that she had maintained it was no longer in her possession'. 

The detective also told Snopes he was unable to meet Baker the day he wanted to.

Baker then sent the site a message on Facebook denying her campaign was a hoax.

Quote 2:

'I have been in contact with the police, they are satisfied with me, I am satisfied with them, and am grateful to them,' Baker said in the message.

'They have no reason to believe that I have done anything wrong or been anything but authentic. 

'They even have the long history of the various things that have happened to me since moving into my house.' 

Aglow: At night the lamps light up, and clearly spell 'love' and 'ohana', which is a Hawaiian term for 'family'

Home: The house, pictured in 2009, seemingly before the lamps were constructed, is on the outskirts of Baltimore

In closing down her GoFundMe from accepting donations, Baker also vaguely addressed the suspicions against her.

Quote 3:

'I want to humbly thank everyone for their extreme generosity.

'Please now, take all of this good energy and help each other. 

'I just learned moments ago that I could turn off the donations, and I am doing so because I there is plenty, more than plenty, above and beyond the goal.

'On a sadder note, the world is filled with hate and fear, as such I want to work to remove any doubt about the authenticity of the letter. 

'Until then I am not taking a dime out of this account.

'Please carry on with flooding the world with rainbows and joy, be relentlessly generous, be relentlessly compassionate, be relentlessly vibrant and stay relentlessly gay.'

This is the message Julie Baker uploaded to her GoFundMe page asking for money. Comparisons have been drawn between the writing and that of the threatening letter she claimed was sent to her

Shut-down: Baker closed her GoFundMe page after it reached over $43,000 in donations and posted this message explaining why 

The letter that Baker said she received read: 'Dear resident of [address],

'Your yard is becoming Relenetlessly Gay! Myself and Others in the neighborhood ask that you Tone It Down.

'This is a Christian area and there are Children. Keep it up and I will be Forced to call the Police on You! Your kind need to have Respect for God.

'A Concerned Home Owner.'

Images of the letter and the lamp display, which glows at night, were posted online by a friend of Baker, and were then shared thousands of times.

She said that if she were to get enough money she would get 'a rainbow-colored roof'.

On the page Baker wrote: 'Put simply, I am a widow and the mother of four children, my youngest in high school and I WILL NOT relent to hatred.

'Instead, I will battle it with whimsy and beauty and laughter and love, wrapped around my home, yard and family!!!'

'Thanks for your relentlessly gay support!'

"Water" and "Doors" in Statement Analysis

July 25, 2015, 7:02 am

≫ Next: Highlighting Deception in The Interview Process or How to Obtain a Confession

≪ Previous: Exercise: Victim Status and Deceptive Scams

$

0

0

Teachers, social workers and medical professionals have long known that 'water' is sometimes associated with sexual abuse.

A child who becomes obsessive about washing her hands may be a victim of sexual abuse.  It does not mean that she has, but it is an indicator that someone must inquire.

Linguistically, let's look at this same child:

The little girl has suddenly become obsessed with washing her hands.  This is something seen, visibly, and she is washing her hands (physically) because she is thinking that she should wash her hands though she may not know why. 

The principle is simple:

*the washing of hands is on her mind (brain activity) and she does it.
*the use of water, therefore, is on the brain.
*when speaking that which is on the brain, comes out.

Therefore, when water, in any form, enters a statement, we note it.  If water is mentioned, in any form, as an unnecessary detail, it is a very important point.

We do not interpret in Statement Analysis.

Water does not equal sexual abuse.

When someone says, "I washed my hands"in an unnecessary manner (no one asked if you did, for example), we believe the subject washed his hands.  We are not re-interpreting anything.

What are we doing is this:

We are seeking to learn why it was important enough to tell us.

What decades of research has found is that water is often found in sexual homicide statements, sexual abuse statements, statements with some form of negative sexual activity, and that it is found in the statements of both victims and perpetrators.  

To broaden the context, and show the need of questions based upon analysis ("Analytical Interviewing"), the source of sexual abuse could be, in adult language, something that took place many years prior.

Therefore, the scope is wide, and contextual questions are needed for closer examination and focus by the investigator.

Next we find that "doors" are often associated with sexual abuse, as well.  This is also not difficult to understand.

Picture yourself as a child victim and what trauma is in your brain when the door of your bedroom opened (or closed behind the perpetrator) and consider the acute impact upon the brain, and how in recall, "door" is very important to you.

When "door" is used unnecessarily, it is that we should explore childhood sexual abuse.

Recall the Baltimore Fake Hate money raising scam where she described the note using "door" in her wording.  It's inclusion should cause an investigator to learn if the subject was sexually abused in childhood.  This is where its inclusion is unnecessary to the sentence; making it very important to the subject.

Here is the transcript from our comments section.  For more on this, look at some of the analysis of the statements made by Amanda Knox that indicate presence at a sexual homicide.


STEVE: Brandon this is the second time that you’ve been accused of molesting your niece right? Tell me what happened.

"Tell me what happened" is the best question followed by "...and what happened next?" as the second best question.  Due to multiple accusations of molestation, the Interviewer  (Steve) properly framed the question with a statement first, so that the subject (Brandon) knows specifically where to answer.  Also note that "what happened?", though limited to the second accusation, still allows the subject to begin his question where he chooses, which can give us much yield, including priority.  
BRANDON: Uh, one saturday night I was watching the kids, I stayed with them about a month, month and a half. The whole time I was there, they slept all day. I became a maid, a babysitter, full-time. 

STEVE: For your sister.

Do NOT interrupt nor lead.  We were getting information from the subject and even if the subject paused, the Interviewer should remain silent signaling to the subject:  you have not told me what happened, therefore, I await your answer.  Also note that "tell me" is very strong, with "me" being personal, causing the subject to be 'rude' should he not tell "me" what happened.  

In spite of the interruption, he was asked about molestation and he has 'slowed the pace' down with his answer (a) and he has found a way to portray himself as a victim (b) in which one might even feel sorrow for him, being a "maid" and a babysitter, full time (not a "full time babysitter"; which I leave for another analysis) 

Abusers are often charming, which is why they are successful in grooming.  Here we see the need to not only stall the answer (internal stress; be on the look out for deception) but the need to be pitied, and cast blame upon another.  

Will he blame the sister for the molestation?

Molestors do blame others, including other adults who "knew not to leave me with the child, but did so anyway", right up to the child, herself, often ascribing the child in adult terms as a 'seducer' of sorts.  
BRANDON: Yes, nobody else was watching them. I’m the uncle, felt obligated. Um, the Saturday night that thesesupposed allegations were made, um, I want, I was watching the kids, put them to bed at eight, that was their bedtime. My niece was watching a movie, put the boys to bed. She kept turning the tv up and down. Well, before I get into that, supposedly they have videotape of me going in and out of my niece’s bedroom. I was in and out of the bedroom. But... Um - 

a.  Note the need to blame someone else.  He was "obligated"
b.  Note the need to indict his sister with "nobody else was watching them"; negligence;
c.  Note "supposed" allegations is met with "these", which indicates psychological closeness for the subject.  
d.  Note the weakness and psychological removal or distancing withe the dropped pronouns

Present tense language. 

Please note that present tense language reduces reliability.  It should be noted, however, that some perpetrators of perversion will 're-live' the molestation, even while attempting to deny it, because they are aroused by it.  

With victims, present tense language can show something similar:  they are re-living it, but not for arousal, but due to post-traumatic-stress-disorder-like symptoms of pain, guilt, shame, rage, suicidal ideation, and so on.  

This is why we do a separate study on the language of sexual abuse in our course and seminar. 

STEVE: They have surveillance cameras in their house?

Another reminder:  Don't interrupt, and do not lead!  The pause of "um" should be met with silence.  
BRANDON: Yes

STEVE: Why would, why would they do that?

We know what the Interviewer is after, therefore, so does the subject, but best to first complete the "what happened" narrative, by encouraging him with silence, affirmations, or by phrases of continuance such as, "I'm listening..." and "What happened, next?"

Therapists, take note.  
BRANDON: I don’t know. Went in there three times to turn the tv down because she was keeping my nephews awake. Then she calls me back in there cuz the disc start skipping. I go back in there, clean it off, didn’t work. Go back in there again, switch the movie, it worked.

a.  Note dropped pronoun 
b.  Note inclusion of number "three" (there is video verification), which leads us to consider that he may have done more so, as minimization is expected.  
c.   Note the need to explain why he went into her room even though he was not asked, "So, why did you go into her room?"

This is an indication of missing information that is extremely sensitive to him and may lead us to ask if he had an alternate reason for going into her room.  

d.  Note the subtle blaming of the victim with "she calls me back in there" in the present tense language.  This is to shift responsibility again to the victim.  She 'caused' him to go in there with television volume and now she caused him to go back in there because of the skipped disc.  This is to further affirm just how sensitive going into her room is to the subject, Brandon.  

e.  Note the word, "clean" as one that sometimes enters the language of perpetrators.  Some want to "clean" their name, rather than "clear their name." This is sometimes associated with water, and with sexual assaults.  

f. Note, again, the dropped pronouns.  Ask yourself, "Why, at this point in his account, does he not wish to place himself in her room at this time, psychologically?

"Go back in there again, switch the movie, it worked" does not tell us who went "back" in there "again" (two words to double the emphasis, making this very sensitive, and without a pronoun, as if it wasn't "him" that was in there. 

Whatever took place in the room at this very time in his account, is something he does not want to associate himself with.  

By this point, you have a sense of what happened.  You have not heard a denial, only a "supposed  accusation" which, for innocent people, is enough to issue a denial.  
STEVE: So that’s your explanation for going back in there in the room?

Conclusionary.  Avoid.  There is no reason for us to conclude; we listen.  
BRANDON: Yes.

STEVE: When did you learn that you were being accused of molesting your niece?

BRANDON: A week later. I’m washing a load of clothes. I get a knock at the door. It was a [city] detective and two city cops. I open the door. He was like, “ are, are you Brandon?” I said “yes sir i am.” read me my rights and told me that my niece was making allegations against me that I touched her.

a.  Note he finally gets to the answer to "what happened?" in his response after significant pre-event description and explanation, noting the "need to explain why" scenario.

b.  Note the present tense language as not only associated with deception, but possible re-living of the sexual abuse. 

c.  Note the inclusion of water via, "I'm washing a load of clothes" as unnecessary to his answer, making the inclusion of water "very important" to the subject. 

d.  Note the inclusion of "door" as indication of possible childhood sexual abuse. That he mentioned the door, twice, makes it sensitive to him.  That he goes to the "opening" of the door, further affirms the possibility of childhood sexual abuse.  We know that most people who are abused in childhood do not go on to sexually abusing others, but of those who sexually abuse, most all (if not all) were molested in childhood; or some sexual trauma existed.  To date, I have not conducted an interview where this was not the case, nor has anyone submitted a case in which I doubted the perpetrator's own childhood status.  This may become, one day, an important argument against "genetic sexual attraction" used by defense attorneys, defending pedophiles against responsibility for their crimes.  

e.  Note that "I touched her" is not entering the language of his niece, nor the investigator, which may be, therefore, an "embedded confession" within his own words.  Note that being read his rights and "told" is both past tense and appropriate, with "told" being authoritative.  When read his rights, he must be "told" what the arrest is for:  no one is arrested for "touching" anyone.  It is "assault" or "sexual assault" and so on.  This is to not only avoid telling us what he is specifically charged with, but strengthens the assertion that it is an embedded confession. 

Investigator's Conclusion: 

When one has an opinion on whether someone "did it" or not, it is just that, an opinion, and if wrong, it is dismissed and forgotten.  

Not so for others. 

When an investigator or analyst makes a conclusion, he or she puts much on the line, including:

a.  The legal status of the accused.   The accused is now under arrest which is serious and can impact him, the victim, the case, and so on.  No sane investigator wants to see an innocent man arrested. 

b.  The investigator's reputation and career.  

Should the investigator conclude, from his analysis, that "he did it", and writes up a clear, concise report which suggests its own conclusion, the investigator now shares responsibility for the arrest with the district attorney's office, reducing the 'pressure' 


c.  The analyst's reputation and career.



Analysis Conclusion:

The subject has not denied the allegation and neither shall we deny it for him.  He has given us linguistic indication that:

a.  He molested his niece
b.  He did it in her room
c.  He is likely a victim of childhood sexual abuse 
d.  He is deceptive via withholding specific detail
e.  If asked questions based upon his own language, he will not pass a polygraph.  

The analyst stands upon these assertions and must trust that the polygrapher will do a good job with the polygraph machine and not contaminate the results by his or her own language given to the subject.  

The analyst, if wrong, will be seen as not only wrong but:

a.  having led to an innocent man's false arrest and possible trauma and fallout, including potential legal and civil ramifications

b.  will not be trusted for further investigations

c.  will not be hired in other training seminars, etc.  

In short, a strong conclusion, such as above, puts the work and the analyst "on the line", without equivocation.  

There are cases where the analyst may qualify, such as, "he is deceptive, but more interviewing is needed", or "not enough sample", or, "perhaps, maybe, possibly," and so on, can be used.  

This is why breaking down the analysis, point by point is so important because it allows the error to be located, should one be made.  

The scientific process is not subjective, nor a "feeling" but of continual digging according to pre-stated principles.  

In the above, I conclude:  he did it.  

Should he pass a polygraph, I would need the audio or transcripts of the pre-screening interview and the actual questions asked, and the results. 

Should he actually pass there is now a disagreement between results.  

Because we follow a systematic scientific process, the error will be found. 

Because we do not make a conclusion lightly, or upon a single indicator, we allow the subject to guide us, and the conclusion is based upon many points, bringing confidence to the conclusion. 

The written report is then taken, and analyzed in the same method we use for interviews and statements, with additional language removed. 

The end result:   The Investigative Report is clear, simple, and convincing the reader (DA, jury, etc)  of guilt, without the need to persuade.  

Highlighting Deception in The Interview Process or How to Obtain a Confession

July 26, 2015, 2:42 pm

≫ Next: Deorre Missing: No Suspects, but Persons of Interest Due to Presence

≪ Previous: "Water" and "Doors" in Statement Analysis

$

0

0

Highlighting Deception in the Interview, or How to Obtain a Confession

by Peter Hyatt 

I go into every interview knowing that if the subject will speak, I will get the information I seek.

I do not debate this with anyone, at any time.  I will even say, "roll the tape and watch" knowing that I am armed with not only thorough analysis and personal resolve, but with something on my side that no matter what we say, what we do, what we mandate, or what we outlaw, remains the same:

human nature.

"No man can lie twice"is the principle in Statement Analysis that you nor I will ever prove wrong.

Since we cannot prove it wrong, why don't we flip it on its head, forget the negative of proving it wrong, and utilize the positive to get a confession or admission, which is the ultimate climax of all the work we have done:  Getting to the truth, and successfully closing the case.

If I have the written statement before the interview (the key to Analytical Interviewing), I know that I am not only going to get the information I seek, but if I have highlighted deception in the written statement, I am going to get my information that I want and need,  and I am likely to get something else, too, because of how I present the information processed through the lens of analysis.

With this confidence, I often get confessions or admissions (mostly admissions) in the interview due to a specific technique that is only available to those who have done solid analysis work on the statement, and who know how to present the "acutely sensitive" portion of the statement to the subject, in the interview.  For legal purposes, there is no need to differentiate between confession or admission; it is only in the social science arena that the difference is important.

Let's look at an example of a known liar and a technique employed by him and how this can, and should be, turned around and put right back at the liar.  Had this been done, even with lawyers present and ready to silence him, he would have confessed.  In fact, early in the investigation, he almost did.

Does anyone remember the combatant deposition in which George Anthony rose up in righteous indignation, asking a question, but not waiting for any reply, making it a declaration of insult:

"How dare you, sir!" 

He was responding to the statement which referred to Caylee Anthony's remains; you know the remains that George Anthony first smelled in the trunk of his car.

It was a declaration statement, not a question seeking an answer.

It was not a "rhetorical' question, in the sense that there was no completion to how one would "dare" to call a "missing" child, "remains."

We have a need to use quotation marks, literally, as a means of communicating deception.

Caylee was not missing.

There was no "dare" proposed to the attorney who referenced Caylee's remains; thereof, the word "dare" in quotation marks.

George Anthony, no matter who you believe, knew Caylee was dead from the time he smelled her in his trunk; even if you are on the fence as to assisting Casey on dumping her little body where she had buried her pet turtle.   Therefore, "missing" is in quotation marks, indicating a need for "more information" from the writer, to the reader.  The additional information is that the report of being missing was fraudulent; deceptive from the start.

What was left after nature had its way with Caylee's body was literally "remains", yet George Anthony feigned indignation over this term.

Was it ever a dare?

No, it wasn't.


Was she ever missing?

No, she was not.

Was she ever alive, making the use of remains inappropriate?

No, she was dead from the time her mother killed her.

The jurors said, "we knew she had killed her, but the prosecution didn't prove it."

How then, you might ask, did they know she was dead?

In Statement Analysis, where does this deceptive indignation find itself classified?

Consider it the same as "sermon" or "sermonizing."

Statement Analysis recognizes that when a question is answered and a sermon like response accompanies it, it is a "need to persuade."

This is most often seen in two topics:

Drugs and Theft.

I once had a theft case in which a young man described his father and uncle as "low life" in prison for theft, and that they were "lower than drug dealers" in his mind.  I noted "sermon", that is, as if he is preaching an anti-allegation message.

His statement showed indication and the interview was conducted from the analysis.

He answered questions while holding his written statement on his lap, referencing it until I said, "Is that your written statement?  You don't need to hide it.  You can use it for your answers."

I didn't mind.

I then said, "Look here, I have it too."

I showed him my copy except my copy was a bit different.  It had colors on it, and it had blue areas concentrated close together.  I watch his eyes as they scan the specific colored portions of his statement.

It has quite an impact upon a subject's emotions and it never fails me.

Eventually, as is often the case with Analytical Interviewing, he made an admission because he was confronted with his deception and could not look upon it and lie about it. It took a few hours and I had to let him preach to me about the continual and generation evils of theft, especially when compared to drug dealing (he was signaling his future plans to increase profit margin by moving into pain killers from relatives resold on the street at a heck of a mark up.

He could not bring himself to lie about his lie, when the lie, itself, was the topic before him.  It is a technique used in Analytical Interviewing that produces admissions (or confessions; the difference being that in an admission, the subject admits he 'did it', but a confession shows an internal distress over the immorality or unethical nature of what he did.  Most, due to the presence of their deceptive indicators, only 'admit' but are in no mood for confessing anything:  they are angry at being called on the carpet through the skillful analysis being presented to him in a way that leaves him no way out.  

The liar hates being called a liar because it is the undoing of his life.

Yes, you read that correctly:  it is his life that has been undraped before "the world", even if it is just a handful of people who know.

This is the nature of a liar:

He or she has been lying since childhood, and due to success, has developed a sense of contempt for the rest of the world, as being too stupid to discern the deception.  The craft has been honed at the expense of the kindergarten teacher, the parent, sibling, coach, love interest, boss, and so on.  The track record yields a tremendous egotistical mentality that recoils from the thought of being caught, but once caught, strikes a blow, like a Cobra, outward, with venom.

Many detective know this and use it to get a suspect to take a polygraph, but this is a much higher level skill that warrants specific training, and actual, hands on practice:

Once the analysis of the statement is finished, and specific deception detected, questions are formulated which seek to:

a.  Use the subject's own words, which disarms him due to the familiarity in the brain, with the specific words used;
b.  Carefully bring the subject to the point of deception by first allowing him to confirm points of truth, elevating his confidence and comfort level

c.  Once 'in a roll' of "success" (they are very bold when telling the truth), the trap is sprung, and at the precise location of deception, the question is now put into the form of a statement with,

"here, specifically, here, you are deceptive indicated..." but it must be built up to where there is no argument left.

It also can be done "third party" with great effect:

a.  Using the subject's own words, he is permitted to affirm point after point that you know is true, and will only build his confidence.  Then the trap is sprung this way:

"We have a written report from an expert who has shown us that here, at this point, you are what they call "deception indicated"; this is how we know you were not truthful."

The ego of the subject will not allow him to look at the lie, that is his own words, and call them a lie.  

If you alter the words, even slightly, you might lose him.

He is a fish that cannot resist his own bait.

In far deeper context, this is what brilliant and high paid therapists use, a do sales professionals who are the best and brightest.

Training is key and it comes from learning the principles of Statement Analysis, practicing it over and over and over (think, 1000 hours initially), then learning how to design the questions with his own words, and how to present the lie.

It is a powerful and amazing technique so that even if the subject gets up to walk out in anger, he is likely to stop and "explain" things.

In law enforcement, the detective must, at this point, have the same preparation as a human resources professional:

You must be armed with a "carrot."

The stick is the blunt presentation, but a carrot is the plea bargain, the deal, the offer to resign, or whatever your planning has come up with because you are very likely going to get a confession or admission at this point.

Detectives can discuss this, before hand, with both their immediate superior and the assistant district attorney.  The "cooperation", that is, the admission is not just the only psychological relief the guilty can experience, but an incentive (reduced charge, for example) can be added to this.

Human Resources can seek to bring a "carrot" to the table, such as, "if you return the stolen items, and resign immediately, we are prepared to not file formal charges against you"; something that companies can do to avoid bad press, while still removing the trouble from the company.

The subject has a psychological need for closure of his "lie" because he does not lie, but is a liar, it is his habitual walk in life, and wants to end the "undraping" of his life:  get it over with.  (This is the technique we teach when a skillful polygrapher wishes to confront the suspect with his failed test results:  it is critical to use his words and not just the failed test.  He can psychologically distance himself, with ease, from the failed test, or even the wild lines on paper; but he cannot readily distance himself from his own words which came from his own dictionary, of which he, himself, the most important and smartest man in the world, chose.  (See the build up?).

The "no man can lie twice" rule, therefore, is the single best method of obtaining an admission. 

For the mental health professional, this is only done when it is not only therapeutically indicated, but a 'crash setting' or contingency plan is in place.

This is because suicide is a possibility.

The client/patient is about to be "undone" through the brilliance of the therapist's work, and his deception is about to come down.  This is something so serious that it has been destroying his own life, and/or the lives of his loved ones and it is all based upon a lie; living a lie, maintaining the lie, and so on, and the "intervention-like" moment must have the contingency plan for possible hospitalization.

Analytical Interview training produces this result.  It is not easy, nor is it for the careless but for those professionals who seek to reach high levels of success in their careers.

Each confession or admission makes him more confident, stronger, and more valuable to those around him.

In Human Resources, this is a wall of protection that makes him or her be the "go to guy" when "it's on the line" and the company needs help.

For the therapist, it is the brilliance of learning the source of the issue, something that sounds easy, but is most often a failure, with attendant or even tangent sources claimed as "the" source.

When the actual source is not uncovered, the 'poison' continues, and the harm, pain, and damage lives on.  This is where the therapist gets a reputation for rare genius.  He literally follows the linguistic footprints, breaks the code, and uses the code to get to the truth.  It does take time, not simply in the learning, but in therapy, even the rare genius will need time to interview, review the notes, interview again, review notes, and so on.  Yet, even if months were invested, when this magnitude of a discovery is made, it can be life changing, as it can be healing.  I would guess that most people who have acute struggling, would embrace this far more than going to the therapist year after year, being coddled, er, I mean, 'supported', while putting the therapist's children through college. The top professionals, themselves, have deep emotional satisfaction at blowing open a case, and discovering the root of the destructive element, and sleep well at night, knowing they have helped 'unclog' a troublesome deep rooted issue that had previously been destroying their patient, including, possibly, the patient's physical health.

Just as the detective reemerges from the interview room with a signed confession, to the shock of his colleagues, this satisfaction is far deeper than his paycheck.

The Human Resource professional also shares in this, including those who do internal investigations.

A $1.2 million dollar settlement is scuttled because the interviewer "destroyed" the fraudulent case with the truth even to the point of a signed admission.  Yes, the value of the saved insurance cost is one thing, but the company's reputation may have been saved, and the professional feels a satisfaction that is unshakable, due to getting something that no one thought possible.

The training helps the professional take the new skill of statement analysis and turn it into a confession by the subject, often signed and dated, with no hope of having it overthrown because it is his own words.

We are most comfortable with our own words.  When husbands and wives live together for many years harmoniously, they not only parrot each others' words, they "enter into" each others' language; that is, there internal, subjective personal dictionary and "share" them, one with another.

When decades go by, people often say how they look alike.

This is not a Hallmark card lie, it is true because when they begin to share a dictionary, they often imitate, without notice, the face expressions that are regularly used with certain words and phrases.  As they mimic each others' faces, they 'look alike', that is, show distinctiveness's that previously had only been seen as from one, but not both.

This training is quite exciting, especially after Statement Analysis reaches the point where solid work is regularly being done and Interview training is desired and the attendees are eager to learn; so much so that they also say, "roll the tape!" and care little for the embarrassment of making mistakes in the mock interviewing, knowing how this will lead to sharpness, precision, and ultimate success.

Deorre Missing: No Suspects, but Persons of Interest Due to Presence

July 27, 2015, 11:09 am

≫ Next: How Many Lies Can You Spot?

≪ Previous: Highlighting Deception in The Interview Process or How to Obtain a Confession

$

0

0

from EastIdahonews.com with quote that parents are "persons of interests" because they were at scene, but not "suspects."  Please see expanded analysis below.  

IDAHO FALLS — The third individual who was at Leadore campsite when two-year-old Deorr Kunz Jr. disappeared said he has no idea what happened to the toddler.

Lemhi County Sheriff Lynn Bowerman confirmed Isaac Reinwand, 35, of Idaho Falls, was at the Timber Creek Campground on July 10alongside Deorr’s parents Jessica Mitchell and Deorr Kunz Sr. and his as yet unnamed great-grandfather.

The sheriff’s office had previously withheld Reinwand’s name, referring to him only as a family friend at the campsite.

Over the weekend Reinwand’s name was widely publicized on social media, leading to Bowerman confirming the detail to EastIdahoNews.com

“Yes, he was at the scene,” Bowerman said in an email. “He’s a personal friend of grandpa’s for about five years. We are treating him no differently than the family, he has been questioned numerous times, and has been to the scene with me.”

Bowerman said Reinwand, similar to Mitchell and Kunz, are “persons of interest” in this case because they were at the scene. However, at this time, neither Reinwand, Mitchell or Kunz are suspects in the missing persons case.

The great-grandfather, who authorities have not identified, also has not been labeled as a suspect. Authorities said his declining physical and mental health ruled him out at the beginning of the case.

Over the weekend, Reinwand was repeatedly identified as a sex offender with an extensive criminal history in online forums and on social media. However, police and court documents dispute that assertion. The Idaho State Repository shows Reinwand was charged with felony rape in 2006, but that charge was amended down to misdemeanor domestic battery.

Sheriff’s officials also have told EastIdahoNews.com Reinwand is not a sex offender.

“He does have a criminal record, however the police reports are not consistent with his record... not sure why,” Bowerman said in the email.

Bowerman did not elaborate on the inconsistencies. 

EastIdahoNews.com spoke with Reinwand briefly Monday morning on his doorstep. He confirmed Deorr was with him and the great-grandfather before he went missing, but Reinwand declined to answer further questions.

“He just disappeared,” Reinwand said. 

Investigators are still classifying the Deorr Kunz Jr. case as a search and rescue. During the last two weeks, search crews have conducted extensive sweeps of the area, including the reservoir and the creek. The search was scaled back after 10 days. There is still no sign of Deorr. 

Mitchell and Kunz believe their son was abducted. Bowerman has not ruled abduction out. He said authorities do not suspect foul play, but has said in the past that everything is being considered in the search for the toddler. No suspects have been named in the case.

Deorr has been missing since the afternoon of July 10, when the Salmon Dispatch Center received a 911 call from Mitchell that the toddler had gone missing. 

The parents told EastIdahoNews.com they left the child with his great-grandfather and when they returned 10 to 15 minutes later, Deorr was gone. The great-grandfather assumed the child was with his parents.

“My dad was standing there watching him and he turned his head and then he was gone,” grandmother Trina Bates Clegg said on July 12. “It appears like he just vanished.”

That the body posture entered the subject's language is expected; this is a terribly tense scenario.  That she does not claim that he "disappeared" is very important.  

Saying "he disappeared" is something that would, by itself, bring a level of suspicion because disappearance is not possible.  It is very important that she be quoted accurately:

"It appears like he just vanished" is appropriate use of "appears" due to the impossibility of actual disappearance.  

This is not a 'sensitive' nor suspicious sentence.  

I would like to know what 'discrepancy' exists in the police record. 

It could be that the man was investigated for something, or a police report was specifically generated for something but he was not arrested or not found guilty.  It is an association with something. 

When I report, for example, that one has a "history of domestic violence", this is meant to be literal, and not judicial.  Many violent people are violent yet unconnected.  The lack of conviction is a legal status, but does not mean the person is any less violent. 

Therefore, in collateral interviews, a man could be investigated for child abuse:

a.  he did it but it was not proven

b.  he did not abuse the child but the report was a spite report

c.  he has been repeatedly reported for child abuse (or DV, or whatever) but with lots of suspicion, yet without proof enough to go to trial

d.  ...and so on. 

It is important to know if this man has ever even been accused of harming a child, or has had an association with child pornography, and so on, or if his criminal record has nothing to do with violence.  

The best predictor of violence is history, and the best predictor of sexual risk is interest, such as child pornography, 'barely legal' pornography, and so on.  

I once met a director of children's social services who asserted that just "having" child pornography doesn't mean there is a link to child abuse. 

It was a frightening statement.  

This man's name is associated with the missing child, just as the parents' names are as well.  

Had the journalist done an average job interviewing them, we would have known, with certainty, that they were involved or that they were innocent, but the interview was poorly conducted. 

Journalists would do well to train in Analytical Interviewing.  

The father's explanation about driving down the road for bars on the cell phone is highly sensitive.  Most people would, in such an emergency, just dial and not 'pre think' that they 'might' lose signal.  They just call and if it is a poor connection, get in the car and drive hoping the signal would improve. 

This is the portion of the father's interview that is the most sensitive part:

J: It was Friday.
D: Friday, about 2.26 was when I, was it 2.26?

This is to assert an exact time, while not remembering the day of the week.  

Should the same parent know exactly the hours (culmalative) the child has been missing ?

J: It was 2.36 when I called.

She corrects him with precision.  It is likely that someone looked at the cell phone to note the precise time, perhaps in preparation for the interview, or due to the "clock" ticking, concern.  We let the words guide us towards a conclusion.  

D : 2.36 when she called and I was in the truck hauling down to the road trying to get service because I didn't think one bar would get it. So I, she got very very lucky. I was blessed that she was able to get service because I didn't think, I didn't want to try and risk getting half way through my talking to 911 and have it cut off. So I went down to where I knew I could get a little service, about a half mile down the road. 

One might ask, at the conclusion of this statement:

Who cares that one might get cut off from 911 in such an emergency?  At least they would have his location.  

This is an 'over explanation' showing an acute need to explain his action.  

a.  Constant self censoring

b.  broken pronouns

c.  An over explanation about the phone call.  

It could be so sensitive because they argued about the need to call with him wanting to search a bit more first, or it could be so very sensitive for reasons associated with guilt going beyond the delay.  
The interview is with both parents seated next to each other; therefore, the use of "we" is appropriate.  With this established, when either parent moves from "we" to the pronoun "I", it becomes even more important to the subject.  (For new readers, the "subject" is the one speaking).  In the interview, he regularly "self censors", which is seen in sentences where he either stops himself entirely, or he changes pronouns in the sentence.  Pronouns are instinctive to us in English.  We do not pre-think pronouns.  You know when you are alone and say "I" just as you know when you are not alone you say, "we"; without having to give it careful consideration.  

Is this a form of stuttering?  Is this something he always does, or...

is it just produced in this interview, while his son is missing?

I do not know the answer, but it would not be difficult to find for investigators who need only to talk to him about an issue unrelated to his missing son, for a few minutes.  

Truck

We have an extreme point of sensitivity and it is about the father being inside the truck.  

It needs examination.  

1.  The Reason Why

In an open statement (that is a statement where one is telling us what happened, choosing his own words) when someone tells us why they did something, it is "sensitive" information, and could indicate that there is also missing information at this very point in the sentence.  

We note that the father, "D", explains why he did something without being asked by the interviewer. 

 This indicates a need to explain why he drove in his truck.   

This means that he thought to himself, "I better explain why I was in the truck because they are going to ask me about it. I need to beat the Interviewer to it. "

Why?

Why is this?

This goes for anything.  

When someone says, "I went to the store because I needed milk", the person felt a need to explain why he left the house, even though he was not asked why he left the house.  We hear this type of language in child abuse cases where neglect is suspected.  It has a feel like, "he has an excuse for everything!" frustration with the interviewers.  

I sometimes will even say, "I didn't ask you why you needed to leave the house" in seeing to 'up the ante' and put the subject, just a bit, on the defensive.  (it is a tactic in a larger strategy, dictated by the context). 

It is sensitive only when it is offered without being asked.  

Therefore, we assign the reason why someone did something only when not asked, to the color blue which is the highest level of sensitivity in analysis.  Should we find two colors of blue close together, the sensitivity becomes even more important to the subject.  Should we find more than two "blues" close together, we call it a "cluster of blues" and it is a very strong signal that there is missing information regarding this very point, and we aim our laser-questions at this point of the interview  


First, note the setting.  

He didn't know what day it was (some parents of missing children know the exact number of hours the child is missing, which is expected since it is so critical and hormone levels are elevated) yet he gave what he thought to be "the exact time" of the phone call.  

He almost had it right but was corrected by the child's mother.  This is seen in context of vagueness of the day, which, if due to fatigue, makes "2:36" sound rehearsed, but in error. 

The exact time was off and was corrected by the mother.  He did not remember the day, but used the word "about" when giving the exact time. There is nothing "about" when stating "2:26" as "about" is used to estimate.  We use estimation with round numbers, and round times. 

"It was about 2:30" is something we would expect to hear.  Not "2:36" corrected to "2:26", unless, for example, one is looking at the cell phone time while talking.  


The time when police were called by them is a sensitive topic, to him, linguistically, but not to her.  

Yet, there is something that is much more sensitive to him than the exact time of the call, which is related to the call, itself:  


The Truck

Please note:  placing himself in his truck is very important to the father, so much so that he twice explains why he was in the truck.  His location "in the truck" is something that is very sensitive to him, and there may be, concerning being in the truck, some missing information.  

This is very sensitive to him. 

Why is it so important to him that we, the audience know, he was in his truck?

Even without training, this journalist should have recognized his need to explain why and his repetition and should have asked about it.  

With training, the interviewer would have pounced on the sensitivity but even without, many recognize the sensitivity intuitively. 

That he was "hauling" is not only unnecessary to say:

no one would consider this a leisurely drive, stopping off to have a cigarette, admire the scenery, and eventually call 911 to report a missing toddler,   but it is also 'story telling', which is to make us consider the location of the emotions within his statement.  

"I was hauling" shows a need to present urgency, rather than urgency presupposed.  

The father in the truck has produced intense sensitivity in his language.  

Uh, we searched for - after about twenty minutes in a dead panic, not knowing where he was in such a small area, and not knowing, never being there, I knew I was in trouble.

He began with "we searched" indicating unity, but then gives an 'editorializing', or inclusion of emotion ("dead panic").  The emotion here is not necessary since the child is missing.  

Emotions in the "logical" portion of a statement are often put there artificially unless something has caused the subject to debrief and process the emotions. 

What causes emotions to enter due to processing?

a.  the passage of time. 

When enough times passes, it becomes more difficult to conclude "artificial placement" of emotions.  In truthful accounts, especially fresh, or told for the first time, the emotions come in the "after" portion of the statement.  Such as:

I could not find him;
we searched everywhere in the area;
I called 911. 
I was in a panic. 

This shows that the emotions take time to process, especially since parents are on "auto pilot", that is, zoned to find their child. 

What it makes us wonder is if they really were in a "dead panic", or they wish to convince us that they were.  We look for their words to guide us, and for the journalist to ask.  

b.  The repetition of the account. 

Once the account has been told, emotions have had time to settle in, and in repetition of an account, the emotion is then sometimes added in the "logical" portion.  

I do not know if this father has repeated this account enough times to have processed emotions.  I do not think enough time has passed, by this point, so my question has to do with how often he has repeated this account.  

"dead panic", however, is not a word ("dead") we expect a parent of a missing child to use.  This has caused considerable alarm in the comment section of the blog and this is a reasonable reaction to such a thing.  Recall Josh Powell saying that Susan would be 'eaten up like hamburger meat' in a verbal argument with her father.  This was:

a.  leakage
b.  a signal of just how much he hated his father in law 

He knew that he had dumped Susan's remains somewhere that wildlife would devour her.  

"Dead panic"is certainly a troubling phrase to use.  I would like to know if he has used this regularly, as  a habit of speech.  Yet, for it to show up here:  does he know something he is not saying? 

"I knew I was in trouble" is an interesting statement. 

Is this an admission of guilt and worry over oneself, or is it the words of a father taking responsibility, ultimately, for his son's plight?

Some very responsible parents will take full ownership and responsibility of the situation, making his son's disappearance his own trouble. 

It is also possible that this is 'leakage', that is to say, he, himself, is in trouble.  

 Um, so we decided to call search and rescue, uh, and that's when I drove down. 

"Um" is a pause, giving one time to think.  In working from experiential memory, is this necessary?

Next, "we decided" shows both the unity of "we", but also that they 'came to a decision', which is to say:  There was a delay in calling for help.  

I never like "we called" therefore, whenever I have heard it, I asked, "Did you both call?" as I want clarification.  It is possible that both called, or two calls were made, but I want this to be clear.  I have found, too often, "we called 911" to be in the language of the guilty as only one called, and the one who made the call, uses "I", but the other, the guilty, may wish to be seen as "part of the innocent" person's cooperation with police.  This goes for all sorts of crimes. 

Please note that when a child goes missing, there will be sensitivity indicators, as well as even signs of guilt, in both innocent and guilty parents.   We seek to discern the difference via context. 

For innocent parents, there is also an expectation of minimization.  To have a child go missing some adult must have been neglectful, in most all situations. 

For a child to go missing, highly responsible adults will blame themselves, even when the child did not go missing on said adult's watch.  This is because the highly responsible adult will hold herself, for example, responsible for letting the neglectful person watch their child in the first place. 

Years ago, Kyron Horman went missing.  Statement Analysis indicated step mother Terri Horman for deception and this deception was specifically about what happened to Kryon.  

Desiree Young was Kyron's biological mother, who blamed herself, as responsible mothers do, even for getting sick, and being unable to care for him, which is how he ended up in Terri Horman's hands.  

We must be on our guard for natural minimization and guilt, in the innocent parent's language. 

That "we decided" not only suggests a delay (during the 'debate') but likely due to fear of, first, over-reacting ("he's got to be here!), and, possibly, fear of being blamed.  

There was a delay in calling and they initially did not "agree" about making the call.  

Fear of being blamed is also something that shows itself, in the specific sensitivity indicators, and must be categorized in context.  

"we" turns into "I" when driving; that is, likely driving without his wife.  

I do not know who "search and rescue" is:  is this the result of calling 911, or did they have another number, specific to Search and Rescue?

Next, "that's when" speaks to time.  He returns to the truck, further making this a very sensitive point to him.  

The truck, the truck, the truck...it is repeated in his language, and it is something that is of great importance to him and even includes editorializing language, which often belies the need to persuade.  

We must remind ourselves:  The missing information could be only that they argued about calling 911 and the delay is something he feels either guilt over, or he worries that it would appear like guilt to others.  It could be only this and not more nefarious cover up of activity.  We do not have enough for a strong conclusion...yet. 

She tried getting a signal out - um, as soon as I got a hold of the,, I kind of, they told me that she was on the other line with them and they had our location, and they were on our way. They, they were amazing, they are amazing and they still continue to be. Ah, Lhema High County Sherriff and Salmon Search and Rescue, you could not ask for a better group of people, volunteers, and search and rescue, and just everybody. You couldn't ask for better people - so sincere, so concerned, and they were - everybody was emotionally attached to this, as you, anybody would be of a two year old. 

Lots of self censoring by him as seen in broken sentences. This is to stop himself, mid sentence.  Is this his normal habit, as a "baseline", or is it specifically triggered by the topic?

If it is his norm, so be it, but if he can talk about baseball, for example, without being "all over the place" in pronouns (this is restricted to pronouns because pronouns are instinctive), it is very troubling.  

a.  "Tried" in the past tense, often indicates failure.  

b.  Praise of authorities. 

This is something that is not expected at this time.  It is way too early for this kind of 'surrender' of a missing child where there was only failure to locate him.  

Parents want their child found.  When not found, they see authorities as having "failed" them, and it is not time for praise.  

When do we find praise of "authorities"?

1.  We find that authorities are praised by the innocent when the child is found safe.

2.  We find that authorities are praised by the innocent parent when the child is found no longer alive, after a long period of time has passed, and the parent has significantly grieved and processed the trauma, and recall, at moments of sheer terror, kind faces, or the 'small cup of water' offered in consolation.  This is similar to language in parents who outlived their child, and warm themselves with memories of the wake or funeral, and remember the kind comments of friends and relatives.  It generally takes time, however, to hear this. 

3.  We find the praise of authorities who fail to find a child by the guilty (those indicated for deception regarding the disappearance of the child):  the guilty did not want the child found, hence, the praise.  

4.  We find the praise of authorities who fail to find a child in the language of the guilty who reveal a desperate need to "make friends" with "police" (that is, "authority") and quickly align themselves.  

They sometimes even "name drop", and talk about how good "Sgt. Smith" was, and so on.  This can belie a need to be seen as 'part of the solution' rather than the cause of the problem. 

See the analysis of Brooks Houck, where on the Nancy Grace Show, he answered criticism for not searching for Crystal Rogers with both name- dropping and his own behind the scenes, searching, reminiscent of Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson.  

The father may have been treated well, but because at the time of this statement, his son had not been found, the praise is not expected.  

"Was attached" may indicate that he is thinking of the specific time period during the search; this is evidenced in how he breaks up time period of them being "amazing" including the future.  

The praise of unsuccessful searching is concerning.  

What about the blues of sensitivity in his statement?

D : 2.36 when she called and I was in the truck hauling down to the road trying to get service because I didn't think one bar would get it. So I, she got very very lucky. I was blessed that she was able to get service because I didn't think, I didn't want to try and risk getting half way through my talking to 911 and have it cut off. So I went down to where I knew I could get a little service, about a half mile down the road. 

The two most sensitive parts of speech in Statement Analysis are:

a.  The leaving or departing from a place ("left, departed")
b.  The reason why ("so, since, therefore, because", etc)

With (a) it means that leaving a place is more important than the arrival or location where one was going.  When "left" is used as an "unnecessary connecting verb" it is sensitive. 
"I was at my office and I went home" is a sentence that moves forward yet:

"I was at my office and left and went home" shows "left"as an unnecessary connecting verb (one cannot go home unless one first leaves, therefore, "left" is not even necessary to say.  This means the 'law of economy' is abandoned, and additional words are used giving us additional information. 
"Left" indicates that there is missing information in a sentence.  This missing information is 70% likely to be due to rushing, time, traffic, lateness, etc, but 30% likely to be critically withheld information.  It is very easy for the interviewer to learn what the missing information is likely to be:

"So, tell me what happened when you left your office?"

Answer a:  "Nothing.  I just wanted to get home." This is likely going to be traffic or time. 

Answer b:  "What happened when I left?  Oh, well, my boss came to see me and..." indicating that the subject was still thinking about what happened at the office, just prior to leaving, because it was important. 

WE ALWAYS flag "left" for missing information and follow up questions tells us what it is.  

When the missing information is nefarious, the subject usually says, "Nothing, why do you ask?"

I say, "oh, I don't know" and move on. 

I then ask other questions but I will soon say, 
"Ok, let's go back to when you were at your office.  What hours do you work?"

My lens is focused at just before he gets out of work.

"I work 9-5"

"Always?"

"Yes."

"What hours did you work that day?"

"Why do you ask that, I just told you I work 9-5?"

I got him. 

No matter how much he squirms, I politely and in an even voice, always go back to the time just before he left which unnerves the guilty into thinking, "Holy $&%*^( !  This idiot knows and is toying with me!"which increases the pressure on him to unburden himself, release the pressure and tell me what happened.   At times, when necessary, I have gone "past" that missing hour of time for more than 45 minutes in the interview (to soften him) only to "go back" to the hour where missing information is.  It tells the subject who feels he must cooperate that I am relentless.  It is his will versus mine and I will not lose.  He wants to tell me and I want to know and he is going to tell me. 

Once an investigator has this much confidence in analysis and in the system, he cannot fail.  If the subject will talk, he cannot fail to obtain information.  It is only when a subject refuses to speak utterly, rather than, "I don't want to talk"(which is not a closed door) or anything like it, I am going to get the truth.  


b.  "Because" 

The Reason Why

In this point of sensitivity, there is no "70% likely" anything:  there is a story behind it and I am going to find it.  

In the interview, any time I hear the word "because" or "so" or "since", I flag it, and I will find out why this person has a need to explain himself. 

BECAUSE HE ASSERTED IT WITHOUT BEING ASKED, it is not only "sensitive" information, but he INITIATED IT, meaning, he not only wants to tell me, and he not only needs to tell me:

He has an acute need to tell me and any interviewer who learns this one element of Analytical Interviewing is going to find that:

His need to tell me the information is even greater than my need to get it.  

HE is actually the one desperate to tell me, even though I am desperate to know:  his desperation is deeper and emotionally tied to him.  He is the one who 'started' the flow of information with its use and HE is the one worried I was going to ask him. 

In an interview of stolen item, she told me about her day, hour by hour, including several points in time:  

"Then, I went on my smoking break."

Ok, that's fine. 

"After lunch, I took my 5 minute smoking break."

Good for you. 

"I went out to my truck to smoke"

I got her.

This is where the thief took the stolen item.  

She was thinking about the stolen item and worried that there was surveillance video in the parking lot (there wasn't but I did not tell her that, I just asked her if she thought the parking lot had a surveillance camera...She thought I was Satan for asking that question!), that's all.  

By telling me why she went to her truck when I did not ask her why, told me that she was afraid I was going to ask her, "Say, why did you go to your truck at 2PM?" (I don't really say, "say") 

Once she used the word "to", my training in gear, I knew that she had done something that she did not want me to know about, nor did she want me to ask her why she went to her truck.  

When she confessed, I asked her the usual two questions:

1.  Why did you confess to me?
2.  Why did you confess at this time?

ALWAYS ask these questions and you will learn a great deal about yourself.  
Her statement showed a powerful need to be respected, so I was extra cautious in respectful tones.  She also said she had not slept since the initial event. 

But she said something else that is so important for you, the investigator to hear. 

She said, "But I thought you knew I hid it in the truck!"

This was the same truck searched by a police officer with 25 years experience who interviewed her and declared her innocent based on his 25 years experience.  (She confessed in writing and was convicted). 

The reason "why" shows a need to explain.  

It is something that Interviewers are trained to spot, through repetition, mock interviewing which is video taped, and then reviewed on video, more interviewing,  more written analysis, and so on. 

This is done until it becomes second nature. 

I saw recently that Wes Clark wrote that he tells investigators not to practice this newly learned skill on friends and family lest they lose them, but acknowledged that he knows they will and admitted:  you cannot turn it off after a certain point in training and practice 

He's right.  (I like his work).

D : 2.36 when she called and I was in the truck hauling down to the road trying to get service because I didn't think one bar would get it. So I, she got very very lucky. I was blessed that she was able to get service because I didn't think, I didn't want to try and risk getting half way through my talking to 911 and have it cut off. So I went down to where I knew I could get a little service, about a half mile down the road. 

Look at this again, perhaps without your spectacles:  

D : 2.36 when she called and I was in the 

truck hauling down to the road trying to get 

service because I didn't think one bar would 

get it. So I, she got very very lucky. I was 

blessed that she was able to get service 

because I didn't think, I didn't want to try 

and risk getting half way through my talking 

to 911 and have it cut off. So I went down to 

where I knew I could get a little service, 

about a half mile down the road. 

Look at his "reason why" in his statement; there are three of them, close together, creating a 'cluster of sensitivity'

1.  "Because" I didn't think, tells us not only "why" he was "hauling" (that is, rushing) but what he did not think. 

The first need to explain is found while telling us he was rushing.  No one asked why he drove down the road but he wanted it out there.  But there is something else for you to consider:

No one had accused him of delaying, nor taking his time, to call 911 for his missing son. 

That he told us what he "didn't think", which is in the negative. 

"I drove down the road to where I thought I would find a better signal."

Instead, he needs to tell us not only why he drove, but what vehicle he was in.  We did not ask him, "What vehicle did you take?"

We did not ask him, "Were you driving really slow?"

None of these things were posed to him by the interviewer.  "We" is the audience. 

He "didn't think" is stopped.  He has censored himself from giving us information. 

2.  "Because I didn't want to try..."

"I didn't want to try"?  Why not?  If you tried and failed, you can "haul" down the road IN YOUR TRUCK and try again.  There's no penalty for dialing 911 twice. 

Something is wrong here. 

Something is missing here.  

Why would anyone care if he was standing on top of his head, dialing 911 with his toes, as long as he called 911 for his son?

3.  "So, I went down to where I knew I could get a little serve, about a half mile..."

Not only does this tell us "why" he did something (get in his truck and drive) but now he wants us to know the length of the drive:  "about a half mile."

We would not give a rat's patooty if he was in or out of his truck, had one bar or two, or how far he drove:

We only care that he called 911. 

He, however, cares very much that we know:

Where he was when he called 911, in his truck;
How far he drove his truck to call 911;
How fast he drove his truck to call 911; 

She got "lucky" that she had a signal; in fact, her luck is made sensitive by him, according to him, with "very very lucky"; something of which he did not have.  

To be "very very lucky" is only in comparison with a reference point.  What is his reference point?

It is his own delay in calling.  She was "very very lucky" in her call, but only in comparison to him. 

Yet, who  was "blessed"?

Answer:   He was.

Question:  Why was he blessed?

Answer:  Because she could get a signal.

Question:  Why is this a blessing, since he got through, too, with a very short delay between the two calls; so short, in fact, (due to his "hauling") that they were both on with 911 at the same time. 

This "blessing" sounds scripted.  

She was lucky but he was blessed. 

One is random, one is providential and is an invocation of Divinity in the language of most. 

The search and rescue were amazing. 

They failed to find him. 

The father's extreme sensitivity tells me that he was the one who needed to "agree" to call 911 and that there was a delay in making this call. 

The delay could be the reason for guilt in his language and sensitivity indicators, however, it is not my experience that a short delay in calling 911 would cause such a reaction rather than the fact that the child is missing being the 'reference point' for the entire interview!

This is not expected.  

Yes, he could have guilt because of the delay, because he chose the site where his son went missing, or even that he was friends with the man who is also named a "Person of Interest" with an unknown criminal history. 

Parents do, in fact, blame themselves for that which they did not do.  This is often a signal of being highly responsible parents.  If a babysitter that I chose harmed my child, I would blame myself as being responsible for choosing the babysitter that brought harm. 

I would probably also blame myself for choosing a camp site with water, if my son had drowned there.  

I would blame myself, irrationally and illogically, as well. 

Yes, it could be these things. 

Yet, I have my doubts, especially with the need to learn why his truck is so sensitive that it gets repetition and signals of missing information.  I liked, "my son" references, including the contexts, though I would not have minded hearing the child's name, too.  

"Dead" and "I" associated with "trouble" are concerning but I do not know, yet, why.  

Had this interview been conducted with even marginal training, we would likely know much more information at this point in this tragic account of a little boy's life.  

If his friend at the camp is, indeed a sex offender, the father could have rambled on and on nervously trying to portray himself in a positive light because of guilt of having the sex offender near his child. 

It is true that some men are falsely accused in spite reports, but a momentary lapse of judgment is all it can take, to effectively bring a lifetime of pain to the child, and every person who loves the child, for the rest of their lives.  

We remain open about the possibilities, and hope for answers.  

---

How Many Lies Can You Spot?

July 27, 2015, 4:02 pm

≫ Next: Example of Analysis: Brooks Houck in Crystal Rogers Disappearance

≪ Previous: Deorre Missing: No Suspects, but Persons of Interest Due to Presence

$

0

0

A Reliable Denial is only reliable when it is issued in the Free Editing Process.  If it is not issued initially in the investigation, it can be subsequently learned and repeated, throughout the months that follow but it is no longer reliable.

When analysis was published on radio talk shows, two things were included:  The Reliable Denial, and the social introduction.  The analyst carefully explained how each parent related to Jonbenet in context of the sentence including when she was "daughter" and when she was not.

The analyst concluded that the parents were not truthful, and that there was linguistic indication that John Ramsey had sexually molested his daughter, and Patsy Ramsey was likely a victim of early childhood sexual abuse, which is perhaps why she failed to protect Jonbenet.

Shortly after that, John and Patsy Ramsey went on television and said,

"I did not kill my daughter, Jonbenet" using not only the three elements of a Reliable Denial, but also the complete social introduction, in each of their opening statements.

Regarding sexual abuse, the language gave indication that John Ramsey had, in fact, sexually abused his own daughter.  This was via the language only.  Yet we later learned that she had signals that, by themselves, are not conclusive, but when taken in light of the language, and as a whole, paint a picture.  Besides the linguistic indicators,  she was dressed up in a sexualized manner, but then we later learned that she was a constant bed wetter, and had frequent urinary tract infections.

Risk factors for sexual abuse:

1.   Language of the alleged perpetrator towards his daughter
2.  Language of the alleged perpetrator in general ("lights" and "doors")
3.   sexualized environment of the pageantry
4.  Frequent bed wetting
5.  Chronic  urinary tract infections
6.  A mother who may have been molested herself (failure to protect)
7.  The autopsy showed vaginal trauma/insertion

Although (1) and (2), when taken with deception, is a strong indictment, the others strengthened the allegation's posture.

Here, we have the copies of those first televised denials, along with other subsequent interviews.
Yet, we also have some comments, particularly about handwriting, that does not appear to be rehearsed.

The analysis of the 911 call concluded "Guilty Caller Status" and
The analysis of the Ransom Note was "deception indicated", which means, it was not a "ransom note", nor was it written by foreigners,  but was intended to move suspicion as far from the house as possible.  I hope to finish my book on child murder cases and statement analysis and will publish "anonymous threatening letter" profile of the ransom note to see if it yields a strong profile.

When a denial is rehearsed, it is not in the Free Editing Process.  Months afterwards, it is not difficult to parrot what is read, but when someone is brought into that process where they have moved away from the 'script', we are able to glean information.

Yes or No?

Yes or No questions are less stressful to lie to, as the deceptive person can be thinking of anything else while answering.  Yet, they hold great value as well, for we are able to "lock someone into an answer" of yes or no, and then refer back to it.  This is where we point someone to their lie, and ask questions about it, knowing how they will not want to "lie about their lie", and begin to alter their language.

You may recall quite a few deceptive subjects who moved away from "no" responses to other deceptive responses, such as Joey Buttofuouco, who felt the need to "defy" the question, rather than add to it.  This was highlighted as deceptive at the time, only to later be part of his "confession" before the court, as his arm was twisted too far behind his back.

Yes or No questions do have their place.

"Absolutely not!" to a "yes or no" question shows a need to persuade and is a response of deceptive people who also wish to "defy" the question, rather than answer it.

What answers do you find deceptive?

How many can you spot? What about handwriting on your own children's pictures? Would you feel 'comfortable' denying such? The documentary seeks to uncover the 'absurd' via viewer observation where you can compare your answers to those you hear from John and Patsy Ramsey.

Example of Analysis: Brooks Houck in Crystal Rogers Disappearance

July 30, 2015, 7:31 am

≫ Next: Denials in Current News Stories Examined

≪ Previous: How Many Lies Can You Spot?

$

0

0

What does group analysis look like?  This may provide insight into a powerful practice within statement analysis where experts come together seeking answers.


The following is summary expert analysis from a group of professionals (detectives, security investigators, therapists, business experts, etc with backgrounds in both law enforcement and psychology) of the transcripts from HLN.com Nancy Grace interview of Brooks Houck, fiancé of missing 35 year old Crystal Rogers, mother of five.

This blog does not publish any private statements unless expressed written permission is given.  This analysis is from the nationally televised show and the transcripts are published by HLN.

No one has been arrested and this is only the opinion of the contributors.  All are judicially innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

The group analysis sought to answer questions including but not limited to:

1.  Does Brooks Houck possess guilty knowledge of the disappearance of Crystal Rogers?
2.  Is he truthful in his answers?
3.  If in possession of guilty knowledge, does he reveal the status of Crystal Rogers?  Is she alive?
4.  Does he reveal any inadvertent information within his answers?
5.  How does he relate to Crystal Rogers, linguistically, which allows us insight into his relationship with her?
6.  Is he cooperative with law enforcement?
7.  Does he deny causing the disappearance of Crystal Rogers?

Please note that lengthy explanations of the principles of Statement Analysis are often not included.  There is also some discussion about interviewing techniques based upon "Analytical Interviewing" principles violated.

This group of experts was asked to work through the interview in order to glean out as much information as possible, with the "40% rule" in mind.

The "40% rule" says that due to the emotional "trail" that is followed during analysis, should the same analyst or other analysts re-analyze the same statement, with a 'broken emotional connection", that is, having moved on to other statements, the same statement will

a.  affirm the original analysis
b.  yield up to 40% more information

Hence, the value of not only re-analyzing one's own work, but group analysis provides the deepest level, as "emotional connections" are different for each analyst.  Too many analysts can be too time consuming, but best is using male and female analysts, with investigatory and psychology backgrounds.  All must be proficient in Statement Analysis with formal training, as well as much interview experience.  For detectives, the interview experience includes the under-rated "street" or traffic interviews, which are not formal interviews, but are marvelous training opportunities that develop intuition.  If formal training is not coupled with this 'street experience' (domestics, in particular), the officer can develop a cynical  attitude that will de-rail success in analysis since 90% of deception does not come from direct lying ("everyone lies! is not true), but from missing info. Presupposition of truth is a basic tenant of analysis.

This analysis is useful for study and instruction in Statement Analysis.

NANCY GRACE, HOST: Live, Bardstown, Kentucky, where a mother of five, Crystal Rogers, Maroon Chevy, found on the side of the road with a  flat tire. She has not been spotted alive since.   Joining us right now in addition to Crystal`s parents, her boyfriend, the father of her baby. She was at their three-bedroom home, there in a quiet subdivision, just before she went missing.  

Joining me right now, in addition to Crystal`s mom and dad, Tommy and Sherry, with me is her boyfriend, I guess I would say fiance. She is divorcing the last husband. She has a young child by Brooks Houck, who formerly ran for sheriff in that jurisdiction. He has taken a polygraph.  
He has not hired lawyers. He has allowed police to search his property and says that he is on call at any time police want to talk to him.  Mr. Houck, thank you for being with us.  

BROOKS HOUCK:   Thank you.  

GRACE: Mr. Houck, what happened the night Crystal goes missing exactly?  

“Tell us what happened.”

Principle:  Where a person begins the statement is always important and sometimes can reveal the motive.  It is ALWAYS important.  It is our job to find out why. 

Do not limit the time period.  

Do not introduce new words.  When NG used the word, “Exactly”, what did she suggest to the subject? 

Answer:  She is suspicious of him.  Do not set your subject on the defensive until either the end of the interview, or in the follow up interview, and then, only if necessary.  Do not hinder the flow of information.  

"What happened?" followed by "What happened, next?" are not only legally sound but allow the subject to 

a.  choose his own words.  This is how the polygraph testing avoids all "inconclusive results" because in the pre-screening interview, the Interviewer introduces NO WORDS of his or her own, but uses the subject's.  Why is this?

Answer:  Because the subject has no  strong "emotional reaction" to words that are not his own, that is, in his own personal, internal, subjective dictionary.  When his own words are used, there is no "interpretation" or "re-interpretation" in his head:  his body will react to his own words. 

If a child molester "tickled" his victim, he will fail if asked, "Did you tickle her?" and denies, but may pass if asked, "Did you molest her?", because he has no strong emotional, personal connection to "molest"; as he is in denial.  

HOUCK: Earlier that day, she showed rental property. She went to Wal- Mart.  

Question:  The question was about “that night” but...

Answer:    his answer went to “earlier that day” which avoids "that night" (a) and begins his account earlier (b) which, when the case is solved, will be proven as important.  

Analysis:  

a.     The “exact” question is avoided making the question, itself, sensitive to the subject. “Boundary”:  The “boundary” of the question is “that night.”  He has gone “outside the boundary of the question”, making this very important information.  

b.     “That” day; distance.  This could be the passage of time, or it could be a psychological distancing especially since he has avoided the question regarding the “night” she went missing. 

c.     We take note of any and all references to Crystal.  Here, she is “she”; we will keep a running tab.  What do we expect to hear?  Answer:  “Crystal”, “she”, “we”, “us”, “my” along with “fiancé; and possibly a nickname or term of endearment (this is a live interview, not a written statement) 

d.     “showed rental property” and “Walmart” are two locations that are not part of “that night”, meaning that they are extra or additional information, which appear “unnecessary”, meaning:  they are only “unnecessary” to us, but are very important to him.  Question: Is this any form of alibi building?   Answer:  We will let the language guide us. 

e.     The subject is “slowing down the pace.”

The average statement in the US, police report of “what happened” is 1 to 1 ½ pages, 8.5” by 11” and covers 8-12 hours of time. 

The average “pace” of a statement is 3 lines per hour.  

When there is a major deviation from this norm, it is to be noted. 

When the pace goes very quickly; that is, on this ‘norm’, less than 1 line per hour, deception is present. 

When the pace slows down to the point where, in this average of 3lph, above 9 lines per hour, deception is coming, in the future, in the statement. 

Here, he was asked about “that night” and has not gotten to “that night” but has slowed the pace down, so much so, that he is earlier in the day.  We now are “on alert” for slowing down the pace and ‘avoiding’ that night.  If he moves ahead, it is fine, but if he slows down the pace, it is indicative of coming deception. 

Question:  how might he ‘slow down the pace’ of his answer to “what happened that night?”?

Answer:  If he gives a lot of detail he is slowing down the pace.  IF he gives a lot of detail “before” the event, only to give less detail during the event, he has slowed down the pace enough for us to say, “the event is not something he wants to tell us what happened.”

Let’s let him guide us.  

GRACE: With who?  

This tells us that NG heard “Walmart”, and likely was not expecting him to mention this so much earlier in the day.  This may have caught her off guard.  

HOUCK: We have established a timeline of all the facts and events.  

*Follow the pronouns.  Who is “we”?

Please note that he is speaking for himself, and not for others.  

“Sharing” that sometimes indicates divorce talk.  

a.     sounds like “official” language; ‘cop speak’ or ‘lawyer speak’

b.     “we” is not defined.  This may be an attempt to assimilate himself with law enforcement.  We only believe what one tells us and he has not told us that he and law enforcement are working together.  We are now on alert, due to this word, regarding the possible lack of cooperation with law enforcement, and/or family, since he introduced “we” without telling us who the others are.  We will look for the word “with” between himself and law enforcement and/or family.  This would confirm the ‘ingratiating’ use of the word “we” (or the undefined use of the word “we” in context).

c.     “all” is, in fact, “deceptive” because she is STILL missing.  If you have “all”, you need nothing else.  This is to “stop the flow of information” similar to, “I told you everything” when a person is missing.  A loved one of a missing person will not say “I told you everything” but will often wake up in the middle of the night, remembering something else, and leaving a voice mail for investigators.  They continually search their memories until the person is found, hoping to remember some small detail that may matter to the case.  There is no “all” while the case is unsolved. 

d.     “facts” and “events” are separate in his personal dictionary.  We would need him to explain the difference between them and then explain how “all” the events are known. 

Question:  is it possible that the subject is telling the truth here?

Answer:  It is possible if he does know the event that caused her to disappear, therefore “all” is true, except that it is not “truth” for the plural use of “we.”

Principle:  A direct or “outright lie” is very rare.  A deceptive person, more than 90% of the time, is deceptive via what he withholds, suppresses, or leaves out from his statement. 

1.     “leave out” is passive, low stress

2.     “withhold” is deliberate, medium stress

3.     “suppress” is to deliberately withhold, while feeling emotional pressure to reveal, high stress.  

e.     “established” means to “put together”; it was “established” by whom?  It was “established” by “we”, which is more than one person.  Pronouns are reliable and trustworthy, even when attempting to sound as if cooperative with law enforcement (deceptively) it is STILL instinctive and intuitive and still 100% reliable.  

Question:  Since pronouns cannot “lie”, was he alone when he established the timeline of facts and events?

Answer:  He worked with someone; is it possible that he worked with his brother, the police officer from the local department?  There is a connection to someone here and it sounds like "official" language, perhaps even more "lawyer speak" than "cop speak", but we will wait to see how he guides us.  

*There is suspicion that he has, perhaps, gotten assistance from his brother, the local police officer.

With the word “we” regarding “established the events and facts”, he did, indeed, work with someone.  If not his brother, perhaps his lawyer or a friend who has legalese in his own language.  It has a sound like a defense attorney would use, “all the events and facts”, as if “all” means there is no need to get more; we have them all.  This is sometimes in the language of alibi-building.  It is not “put together” or “constructed”, it is “established”, with “established” indicating that something is put together for presentation, as in a legal defense.  Is this “alibi building” with lawyer-speak?  It sounds like it, even more than “cop speak.”

Analytical Interviewing Principle:  DO NOT INTERRUPT! It may be that he was interrupted by NG, and not that he avoided the question.  She asked again:  

GRACE: Who did she go to Wal-Mart with, Brooks?  


HOUCK: I was not there at Wal-Mart with them. She had some of the children with her.  

Before he answers with, “She had some of the children with her”, he first establishes something that was not asked of him.  This speaks to priority:  he was not “there”, at that location, with them.  This is his priority.  

He has a need to establish that at that location, “there” (emphasis), he was not present.  This is very important to him.  The location is emphasized with “there” unnecessarily, making it even more important to the subject and to analysis. 

This raises questions:  

Was he at Walmart, on his own, just not “with” them?

Was something else, besides the children, with her, at Walmart?

Did she talk to someone on the phone from Walmart?

Did he talk to her, or text her, using the phone, while she was at Walmart?

In other words, was he “with her” but just not “there” with her?  

If you were not “there”, at Walmart, with them, where were you? 

*is it possible that there was a 3^rd party involved?   Did she have a boyfriend who she ‘ran into’ at Walmart?  Is it possible that she spoke to another man, or her family, or someone that bothers him, while at Walmart?

Please note:  something is causing him to NOT place himself at Walmart, with them, during this time period.  Remember:  he brought this time period of instead of “that night.”  

Q.  What do you now note about his references to Crystal?

A.  He has not used her name, but only “she” still.  We continue to listen for how he references her, to learn the quality of the relationship at the time of the statement.  

Also take note that “the children” is not “the kids” or even “some of our kids”, or “some of our children”; which is to suggest distance between the subject (Brooks Houck) and the children, which may or may not include his own biological child who is not mentioned.  

GRACE: Mm-hmm. OK.  

HOUCK: Yes, ma`am.  

GRACE: That`s important, Brooks, because as you know, with your interest in law enforcement, it establishes a timeline. So that was Friday around 4:00 p.m. then what happened after Wal-Mart?  

1.     She makes a statement, and introduces new information.  MISTAKE noted. 

2.     She then asks a good question, “What happened after Walmart?”

Q.  Why is the first statement (1) a mistake?

Answer:   

a.     It allows him to move away from the FEP (free editing process) and parrot her.  This reduces reliability and it is how polygraphs are ruined.  Parroting reduces the body’s response to deception. 

b.   She put him on alert:  “as you know” regarding his background and/or connection to law enforcement.   She is elevating his distrust, which is the opposite of what she should be doing unless she had a reason to want to make him defensive.  Usually, we do not put a subject on the defense until the follow up interview, or at the end of the initial interview (if we suspect that he will not return and allow a follow up interview), and many times, we do not put the subject on the defensive until deception has been indicated and he has been now challenged to address his own lie.  This is a powerful technique because he WILL NOT look upon his lie, and lie about it.  It will not happen.  

Therefore, this is way too early to do this.  




HOUCK: When she left Wal-Mart on Friday, late afternoon, early evening, she showed a rental property that we have listed, in the Kentucky Standard, in a large ad, multiple properties. She then left that and preceded home.  

a.     He has slowed down the pace with lots of unnecessary details.  We do not care where the ad was placed, who placed the ad, what size the ad was, and so on; but he does.  this is to slow down the pace of the question, “What happened that night…” to the point where he is giving lots of details about things that seem to be unconnected to the question!  This tells us that not only is “deception coming”, but he has a need to avoid answering the question “What happened that night” by “running down the clock” on the one hour show.  By giving these seemingly ridiculous details, he is avoiding answering the question.  Yet, by this slow down, he is, in deed, leaking information. 

b.     His fiancé and mother of his child is missing and he is talking about real estate, specifically using the intuitive “we”, introducing MONEY into a missing person’s case. He wants us to know that he has a stake in the money made from real estate.  He is trying to slow down the pace but has now ‘leaked’ out that MONEY is on his mind while she is missing.  

c.     Cluster of “blues” in his statement.  The leaving of Walmart is mentioned, and then the leaving of showing “a” rental property (singular) ----there is missing information. 

70%:   rushing, time, traffic etc, but 30% more important.  Since there is nothing in the context that talks about time constraints, it likely means that he is specifically thinking of something that he is not telling.  

Did he argue with her on the phone at those times?

Did the argument include “money”, in that “we” listed them, not just Crystal, who was a real estate agent?  **He is bringing money into the equation and telling us that he is withholding information of something that happened at these times, that is important.  She is still alive at this time.  This is important. 

The missing info could be about him calling or texting her (methinks calling, because texting has too much info that does not go away) and it was argumentative, about possibly money, or a boyfriend, or a family member or someone who is against him (Brooks) –

Could it be that her ex husband (or soon to be ex) was talking to her?  Did he fear her going back with him causing him to not only lose out on her successful real estate business but also have to pay child support?   Please note the distancing language in how he referenced the children earlier in his answer.  

He has yet to use her name which is distancing language suggesting a bad relationship.  We continue to listen to him, to see if he will use her name, nickname, or term of endearment.  He has thus far shown distance to her and to the children.  

d.     “late afternoon, early evening” from a subject who said he has “all” the facts and events within the time line.  He is now vague about the time period, stretching it from “late afternoon” to “early evening.”  This is inconsistent from one who has “established” the timeline with not some, but “all” the events and all of the facts.  *Why?

Is he just trying to impress us (NTP)?   Or…

Is this an admission that he did not know where she was for at least some of the time?

This could be a period of time when he did not know, thus, he was “not in control” of her activities.  This speaks to the possibility of Domestic Violence, as the perpetrator may never even assault his victim, but controls her by the threat of violence, communicated, sometimes, without words, but face expressions. 

In Statement Analysis, in D/V we do not look for “controlling” in the words:

We look for the loss of control.  Statistically, it is during the first 24 hours that the woman physically breaks free, that the most serious assaults take place.  

Question for analysis:  At any time in the statement, does he give indication that she is no longer alive?

Answer:  TBD.   


GRACE: So that was Friday evening. What time did she get home, Brooks?  

HOUCK: After 5:00.  


GRACE: After 5:00. And what, if anything, did she do at that time?  

“What did she do at that time?” is a good question, but by offering “if anything” (it is impossible to do ‘nothing’), she is continuing to suggest to him that she does not trust his answers.  Avoid this. 


HOUCK: It was a normal -- normal evening. At that point, she showed the property and came home.  

a.     “normal” in Statement Analysis tells us that it was anything but normal.  

b.     When a person refers to himself as “normal”, it is a signal that he, himself, or others around him, have classified him as “abnormal” or “not normal.”  (this is found in child molestations a great deal, including, “I have a wife!” as  a defense against the allegation of molesting a child.  

c.     “normal” is also repeated.  This makes it “sensitive” to him, further telling us that not only was this “not normal” but it was “very” abnormal, and:

d.     He has a need to persuade us that it was normal, which is why he repeated it, with the repetition telling us that it was “very much” an abnormal night in his life.  This is his language; not her language.  For him, this is very abnormal and he has a very strong need to convince the audience that it was normal.  Very alarming! 

e.     We have “out of sequence” information means that it is only “out of sequence” for us, but once we learn what the missing information is, we learn why he “went back” to this point.  There is a very important event that took place “back” at “that” property (distancing language) that he does not want to share with us.  He signaled it with the word “left” earlier, and now has show us that it is so important and relevant to her disappearance, that he is revisiting it, even though it is out of chronological order.

f.      “point” is to locate a specific time period as a “point” meaning that an event took place.  Recall his use of “event” above.  To “measure” and to “compare” activities.  




GRACE: Well, what day of the week was this?  

His strange answer has not added up, so she is needing clarification.  This is not a loss of concentration on her part, but to the untrained ear, out of sequence information is confusing.  She wanted clarity.  “Well” reveals her lack of confidence in his answers (answers, plural).

HOUCK: This was on Friday, would have been July 3rd, 2015.  

GRACE: Did you have July 4th plans?  

HOUCK: Yes, we did.  

I believe this intuitive use of “we” to be true, just as I did earlier.  I believe he and Crystal did make plans before “events” at certain “points” took place.  

*He does not say that “we” includes Crystal. 

We also note that we have yet to hear him use her name.  

Context:  he gave long detailed answers about real estate, newspaper, length of ad, plurality, etc. 

Here, “Did you have plans” is only given a very short answer, forcing NG to ask what the plans were. 

What do you make of such a short answer?

The plans “we” made = short response, yet when the plans are fulfilled, there is a very long response.  

What do you think?

Crystal (if the “We” is her, and this is likely the intent of the question) is ‘present’ for the plans and he only gives a very short answer, but when the plans are fulfilled, he goes back to a more detailed answer as Crystal was NOT present for the 4^th of July festivities.  

GRACE: What were they?  

This should not have been needed to be asked; “Did you have plans” expects the person to say “yes” and what the plans were, or, just the simple, “no.”  

HOUCK: My uncle, Fabian Ballard, and Loreto, about 49, had a large gathering at his home. My mother has a very large family, there`s 13 brothers and sisters,

He not only knows how to use a complete social introduction, making his distancing language from Crystal more pronounced, but he also gives others much more detailed information, as human beings, than he does for Crystal. 

Question:  Is Crystal dead at this point in his statement?

Answer:   We continue to explore.   

We are seeking an answer:

 and we -- we had planned on going there on Saturday, July 4th.  

Note that if this is he and Crystal, he stutters on a pronoun.  Indication of increase of stress. 

In the subject’s personal dictionary he DOES know how to give a complete social introduction.  We have Crystal as “she” but Fabian gets:

a.     my (possessive pronoun)

b.     “uncle” (title)

c.     “Fabian Ballard” (full name)  

IF she is dead at this point (the gathering) why slow down the pace?

Answer:  is he “running out the clock” on the show?

Please be aware of the possibility that Crystal is dead (at any time, note a change) and he could, linguistically indicate, a re-living of the crime.  

In Domestic Homicides, when the killer is speaking, there is a bizarre 'silencing' of the victim which is seen in the statement, and can point to an exact time of death.  Words are very important in domestic homicides because they often are the final trigger in a hot blooded (non premeditated) killing; the victim 'proved her point', (especially if she stood up to a controlling man with hx of DV) and he must 'silence' her, that is, take her life away (asphyxiation is often indicated, along with blunt force trauma) as the words set him in rage.  If there is a 'change' in how he relates to her, analysts should ask themselves,

"Is she no longer alive at this point?" and see if the statements following the point bear it out, weaken it, or are neutral to this assumption.  It often creates an 'eery silence' effect that can go unnoticed, but once pointed out, seems to show a demarcation in time that is very strong and she is never referenced in the same way again.  Sometimes it is 'she said that...' is used, but suddenly, there is no quotes or any reference to her speaking to him, or speaking to anyone else (including phone). 

Recall that 'phone' is a 'person' in that phones do not talk, only people do.  Will she 'talk' on the phone?

GRACE: Did you go?  

HOUCK: Yes, I did.

“Defiance”?  (discussion) 

 I went with my family.  

Not only does he use “with” to show distance, but he uses “my” which shows ownership.  There is now a difference established between him and “his” family and Crystal’s family.  There is no use of “our”, which is expected from a person engaged where he will be a step parent.  

Note the distance of “with” and then the confirmation of this distance by the pronoun “my”, which seems to exclude Crystal.  




GRACE: And what time that was?  

HOUCK: That was about 5:00 or 5:30 on Saturday --  

GRACE: OK. Let me understand the timeline, Mr. Houck.  

 So on Friday night, she shows a property in the evening, well, the evening, she gets home after 5:00.  

The subject claimed to have “all” the facts and events of the “established” time line!  He is no longer “Brooks” but has returned to the more formal, “Mr. Houck” using title and last name, creating distance between them which signals that Nancy Grace DOES NOT BELIEVE HIM.  

A Interviewing:  Choose a name and stick to it.  

Exception:  law of economy goes from longer to shorter, but if you have a need, later in the interview, to go 'informal' (close to confession), use an informal name as "friendly" conversational language; other than this, pick a name and stick to it.  People have given away much with "Mr. Smith" who became "Joe", but then later, "Smith" (anger) as emotions change.  This is more evident in what a perpetrator calls a victim, but a subject can sense, as we all do, a change in deportment or demeanor of the Interviewer, and we wish to remain neutral unless there is a specific strategic change.  Do not let your emotions dictate your interview!

HOUCK: No. Incorrect. Incorrect.  

He does not say, “no, that’s not it, it is…” with explanation.  Instead, he only says that it is “incorrect” which may be not part of his memorized timeline, you know, the one that has “all” the facts and events; the timeline that “we”, working with someone else, “established.”

GRACE: No? OK. Explain.  

HOUCK: Friday evening.  

She was last seen alive Friday night, after she left the real estate.  Therefore, Friday night (into early Saturday morning) IS the most sensitive portion of his time line.   Please note:

a.     Before he got to Friday night, he slowed down his pace

b.     When he got to Friday night, he jumped from her getting home to the next night (with NG’s assistance—she asked about their 4^th of July plans.  This is why it is SO VERY FOOLISH to introduce, not only language (polygraph contamination) but it allows the subject to lie and control the flow of information.  

GRACE: Friday? Yes, that`s what I said.  

She has prickly need for respect and sometimes showmanship gets the best of her...

HOUCK: July 3rd.  

GRACE: Correct. That`s what I said.  

HOUCK: She showed the property. And then on -- you asked me if we had plans just on July 4th, which was in the following day on Saturday.  

Because he introduced other people by name, “she” is not appropriate.  Even though it may make sense due to context of showing property, the norm is to use her name.  He used other names (our reference point) but not hers.  This is unexpected distancing language. 

GRACE: Right. Right. That`s what I just said.  

HOUCK: Yes, ma`am.  

GRACE: So Friday evening, she shows the property at a multi-property spot that had been advertised in the Standard. She gets home after 5:00 and what children, if any, did she have with her at that time?  




HOUCK: Two children.  

GRACE: And --  

HOUCK: The other two children had already been dropped off at their dad`s house.  

Introduction of a person in his language.  “their dad’s house” is also new info.  When did she do this?  

2 children plus 2 children equals = 4 children, but she has FIVE.  

Conclusion is that he distances himself from these 4 children, as if this is all the children that Crystal has.  

Who is his child’s mother??

Is Crystal dead?  Does his child have a mother?

This appears to rob his child of a mother causing us to ask if he knows that his child is motherless at this point in the statement.  




GRACE: And what did you guys do for supper that night?  

She is fishing…perhaps looking to “gain access into the area of the statement that he is not allowing.”  This may be a better question than it appears to be.  It allows him to tell us what he refused to tell us:  what they did, what was it like, where is the woman who’s name he will not use?

NG  may have asked a brilliant question out of frustration!  (discussion; analysts felt strongly that this was a great question; she may have wondered if Crystal was still alive at this point (she likely was) and even if NG is off in timing, she is intuitively on the right track.  

HOUCK: We just ate here -- we ate here at the house.  

They did not eat at a different location which tells us:

He, at least, and Crystal, were at a different location sometime that night.  

No mention of food.   

Recall the pace:  He slowed down the pace earlier  with lots of details, but since he is at "that night", he is refusing to give any details, forcing Interviewer to ask.  

His pace shows deception, by itself, not Thursday or earlier, but here, at this time, chronologically.  

There should not have been an inconclusive polygraph result. 





GRACE: Did she cook?  

HOUCK: For about an hour and a half and then we left here about 7:30.  


(CROSSTALK)

“Left” indicates missing information and the context tells us nothing about rushing, and 7:30 is not a time known for traffic, therefore, something happened at just before 7:30PM between him and Crystal that he does not want to tell the audience.  

Argument is a strong possibility.  

GRACE: Did she cook that night?  

HOUCK: You`re cutting out on me. I didn`t hear what you just said, ma`am.  

GRACE: Oh, I`m sorry. Did she cook that night, Brooks?  

HOUCK: She did not. We just ate here at the house. It wasn`t anything special or new anything like that.

This is like “normal” or “not special” signaling “be aware!  Something special is coming in this account!” 

 We knew that we had plans, wasn`t going to kill a lot of -- kill a lot of time and then we proceeded -- we proceeded out there to the family farm.  

“kill” = leakage (much discussion of using the word "kill", while this is happening is not expected, but that he repeated it is sensitive but introduced by him.  

*Did he contract for someone to kill her?  *Did he kill her himself?  *Did someone assist in the planning?

This word should not be in his brain, but it is, and it is repeated (important) and likely is 'leakage'

“proceeded” is also legalese type language (or LE) but…it is repeated.  It means that a ‘series of events’ or ‘series of actions’ took place.  

“We knew we had plans” instead of the simple, “We had plans…”  This tells us that he knew the plans would not be followed through.  They were arguing!  

They were “arguing” from the subject who is incapable of using her name, yet can use the phrase, “kill time” not once, but twice!

The “family farm” is going to be a very important place to him.  It is “out there” in his language, while talking about plans that produced an argument with the woman who he will not name.  

Question for group:

From this point onward, will he tell us ANYTHING, even a single word, that came from Crystal?  Will he use the word “said” at any time?

Please keep in mind that a dead person does not speak.  

“She actually hasn’t spoken through the whole statement” (AS)

Q.  Who hasn’t spoken?

A.  The person who has no name, and only 4 children.  

Dead persons in Statement Analysis have “no voice” in Domestic Homicides.  When this happens, you will likely learn that the victim “said” things to the killer that the killer did not like, nor want to hear, and he “silenced her” in reality; therefore, he “silences her” in the statement, which is his verbalized reality.  

GRACE: OK. Now. On July 4th I thought was the family farm get-together, no?  

HOUCK: Well, the Fourth, that right there is another family member.  


GRACE: Oh, I get it.  

HOUCK: That we went to.  

GRACE: I get it. So that night, you get back and what was  doing when you went to bed?  

“When you went to bed” is a HUGE MISTAKE.  

Why?  Nancy Grace is not only jumping time (huge mistake) but she is assuming they did something that you must NEVER assume in a missing persons, or potential homicide:  dead people not only do not speak, they do not go to sleep (bed).  

HOUCK: She was playing games on her phone.  

1.     “She” is no name still; not a person?  Not a fiance’?  Not a mother of his child.  Not a person. 

2.     Playing games=  is this an insult?  Remember, perpetrators often find a way to insult or blame the victim.   She is the mother of four, yea, five children, so who is watching the baby or getting the kids off to bed? Always note insult, especially if it is slight, as the guilty perpetrator feels justified, if only a little, via the insult.  We hear this in child abuse cases where “the baby would not stop crying” as if it is the baby’s fault for irritating the parent with the crying.  Perps subtly blame victims. 

3.     He places her on her phone.  This is now where we expect her to be “heard”; but he only has her playing on it.  What did he say to her?  If she is dead, it is likely that he did not say much.  What did she say to him?  Has she already been “silenced” by this point?

Since she is, in reality, a mother of five children, though he has reduced her to not being a mother of his child, NG asks the obvious question that he, himself, did not offer:  

GRACE: Really? OK. Where was the baby?  

HOUCK: The baby was still up.  

Note:

a.     “still up” indicates that the baby should have gone down to sleep

b.     Note the brevity of his answers.  Remember:  we are at that dark part of the account where he does not give us much detail.  He did not say what game she was playing, or if she was talking to someone, or anything else 

During this “avoidance period” in his timelines, he gives few details. 

When he is away from “that night”, he gives lots of details. 

Here, he has the need to make her ask: 

GRACE: OK. And who -- who had the baby while she was playing games?  


Do you hear a reluctance on the part of NG to insult Crystal?  


HOUCK: He was just running loose in the house.  

He is blaming the  victim here.  She is playing games on her phone, while the baby is running lose.  Like many negligent parents, while blaming her, he indicts himself!  

GRACE: OK.  

HOUCK: If a light`s still on in the living room, he is not going to go to bed until all the lights are out. So if there`s still activity going on in the home, he is going to stay it up with me.  

1.     He does NOT tell us that the lights were on.  He tells us what usually happens.  We believe what one tells us. 

2.     He introduces “lights” into the language.  Please consider that it is repeated in a statement given on national television while she, the woman who’s name he will not use, is missing.   Investigators should consider the possibility that he raped her.  Or, since “sexual activity” is in play, was he cheating on her, or did he discover she had sex with…the “dad” of one of the other children?  Or someone else?

Sexual activity is very closely linked to “lights” and in this case, the lights are “on”, which is often associated with sexual activity (not refusal), but could be coerced or forced.  

The reason that “lights” are found in the language of sexual activity (negative or positive) because light has to do with “energy”, or more specifically, sexual energy.  Therefore, the lights out, can be the ending of the ultimate energy, but only in the context of one of whom sexual activity could have existed.  “hand over mouth” silencing of one…may be the end of the sexual relationship (between them, or between another man and Crystal)…somewhere, the sex will end because her life is over.  

Note the change of language from “lights” to “activity”; a change of language in the FEP represents a change in reality.  “Light” is related to “sex”, and activity is something that does describe sex. 

I am very concerned that this was a sexual homicide, or a homicide that proceeded because of sex, whether it be sex with someone else, or between them.  


GRACE: Now what time did you go to bed and was she still up playing games on her phone?  

DO NOT ask compound questions; they allow the subject to pick and choose which he wants to answer.  

HOUCK: She was still up playing games on her phone. And it was really close to midnight.  

He answered both questions, but offered no commentary on her staying up, nor any other information like “who watched the baby” or “who put the baby to bed” or a single detail.  

In this time period, he says as little as possible, but when he was before this time  period he gave lots of detail.  This period is NOT something he wants to voluntarily talk about.  Why not?

“Still up” portrays the mother as a bad mother.  This is something that perpetrators do, but only subtly.  Only once did I ever come across a case in which a perp insulted the victim outright:  Heather Elvis case.  

GRACE: OK. And was the baby still awake?  

HOUCK: Yes, ma`am.  

Again, no details from a detailed orientated man.  The baby is the child of Crystal, but not according to his language.  According to him, she only has four children.  This baby does not have a mother.  

GRACE: So you go to bed. She is playing phone games and -- was she playing with another person or just by herself?  

HOUCK: I`m not aware if she was, you know, texting anybody else or talking to anybody else. I`m under the impression she was just playing one of the games on her phone.  

1.     Regarding the phone:  

2.     “you know” is only produced here, when asked about Crystal using a phone to communicate, one way or another, with someone else.  

Please note that here at this specific point in time, from a man who knows “all” the events, that he is not able to say “she was on the phone playing a game” but he can only say that this was his “impression”; here, at this specific point.  This is to say a change in status. 

3.     She has no voice.  No speech.  No communication.  

This is seen in no texting but also not speaking to anyone, which is only his “impression”:  would you have heard if she had been talking on her phone??

We have both “under” and “impression”

I am “under the impression” is passivity in language, indicating that he is concealing identity/responsibility.  He does NOT say “she was playing a game on the phone” as he did earlier.  This is to distance himself from that fact, now, here, at the hour “really close to midnight.”

At the time, “really close to midnight”, he cannot say she is playing a game on the phone.  He does not say “my impression is”, but he is “under the impression” (passivity noted) and she has no voice.  

“anybody ELSE” tells us that he is aware that at least previously, she was in communication with another person who is “somebody else”, as in comparison to him, Brooks . 

GRACE: And when did you realize --  

(CROSSTALK)

HOUCK: Just standard and normal for her to do that.  

To let the baby run around loose while she plays games on her phone is just “standard and normal” for her; 

He is insulting the victim--- a red flag.  

He is also hinting something:  remember that “normal” is anything but normal?  Well, is this an admission that playing games instead of taking care of the children is something he, himself, does?


GRACE: Brooks, when did you realize, Brooks Houck, that she was gone?  


HOUCK: The very next -- the very next morning.  

This repetition and self-censoring (stopping his words) causes us to ask if he knew she was “gone” at a different time period, before the “very next morning.”  

His own stumbling on his own words suggests this to us.  


GRACE: So you slept through the whole night and did not realize that she was gone?  


HOUCK: That`s true.  


Why not just say, “Yes” to this “yes or no” question?

Is he, in his mind, testifying in court??

[20:47:21] GRACE: Joining me right now in addition to her parents, Tom and Sherry Ballard, her boyfriend that she lived with there in their three-bedroom suburban home, Brooks Houck is with us.  So, Brooks, you go to bed and she is still playing games on her phone. The next morning around 8:00, you noticed that she`s missing.

 Did you report her missing?  

HOUCK: No, ma`am.  

From the man who gives lots of details to avoid getting to the time period when she no longer had a voice, he has very few words to give her. 

Therefore, NG makes him explain himself, which is going to need a lot more words!  

GRACE: Why?  

HOUCK: That is a great question and one that I definitely want the public and the media -- I was not in the least little bit alarmed in any way, shape or form. We have had a stressed relationship at times. And one of the ways that Crystal has always chose to cope or deal with that is by going to -- a young woman`s name, Sabrina, that is her cousin, her dad`s brother`s daughter, whom she is very close to, she spent the night there on several occasion.  

“Crystal” is now "alive."  She is a person.  She has a name.  She has not had a name the entire interview.  

Question:  What brought her to life?   What gave her a real name, in his language?

Answer:  Crystal is a “person” who gets a “name” only when she is not connected to the subject:  she is off, leaving him to go be with her cousin.  This is the context. 

When she is with Brooks, Crystal is only “she”

When she is at Walmart with the kids, she is not Crystal

When they have dinner, make plans, she is not Crystal

When she sells real estate that they, together, posted in the news, sharing the money, she is not Crystal.

Only here, in context, away from him, can she be a person who is alive and has a voice.  

When Crystal is with Brooks Houck, she has no name, no title, and no possessive pronoun.  She should have been “my fiance’ Crystal” making a strong connection to him.  

Even an “incomplete social introduction” which shows a bad relationship, is better than NO introduction.  To him, she is “dead” and not a person. 

I think this is why I have been re-thinking one of my conclusions about the Chief who shot his wife.   

Domestic Violence connection:  While with him, he is in control, and she has no identity, but separated (literally) from him, with the strength of her cousin, she is a person. 

Please consider this when seeing the complete or strong social introduction of the cousin!  It matches. 

Sabrina:  young woman, name, title, lineage given.  This means that he recognizes that this is a “safe topic”; that is, while with Sabrina, “she” was “Crystal” and she was her own person, with her own name, but while under him, she was no name, and not even the mother of her child.  

Expected:  We expect minimization or denial of a troubled relationship --here, the admission is alarming and the reality is likely much worse than his words, just as "glorious" was an extreme from Scott Peterson.  Given that she has left previously, he has a need to give some specific details about where she went, previously, though he will give only a few details about "that" night.  

GRACE: When you say several, do you mean one, three, 20?  

HOUCK: In the neighborhood of four to six.  

GRACE: OK.  

HOUCK: Something like that.  

GRACE: OK. To Tom and Sherry Ballard, were you aware of that? Do you know who Sabrina is?  

S. BALLARD: Yes, ma`am.  

T. BALLARD: That`s my niece.  

GRACE: OK. Did you know she goes and spends the night over there when she is having an issue at home?  

T. BALLARD: I`ve known probably one time.  

GRACE: Right. OK. I want to go back to Brooks Houck who was the last person to see her alive.  

Brooks, did you go on to the July 4th get-together that day?  

She is now missing.  Crystal is now missing…




HOUCK: Yes, I did.  

defiance

GRACE: Even though you didn`t know where she was?  

HOUCK: Well, I was expecting -- I had put in a phone call that morning and then around lunch and usually, the maximum period of time that she has stayed gone has only been like a day to a day and a half, at the most. And as a result of that, I thought that she would --  

a.     “well” is a pause.  We already know that not reporting her missing was sensitive to him, but now going to a party while she was missing is also very sensitive.  He must carefully think before he answers. 

b.     Self censoring:  broken sentences used.  This means he stopped himself mid sentence.  This shows that he may have been “suppressing” information, not just withholding it.  

c.     “I put in a phone call” is the language of alibi building.  We call our loved ones, we do not put in a phone call, like an obligation.  

d.     What would cause him to “put in a phone call” instead of “calling Crystal”?  PLese consider that it may be that one cannot call a dead person.  

He did not say, “I called Crystal” or even “I called her.”  He didn’t because he cannot call her if she is dead.  He can, however, “put in a phone call.”

GRACE: Did you try to call her?  

HOUCK: -- join us. I`m sorry, I didn`t hear you, ma`am.  

Statistically:  these words find their way out of the mouth of the guilty.  

GRACE: Did you try to call her during that time?  

HOUCK: Not while I was there -- there at the -- at the Fourth. I called her prior to leaving to head in that direction, yes, ma`am.  


Self censoring:  what, specifically, is he avoiding saying?  He is avoiding finishing the sentence that would have given his LOCATION.  Where he was.  “there”, “there, at the (broken), and changes it to “the Fourth” and not the family farm (location).  This location is sensitive to him. 

Nancy Grace MUST give him the opportunity to reliably deny involvement.  Here it is: 


GRACE: Some people have accused you of not being involved enough in the search efforts. What`s your response?  

HOUCK: That is a great question and one I certainly appreciate you asking me. And that is all of my effort in searching for her has been done behind the scene. With the Nelson County Sheriff`s Office.  

He uses “with” to distance himself from searching, while he first reduces his searching efforts to only “behind the scene”; 

This is two elements of distancing language from law enforcement.  He is not searching for Crystal.  Those who do not help have a reason why they do not want success.  They often (the guilty) praise searchers who have FAILED to find their missing loved one while innocent people, early on, will INSULT law enforcement for not finding their loved one, saying, “they are not doing enough!” and “they need to put more men on!” and so on. 

The guilty often praise LE, from the 911 operator on down, to “make friends” or appear “on the side of the good guys” because they have a need to show this.  They also “name drop” to show how cooperative they are; 

revealing how uncooperative they actually are!  

 GRACE: What? What?  

HOUCK: Detective Snow who is leading the investigation and Jason Allison who is a deputy there assisting him along with the Kentucky State Police Agency Post Number 12.  

Why couldn’t he give any details about Crystal?  We get age, gender, lineage, and so on, of others, but NOTHING for the victim, further heightening our awareness of his need to distance himself from her. 




GRACE: My question was what you had been doing with them. Let me ask you this. I know that you agreed to take a polygraph. Did you pass?  

The question, “Did you pass?” gets a long answer.  Please note that innocent people will say, no matter what the results, “I told the truth.”  This is what we expect.  

“Did you pass?” is the question:  

HOUCK: Because of the way that the lines or whatever were there, they determined it to be inconclusive.

1.     He avoided the question, “did you pass?”

2.     We now expect him to say “I told the truth” and “I did not cause Crystal’s disappearance.”  

 I`m not exactly sure what that means. 

He is somewhat sure, but not exactly sure, yet it is the perfect place for him to say, “I told the truth.”  


But they did tell me it does mean that I wasn`t lying or I didn`t pass it or I didn`t fail it.

Statistically:  we look for “truth” in any form, while “lie” in any form is a bad sign. 

This is another place for him to say, “It doesn’t matter what the lines said; I told the truth.”  We wait to hear him say it. 

 They just ruled it inconclusive and that is exactly the way it stands.  

He has spoken to an attorney or has legal background.  I think the “we” is someone with legal or criminal background that he referenced when he said, “we have the timeline and all the events and facts…”  

“The way it stands” is temporary and it may “fall” or “stand differently” at a different time.  This is to admit that it is not the truth.  

This is where the innocent say, "I told the truth" in some form.  We do not like to hear the word "lie", in any form, in this affirmation.  


I have been 100 percent completely honest with everyone. I have been 100 percent cooperative in everything that has been asked of me. I have not asked for any kind of legal advice or assistance or an attorney of any nature. I`m 100 percent completely innocent in this.

In being honest, he needs to say “100% completely” honest;

In innocence, he also needs to say “100% completely innocent” but in cooperation, his need to persuade is reduced to:  

“100% cooperative”, not needing the word “completely”, which was expected since it was a pattern. 

This tells us:

he has not been honest;

he is not innocent, but…

he has actually given some limited cooperation. 

The cooperation does not need the same “strengthening” that the others need.  The more one needs to strengthen, the more it is weak and likely untrue.  

 This means that:

1.  He is not truthful about being honest

2.  He is not truthful about being innocent

3.  He is somewhat truthful about cooperation; that is to say, he has given some specific, but limited cooperation.  

Let's look at his claim about an attorney:

I have not asked for any kind of legal advice or assistance or an attorney of any nature.

"I am 100% completely innocent in this", by itself, tells us of his guilt.  This is one of those phrases that requires strengthening for the guilty.  The innocent state it plainly and may even say "I am innocent because I didn't cause her disappearance" without waiting to be asked.  This phrase, and others like it, has become somewhat famous in that big cases (OJ, Amy Fischer shooting, etc) use this phrase in some form.  Not only does the weakness need to be strengthened, it is so weak that it needs two elements of support:  "100%" and "completely" highlighting how he, himself, does not believe it.  

Also note that the guilty will claim innocence as it refers to a court finding.  Yet, it is also found in long term prisoners, who, after many years of incarceration, say it freely, as it is common "prison-speak" language.  For those who have not served time in prison, it likely refers to court finding, and not the act; that is, to deny the conclusion, but not the action.  

In the above sentence we note:

a.  it is offered in the negative; telling us what he did not do. 

b  "of any nature" is not necessary.  "I have not retained an attorney" or "I have not hired an attorney" would suffice; the extra wording is needed to persuade, rather than truthfully report.  We wonder:

*did he do some of his own legal research?

*did he get counsel from someone in law enforcement, who is technically not an attorney, yet is familiar with criminal investigations and proceedings, therefore, the necessity of "of any nature."

It is a very sensitive statement, qualified unnecessarily, which means it is likely to be "technically truthful" but overall deceptive.  "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" with "sexual relations" previously defined by the subject and Ms. Lewinsky, therefore, misleading (deceptive) but technically truthful (and could pass a polygraph unless he defines his own language!)...in this case, he did not, "officially" retain a defense attorney; that is, in an official capacity.  See how I am qualifying this?  This is what he did! 

 And I have exhausted 
my efforts with the law enforcement agencies to gather all the facts necessary to allow me to have a clean name again.  That`s very important to me. I have not responded to a lot of the negativity and all of this animosity because I want the emphasis to remain on Crystal`s safe return home. And that`s where I want it to stay focused in that area rather than dealing with any of the animosity between the families.  

His goal is not to find her, but to have a “clean” name, not a “cleared” name.  This is another indicator of sexual homicide.  

One who has “exhausted his efforts” has no more effort.  It is done.  Yet, she is not found.  This is to say he is not going to give out any more information than he already has. 

His "cooperation" is limited to:

a.  "gathering" and not "giving" in his mind.  Whatever he "gives" is done in order to ascertain what they (LE) knows.  Please take this "gathering" with his negative sentence about legal counsel together.  He knows what he is doing, and he knows why he is doing:  ("to clean my name")

b.  "exhausted":  it is his efforts to gather that are exhausted.  What he just said was:

"They won't tell me anything more!"

This is a frustrating statement and appears to be missed by the IR.  

c.  "With" shows the obvious distance with LE

d.  He has "not" responded is in the negative and very important to him.  The easiest thing in the world to do is say "I did not cause Crystal's disappearance" and "I will do anything L/E wants!" as responses.  He has not done this. 

As discussed, "clean" name is not "clear my name", and it comes before finding Crystal.  To "clean" is similar to "water" in statements and suggests sexual homicide, or sexual assault leading to homicide.  Rape possible before killing.  


HOUCK: Because of the way that the lines or whatever were they, they determined it to be inconclusive. I`m not exactly sure what that means. 

But they did tell me it does mean that I wasn`t lying or I didn`t pass it or I didn`t fail it. They just ruled it inconclusive and that is exactly the way it stands.  

He doesn't even affirm that he wasn't lying, only that they told him.  Note it is in the present tense, "they tell me", which reduces reliability.  This is either because he has had multiple discussions with them, or that he has fabricated "misinterpreted" someone's words.  

"The way it stands" is legalese.  He is thinking of court?



I have been 100 percent completely honest with everyone. 

I have been 100 percent cooperative in everything that has been asked of me. 

He knows there are things that they have not asked about.  He is signaling that the interview was not complete.  

I have not asked for any kind of legal advice or assistance or an attorney of any nature.

 I`m 100 percent completely innocent in this. 

And I have exhausted my efforts with the law enforcement agencies to gather all the facts necessary to allow me to have a clean name again. 

 That`s very important to me. 

So important it comes before Crystal's wellbeing.  

I have not responded to a lot of the negativity and all of this animosity because I want the emphasis to remain on Crystal`s safe return home. And that`s where I want it to stay focused in that area rather than dealing with any of the animosity between the 
families. 

GRACE: To Tommy and Sherry Ballard, Crystal`s mom and dad, to Miss Ballard, I want to talk about her car and her getting out of that car, and leaving the car in the ignition with her cell phone and pocketbook and a diaper bag still in the car and getting out on the side of the road. What 

do you make of that? Because there is no way I would do that.  

S. BALLARD: I don`t think Crystal would, either. I can`t see her getting out the car. I can`t see remember once her leaving her baby at home. I can`t see her getting out of the car in the dark, not with a cell phone in her hand or something anyway. She had AAA. She had no reason to get out 

of the car. I just -- it don`t make sense.  

GRACE: It doesn`t make sense to me, either, Mr. and Miss Ballard. 

Brooks Houck has been indicated for deception in this analysis.  

He has signaled that Crystal will not be found. 

He avoided using her name throughout the entire interview, until two points:  

Both when Crystal is not with him.  

She enters his language only with the ability to "clean" his name or when she was a 'refugee', that is, the need to go away from him and her children. 

 This is in stark contrast between the social introductions of others, including uncle, and even the age of another person.  

Crystal is a "non person" in Statement Analysis, signaling her death. If she is dead, in his language, how would he know?

a.  The police have told him that they suspect her to be dead?  According to his distancing language, this is not likely. 

b.  Because she has been gone for a very long time (not at the time of this interview)

c.  Because he has guilty knowledge?

Regarding perceived reality in language versus reality: 

This is why we say "he is not divorced" in the statement while the case file says, "You're wrong.  He is married", which misses the point. 

He is not married!

According to Statement analysis, he is not married!

The contradiction is very important and is why we do not want to know the case file before we analyze the statement.  This is not for "effect" (though the effect is often quite impressive) but to avoid influencing our analysis.  This is HOW we learn the quality of the relationship, so critical in domestics.  

When a statement itself shows, "he is not married" it means:

1.  The words (statement) are not reality. 

2.  The words are the subject's perception of reality. 

3.  "Crystal" was never "alive" in the statement, that is, she was never:

a.  Crystal

b.  my fiancé

c.  my girlfriend

d.  the mother of my child

e.  or any other description or attribute including nickname, term of endearment, etc

She is only a "person", that is, something other "she" when she is able to clean his name for him.  

He "brings her to life" for this purpose only. 

Did you notice that she did not "speak" on the phone "that" night?  A living person speaks; a dead person, or "non person" does not speak, that is, communicate.  

Even Crystal's cousin has a name and even a lineage; Crystal has nothing.  She is "she" throughout the entire interview except when she is no longer with him, that is:

a.  With cousin

b.  missing 

In all context associated with him, Crystal is only a pronoun, with avoidance of her name.  This is extreme distancing language, and is also alarming in when she "appears" as "Crystal", only when not connected directly to him.  

Greed may be an element in this case, as the need to connect himself to her real estate business is evident, and there may have been a third party, or at least one that he suspects, including possibly ex husband, or boyfriend (it could be that he has interest in someone else).

Houck is slightly above average intelligence and is controlling showing, especially, a need to control information; something that also suggests guilt.  

Houck has signaled that Crystal will not be found alive, and one of the major questions for investigators is not simply if he had assistance, but to carefully review the transcripts of the audio (it is worth even small budget departments to pay for transcription) to learn if the location of Crystal's remains is leaked.  This requires the understanding of how leakage works, and careful scrutiny may yield two locations, as one may have been temporary. This may be found through repetition, for example, as well as the odds of the location being in a most "unnecessary" way exposed; that is, a sentence or answer that appears utterly unnecessary.  

In the interview, the more the IR spoke, the less reliable the subject's wording is. They must note any time the subject used the IR's own language or expressions, or any time the IR "led" the subject's direction. 

Analytical Interviewing "controls the interview" by letting the subject ramble on and on, yet always going back to:

a.  the original question

b.  the leaked information that was revealed in the ramble.  The subject thinks he is controlling, often by lengthy sentences, yet it is in these lengthy sentences that we discern the difference between emotion and logic, and how every unnecessary word is analyzed.  How many readers here, for example, knew that Hailey Dunn's remains were going to be found in an "ugly field" ; just as her mother said she would never search.  Billie Jean Dunn spoke so much that she, herself, told us that Hailey was dead, and drugs were involved, in just a few sentences.  Like Houck, she took the polygraph and went on NG.  

Let's hope that Houck returns to the show to yield even more info.  Yet I believe that all the information necessary to find Crystal Rogers is likely within the transcripts of the original interview, if this is a well conducted and lengthy interview.  By "well conducted", I specifically mean "uncontaminated" interview, where Houcks not only introduced language, but was asked to clarify the meaning of any of his words.  If he is responsible for Crystal Rogers' disappearance it is all but impossible for him to speak at length and not reveal this. 

We all do.  

We are created to communicate and are the only ones possessing the earth that do so in such detailed manner. We cannot survive without communication.  As Menachim Begin said when he was a WWII prisoner of the Soviets, during painful torture, he did reveal information to them, but it was during the moments after being secluded and hearing no human voice for 30 days, that he revealed the greatest amount of information.  They took him to the point where his mental health would rapidly deteriorate should the lack of communication go any further.  

"Dulled listening" is what we all do.  

Statement Analysis teaches a process to reverse this.  It takes formal training.  

The average person has 25,000 words in his own dictionary.  When asked "What happened?", it is impossible for him to say everything that happened, therefore:

*He must decide which information to use, and which to leave out;

*Which words to use

*What verb tenses to use

*Where to place each word to make sense and to communicate his perception of what happened

This entire process takes place in less than micro-second of time.  This gives us our advantage.  A lie does not proceed from experienced memory, therefore, it 'interrupts' this speed of transmission, which is the principle cause of internal stress.  It is why the polygraph, when administered by one trained in Statement Analysis is so accurate, as the subject's own dictionary is entered during the interview, and then used in the questions.  This is why polygraphers trained in Statement Analysis have few, if any, "inconclusive" results, especially with growing experience.  

The training is not easy and most have it in some form, such as "Reid" in police academies, yet, passed, it is not retained, nor practiced, and quickly disispates.  Our training is different than others that not only do we use all the same principles, but explain why these principles work, and design specific practice and training, over time, which makes the investigator "razor sharp", for his department, or company, but especially for his career, wherever he or she goes.  

This means the innocent are cleared, the guilty are caught, and due to the non-intrusive nature of listening, unions, and other civil rights advocates agree with its methodology.  The result is better trained, more efficient officers, with better community relations and trust.  Officers who "scream" and "intimidate" their way to answers find early success, but an animosity with the public follows them their entire careers and they soon learn that the techniques fail to obtain content and failures mount up over time.  It also can become 'accepted' by others until a department and its community are at odds.  Given today's anti police sentiment from politicians and media, effective training is needed more than ever before. 

If you, your department, or your company would like training, we offer seminars, and even individual home training, along with 12 months of ongoing support, and once successfully completed, the investigator is eligible for our monthly live training sessions, which not only produce results for ongoing cases (confidentiality agreement) but gain invaluable lessons from the input of other seasoned professionals. 

Please visit HYATT ANALYSIS SERVICES for specific details to contact us for your training.  Discounts to smaller, limited budget departments.  

For companies:  

With the Department of Justice reporting that 4 out of 10 job applicants have intention of gaining money their hands have not earned, before their first day at work, we show Human Resources how to screen out the 40% with improper motives and to place the right person to the right position.  Your company will see, in its first year, a precipitous drop in shrinkage, theft, inappropriate unemployment claims, fraudulent claims (injuries, sexual harassment, hostile work environment, discrimination, etc) against you, as well as providing a wall of protection for your reputation.  

It is the deceptive applicant that will, statistically, bring harm to your company.  

In hiring and in internal investigations, you need the truth.  The money you save in the first year alone, or even the first case, alone, will prove profitable.  

For Social Service professionals:  

We provide training for child interviews, statement analysis applicable for intake screenings, as well as the ability to "get to the core" issue for your patient or client.  

The training is also used by journalists, authors, attorneys and other professionals (including top sales) who need to learn to discern deception accurately.  

This public interview of Brooks Houck highlights not only analysis, but interviewing techniques designed to get the most pure version from the subject as possible.  

Denials in Current News Stories Examined

July 31, 2015, 9:23 am

≫ Next: Missing Toddler: Lonzie Barton

≪ Previous: Example of Analysis: Brooks Houck in Crystal Rogers Disappearance

$

0

0

This was submitted by a new student of analysis as part of the requirements of the course.  Going from blog reader to actual study is a greater leap than what one might expect.

What do you make of the conclusions?

By including the links, the student allows for the context which assists in the conclusion.  Statement Analysis is a scientific process, rather than guess work without a reference point.  Therefore, if any answer is incorrect, we should be able to identify the error, trace its origin, and correct ourselves.

This is why it is reliable.

Look for accuracy, and look, especially, if a conclusion is premature; that is, do we need more sample for certainty?  I have not added emphasis.

It takes time to learn, but much more time to practice, and many corrections to bring forth consistent quality.  The understanding of human nature is something that takes many years to learn, and by studying statements, you are, in effect, studying human nature.

Copy/paste and explain that which warrants detail.

Unreliable Denial:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/13317808/reggie-jackson-acknowledges-confrontation-denies-shoving-fan-cooperstown

"I was upset because it was kind of an 'over and over' thing," Jackson said Saturday. "It's 10:00 at night -- it's time to go home. Leave us alone. So the words got heated. But as far as anybody touching someone, that did not come from me."

Unreliable Denial:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/weird-news/british-holidaymaker-denies-feeding-seagull-ketamine-on-a-chip-in-viral-video-10410780.html

“My mate put salt on a chip and a seagull ate it while I filmed.“It's called a joke. I have my mother on Twitter do you think I would publicly post something like that if it was what it's made out to be?
“It's called sarcasm! Making a joke out of it because of people like you overreacting to something that wasn’t even what it was made out to be.”


Unreliable Denial:

http://quentinmiller.tumblr.com/post/124938364407

I am not and never will be a “ghostwriter” for drake.. Im proud to say that we’ve collaborated .. but i could never take credit for anything other than the few songs we worked on together .. 

Reliable Denial:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/26/clinton-denies-sending-classified-information-from-private-email-server/

She makes several unreliable denials prior to this but finally says:

"I think there's so much confusion around this that I understand why reporters and the public are asking questions, but the facts are pretty clear. I did not send nor receive anything that was classified at the time," she said.

Missing Toddler: Lonzie Barton

August 1, 2015, 7:25 am

≫ Next: Deception and Premeditation in Hiring

≪ Previous: Denials in Current News Stories Examined

$

0

0

Desperate search continues for toddler who went missing while his mother's boyfriend was looking after him

• William Ruben Ebron Jr, 32, has been arrested in connection to 21-month-old Lonzie Barton's disappearance 
• Investigators believe Ebron is lying about the child's whereabouts
• Details of his violent past have emerged alleging he is a stalker and rapist 
• An amber alert was issued for Lonzie last Friday after he was reported missing 
• He was last seen at apartments in Jacksonville 
• Ebron told police the boy was abducted from outside the apartment while inside his car when it was stolen 
• An orange 1995 Honda Civic was driven away with the little boy inside 

By AP

Searchers have combed over 60 bodies of water, 40 square miles, and more than 2,000 homes and businesses in recent days, looking for a toddler who went missing eight days ago after his mother's boyfriend said someone stole his car while the boy slept inside, officials said Friday.

Jacksonville Sheriff's Office detective Chief Tom Hackney said during a news conference that the search for 21-month-old Lonzie Barton in northeast Florida will soon be being scaled back, but the investigation into the boy's disappearance is ongoing.

'I do not want that beautiful boy's resting place to be anything but the softest of the soft,' Hackney said.

Lonzie went missing July 23.

Investigators believe the car theft and abduction in Florida did not occur as William Ruben Ebron Jr (pictured left), 32, described and believe he was lying about 21-month-old Lonzie Barton's (right) disappearance

Ebron had told police that he had got Lonzie and his five-year-old sister ready to go pick up their mother, 25-year-old Lonna Barton, from her job at Wacko's Gentlemen's Club, when his Honda Civic was stolen with the boy still inside

The Jacksonville Sheriff's Office said the man who lived with Lonzie's mother and was caring for the boy and his 5-year-old sister is a suspect.

Investigators have said William Ruben Ebron Jr. isn't cooperating with them. He's in jail without bond on two counts of felony child neglect in relation to the case, but investigators won't give details on those charges, citing privacy laws. 

Ebron has a lengthy arrest history, records show, including convictions for misdemeanor battery charges, robbery and grand theft. 

His ex-girlfriend also filed several domestic violence injunctions against him.

Police reported that the stolen vehicle was recovered about 15 to 20 minutes later but Lonzie was not found inside (the boy pictured above with his parents, Lonna Barton and Christopher Barton) 

Authorities said Lonna Barton and the boy's father, Christopher Barton, 40, were being cooperative. Police said neither of them are involved in Lonzie's disappearance

Ebron, the boyfriend of Lonzie's mom, had told police he saw his orange 1995 Honda Civic, pictured, being driven away with the little boy inside

Ebron initially told authorities that Lonzie was in the car when it was stolen. The car was quickly recovered, but Lonzie was not.

Ebron told The Florida Star newspaper on Wednesday that he was caring for his girlfriend's two children. 

He told The Star that the 5-year-old girl wanted to stay inside an apartment with his roommate. Lonzie, he told the paper, was asleep in the car. 

Ebron said he left Lonzie in the car to go inside to charge his cellphone, and when he returned to the car, he saw it take off.

Officers found the car shortly after Ebron called police, but detectives want to know where it traveled that night.

As the search for the boy continues, new information has already come to light about Ebron's violent past. Court records show he is alleged to be a stalker and rapist, who attacked his ex-girlfriend and left her with cracked ribs

Hackney said Lonzie's mother has been cooperative, but he called Ebron's interview with the paper 'fiction.'

'I'm tired of asking him to do the right thing,' Hackney said.

A call to the Duval County Public Defender's office, which is representing Ebron, was not immediately returned.

The reward to find Lonzie now stands at more than $12,000. Officials said they've received upwards of 400 tips in the case.

The search for Lonzie also turned up two unrelated sets of human remains. 

The Jacksonville Sheriff's Office said this week that a man's remains and clothing were found Monday near a business park. 

They had apparently been there at least a year. Foul play wasn't suspected.

On Tuesday, searchers found a car linked to a 2003 missing-persons case at the bottom of a pond. Skeletal remains appeared to be inside.

Deception and Premeditation in Hiring

August 1, 2015, 11:21 am

≫ Next: Missing Persons and Natural Denial in Language

≪ Previous: Missing Toddler: Lonzie Barton

$

0

0

The Dept of Justice, almost 15 years ago, produced a study that showed that when a company places an ad in a newspaper for employment that concluded:

4 of 10 applicants intend to steal from the company before even being hired. 

A lot has changed since then.

This theft does not include various and popular fraud techniques that have become a trend in recent years, such as "phobic" abuse.

This means that the new "victim status" has empowered liars to file fraudulent claims against companies such as various forms of discrimination that have one thing in common:

obtaining money that their own hands have not earned.

This new "victim status" is now met with a new "entitlement" mentality, particularly strong among young applicants.

Take these two elements in addition to the 40% finding of the DOJ from 2001 and still add in another element:

Lying has become more accepted due to the increase in outright deception by our political leaders, coupled with yet another factor:  a lessening element of civility in public.

Had enough?

I'm not finished.

There is also another element to add to this mix:  a growing disrespect for authority, in general, by our population.  This is seen in everything from the disparagement of police, to the outright blaming of teachers for student violence.

In other words, personal responsibility is one of the most unpopular theories of American society today, with judges and courts bending over backwards to rule for the "little guy" against...

Ok, here is my last additional factor.

It began in Europe in the early 2000, and then in 2008, became "the" stance of American politics:

disparagement of the successful.

This was both in word, "you didn't built that!", but also in practice, as legalized and institutionalized envy:  debt means nothing, the rich aren't doing their share, we need to punish the successful and lower their grades.

In France, the "90% tax on the rich" led to violence, and successful people frightened for their lives and their children's lives as they were, more and more, demonized and targeted.  When one of their own left the country, he was "unpatriotic" for not wanting to hand over the extortion payments to the French government.

The risk taking, hard working successful among us are falsely portrayed as "preying" on the common person, calloused, uncaring, and ruthless.

What is left?

The person who risks his or her own finance and family name in order to make money, if successful, is an easy mark for everyone who wishes to steal from them, with the cooperation of the government.

Human nature, however, does not change and when you find certain elements present, you are looking at a society of thieves, including:

a.  Confusion.

Calling theft "moral" and "ethical"; that is, including words like, "justice" or even "restorative justice" and even the marxist "redistribution of wealth" that has led to third world nations becoming third world nations instead of progressing.

b.  Polarizing.

Demonizing that which was once praised, including hard work, personal ambition, and responsibility.  Now it is "us versus them", with one side being portrayed in the negative, not just financially, but socially, and ethically.  False claims of racism enter the statements, with truth sacrificed as any means, including illicit or even illegal means, praise worthy if they produce the "ends" identified.

c.  Cynicism.

Those who believe in "ideals" are ridiculed, since "everyone lies" and "only the smartest" get away with it.  This is seen in policies where we, the public, are considered incapable of making our own decisions in life, for ourself and our families.  When enough scandal is published, an "immunization" of sorts hits, where "everyone is doing it", so why not just join in?

I once caught a couple forging their time sheets, running up extreme overtime.  In the interview process, Statement Analysis revealed that their claim of duties was a lie (passive language), which, once confronted, led to a confession.

Their defense?

"Everyone else gets away with it, why shouldn't we?"

Although the couple was in their late 50's, they showed no internal remorse for stealing, only anger at me for catching them, and anger at those who (they thought) had gotten away with it.  They showed no moral internal distress over corruption.

d.  Contempt.

This is seen even within victim-groups.  When Julie Baker pulled off her "Relentlessly Gay" scam, she plotted how to do this, and considered members of the LGBT as her "easy mark", and knew that by using religion in her fake hate note, she would raise more money than, for example:

*A family seeking money to buy a tombstone for their deceased child
*A family who suffered loss of everything due to fire
*A myriad of requests for money due to  catastrophic health events

She knew which buttons to push and which population to exploit.

She knew that hatred would scam better than love.  If it wasn't for concerned citizens, the scam might have worked.  These few discerning citizens were labeled as..."hateful." See point "b" in deceptive scamming.

Understand:  this scam, like so many others, were planned.  They hold others in contempt and when applying for a job, go into it believing that they will get their hands on money, one way or another, that their hands have not lawfully earned.  They believe those around them "too stupid" to catch them.

The Lindenhurst family knew they were caught and did not bother with Go Fund Me.

The pizza owner wanted money so badly that he was willing to not only file a false report, but even whack himself over the head to make money.  It wasn't  a "cry for help"; he left more than $20,000 in donations on the table, forced to return the money.  That was just defense lawyer jargon.

Baker has $43,000 on one hand, waiting to be cashed in, with a prison sentence on the other.  When the Daily Mail got whiff of it, she knew that to do so was not only to risk prosecution, but with the nation watching, Baltimore investigators would not take kindly to be humiliated by her.  Simply put, even without the analysis, her other public rants had the same writing quirks.  Even while still playing the victim role with false claims of "death threats", she continues to deceive her shrinking fan base.

Those involved in these scams are not "hot blooded" panic thieves, grabbing a loaf of bread for starving children, or making "cries for help" (see above) but are cold, calculating, opportunists.  They are no different than the lazy employee who walks all over his supervisor, knowing that his supervisor fears disciplining him because he belongs to a minority.  He may have long term negative effects on hiring, but he cares nothing but for himself.

A family owned company has two major hooks on the line:

The family's wealth is invested into the company.  The risk is all their own.  Should they lose, they lose it all, and while workers can simply apply elsewhere, the family is left bereft of their life's work.

The family's name is now on the hook, too, which is something that the pre-meditating scammer knows well:

He is not suing no-name face-less corporate headquarters for discrimination:

He is punishing the family's finance, and reputation in the community, so that their family name and xyz accusation, are forever linked.

What does the family do?

They pay their deductible and their insurance rates go up.  This, of course, can lead to more scams.

What can a company do?

The company can, and must seek to hire the best and brightest, who have become "the best and brightest" through honest, hard work, while the liar, the entitled, the scammer, the professional victim, always wants the short cut, the easy way, the instant gratification.

This is who they are, and we are known to be who we are by our words.

Statement Analysis used in the interview process will dramatically and quickly yield the result of taking the 40% who premeditate damage to the company, and weed them out.

This is accomplished through training of Human Resource professionals, who are often intuitive and sharp, anyway.

Companies are profit driven, in spite of the vilianization of capitalism today.  Companies that exist to pay their employees so much money that no profit is realized, may be praised today, but it will be gone tomorrow.  Only governments can operate at a loss year after year, and push off their failure by either printing money, or saddle the next generation, but ultimately, it comes to an end.  Since a company cannot print money or run debt forever, it closes down.  It receives the praise of social warriors, right up the path of bankruptcy.  Those marvelous companies who provide good, honest service, pay a good wage, and run a profit, have been, traditionally, praised as their "American spirit", or "American exceptionalism" was recognized.

This is why profit driven companies do not care about gender, sex, pigmentation, or anything else but talent, ambition, ability to learn, emotional intelligence, and so on.

Herein lies the key:

Train your company in Statement Analysis and each applicant who is deceptive is withdrawn from consideration, and watch as Statement Analysis identifies the strengths and challenges of the applicant, allowing for the company to place the employee in the right position.

Statement Analysis identifies, specifically:

a.  strengths
b.  challenges
c.  emotional intelligence
d.  whether to work with others, or individually
e.  drive and initiative
f.  maturity
g. wisdom
h.  specific talents

But it also identifies:

a.  deception
b.  inappropriate motives
c.  acute deficiency in work ethic
d.  troublesome personalities; especially relevant for sales, or positions where close cooperation among employees is important
e.  those who lack self awareness, humility, or the ability to get along well with others


The training is comprehensive and the interview training is legally sound interviewing, accredited by the University of Maine's Continuing Educational Units (CEUs) for resumes and professional licensing.

It is then supported with 12 months of assistance in which we help formulate strategy, assist in interviewing, and check all work.  Those who successfully complete the course are eligible for our monthly training program.

Companies enrolled in the training should expect immediate results.  

For information on setting up a training program, please see HYATT ANALYSIS SERVICES

Should your company enroll in our training, the first claim or suit threatened or filed, is handled by us, including a written report for the company's attorneys, as assistance given until HR is ready to handle such cases on their own.

Our record of closed cases, victory in unemployment claims, and dismissed rights violations is 100% because:

1.  We tell the truth
2.  We document everything.

Your company should also expect an immediate improvement in the hiring process, leading to a drop in theft, drop in fraudulent claims, employee complaints, and so on.

As our nation's climate has become more and more hostile towards success, and more lenient towards theft, the truth is your best defense.