by Peter Hyatt


We have reached a point in the disappearance of 35 year old, Crystal Rogers, mother of 5, where we will likely begin to see changes in the language of her loved ones.

DeOrre Kunz has been missing for more than 3 weeks now.  His father's rambling, self-censoring, pronoun shifting, and hyper sensitivity about his truck, weigh upon the public heavily, with the expected exasperation due to DeOrre's young age.


When a person goes missing, there is an instant shock and denial, as the brain refuses to accept something so traumatic.  When a parent, however, does not show shock and denial, a closer look is warranted.

The depth of the denial, that is, the refusal to accept facts, is seen in the language of those closest to the missing person, making journalist interviews of great value to society.

This denial is contingent on several factors:

a.  How close relations is the subject to the victim?
b.  What is the age of the victim?
c.  How much time has passed?

a.  The relationship to the victim, itself, is key to language.   When a child goes missing:

1.  The mother is the most resistant to acceptance and can remain in denial for many months, and in some cases, will accept nothing other than the child's remains to "move" her language.  This is why a mother's use of past tense, early on, is such a strong indicator of knowledge of the missing child's death.  Maternal instincts are powerful, as referenced in antiquity, nature, and in the news stories where a mother will risk her own life to protect her children.

When Susan Smith referenced her missing children in the past tense, "My children needed me", it was a strong signal that they were dead and she had knowledge of their death.

Other mother's include Casey Anthony, "Caylee loved the park.  Loves the park."



On Billie Jean Dunn's very first appearance on the Nancy Grace Show, she said, "Hailey wasn't allowed to just..."as she not only referenced her in the past tense, one indicator of guilt, but also portrayed herself as a responsible parent, another linguistic signal that told us that Dunn had a need to portray herself in a positive light.   She went on to mention her toothache, something most mothers would not bother about, signaling that drugs were involved in the death of 13 year old Hailey.  This is an example of "leakage" as something like a toothache would likely not find itself in the interview on national television while searching for a daughter of biological mother.  Therefore, I concluded that it was "leakage" and likely related to narcotics.

Narcotics, we learned, were a major factor in the death, but especially in the stressful cover up of the crime.

Deborah Bradley, mother of Baby Lisa, told us early on that Lisa would not be found alive.




2.  The father is next up, with samples from Baby Sabrina, the McCanns, and Justin DiPietro, father of Baby Ayla, who gave us linguistic signals that Ayla, too, was dead, along with possible leakage that she was disposed of in water.

"Emotionally incapable" of calling out to Baby Ayla

                                         "Contrary to rumors floating around out there..."




3.   Siblings

Siblings struggle but take their cues from their parents.  In the case of Crystal Rogers, we now learn that Brooks Houck is no longer allowing his child to visit his siblings; something that the suffering children (yearning for their mother) will only have compound issues as the youngster's presence could have brought some relief with 'normalcy' even for a few hours, restored.



4.  Cousins, Aunts Uncles are next up, and this is also dependent upon how close they were to the missing person.

5.  Grandparents.

Grandparents who are young and heavily involved in a missing child's life prior to the disappearance, will have strong denial.  Baby Ayla's paternal grandmother, Phoebe DiPietro, almost immediately lied about her son's "normal" home, life and night Ayla went missing, signaling that at that time, she either knew (with her son claiming accident), or suspected (based upon her son's history) that Ayla was not coming home.  She also used distancing language, immediately, not as a 'defense', but because there was no commitment to her language, particularly about attempting to sound "worried" that her house was being "cased" (faux kidnapping) or hope, that the Sheriff would be calling her.


The older the grandparents, the less resistance they possess which is likely due to having seen much tragedy in life, they have less 'resolve' or "fight" in them, due to declining hormones.

b.  The age of the victim also relates to the equation especially when one goes missing who is incapable of self care, such as a baby.  This means a quick panic, not only in those close to the child, but even found within public comments.  The child who goes missing quickly has an emotional impact upon the public, who feel strong empathy with the missing child, and can become very impatient with parents who are less than forthcoming.

c.  The length of time will wear down all resistance, with the order above reversed, as 'reality' and despair sets in.  This is where we will hear past tense references in innocent loved ones.

I read recently that "speaking of a missing person in the present tense is a sign of innocence."

It is not.

This mistake came from a criminal profiler/journalist who likely had skimmed some analysis and 'landed' a big story.

Not so.

A guilty subject will do his or her best to never drift from present tense language, which is why the Free Editing Process is so valuable: a well trained journalist will bring the subject, using a specific skill set, into the FEP by not accepting short answers.

The best way to not accept short answers is to ask vague and encompassing questions, such as the open ended "What happened?",  followed by:

"Tell me more!" when the answer is deliberately short.

"I'm listening."

"Okay, but what happened next?"

If the subject remains unwilling, the journalist must allow silence to make the subject uncomfortable, and with the limited time involved, can, and should reach the 'challenge' point should the subject be consistently brief with:

"Is this all you can tell us?" followed by:

"You seem to be unwilling to give us detail; why is this?" knowing that the subject is close to shutting down and the camera is running.

Yes, it may kill any opportunity for a follow up interview, but journalists will be pleasantly surprised to learn:  the guilty subject would rather talk to you, to learn what you know, than to a 'softball' questioner who asks questions loaded with lengthy empathetic statements such as, "You must be going through a lot.  You've done everything a parent can do.  You have cooperated with police, and have searched tirelessly.  Are you sleeping at night?"

It is frustrating for those who seek information to listen to a journalist seek "front and center" in an interview, but it is common.

Brooks Houck has not been truthful about the disappearance of Crystal Rogers and by not allowing visitation, he is, in effect, silencing himself from potential leakage to Crystal's family.  It is a defensive posture that he maintains while they become more and more emboldened to challenge him publicly, as their frustration grows.

A polygraph constructed solely upon his own words would be failed, not "inconclusive."

Expect Crstyal's family to become more and more 'accepting' in language, as a month has gone by, and this is compounded by Houck's defensive posturing and sensitive language from his Nancy Grace interview weigh, night after night, upon their minds, robbing them of sleep, haunting them throughout the night, and causing them to awaken with anger that masquerades their darkest fears.

It has been a month for Crystal's family to process this information.

For DeOrre, it has been well beyond any survival deadline, as he is incapable of self care and self protection.  The investigators have recently downplayed "kidnapping" as a possibility, and will likely move back towards the father with more serious questioning.

The polygraph must be conducted using the father's personal, subjective, internal dictionary and nothing else.

The polygraph, when conducted in this way, is fool-proof.  Deception interrupts the speed of transmission in language, and it is the recall of this deception that is measured by the polygraph's instruments; the internal stress, even of sociopaths, who do not like being caught, nor seen as a liar.

The DeOrre Kunz case has caught the attention of the public.

An improbable account from his parents, the missing toddler has captivated us.

In Statement Analysis, we have a scientific process by which we apply techniques that, evenly applied, are based upon:

decades of research using the polygraph, particularly in the "SCAN" (Scientific Content Analysis, from Laboratory of Scientific Interrogation), the brain-child of Israeli immigrant, Avinoam Sapir, but also of:

lengthy research that went into the "Reid Technique" and others, including Nathan J. Gordon and William L. Fleisher's work, "Effective Interviewing and Interrogation Techniques" that, in its third edition, gives interviewers from law enforcement, civil investigations, counselors, therapists, human resource professionals, journalists, social workers, and so on, a great advantage in obtaining not only truth, but content.

With "backwards speech" and "psychics", we have carnival like attraction that even Paul McCartney had some fun with, in the early 90's, with "Free As A Bird" single, the "Beatles reunion" song in which he, George Harrison, and Richard Starkey, (Ringo) used an old demo recording from the late John Lennon and added their voices and instrumentation to construct a song as a "reunion" of sorts, of their pop band.

I love the song as I thought it was a lot of fun to hear them together, with the best compliment coming when people said, "It sounds like the Beatles!" in reviews.

At the end of the song, Paul added a backwards recording, as a way to poke fun of the "Paul is dead" rumor of 1970 (or so) where people claimed that messages were sent backwards in speech.  Therefore, when you play "Free As a Bird" ending backwards, you hear him saying something to the affect of "that came out alright, didn't it?" as a joke.

I have covered much about psychics, honing upon several elements, in particular, including deception in their "visions", that is, to show that their words do not come from experiential memory.  In other words, the words of a psychic do not come from memory of having first hand experience talking, or seeing, anything.

They are deceptive.

Our words reveal our background, experience, priorities and personalities.  Psychics claim to obtain knowledge beyond the limitations of human nature, that is, our senses.  Their claims are many centuries old, and their words often reveal personality disorders of those who have desperation for recognition in this world.

They are deceptive.

Like most liars, psychics become enraged when seen as such.  They are often unbalanced, and, have, for many years, used carnivals, or carnival like atmospheres, to "fleece" people.  When a child goes missing, there is no more vulnerability than what the innocent parents feel, and to prey upon such vulnerabilities with fraudulent claims, is beyond adequate description of how low a human being will go for recognition (which leads to money) or attention.

In short, no "psychic" in spite of the thousands 'out there' via social media has ever located a single missing person.

You have better odds of winning the lottery, several days in a row, than a psychic does finding a missing person.  At best, the broken clock being correct twice, the more vague the psychic is, the better the odds of appearing, at least, accurate, is.

Backwards language joining with psychic claims is not surprising; they are similar in that they have no basis in reality, science, or even common sense.

At worst, the "backwards language" person risks brining emotional and potential financial harm to the family of a missing person but there is also that element of Statement Analysis which concerns me:

association.

This is also true of "leakage" with authors (Jonbenet, Amanda Knox) picking up words that may, perhaps, be signals of leakage in language, thus "proving" guilt.

To be sure, the notion of "leakage" is real in Statement Analysis, but it is never elevated to a "strong indicator" of proof of anything.  Rather, it is something we use effectively once deception has been proven in the analysis, for content purposes.

For example, when Caylee Anthony went "missing", the mother, Casey, was indicated for deception.

In her statement, we learned:

1.  Caylee was dead
2.  Casey needed an alibi.

These two assertions were in the analysis conclusion, and were not difficult to ascertain.

But...

where was Caylee?

When George Anthony and Cindy Anthony, Casey's parents, spoke, they, too, were indicated for deception.

They knew Caylee was dead, and all their claims to the contrary, showed deception, and they knew Casey was involved, and all claims to the contrary showed deception.

That George and Cindy knew Caylee was dead, and Casey was involved, was not difficult to ascertain.

But...

where was Caylee?

Cindy Anthony, in particular, was the dominant parent and her language even showed a bullying of George, as well as aggression, defiance and one who had a strong comfort level with deception (as did her husband) yet who possessed an ability to justify or quiet her guilty conscience.  The best way to get her to talk and reveal her aggressive personality was to challenge her veracity.

Tim Miller, at no small expensive, moved his helicopter and horses from Texas to Florida to help find Caylee.  When he arrived in Orlando at the home of George and Cindy, Cindy refused to assist him in finding Caylee by running interference; he was not permitted to even speak to the one who saw Caylee last:  Casey, her mother.

Tim tried various means of getting, in the very least, a starting point, for the search but Cindy blocked all attempts at locating Caylee.  Cindy wanted the public appearance of finding Caylee, while protecting, at all costs, the burial location of Caylee's remains.

She did not "sabotage" the search, she caused it to be canceled, instead.  She even took to, as is the habit of liars when challenged, attacking, personally, the one she deemed her enemy:  the man who came to find her "missing" granddaughter, Tim Miller, telling the press he was a "drunk" among other things.

After she uncerminoniusouly kicked Miller out of her home, she went to the press (of which even Casey's own jailhouse words revealed Cindy's personality and love of attention, calling it a "cameo") and announced,

"George and I don't believe Caylee's in the woods, or anything."

When I heard this statement live, I said, "Caylee's in the woods."

This is an example of leakage; that is, even while being deceptive, people may just 'leak out' information they did not intend to share, simply because it weighs so heavily on the mind.

It is most inexact, at best, and is only used in the realm of "perhaps" and "maybe", but not "definitively so" in our conclusions.  It is valuable and is something we use to view content, but it does not, for example, follow the accuracy of pronouns, or articles.

It is a small tool, howbeit valuable, but it is not concessionary, within itself.

I do not wish the nonsense of "backwards language" to be confused or even associated with Statement Analysis or leakage, in the minds of readers.

Law Enforcement has, at times, spoken with psychics.  There are several reasons for this:

I once analyzed a statement from a psychic that showed guilty knowledge of the crime.

Why?

Because he did it.

There is a psychological need on the part of those who claim to have psychic powers to be recognized as special, unique, and so on.  They are often narcissistic and this is something that is sometimes shared with criminal elements.

Therefore, any and everyone that calls in about a case is looked at as a possible suspect.

Next, law enforcement sometimes fear bad publicity, especially when "reality" shows include "psychics" and our ill informed and undereducated public, who is more prone to repeat a bumper sticker of deception, than think critically, will embrace and 'demand' law enforcement "uncover every possible tip"; that is, until they are overwhelmed and announce that they are not taking any more calls from psychics.

This was the case with Baby Ayla.  So many "psychics" called in with "tips", some even claiming to have spoken to Ayla (who, statement analysis revealed, was dead before she left that home that night, something seen in the father's language long before we learned of the blood found cleaned up at the house).  No one "talked" to Ayla, just as no one "conversed with Hailey Dunn" as they claimed.

Those who make claim to have "intuitive gifts" (just a name change from "psychic") are liars and will become very angry, filled with venom, for having their mask pulled off, and their deception known.  Remember the one who just happened to have the same first name as a suicide victim?  She made it her life work to torment the teenager's mother to the point where she actually got herself on television.

She is a liar.

She is a fraud.

But she is also so acutely desperate for recognition that she will bring irreparable harm and a life time of pain to others, just to feel important for a short period of time.


They hold others in contempt, often with deep resentment for their own families, as people are seen as those who can be readily fooled with lies.


They claim to obtain information beyond human senses; that is, you must accept them by debasing science which leads me to "backwards language."

Our brain learns through repetition and has an emotional capacity which shows positive reaction to logic.

We "like" that 2 apples added to 2 apples gives us 4 apples.

It makes sense, and gives us a sense of security, as we, the higher creatures, possess detailed linguistic abilities that no other created beings have.

We learn chronologically, as well.

We see, with our eyes, and store in memory, over time, making recall flow with a certain speed of transmission that is very very fast.

When we are asked, "What did you do this morning?", we reach into a dictionary of words, in our heads, that numbers 25,000 or more words, and decide:

a.  which words to use
b.  which events to report
c.  which words not to use
d.  which events not to report
e.  what verb tenses to use
f.  what pronouns to use
g.  where to place these words to make sense

All this takes place in less than a millisecond of time.

When we lie, we go into this 25,000 plus dictionary, and we think of how to avoid telling the truth, which interrupts this speed of transmission, causing a form of 'stress' in the person speaking.

This "interruption" or "pause" is seen in, quite often, extra words, or self-censoring, or due to the fact that the words are not proceeding from experiential memory, confused pronouns.

These few elements mentioned (additional words, self-censoring, confused pronouns) have been studied for many years and fall into patterns where the liar can be caught, or seen as such.

We do not study backwards spelling giving the brain no reference point for backwards words. 

I once met a man with adult autism who had a knack for speaking words backwards.  It was interesting for a bit of time, but when weeks turned into months, it was annoying when communication was intended.

The average person with 25,000 words does not spend time learning, and then concentrating on spelling and saying words backwards, leaving no brain recognition patterns.

Therefore, when "backwards language" is used, we can either:

a.  force our belief of guilt into the words and find something that fits;
b.  just amuse ourselves and can force any meaning we wish, into any statements we want to have, eventually in this "hit or miss" game, we will find something to match what we want.

The same is with Andrew Hodge's books.  He finds "leakage" wherever he wants to find leakage and just because

Yes, a therapist who is talented in listening will eventually grasp that "boy, it is cold out" has something to do with loneliness rather than weather, but will not 'force' meanings into anything, but will explore possibilities.  Perhaps it means weather, but perhaps, especially through the lens of statement analysis (repetition means sensitivity) will search for loneliness.

When I hear "water" in a statement, I do not rush to conclude, "sexual abuse!" but know that I should explore for it as a possible element in a case.

Taking "backwards language" or "leakage" or "psychics", and we can say

Apple means Orange at any time, for any reason, if, of course, we wish to find oranges.

Imagine a cursory reading of Statement Analysis, believing a case, and then forcing this belief into the language?

Recall the self proclaimed "criminal profiler-journalist" who insisted something was innocent because "he never referenced her in the past tense!"

I wish she had read the analysis a bit closer.  In her case, a powerful political agenda overruled reason and logic, which coupled with a desperate need for attention, to bring her to the place of folly overruling sense.

Science

Science teaches us that we gain knowledge through our senses.

Psychics claim to gain knowledge outside the laws of science.

Emotions run very high and emotions, themselves, become little 'tyrants' who do not like to be questioned, which is why when one does not agree with this "emotional view they often go into attack mode, and you and I must be "morally inferior" because:

science is something we can apply over and over and get the same results.

We are not enslaved to inconsistency, or arbitrary application.  

Statement Analysis is taught, learned, practiced and has well above 90% results (this is an accepted level for polygraphs, which we supersede greatly), while psychics have 0% success.

Principles are memorized and implemented, but there is something else that we do:

We study and learn the psychological basis for our principles. 

For example, I received a call to assist in a theft case.

Local PD had not found the thief and concluded that too many employees had access to the missing money.

I told the owners, "If one of your employees stole it, and you have each one write out what they did from the time they got to work, until the time they left, I should be able to tell you who did it, how they did it, when they did it, and perhaps even why they did it."

One employee wrote,"I woke up, brushed my teeth, got dressed and went to work." 

She wrote out her entire day, but this sentence, alone told me:


1.  She had been asleep.
2.  She brushed her teeth
3.  She got dressed.
4.  She went to work.

These are, statistically speaking, very likely to be true.  I know this by the sentence structure.

I believe she had been asleep, and I believe she brushed her teeth and got dressed and she went to work.  All these things are accepted by me, as fact, due to the sentence structure.

Next, she "told" me some things that are helpful to know.

I "know" she brushed her teeth but what I do not know is why she felt the need to tell me, the investigator, that she brushed her teeth.

Statistically I know that the inclusion of personal hygiene is associated with the concealment of information, later on in the statement, most likely related to personal information.

Statistically, this personal information is often found to be that the writer (the "subject") is a victim of Domestic Violence.

Psychologically, it makes sense.

Having worked with victims (and perpetrators) of D/V for many years, I know that most victims are controlled, on a day to day basis, not by violence, but by the threat of violence leaving them with a life that is stressed continually, as if "walking on eggshells", worrying that she just might say the wrong thing and trigger his rage.

Her world feels "out of her control" due to this lack of certainty that he will blow up, or awaken in anger, or she will say something to trigger his rage.

When she brushes her teeth, what does she do?

a.  She has control over something in her life, even if but for a few minutes.
b. She may even lock the door, increasing her sense of control and safety.

Therefore, you and I might not ever include the "needless" detail of "brushing teeth" but to a victim of Domestic Violence, it is something so important, that she felt the need to write it in a statement to an investigator.

I do not "interpret" bushing teeth as anything.  She brushed her teeth and I believe her.

I do, in addition to believing her, ask myself, "Why did she feel the need to tell me this?" and I explore, that is, I look for concealed information later in her statement, that is of a personal nature.

In this case, she was living with a violent boyfriend who had bullied her for information on the company's security system.  When I asked the owner, "Is she is a D/V relationship?", yes, the owner did look at me as if I was a genius or had some unknown ability to "see" what others could not see.

It is not so.

It is from the work of others, long memorized and practiced with hard work, more hard work, and when finally exhausted, a bit more hard work.

It is something that is taught to all.

It is not reinterpretation, nor is it "inside" knowledge that was obtained outside the realm of human senses.

It is not something that is made from backwards language.

In fact, it is likely you could prove anything from any statement, by either twisting and declaring it to be "leakage", like the Hodge books, or push the words together, with no spaces, look at them backwards, and play "Scrabble" by formulating words that fits your agenda or conclusion.

Therefore, you have to take a case where you have read actual analysis, or have a very strong opinion on a case, and then force your theory (already accepted by others) into this same article to "prove" your assertion.

It is unscientific, illogical, and as equally fraudulent as the claims of psychics.

It may make people "feel good", especially about an opinion that agrees with them, but it is not something that can be taken and scientifically applied to produce the same results, time and time again.

You've landed at this blog because you enjoy not only discerning deception from truth, but because you respect how principles are applied, each and every case, in the same, even-handed matter.

You only "know" what others do not know because you take the time and effort to listen and to learn, but it is not "magic" and it engages the senses, rather than suspend the laws of nature.

I am acutely aware of the fallen standardized grades of Americans and how feelings have trumped reason and how those who do not "feel" the same are demonized and their freedoms shouted down. I am aware of the "Casey Anthony Jury" and just how critical thinking has been discarded.  I see how effective propaganda has been on the masses and how "if it don't fit, you must acquit!" holds more meaning to many than following an argument.  I read the comments that follow news paper articles and shudder as illogic is embraced and how politicians, in ways I did not conceive possible just a few short years ago, manipulate a population with a complicit media, into building a voter base who are blindly loyal, no matter how destructive the ends.  I do grasp this.

Yet in the quest for truth, we follow reasonable arguments, logical principle, and we seek to apply it fairly.

You may lift our principles and apply them anywhere, with no special "extra sensory perception" needed.

Eventually, some 'psychic' is going to say "I see the child in the woods, scared and crying for mama" and a child is going to be found in the woods and someone will ask him, "were you crying for mama?" and for a short season, the 'psychic' have Facebook popularity and may even reign for a few months, until another child disappears and their fanbase demands an answer.

Backwards language is not analysis and just because the forced conclusion agrees with your opinion, it remains a game of Scrabble beginning with a premise to prove, and the words, running backwards, are sought to fit into the theme.

It is a game, if not an interesting game.

It is not justice.

It is not science.

It reminds me of "Fischer Random Chess" where Bobby Fischer, convinced that chess would be "solved", invented a version of chess in which the pieces are 'juggled' before the game, by a computer, nullifying the opening theory that has been memorized deeply by grandmasters.

It never took off as people still love traditional chess.

If you have an hour free, try it yourself on any statement and input your theory and see if you can make it fit.  Chances are, if the article or statement is long enough, you can make it fit your theme or presupposition, especially if you remove spaces from words when setting them up backwards.

This can also be done in "crossword puzzle" style; horizontal and vertical, and the same statement can be "puzzled" or set up to first prove one's guilt, and then to prove one's innocence.

Both from the same statement.

Psychics and "backwards speech" are equally useless in investigations but at least backwards speech can be entertaining, as a game, perhaps even provoking thinking as Scrabble requires, for those learning language.

As to obtaining truth, we remain committed to old fashioned hard work in analysis.

The psychic's language shows passivity, vagueness and words that do not come from experiential memory.  They are deceptive.

One is outright deceptive, while the other is more a game, similar to a crossword puzzle, but when both claim to 'prove' anything, guilt or innocence, it is an ode to folly, illogic and gamesmanship.

Law enforcement wastes time due to fear of an ignorant public being churned by a malicious media, demanding to know why they are not following "all" the tips.

Even paying someone to answer the extra phone calls from these narcissistic opportunists is a waste of resource.

Backward speech is similar to the spam comments that say, "I lose my husband, Raefelo until I contact the great Doctor Manzieher who cast spell and I lost weight, find my love now and have 2 new babies" and give you a web site to click on to with the promise of "weight loss", "love" and "instant success" in business.

I think one may have more success, as George Anthony discovered, with falling upon each job, filing for disability, and subsidizing an Nigerian princess, who will deposit 3.2 million dollars in your account if you give her your account number. 

These, as well as my favorite fortune cookies all have the same level of success.  They are "entertainment purposes only" and should not be presented as anything else.

If you apply Statement Analysis principles  to the backward speech claims, you will note deception, including the use of passivity in speech.

If you apply Statement Analysis principles to the claims of psychics, you will find passivity, vagueness (the avoidance of detail) or indicators that experiential memory is not in play.

Scams have always existed, yet when a loved one goes missing, the ability to resist suggestibility in any form, is greatly diminished.  This is why the Facebook psychics are called 'vultures' who prey upon the vulnerable.  

With the status of "victim" becoming more and more lucrative, it is no surprise that more scammers are seeking this status for a variety of reasons; all ending with fame that brings money.

As the inevitable pendulum swing moves, prosecutors are fighting back.

Fake Hate is not a victimless crime.  It exploits the good will of citizens, and it creates tensions falsely that harms our society and can even weaken the resolve of society to protect real victims as cynicism builds.

It is something that should be prosecuted and here we have a solid example of such.

Fake Hate victims:  take notice.  Law enforcement is fighting back.

Just the past few months:

A black law student with political ambitions claimed he was "racially profiled" by a "blonde white woman" and the local police, only to have his story come apart at the seams in the light of both Statement Analysis, and the young woman's public rebuttal.  He had hoped for, and received, political capital, initially, only to have it exposed as not only race baiting, but his own "racial profiling" of the young woman with his  story of faux struggles to overcome.

A pizza parlor owner, seeking money, claimed to have been concussed and have sexual slurs carved into his flesh, only to be re-interviewed by police, with analysis showing that he self inflicted his wounds. He was forced to return more than $20,000 in funds, with his attorney claiming it was a "cry for help" instead of a cry for money.





A Lindenhurst, NY, family with "Go Fund Me" like plans was derailed when analysis showed that the "hate letter" telling them to move out of their neighborhood, was actually penned by them.  This case was dropped when they dropped plans to go to "the next step" with media.

What began as 15 minutes of fame, fizzled to...just about 15 minutes and nothing more.  Had they gone to the "next step" in fundraising for their "move", they would have faced potential prosecution.  They smeared their own community as "racist" as Fake Hate is not a victimless crime as the liar must demonize someone including those who question the veracity.


A Baltimore woman, Julie Baker, raised more than $43,000 in another "fake hate" anonymous letter which exposed not only her theft, but her hatred of people of faith.  She has since claimed to have received 'death threats' with the same level of credibility as her claim of 'hate' as investigators had not only analysis of the letter but a host of writing (hate speech against Christians) with the same style easily noted.  She smeared Christians, but also insulted the same sex community presupposing them to be incapable of discernment.

Here, we have the letter written in which an English professor claims to have been "racially profiled" by State police.  It is written as a formal complaint by Minati Roychoudhuri.  She sought to destroy the career of a state trooper and her complaint was investigated.

Unfortunately for her, the state trooper recorded the exchange.

She was brought in for an interview, affirmed her letter in a sworn affidavit, and was subsequently arrested, with her college informed of her arrest.  Which is more shocking, that she is an English professor who is deficient in grammar and usage, or that she sought to cash in, as others from her school have, on the victim status?  Imagine paying high tuition fees to have her teach your children English?

Fake Hate perpetrators should take note.  Once a claim is made and an investigation commenced, you will be asked to attest to the truth of your claim, locking you into a position where consequences await you.

Here is her account of what happened followed by the transcripts of the audio recording.  The letter is exact with no corrections made.  There are aspects of importance to analysis found within her letter.


Here is the transcript of the recording:



This is the letter from State police to her employer.  Note the strength of its language:  

Insurance investigators in New England average 25% more pay than law enforcement, which is a drain on law enforcement.

Because they do not need hours of constant safety training, including vehicle and gun safety, as well as a myriad of legal entanglements, insurance investigators can often receive not only advance training, but time to devote to their craft, without the pressure of an enormous case load backing up on them.  Where there is a great deal of money on the line, insurance companies need to get to the truth effectively and can devote time and man power in doing so.

next:  the collateral damage of Fake Hate

From the Daily Mail

Shameless lesbian couple burned down their own house for the insurance payout then called it a hate crime and blamed their neighbor

• Carol Ann and Laura Jean Stutte's house in Venore, Tennessee, burnt down in September 2010
• 'Queers' was sprayed on their garage and they claimed it was a hate crime 
• Insurers accused them of an elaborate hoax to get the $276,000 payout
• A court ruled they sprayed the abuse and burned their own house down 

 

A false report that DeOrr Kunz jr, the missing Idaho toddler, circulated a news room when a reporter sought confirmation and called the father.  

I have lamented that in the disappearance of toddler DeOrre Kunz, the interviewer did a poor job in gaining information, yet it is that enough time has passed that this interview needs a more in depth analysis review.

The untrained interview, notwithstanding, what about another view of the interview, from the perspective of leakage?  

  There are two basic reasons why I am re-analyzing this interview.

In Statement Analysis, we have what is called the "40 Percent Rule" in which analysis, revisited over a period of time, will not change, but can grow for the analyst, (even in group analysis) as the brain trains or focuses upon a certain 'trail' within the analysis, that brings about an attendant emotion; especially when deception is indicated.

If the analyst (or analysts) revisit the same analysis after a certain period of time, the same statement may yield up to 40% more information.  It is not to negate the original information, it is to expand upon it.  It is up to 40% "more" or "additional" information to what we already have.

I have found that this interview has done this very thing:  it has given quite a bit more information as I have revisited it after breaking the 'emotional trail' of it, and leaving off the frustration of questions that should have been asked.

This 'certainty' is anything but, however, if there is an emotional disconnect, it can be 'certain' that enough time has passed for the analyst to embark upon tangent 'trails' within the analysis.  For a more complete explanation, please search the "40% Rule" here at the blog.  It is also included in our training course available at www.hyattanalysis.com for investigators, human resource professionals, journalists, therapists, etc).

I am bothered by the father of DeOrre Kunz' recent statement, as noted, in the sensitivity regarding the truck, but recently, a false report of his son being found prompted a local journalist to call him for comment with, "...Your son has been found..." in which he did not answer with excitement or rapid response of, "Where?  When?  How is he?  When do I get my son back?", nor any of the expected responses.

This is the second reason I am re-analyzing the statement.  The 40% rule is sufficient cause for reanalysis and is something commonly done, but in a busy schedule, this recent reply has so bothered me that it is important to not only look for more content, but to focus upon any possible leakage of information from the father's words.

Leakage

Let's look at the one interview he did give, next to his wife, with not only the original analysis, but with greater emphasis upon certain wording he used.

Please note that 'leakage", at best, is guess work.  It is something that leads us to ask questions, but it is not intended to be definitive, or anything close to definitive.  It appears, at times, to be marvelously shining in a conclusion, but that is not its purpose, nor should it be used for such.  It is a very small tool, and is used to provoke questions, rather than answers, even though, at times, it can bring forward an answer.

It is true that highly trained, and highly talented therapists can be quite sharp at leakage, but it is only used to promote new questions and the seeking of new information.  The best examples from them are when they hear a word, note it as unrelated, and seek to learn, via follow up questions, why the word entered the vocabulary of the client, at this point of time in the session.

It is not a stand-alone- principle to make a conclusion. 

For example, when Baby Ayla was first reported missing, her father, Justin DiPietro, living with his mother in Waterville, Maine, refused to 'call out' for Ayla; the single most natural reaction from an innocent parent to a missing child.  He issued a statement saying he was "emotionally incapable" of talking at that time.

In other words, he wanted the public to believe Ayla was "kidnapped" but refused the police request to negotiate with the "kidnapper" for her safe return.

Justin DiPietro knew his daughter was never kidnapped and he would not expose himself to criminal liability in his words.  Therefore, he was silent.

Yet in his written statement to police to decline to attempt to 'save' Ayla, he wrote in his own defense (something the guilty are concerned about) with the words,

"Contrary to rumors floating around out there..."

I was asked by an analyst, "What does the father do for a living?"

This was a tough question.

I struggled to answer as DiPietro has never held steady employment but is of the generation that believes he is "owed" a living.et   In fact, young males who are new fathers will sometimes answer the question, "What are your plans to support your child?" with

"Tanif!" (For those who do not know this word, it stands for "Temporary Aid To Needy Families"; or welfare, government assistance).  This response reveals not simply the entitled mentality, but that the young male deludes himself into thinking that welfare is his "pay check."

For years, social workers in child protective posed this question to fathers, especially those who played video games most all day.  Eventually, the social workers were told not to ask a father how he planned on providing for his child as it was "insulting", "demeaning" and did not "enhance his self worth."

The first time I heard, "Tanif!" as an answer, I was not only surprised at the emphasis in his words, but was surprised by my co-worker's lack of surprise.  This was to be the first of many similar responses, over the years, from fathers who not only refused to work, but considered government aid to be his "paycheck" while using his love of video games to eventually obtain "disability" payments with the "diagnosis" of first ADD, and then ADHD (attention deficits).  As extreme as it was then (roughly 15 years ago), it is not only more common today, but more 'acceptable' in society.  It is a boom to the social services world, while being a societal loss to the children raised under this banner.

Justin DiPietro rarely held a job, even a minimum wage job, due to his fierce temper coupled with his 'superior' view of self.  Like all deceptive people, he not only held the world in contempt, but did not attempt to conceal this with charm.  He was confident he would successfully manipulate Waterville Police, Main State Police, the FBI, and then television hostess, Nancy Grace.

His arrogance would make an interview's strategy flow easily.

Eventually I was able to say that DiPietro was signed up for classes to be a truck driver, which, in the very least, showed some aspect of his personality regarding what interest he might have.  This was enough for the analyst to say,

"Tell them to search for the baby in water."

It was a brilliant example of employing possible "leakage" to a case. It was speculation, and not fact.  Eventually, the case made its way to the Kennebec River in Maine.  If DiPietro weighed down Baby Ayla's body in water, while suppressing this thought in order to make another thought communicated, the suppressed words came to the surface.  This is what leakage in Statement Analysis is:

It is useful, can be highly insightful, but alone, it is not enough to ever draw a conclusion.

This also helps up understand  "leakage" in analysis and how it may be applied.  Please carefully note that this analyst did not simply up to his thought until he learned what profession or interest the subject held.  He went on to say that "truck drivers' wheels are on the ground!" as part of his thinking into leakage.  He first needed to know what verbal expressions would come from what personality type before his assertion.  This is why the books on Patsy Ramsey and Amanda Knox regarding "secret language" is unreliable as there is no consistency in application.  Leakage is only a suggestion, or a thought to be expanded upon, and not a conclusion.  It is speculative, howbeit based upon reason, and quite valuable, particularly in the Analytical Interview.  We must be even-handed in our application should we hope for continued success.

My book on missing children is almost complete and I will have an announcement on it soon, and it includes never before revealed details into some of these cases, and is not only fascinating to review these cases, but is useful for instruction in analysis.  I hope you will enjoy it, and learn much from it.  These cases have taught me a great deal.

Let's look at the original analysis of DeOrre's father's words, but now to add in speculation regarding any possible leakage in his wording.

What happened to DeOrre?

As time has passed, is it more likely that DeOrre met up with an accident of which his father, fearful of not being believed, disposed of him in some way?

Eventually, I believe that should Justin DiPietro meet a prosecutor in court, it will be his claim regarding Baby Ayla.  

Analysis Question:  Does the father possess guilty knowledge of what happened to DeOrre?

I:  Interviewer

D:  Father

J:   Mother 

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

DeOrre Sr:.I'm not sure what day it is today. 

DeOrre Sr. is the father.  This interview took place shortly after his son went missing and should not have any past tense language.  

We know that the subject is a 'talker'; that is, one who seems to like to talk a lot, including interrupting others.  This may be nervousness, or it may be his personality.  We let his words guide us. 

"I'm not sure what day it is today."

First, we note that the question was, "Was it Friday?" to which the mother said, "yes" to the "yes or no" question. 

Next we note that the father felt the need to add to the question's simple answer. 

Then, we note the focus of his answer:  it is not DeOrre, but himself.  

Lastly, we ask, "What does the father communicate by this answer?

The father communicates by this answer that he does not know what day it is; perhaps implying that he is so tired from searching and the stress that he is no longer capable of keeping track of the days, no less the time. 

This is to put the focus upon himself; his wellbeing, his fatigue. 

This is also to elicit an emotional response from the audience:  feel sorrow (empathy) for the father.  

Let's listen, therefore, to hear if the father expresses concern for the wellbeing of his son, as he has now indicated a concern for his own.  

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.

This is a plain answer, and has no sensitivity attached to it.  Not so, however, for the father:  

D: Friday, about 2.26 was when I, was it 2.26?

Here, the father, who does not know what day it is, according to his language, recalls 

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 while being unable to identify what day it was?

That is to say that one does not know roughly how many feet a measurement was, as an estimate, but can give a precise answer in fraction of inches. 

It is an inconsistency in his language.  

Therefore:  

a.  we find him seeking to elicit empathy towards himself, and is not truthful about not knowing the day; and/or

b.  The hour is scripted; and/or

c.  The exact time is highly sensitive to the subject. 

He did not say "around 2:30" but used an exact number while not knowing what day it was.  

There are 24 hours within one day and here, he goes down to the single digit in minutes.  

He asked her for correction in the form of a question.  


J: It was 2.36 when I called.

She corrects him with precision but only about her call and this makes sense.  It is likely that she looked at her cell phone to note the precise time, perhaps in preparation for the interview, or due to the "clock" ticking, concern over her son. 

Either way, she knew the exact time she called.  This is not so very surprising with our cell phones today.  Neither is it surprising since innocent parents have an internal ticking clock of fear, operating under high alert (high levels of hormones) as they count the minutes that they do not know the whereabouts of their own child. 

It is this next response which I have noted for being extremely sensitive.  I add to the analysis that his response is also unnecessary which makes it very important to our analysis.  

There is no need to go further.  He gave the wrong time, and she corrected him.  

Boundary Issue

 In Statement Analysis, there is a boundary to every question and when one goes beyond the boundary of the question, the information is being offered without being sought, meaning that the subject has a need to get this information out there, and it was upon his mind and he was unwilling to wait to be asked. 

Think:  Billie Jean Dunn and her 'missing' daughter.  

Dunn was asked how far her 13 year old missing daughter, Hailey, had to walk to get to the 'sleepover' when she said, "3 or 4 blocks." 

This is within the boundary of the question, "how far" that was asked.  Yet, Billie Jean Dunn could not refrain herself from giving more information and had to tell Nancy Grace that Hailey "wasn't allowed to just go out without permission" and "wasn't allowed to walk alone..." which accomplished several things for her and for analysis' sake:

1.  Billie Jean Dunn showed that she had a need to portray herself as a good mother.  This is a warning sign.  She wanted to make certain that she wasn't going to be seen as neglectful.  

What's so bad about that?

It is not something we expect while a child is missing.  Innocent parents do not care for much of anything, including their own sleep or eating or reputations:  they just want their child back.  Everything turns pale in comparison to their missing child.  

2.  Billie Jean Dunn twice referenced Hailey in the past tense.  This told us that she knew Hailey was not going to be found alive.  

She went "outside" or "beyond" the boundary of the question, "how far" because she had a compelling need to persuade, but in doing so, revealed to us much more information that she intended.  Thus, the value of information beyond the boundary of a question and another example of why defense attorneys do not like their clients talking on their own.  

Let's look at what information the father gave us when he went beyond the boundary of the question.  

First, there is no real question, only an expectation.  It had to do with the time of when this ordeal started.  

The mother already answered the question with "Friday" but the father gave additional information by introducing the time of the call.  

The mother did not begin her account with the time of the call, but simply the day. 

The father did, and was off so she corrected him. 

He did not 'need' to add anything else.  

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. 

Let's begin with what she said:

"It was 2:36 when I called." The mother knew the exact time of her call. This is not unexpected.  

He reaffirms this with, "2:36 when she called and I..." but then immediately moves the topic towards himself...

again. 

1.  He makes this about himself.  

"I was in the truck hauling down to the road trying to get service because I didn't think one bar would get it." 

He was not asked anything about himself, or his activity, but introduces it beyond the boundary of the question. 

This is very important information to the father.  

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

The first point is that he makes this, not about his son, but about himself.  

2.   "I was in the truck hauling down to the road trying to get service because I didn't think one bar would get it." 

He first makes it about himself, and now, specifically, about his location:  "I was in the truck" is offered. 

He was not asked, "Where were you when your wife called 911?"

It is unnecessary. 

It was outside the boundary of the question. 

His location is very sensitive to him.  

This means that he was not going to wait to be asked to explain himself.  This leads us to point 3:  the reason "why" is given.  

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.  

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. 

4.  What he was doing in the truck.  

a.  "Hauling"

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.  

Remember, he began this interview seeking to gain sympathy for himself, perhaps so tired that he did not even know what day it was.  

Now, he feels a need to let everyone know:  while his son was missing, he did not leisurely sit around and have a drink, he was "hauling", that is, 'rushing' to get cell phone service.  

Please note:  

The mother had called 911, therefore, it was not necessary, at least, apparently, for him to even call. 

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


"I was in the truck hauling down to the road trying to get service because I didn't think one bar would get it." 

He not only feels the need to explain why he was in the truck and why he was driving so fast, but he feels the need to explain a delay of sorts in that he waited until he had more than "one bar" to make his call. 

His wife had already called.  

Please be on alert for some issue, between husband and wife, over calling 911.  


"I was in the truck hauling down to the road trying to get service because I didn't think one bar would get it." 

Here we must also note that anything told in the negative is important.  He tells us what he "didn't think" rather than what he did think.  This is a slight elevation in importance to the subject, himself, which we must then, in the least, consider why it would be.  

He did not say, "I thought it best to get two bars" but reported it in the negative:  "I didn't think..."

*What might cause this subtle change in language?

Is there something about the father who "didn't think" when it came to his son?

Is this possible leakage regarding an accident?  

Is it possible that something happened to DeOrre in which his father simply did not think it carefully through, and caused an accident to the child?

Please remember that leakage is not a conclusion but a thought that needs to be explored.  In Analytical Interviewing, any quick notation of possible leakage is used to ask follow up questions.  

So I, she got very very lucky. 

The use of pronouns in the English language is instinctive.  Pronouns are intuitive, 100% reliable, and are not subjective.  When pronouns are "incorrect", we are looking at deception.  

Here, we find 'self-censoring' or 'self-correcting' which means he has stopped himself from completing a sentence.  This is to conclude:  missing information.  

Yet, it is unusual that it takes the form of pronouns.

This concerns me.

Who got lucky?

Why is luck involved?

His child is missing and he is "lucky"?

What would cause him to attribute "luck" to either parent, since it regards success and his child is missing?

Please remember that this did not come from his mother.  

Next, without understanding why this is "lucky" for anyone, why is "luck", itself, made sensitive by the words, "very very"?

His pronoun usage is confusing.  Pronouns do not confuse.  

He introduces the word "lucky" when there is no success in finding his son.  

This is not expected.  

I was blessed that she was able to get service 

He then ascribed the "luck" to "blessing", but neither luck nor blessing is associated with the missing child, but back to himself. 

This is not expected. 

Question:  Why was he the one who was blessed by her ability to get service, and not his wife?

Question:  Where was he that he, himself, was the recipient of blessing, by her obtaining a signal?

Where was he at this moment in time?

Why is his location, in the truck, so very important to him?

What bad luck would have come to him, beyond losing his son, had she not been able to make the call?

What change in reality transpired to change "luck" (random) to "blessing" (specific) that is found within the context?

This is to say that something was very wrong for him and things improved, not for the child, but for the father, by her ability ("able") to call 911.  

Next:  Did the father not want to call 911?

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. 

Note again the self censoring, though this time, the missing information is not associated with confused pronouns. 

a.  "I didn't think"

b.  "I didn't want to try"

c.   "risk"

Please note that his focus is upon himself. 

Please note that which he reports in the negative.  

Please note the inclusion of the word "risk", not that his son is missing and as "risk" but there existed "risk" to the father, and this risk is associated with contact with police.  

We expect to hear that his son is at "risk" but we do not to this point; only that there was a "risk" to the father, and it had to do with his communication with law enforcement. 

Note he calls it "my talking" in the context with "risk."

Was there a significant debate between parents about calling 911?

Where did he go when he traveled about a "half mile"?

Did something happen as a result of 'not thinking' on the part of the father in which he needed time to "think" and that calling 911 was a 'risk' of not being believed, or being caught in neglect of some form?

Is he 'leaking' out that he wanted more time "to think" before calling 911 and she disagreed?

In that "half mile" down the road...what was there?  How often was he there?  Was he there before? Was he with his son at that location previously?  How did he know that at that specific location, he would get service?  Why does his mind go to that place, so much so, that it is highly sensitive to him?

He "knew" this was the place he could get service and has a need to explain why he went so far when, in reality, no one would care.   

The emphasis thus far is upon himself, with the pronoun, "I" being prominent.  

He has shown a great deal of concern that he be seen as tired, rushing, concerned, and carefully avoiding "risk" in order to get his call through to the police in spite of knowing that his wife already had.  

This next change of pronoun is alarming:  

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, yet it follows after "I" in emphasis.  

I believe "we" searched, yet he then goes to editorializing:  

"dead panic", or inclusion of emotion ("dead panic").  The emotion here is not necessary since the child is missing.  Just as "hauling" is not necessary, neither is "panic" but it is that he uses the word "dead" next to "panic" which may be leakage in his language. 

Is he here revealing that his son is dead?  Did he "not" think and do something foolish, such as ignore, or go smoke pot, or in some other way, cause an unintended death by "not thinking", as he should have?

We do not have signals of child abuse in his statement.  We do not have the subtle blaming of a victim.  His use of "son" in its context suggests that DeOrre was likely not a chronic victim of abuse.  

Was it an unintended death, caused by someone who as not thinking as he should have?

If this is true, and he is 'leaking' this information, his next sentence makes sense:


"I knew I was in trouble" 

Remember, he just said, "we" after all of his exclusive use of "I" and has introduced:

luck and blessings while the child remains unfound;
that he "didn't think" is repeated; 
That he seeks sympathy for himself, not his son, and used the alarming phrase, "dead panic" in his statement; 

Thus, 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?

To follow his own words, it sounds precisely true:  he in the one in trouble, and not his son.  

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.  

Which is it?

 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.  

It is likely that there was a "decision" to be made in a situation where no decision is necessary.

This is why I believe that there was a delay and a debate, between himself and his wife, and why the word "we" now is used but in connection with the word "decided", which is its focus, more than a call. 

Note also that he appears out of chronological order.  

He has gone back to his driving "down" again.  

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. His statements show a focus upon himself, and not upon his child.  The sensitivity is about not thinking, and a need to persuade us of immediate and hurried action.  This need to persuade, itself, is most unnecessary and reveal that there was a delay and there was a debate about getting police involved.  

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.   In his case, twice thus far he has talked about "not thinking", that is, in the negative.  

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?  This should have been asked.  

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.  

It is regarding pronouns, which is not expected.  

Even though they were seated together, he used the pronoun "I" mostly until the police are introduced.  

In the chronicity of his account, police are now "on our way" (not on their way) and he then goes into a lengthy praise of police while they were unsuccessful in locating his son. 

Were they, in his language, and from his perception of reality, "successful"?

That is to say successful in not finding him?

  Praise of authorities. 

This is something that is not expected at this time unless the subject does not want the child found.  

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.  This is hyperbolic praise, appropriately so.  They are thrilled and eternally grateful.  

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. 

When police begin to suspect the parent, the praise quickly changes to rage and denigration.  

"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.  

He does not describe any concern for his son, but in his praise of authorities, he ascribes an emotional attachment they had to a child they did not find. 

The praise of unsuccessful searching is concerning. 

Here, he speaks about his son for the first time.  

He's pretty small for his age but he moves pretty good, and that was 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.  This is not any form of blame, even subtle, but a description.  

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

c.  He uses the past tense "was"is troublesome as it is a past tense reference.  "He's pretty small for his age" is "He is", in present tense.  

Yet, "...that was our concern" begs the question:  

Why was that a concern, but no longer a concern?

Taking the distancing language of "that" and the past tense "was", it suggest that this is not his concern, any longer. What has changed, in reality, that in the language of the father, it is no longer a concern?

Does he know that his son "moves" quickly, especially since father may not have been "thinking" and, perhaps, left him to his own devices?

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...someone has him.  This makes sense, but it is not supported by the whole. 

The father did not think. 
There was a dead panic. 
The child moved very fast even though he was small.  
There was a delay and a debate about calling 911.  


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 strengthens the view that whatever took place was not intended. 

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.

Let's consider these words under a supposition. 

Let's consider these words presupposing that the little boy was very quick on his feet, as some are, and that the father did not think carefully enough and left him alone while he did something he should not have, and the child met an unintended death, through a fall or downing and panic set in. 

Let's consider this as a possibility as we then revisit these words. It was a "risk" for the father, in need of luck and blessing, in contacting police, who are overly praised in their failure to locate his son.  

consider an unintended death took place and he said:  

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.

"He, uh" (pause, sensitive portion) "right with us", and not "with us", but "right" with us. Remember, "with" between them indicates distance.  "Right with" wants us to believe he was very close. 

Note next it is "us" and not "me", from someone who has stumbled on pronouns and his focus has been mostly upon himself.  

"I mean" is another pause. 

"I thought" is now in the positive and this may be to the originally planning:  he thought this place would be perfect because it was enclosed.  

This is to indicate that if the child is dead, it was not his intention.  His intention was to find a perfect camping spot.  

"our biggest concern" uses "our", to share responsibility.  

In an unintended death, this is expected:  the parent who was "in trouble" does not want to be isolated here.  He wants to share responsibility, and this explains why he sought sympathy (too tired to even know what day it was) and be seen in a positive light (I hauled in my truck, and was in a dead panic) and even drove "a half mile..."

Did he transport his deceased son, who died in an unintended manner, away from the camp site, causing a major delay in calling 911?

Did his wife insist that 911 be called saying, "they will believe you"?

I do not find the language of child abuse even though the father distances himself, and is concerned about himself. 

If DeOrre jr is dead, there is no need to worry, fret or be "concerned" about DeOrre jr any longer.  

It is concern for self, having neglected to "think", or carefully supervise his son, that has triggered such sensitivity in language, may be the explanation based upon his words.  

 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).  It was a good idea, but, still, he "didn't think" his son could get as far away as he did in such a short time and...

Thus far, he has not used his son's name, (distance) 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.

Possible leakage:

"put to rest" should be questioned along with "dead panic", "blessed" and "lucky", within his language. 

Now we add "dead on" to our list of possible leakage.  

Follow the pronouns:  When he says "they", he immediately stops himself and says "we", connecting himself to authorities.  This constant inconsistency in pronouns indicates deception.  

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"; technology impressed him, yet, his son is not found.  

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. 

Did DeOrre jr drown?  Is this why he is so sensitive about the water?  Did he transport DeOrre jr's remains in the truck?


The praise of authorities in an unsuccessful search is not expected.  Was this him getting "lucky" and "blessed"?

The lack of concern for his son does not necessarily mean murder.  The child may be "safe" once deceased, as "that was our concern" is now alleviated as there are no more concerns over him.  

Did he neglect to supervise DeOrre who made it to the water, moving faster than he thought his son could?  

Note how little she says compared to how much he says:   

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.  

I do not think this child was a victim of ongoing child abuse, including neglect, further strengthening the possibility of unintended death.  

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  

The father then asks if the station has any questions.  This shows an openness and willingness to answer anything, as he has controlled the interview throughout.  This is a very poorly constructed interview.  

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.

Is there strain between father and mother?  

We have seen that there was discussion about calling 911 and likely a delay in that call.  Since the "decision" was in his language, it is very likely that he is the one who argued against calling. 



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.

They would not be together if not for the support around them.  This strengthens the view that there was strong disagreement between them regarding calling 911.  

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.


Note all the use of "we" now, instead of all the use of "I" before police involvement.  

Note the praise of the failure to find his son continued. 



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

The interviewer did catch some of the sensitivity about him being in the truck: 

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, now, and she affirms it.  


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.

"and he wasn't there" is utterly unnecessary therefore:

It is very likely that DeOrre Sr, the father, knew that when he spent this 20 minutes up and down the creek, his son was not there.  

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.  


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

"He's a goer" is not insulting, but like the above description, may be self-justification of "not thinking" and just taking his eyes off of his son for a short time, leading to an accidental death.  

The father is not trying to float the 'kidnapping' lie.  

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..."what?  Find him?  He stops his sentence and begins with "But", which rebuts that which preceded it.  Help us with hearsay and gossip? 



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?

This is where a reliable denial should have been issued.  

Jessica: he drives a black truck.

Remember what she said about them still being together?  Here, she points to him with "he drives a black truck." It is the truck he placed himself in early in the interview, that was accompanied by sensitivity indicators. 

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 that she referred to him with "he", but he "rebuts" her with "as a family", which goes from singular, himself, to plural, as a family.  He continues with "we", yet then after affirming himself, again uses the word, "but" in:

"It was me, but they claim..." 

He did not say "they said", but to him, in his language, it is a "claim", which is different than just a quote. 

He is concerned.  

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?

1.  This allows for the kidnapping excuse to be used.  Thus far, neither parent has shown any interest in the kidnapping theory. 

2.  It allows us to listen to see if the father goes, again, beyond the boundary of the question:  

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...

Remember his "I didn't think" answers?
Then, he did think, he thought the area was perfect for his son since it was closed in.  
Here, now he changes it with, 

"we don't know" is interrupted (self censoring and confused pronoun) with "I come to find"and "I didn't know" (repeated) 

He mentions the "reservoir" (water) here and a road.  It is mentioned a second time and then he travels, but mentions "by myself", which is not necessary and something that should have led to a question towards the mother about not going. 

The question is yet answered, but it appears the Interviewer may have grown impatient.  The father goes over the interruption and continues mentioning water again: 

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..

Here, the father connects himself at that time to his son. 

He was "over" is stopped.  "Over tired?" 

He was getting ready for a nap and it was "almost two" by "that" time.  

note now he uses "we" and "we decided" which means that a disagreement or discussion took place, at "that" time and "we were going to go a little exploring" which is to say that he was going to leave the area with the mother, perhaps.  

He was "going to be good with grandpa" and this was "by the campfire", which mentions "fire", highlighting another possible accident along with falling or drowning.  

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? 

Furthering the possibility that DeOrre was neglected an an accident befell him.  

Note the change from past tense to present tense language reduces reliability and may be being made up as he went along. 

This would then mean that he had to convince the mother to go along with the story.  

Note at the point where he is communicating with "grandpa":

1.  "um" is to pause in mid-sentence.  Remember, this is a quote.  Did he really yell, "Grandpa, um, you know, where is little DeOrre?"

This is a most unreliable statement and likely to be untrue. 

2.  "you know" is to recognize the awareness of the interviewer's presence, not the grandfather's at this point. 

3.  "where is little DeOrre?" uses "little", which is not something expected at this time but gives the 'term of endearment' portion a precise usage (not a reference) which strongly suggests that the father, at this point, is trying to persuade the audience of something that he knows is not true.  

4.  Note:  "how could you let your child out of your sight" may be not only leakage, but an embedded admission of what happened to the child. 

"Child" is used in 'child abuse' scenarios, and certainly, at this specific point of the statement, the father is acknowledging that something neglectful took place. 

a.  Neglect on the part of the grandfather is not strong in the language
b.  The father is "in trouble" for neglect. 

The father has a need to share responsibility for what happened, going as far as saying what they both thought:  

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..

"...and you can say" is to 'prove' 

"what we thought" is repeated and shows a need to share.  

Note the missing words here:  "...and just a split second your whole world is upside down and vanished, there's not a trace found" has no linguistic connection to DeOrre jr. 

This is to say:  he does not say DeOrre vanished.  He is not saying that there is not a trace of DeOrre to be found.  He wants us to believe these things, but in Statement Analysis, we do not interpret, but we listen.  

"This child loses stuff" also references him, at this point, as "child", one who may have been a victim of child neglect.  

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..

Since there is not even a trace, and just "vanished", the only other conclusion, after all the amazing searches, is that he is with someone, yet he only uses the word "possibility" here.  

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 seen in his constant sharing of responsibility with the word "we" in his statement.  

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 and indicative of emphasis and focus upon himself, and not his son's well being. 

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.  This may also be leakage as we note it does surface in the statements of the guilty, including Casey Anthony and others.  


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. 

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 
d.  An admission that he knows that his son was a victim of child neglect.  


I: and you want people to keep sharing?


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.

Thus far, there have been no subtle blaming of the child but here, he says, "he will trip over them" (the there blankets) which causes me to pause.  Did he 'trip'?  

I would have liked to hear the child's name.  If this is an accident/cover up, the guilt can cause such distancing language.  By this time, I had expected to hear DeOrre's name but I have not.  This is 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 you, 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.


With all of his focus upon himself, I had expected him to say "I am looking for you and I will find you" because he references himself as a father, including father or paternal instincts regarding the search. 

I consider this, therefore, to be also distancing language, even though the mother is present. This is a 'contextual judgment call' on my part.  He uses "buddy" here and then "Daddy will find you", but only after the use of "we."

The distancing language of "we" suggests, along with so much else, including the praise of those who failed to find him, that the father does not have an expectation of success.  

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" in her language.  

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.

Here we have another 'confused pronoun' with "I will, we will search for you..."

The father does not hold to strong language of finding his son, even though he so regularly uses the pronoun "I" to talk about himself.  When it comes to losing his son, it is "we" and "child" and when it comes to the search, it is "we", sharing responsibility. 

When it comes to choosing the location, it is "I", as it was closed in, but when it comes to not finding him, it is "we", sharing the responsibility. 

Leakage and Observations

I began this second round of analysis specifically looking at leakage.  Here is what we have:

1.  The father expressed concern for himself, and not what his son was going through.  The father gave indication that the public should have sympathy for him, rather than his son. 

2.  The concern he expressed was in the past tense, at one point, which leads us to:  

If the father knows the son is deceased, there is no cause to be concerned about what he may be going through. 

3.  The language of chronic child abuse is not here, but situational neglect is. 

4.  The father ascribes "luck" and "blessing" to himself, not his child, regarding his wife's ability to call 911, even though he called 911. 

5.  The father used the word "dead" in his statement about his missing son.  

6.  The father said he, himself, was in trouble, regarding his missing son. 

7.  The father vehemently praised law enforcement, who failed to find his son. 

8.  The father gave indication of a disagreement with DeOrre's mother about calling police.

9.  The father gave indication that there was not only a disagreement, but a delay. 

10.  The father gave sensitivity indicator about him being in his truck, giving way to wondering if the child came to an inadvertent death, and the father had to transport him to cover up. 

11.  The phrase "put to rest" was also found in his language. 

12.  Regarding the encounter with the grandfather, the father went to present tense language whereas his statement is consistently in the past tense.  This reduces reliability of his conversation with the grandfather.  

13.  The father has a need to portray him as "on the side" of law enforcement, including name dropping, so as to be seen in favorable light. 

14.  The father has a need to portray him as a responsible father, further strengthening the hypothesis of an accident or unintended event.  "As any father..." showing a need to persuade that he acted immediately, and responsibly.  

This is only seen when one does not act immediately, as there is no reason to think that one would discover his own child missing, and then take a siesta or break before searching for seeking intervention.  This is most unnecessary, therefore, indicative of a problem. 

There are many problems in the language, including 'confused' pronouns.  Since pronouns are instinctive, deception is indicated where he is unable to keep his account straight.  Elsewhere, the pronoun 'confusion' suggests a need to share responsibility as he moved from "I", self censored (stopped himself) and moved to "we", that is, to share with the child's mother.  

It may be that DeOrre came to his demise in an unintended manner, but one in which the father is concerned (or was concerned) would not be seen that way, by police, or perhaps, later, by the public, therefore, his need to persuade that he is a good and responsible father. 

The portion of the story where DeOrre was missing is not truthful nor reliable.  

The following words or phrases used are most unexpected and may be leakage; that is, information that he gave out in which he did not intend to communicate.  This means that he was thinking of one thing which he did not want to say, while saying something else: 


I.  "I didn't think." 

This is in the the language, is repeated, and could be leakage of an inadvertent accident in which he did not "think", literally, of his son during a specific time he should have, as a father, been thinking.  


II.  "hauling" was used to describe him as going quickly, as in an emergency, and is most unnecessary as no one would think that the father of a missing child would take a break and relax.  Yet, "hauling", even if it meant "moving quickly" is also a word used to carry.  

Is it possible that he had to carry his son a long way, if there was an unintended event that caused his death?  This is not a very strong point, but one that would have led me to ask questions, particularly around the "exploration" part of the story.  



III.  The word "Dead" as in "dead panic." This is simply not something anyone would expect to hear from the mouth of a parent of a missing child.  Although its context is in describing the emotion that was felt during the search for his missing son, it is still most unexpected. 

Further, the emotions came at the "perfect" or "logical" part of his story which suggests artificial placement of them, or "editorializing" of his story, since this interview was given close to the date of his son's disappearance.  

The word "dead" may be his acknowledgement that his son was deceased at the time of this interview. 


IV.   The word "Sorry" is always flagged in analysis.  In this case, it may be that he uses it as in an acknowledgement that he was responsible for the "not thinking" that led to his son's unintended death. 



V.  "put to rest" was a phrase about searchers in the area but is not something that we would ever expect to hear from a parent of a missing child unless the parent knows or believes his child is dead.  In context, it is not an appropriate use and police gave no indiction that the child was deceased.  

VI. "Dead on"has the word "dead"in it and this is the second use of the same term.  

Coincidence?  It is possible, but even one use of it is most unexpected.  To have it enter a second time is even more unexpected.  

How would this case be brought to a successful conclusion?

With the father's publicly stated cooperation. 

1.  Conduct a general interview (re-interview) with only open ended questions and follow up questions based upon sensitivity indicators.  

With no interruptions, he may reveal, even via leakage, the location of the remains.  Many questions should be towards the truck, which is to say:  aim at the places where the most sensitivity exists.  

Allow him what he desires most:  to distance himself from sole responsibility.  Allow him to talk about his truck, as it was so sensitive to him, but allow him plenty of time to talk about his parenting, even boasting.  Allow him to blame conditions, distractions, even others.  Give him plenty of room to not be interrupted and not judged.  

2.  Let him align himself with searchers.  Ask him questions about how professional they were, and how they cared for his son (reflecting his own words) to the point where he only sees "one team", which is "us", and how any of them, as parents, could have an accident.

3.  Talk about the site, and how only a good father would choose such a safe site and how he took his family camping and how he had others come along and what a good guy he is, and so on...

Keep him talking without disruption nor with the introduction of any language.  

Lots of empathy about fatherhood, responsibilities, fatigue, and how, (eventually) accidents happen to anyone and everyone.  See if he has a need such as Deborah Bradley did (though she was a narcissist) with "adult time." This is the time to learn if marijuana entered the equation. 

3.  Construct seven or eight very simple questions based only upon his language, (this is a very strict use of the word "only") for the polygraph. 

3.  Get him to agree to the polygraph and agree to the questions ahead of time, and how he, as one of the team, is just assisting his own team.  

  These questions must be solely based upon the words he used.  Do NOT introduce morally charged language (neglect, abuse, etc) 

4.  No confrontation; no interrogation. 

5.  With polygraph result in hand, acknowledge that an accident of sorts took place, allowing him to face other potential consequences, of much lesser severity, due to being in a "dead panic" over being blamed.  

What I am able to glean about his personality from this interview, he is not going to be combative or difficult.  

The Analytical Interview, employing his own language, bringing him to a level of real comfort, and he will: 

He will give up the location. 

He is a talker, which, with the right questioning, gives us everything we need to know about what happened.  

A Texas politician claimed racism on the part of a sheriff's deputy when pulled over.  We have the politician, Garnet Coleman's statement to analyze first.  Then, we have the Dash Cam.

We rarely have such an example, as analysis is to stand upon its own, yet here, we may analyze his statement, using the same principles applied to all statements, but not only are we enabled to see the conclusion of the analysis, but why a deceptive subject chose the words he did. This is a strong lesson for analysis.

We study "content", and are not satisfied with "deception indicated" but look well beyond for answers as to what really happened.  This is often useful in missing person's cases where the subject inadvertently reveals the location of the remains, in spite of intention of deception.

Garnet Coleman held a hearing to talk about racism when he made a statement about being also a "victim" of racism at the hands of a law enforcement official in Texas.

I.  His Statement

II.  Statement Analysis

III.  The Dash Cam



I.   Here is his statement.  What does Statement Analysis conclude from such?

She said, "this can't be real; this just can't be real." Nichole Rhodes 

Ohio woman says truck is burned after she gets racist letter: 'We don’t want you here black b----'

Private investigator helping family of missing Idaho toddler DeOrr Kunz, Jr.

When a person goes missing and those closest to the missing person speak, I have repeatedly written articles with strong conclusions.  I often say, "if he speaks, we will know."

My confidence in the system is such that I sometimes stake my reputation on my conclusion.  I rarely give ambivalent analysis. The record of accuracy is well known, and due to the scientific nature of analysis, if analysis is wrong, we can and must learn where we went wrong.

Over the years, two cases stand out to me.  One where I highlighted a father for deception while his child was missing.  It is true; he was deceptive, but he was deceptive about substance abuse that caused him to fail to protect his child. This is why you sometimes hear me say that the subject is deceptive, but while he is deceptive, we must learn if the deception is related, or attendant.

The other was not about deception, but an opinion regarding guilty knowledge.  After reading the viral statement made by Tammy Moorer regarding missing Heather Elvis, I did not think Tammy was involved, after all, her rage towards her victim was open, which is something that goes against the percentages of analysis:  the guilty often debase and or blame their victims but only in a subtle manner; not overtly.  It was a good reminder that even in the world of "90% likely", the other 10% arises.  I had not seen, to that point, an open ridicule of a missing person, or victim, by one suspected, nor have I seen it since.  (This status is for the 'unknown' or non adjudicated cases, where the one suspected does not wish to be seen guilty.  Tammy's rage had no subtle tones).  Sidney Moorer's guilty knowledge of then, missing Heather, was indicated, but looking only at Tammy's online smear of Heather:  guilty people mask their hatred, or suppress it, in the least.  Innocent people do not wish to speak ill of one missing, which should be noted.  Tammy could not contain her rage and it remains the only case I know of where, during that critical period of time where guilt/innocence is not established, that a deceptive person, with guilty knowledge, has openly defiled the victim, while missing. Since that time, I have remained on 'alert' for the possibility, wishing to learn from my mistake.  I apologized to her father, Terry, a man I admire.


For al the other cases, including all published on the blog, all of my own investigations, or of investigations for law enforcement, companies, or assisting in law enforcement, I have not concluded "deception indicated" in any case only to be proven, or even seen, as in error.  Most cases I give a very strong conclusion with not only "deception indicated" but with even greater content.

Also, in private and public cases of anonymous threatening letters, I have been fortunate enough to have the profiles come to resolution with either an admission, or a closed case.  This includes those done privately, or those I was involved as a team member.

Do you see why I am as confident as I am?  It is not confidence in me, but it is confidence in the system, so much so, that any error must have a way of being traced and corrected.  

The system is strong.  

Unlike 'suggestions', when someone is going to be arrested if the analysis is correct and I am asked, "How certain are you?", and I say, "I base my career on it" is not irresponsible wagering.  After working through analysis deeply, and coming to such a strong conclusion, having an innocent man arrested would destroy my career.  Therefore, with much 'on the line', I take care to never leap to conclusions, nor indicate deception lightly.  This is why you have read many cases (if not most) that have such strong conclusions:

"This person is accused of X and he is deceptive about X and shows guilty knowledge of X and has revealed..."and so on.

Yet, in the short interview with DeOrre's parents, I have not written a strong conclusion.  Yes, in a sense, the interview was poorly conducted, but also there has not been good media coverage, in general, of this case.

What I mean by "good media coverage" is the asking of questions.

For this, I remain grateful to Nancy Grace, in spite of the theatrics associated with the show:  she asks questions and...

we know.

We know, even if she misses it.  Recall her pronunciation that Tiffany Hartley was truthful, and this was discerned by...

looking at her.

Seriously.

I'll have to repost some of the analysis.

True enough, it brought more than a few chuckles, but it was that Tiffany Hartley was repeatedly asked, "What happened?" as she went from network to network and she revealed that her husband, David, did not die as described as she took the scene from the Hollywood remake of "Titanic" and added the number 3 to it, and called it her own.  She fled from Mexico prosecutors and later, while still talking, revealed a 'connection' of sorts to a drug cartel via a rented home.

With DeOrre's parents, we do not have interviewers asking, "What happened?" and the important, "What do you say to people who say you are involved?"

How difficult is it for an interviewer to say, "People on social media think you know more than you are saying..." or "some think an accident happened and you are covering it up..." or anything along these lines?

We now have a Private Investigator, 19 years experience in law enforcement, who media says is a "former family friend."

What does that mean?  Is he no longer on a friendly relationship with the family?  It matters little, unless there is a need to persuade the public that this is being done from a "completely neutral" stance, which, itself, is impossible, though strived for.  If he is a family friend, offering to help them is a good and kind act, as long as the family understands that he is responsible to the truth, no matter where it leads him.  If his goal is to clear the family, we may see it in his words, and due to other similar cases, not be surprised.

The PI said something easily analyzed about the parents which reveals his own doubts:

“I honestly believe in my heart of hearts that these are grieving parents and I want to hope that they feel like I feel, that somebody out there knows something."

This reminded me of the denial of Ryan Braun, where it sounds like a love story.  
"I believe that these are grieving parents", alone, uses "belief", which is necessarily weak, as it allows him, or someone else to "believe" that they are not grieving parents.  Yet, this belief is not only "in his heart", which would be a second level of weakness (in his "heart" instead of his "head") but his "heart of hearts" is the third level of weakness.  

Next, he says that they are "grieving parents" which indicates a belief that the child is dead.  Yet, when police said that they did not believe he was kidnapped, the PI said,

"“I feel that he was abducted. Everything points to an abduction.”
That he "feels" DeOrre was abducted is also necessary weakness.  He "feels" this way, which allows him to later "feel" differently, and it allows for others to "feel" differently, yet, he only "feels" this way while claiming the all-inclusive "everything" that "points to an abduction."

This moves on to what he believes about the child's status.  The parents are "grieving" is compared with:  
"“I feel that there is a possibility that he is still alive. Other kids have been abducted and located months, sometimes years later,"

Next note:  "I want to hope that they feel like I feel, that somebody out there knows something. "

The average person has a vocabulary of about 25,000 words. The PI's is likely higher.  When he reports something he must choose which information is important to him, which he should leave out, which words to use, which not to, what verb tenses to use, where to place each word in order to sensibly communicate, and all of this takes place in less than a micro second in time.  This is the speed of transmission. 
In this speed, we have our accuracy. 
We note that he does not say"I hope that they feel..."which would suggest to us that he has doubts that they feel the way he does, which is weak.  He goes even further in weakness when he chose the additional wording with,"I want to hope..."

It is not that he hopes, but he wants to hope.  This is to create even further distance from the thought, which is already reduced to a "feeling" which has emotional connotations. 

This man does not strongly affirm the parents' innocence.



How is the communication between him and LE going?

A change of language means a change in reality. Many cases have been solved by this principle and for new readers, I offer a few quick samples that I frequently reference:

"I didn't steal no jewelry. I showed the customer the necklace and when I went to put the jewelry away, it wasn't on the counter." 

When the guilty salesperson handled the jewelry, it was a "necklace" but when it was denied in theft, or went to be put back, it was "jewelry." She was truthful in that it was not on the counter (it was in a bag near her personal belongings). 

"The car sputtered and I left my vehicle on the side of the road"is where a "car" turned into a "vehicle" when it would no longer run.  When he picks it up, repaired, it will "turn back into" a "car" again.  

In the case of missing toddler, DeOrr Kunz, jr, the change of language of his father may be important.  First, let's look at all the missing questions in this case. 


I don't know if I have ever seen a missing child case in which the press asked fewer questions. 

DeOrr Kunz jr is a missing toddler who vanished while on a camping trip with his parents and grandfather.  

Some of the most basic, simple questions remain unanswered because press has not asked them.  

Who was the last person to see DeOrr?

Was he with Jessica's grandfather?

If so, who left him with grandfather?

How long was his with grandfather?

What was he doing with grandfather?

Where was father during this time?

Where was father just prior to this time?

Where was mother during this time?

Where was mother just prior to this time?

The televised interview should have yielded information, instead, the father was able to control the scope of the interview as the Interviewer passively watched.  This allowed the father to go not only off on tangents (which does give us some information) but allowed him to avoid any and all important questions. 

So often the advice to "control the interview" is misunderstood and the subject is interrupted.  In Analytical Interviewing, we do allow the subject to talk on and on, but we do not allow him to do so at the expense of critical questions. 

We do less than 20% of the talking yet, when we note sensitivity, including sensitivity in avoidance, we get our information by asking specific questions based upon the subject's own language. 

Instead, we have a vague question about what time 911 was called and the subject (father) corrected by mother, but then permitted to go off in a tangent, which, if there is a time constraint, must be redirected.  

Better still, let him ramble and ramble and ramble and later edit it down to the pre set time frames but let us have the information.  


In boh analysis, and commentary, I have mentioned that in the case of missing toddler, DeOrr Kunz, jr, the father has shown "sensitivity" in his answer to the question about calling 911.  

The question was about calling 911, and was in a general sense.  He first answered that it was "2:26", giving an exact time right after stating that he did not know what day it was.  This, as noted, would appear to be a father so exhausted that he cannot even remember what day it is, while immediately spiking up and giving an exact time, which, itself, is not expected. Yet, in comparison to his first assertion of ignorance, was he attempting to elicit sympathy for himself? If so, this is not expected from a parent of a missing child, as innocent parents care little for anything but the child.  

Look how he takes "what time was 911 called?" (which wasn't even the direct question) and moves into a narrative about himself:  

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. 

He reaffirms this with, "2:36 when she called and I..." but then immediately moves the topic towards himself...He agreed to her correction, but moved the topic from the call to his activity. 

No one asked about his activity.  

I have mentioned before about the word "decided" in analysis. 

1.  When a child is missing, 911 is called. 

When someone says that "we decided to call", in order to "decide", a discussion of some form had to take place, so that a decision is made. 

What discussion is possibly needed about calling 911?

If the parents frantically searched for him, in and out of the house, and around the yard, calling for him, and asked whoever it was that was watching DeOrr, there is no decision making process necessary:  911 is called.  

Yet, is it even 911 he was referring to?

2.   Because there is no follow up, we do not know.  He said "we decided to call search and rescue."

Is "search and rescue" a separate entity for a parent of a missing toddler who fears not getting a signal to call 911?

No one asked for clarity, either.  

Would you have a phone number for a search and rescue operation?  

If he is talking about 911, this only increases the already sensitive topic of calling 911.  



"I was in the truck hauling down to the road trying to get service because I didn't think one bar would get it." 

No one asked, "Hey, why were you in your truck?" but he anticipated this being asked and answered it before the Interviewer had a chance to ask. 

This makes the location of him in his truck very sensitive.  In fact, as it fits the "reason why" he was in the truck, in an open statement, without being asked, meaning:

There is missing information at this point and it is not related to traffic or rushing.  He already gave us the editorialized "hauling" description. 

The father is withholding information at this point.  

  

  "I was in the truck hauling down to the road trying to get service because I didn't think one bar would get it." 

He first makes it about himself, and now, specifically, about his location:  "I was in the truck" is offered but his wife already called. 

If you were the Interviewer, would you have asked about this?

"Your wife already called.  Why did you feel it necessary to call, too?"

It is a basic question.  

His location is very sensitive to him.   He needs a reason to place himself in the truck.

Did something happen in the truck?
Or
Did something happen to DeOrr that caused the father to put DeOrr in his 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.  It is:

a.  Unnecessary
b.  Repeated
c.  Reason why given 

This increases the sensitivity three fold.  

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. 

Think about the upcoming statement that someone saw a boy in a black truck. 

For the innocent parent, there is no need to worry about it because "it wasn't me and DeOrr", which is not his answer, instead, he does not deny being in the truck with his son, but goes to "time line" regarding what time the person saw a man, boy and a black truck.  

It should have no reason to raise his concern but it goes without a single follow up question.  

Please note:  

The mother had called 911, therefore, it was not necessary, at least, apparently, for him to even call. 

The father in the truck has produced intense sensitivity in his language.  Did he think he needed to give police different information than his wife?

Did he feel that he would appear cooperative by also calling?  

Is he more concerned with appearance than his son?


"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. 

The use of pronouns in the English language is instinctive.  Pronouns are intuitive, 100% reliable, and are not subjective.  When pronouns are "incorrect", we are looking at deception.  

Here, we find 'self-censoring' or 'self-correcting' which means he has stopped himself from completing a sentence.  This is to conclude:  missing information.  

Yet, it is unusual that it takes the form of pronouns.

This concerns me.

Who got lucky?

Why is luck involved?

His child is missing and he is "lucky"?  Why is there any raising of "success" when his son is missing?

This does not add up. 

This is not the language of one who is concerned that his son has been kidnapped.  

Yet, nothing is asked of him.  

I was blessed that she was able to get service 

There is no blessing for DeOrr jr.   There is no luck, either. 

Question:  Why was he the one who was blessed by her ability to get service, and not his wife?

Question:  Where was he that he, himself, was the recipient of blessing, by her obtaining a signal?

The Interviewer could have asked anything along these lines, but did not.  How could a father of a missing child call himself both "lucky" and "blessed" while his child remains missing?  

Was reaching 911 a blessing since it did not produce finding his son?

Where was he at this moment in time?

Why is his location, in the truck, so very important to him?

What bad luck would have come to him, beyond losing his son, had she not been able to make the call?

What change in reality transpired to change "luck" (random) to "blessing" (specific) that is found within the context?

This is to say that something was very wrong for him and things improved, not for the child, but for the father, by her ability ("able") to call 911.  

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. 

Would you care?

Would you not just dial and try and if it did not go through, then walk or run around to find a better signal?  Then, if all else fails, get in your vehicle?

Yet, would you need to do any of these things if your wife had already gotten through?

Expected V Unexpected:  

Expected:  Pick up the phone and try!  

Unexpected:  everything he did and everything he said.  

This next change of pronoun is alarming:  

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, yet it follows after "I" in emphasis.  

Where is the Interviewer saying, "How long did you search for?"

We searched for...and then stops himself.  He then jumps time to "after",when he said, "after about twenty minutes" from the guy who said, "2:26" and didn't know what day it was.  

Emotions in a Statement 

Statement Analysis shows that it takes time to process emotions.  Therefore, when there is an account of 'what happened', the emotions are found in reliable accounts in the 'post event' portion of the statement.  Here is an example:

"I searched for my son and couldn't find him. 
I called 911 and reported him missing.
I was so scared and now I am..." 

The emotion came 'after' in this short sample.  Now, here is the same short sample with a subtle change:

"I searched for my son and couldn't find him.  I was so scared.  I called 911 and reported him missing. "

In this second sentence, we would like to know when this statement was made.  If this is a re-telling of an account from years ago, the emotions have long since been processed and the subject is more working from memory of his re-telling, than he is from re-living the experience.  

Since this interview was so close to DeOrr's disappearance, the inclusion of emotions, in this portion of the statement, including "hauling" and now, "panic" appears to be artificially placed here; that is, editorializing rather than reliably accounting for what happened.  

That he uses the word "dead" in "dead panic" is alarming and it may be 

 leakage in his language. 

Is he here revealing that his son is dead? 

If this is true, and he is 'leaking' this information, his next sentence makes sense:


"I knew I was in trouble" 

Remember, he just said, "we" after all of his exclusive use of "I" and has introduced:

luck and blessings while the child remains unfound;
that he "didn't think" is repeated; 
That he seeks sympathy for himself, not his son, and used the alarming phrase, "dead panic" in his statement; 

To follow his own words, it sounds precisely true:  he in the one in trouble, and not his son.  Thus far, he has shown concern for himself, and talked about his own activity but not about his son and not about what happened in the specific time period when he went missing. 

There are no questions about the most critical moments when DeOrr was being watched.  

None.  

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

"Wait a minute.  You said that "we decided"; (turning to mother) 
"Did you want to call 911?"

We can only guess how the father would have interpreted the mother for this question.

Decisions take time. 

Decisions mean weighing the pros and cons and since "we decided", these pros and cons were vocalized and not internal thinking. Therefore, the Interviewer should have targeted the mother.  The mother could have even been gently 'accused' of not wanting to call 911 with:

"Did you want to keep searching longer before calling?" and see if she would be permitted to answer.  It is a very subtle accusation and she would have likely defended herself.  Remember, she did not mind correcting him and she is not likely willing to be blamed. 

"We decided" is bothersome.  It means that one of the two did not want to immediately call, but at this point, we cannot be sure if he was speaking of 911 or another entity known as "search and rescue" because he was allowed to make this statement without any clarification sought. 

Let's consider this. 

911 and Search and Rescue.

1.  One and the Same
2.  Separate entities.  

If they are separate entities, it means that he, the speaker, knew this and either had the number or could get the number and it is not sensitive. 

yet, if it is not a separate entity, we have a problem. 

To consider this, we must look at context. 

Is this a "change of language"?


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


Please understand:  if 911, called at 2:36, is different than "search and rescue", the following analysis does not apply. 

If it does, we must examine it as a "change of language" which should represent a change of language . 

Which is it?


Please note the context:  "That's when I drove down."

Did he "haul" down twice? or... "and that's when" speaks to his earlier reference. 

Since the Interviewer failed to get any clarity, we are not certain. 

It appears to me to be one and the same. 

I conclude this due to the words, "and that's when..." speaking of the time he "hauled" down the road in his truck.

Remember, the timing of him in his truck is sensitive to him.  He dismissed the eye witness, via time. 

What is the difference between 911 and search and rescue?

This may be a key in this case.

911 brings police,  and police investigate crimes and arrest people.

Search and Rescue looks for and rescues people. 

One is authoritative.  The other is helpful. 
One has the power to arrest.  The other just assists. 
One can make one in trouble.  The other's work ends when the searching is finished.  
One brings consequences, while the other brings recovery. 
One can be the bad guy, while the other is always the good guy.  (please note the excessive praise of the specifically detailed search.)

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. 

"She tried getting a signal out" is unfinished.  To complete this sentence would have been a direct lie.  "Tried" in the past tense means attempted but failed.  She did get through and he acknowledges it shortly.  Then, he moves to the praise of failed officials.  

Did the father, who knew he was "in trouble", and in a "dead panic" having "put to rest" that his son was not in the water, prefer "search and rescue" to 911?

DeOrr's mother called 911. 
The father called search and rescue. 

The difference between 911 and "search and rescue" may be, in DeOrr Kunz' Jr's father, an important insight into his perception of verbalized reality.  

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

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.

Please note:

I wanted to know, "Who was watching him when he disappeared?" along with:

"What was he doing?"

Yet now, "he, uh, was right with us, where it's at, I mean, I thought it would be perfect..."is to stop himself from telling a direct lie. 

Was he right there with you and his mother?

Was he right there with his mother's grandfather?

Note:  "uh" is a pause as we see the internal stress of direct lying being avoided. 

"I mean" is stopped, as he interrupted himself. 
"I thought" is past tense and now speaks to another time. 

"He, uh, was right with us, where it's at" is self-censoring which appears to be an attempt to stop the direct lie before it is said. 

Or...

Or he is telling the truth, and stopped himself due to the consequences from his wife calling 911. 

"He, uh, was right with us" also places his wife (or girlfriend) in the difficult situation with himself. "I was in trouble" is not "we were in trouble", however.  

Could this be a sharing of guilt?

 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.

Possible leakage: "put to rest" should be questioned along with "dead panic", "blessed" and "lucky", within his language.  None is expected language from a parent of a missing, and still unrecovered child. 
   

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?

The praise, when given strength of detail, is related to search and rescue. 

Nothing is mentioned of kidnapping investigation, sex offenders, police "investigating" or anything similar, in spite of the PI's claim of "everything" pointing to abduction. 

Could it be abduction where neglect permitted it to happen?

This theory does not fit the language. 

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.

After all the extreme self censoring, confused pronouns and changes of language, this is the question asked.  

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.

They would not be together if not for the support around them.  This strengthens the view that there was strong disagreement between them regarding calling 911.  

In his verbalized perception of reality: 

She called 911.  

He called Search and Rescue.  

The father goes right back to the calling and not about his son:  

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.


Note all the use of "we" now, instead of all the use of "I" before police involvement.  

Note the praise of the failure to find his son continued. 


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

The interviewer did catch some of the sensitivity about him being in the truck:

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, now, and she affirms it.  It is as if the interviewer was confused about the truck (rightfully so) as he referenced it twice, and went out of chronological order to return to it.  


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.

"and he wasn't there" is utterly unnecessary therefore:

It is very likely that DeOrre Sr, the father, knew that when he spent this 20 minutes up and down the creek, his son was not there.  

There are so many questions that should have been asked, even when pressed for time.  In a televised interview, he could have said, "excuse me" when father was going on and on about search and rescue and asked a specific question. 

Regarding the change of language, it is significant. 

As each of us has a personal subjective internal dictionary, so it is that we are not viewing reality, but someone's perception of reality as verbalized. 

The language reveals that in the minds of the parents:  

The mother called 911. 

The father called Search and Rescue. 

These appear to be two very different realities, though the same entity.  Just as a "gun" is very different from a "weapon", even when the same firearm is being talked about, so it is, unless they called different phone numbers, the difference between 911 and Search and Rescue is the difference between:

Criminal Investigation and Professional searches helping a situation.  

                                                        Which arrived?

It depends upon what you project. 

If you project guilt, you want only search and rescue.  

If you project innocence, you want police, who will investigate, and bring in search and rescue.  

The change of language is very concerning in this statement.