Saturday, October 25, 2014

Did Truman Kill His Wife for Million Dollar Life Insurance?

This case was recently on the Nancy Grace Show.  Statement Analysis is in bold type, with the emphasis added for instruction purposes.  

Did a Utah Woman Commit Suicide, or Was She Murdered?; Did Hubby Kills Wife?; 2-year-old Boy Found Dead
Aired October 9, 2014 - 20:00:00   ET


Will Conrad Truman's 911 call show guilt?

Statement Analysis follows the same principles in 911 calls as in other forms of communication with the expectation being the imminent danger/emergency.  It is sometimes referred to as "excited utterance", that is, words spoken quickly, therefore, considered reliable as the time for pre-thought is reduced.  

GRACE: Good evening. I`m Nancy Grace. I want to thank you for being with us.

Bombshell tonight. He kisses his wife on the forehead, rubbing her feet, and she lays dead in the hospital bed. Repeat, kissing her dead body  and rubbing her feet, and she lays dead there in the hospital bed. But did the lovey-hubby murder his wife of three years to cash in on a million-
dollar life insurance policy?

This is the question we seek answered:  Is this caller a "guilty caller"?

We know that guilty subjects do call 911, do take polygraphs, and do appear on television and radio.  There is much discussion between NG and her guest attorneys.  
In the last hours, we obtain hubby`s frantic 911 call. But what does the call prove? Control room, tee up that 911 call for me.

Straight out to Jim Kirkwood, KTKK. Wasn`t she a little concerned? I mean, they were only three years in the marriage. There was a million  dollars worth of life insurance on her head. Didn`t that 

make her a little edgy? I mean, you know, you`ve been with your bride for what, a year, and 
you suddenly want to up her life insurance policy?

Televised interviewing is not primarily to gain information.  In Analytical Interviewing, the Interviewer seeks to do as little speaking as possible, allowing for the subject to speak between 80% and 90% of the words.  

JIM KIRKWOOD, KTKK (via telephone): The telling thing, Nancy, is that night, he`d been drinking and they`d been arguing, and she goes in the  bathroom to shower, and she locks the door. Now, that -- husbands and wives usually don`t lock the door when they`re going to take a shower.

Please note the following:

We carefully flag any references to personal hygiene in a statement, particularly when it is unnecessary, as possible concealed information of a personal nature, often related to domestic violence.

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

Since "brushing teeth" is unnecessary, its inclusion makes it very important.  We relate to this possible domestic violence because of what is noted by this reporter:  

A woman in a domestic violent relationship often does not experience violence:  it is that she is controlled by the threat of violence.  Therefore, her life feels 'out of control', as if she is 'living on eggshells.'

A moment in time that she feels "in control" is while she is exercising personal hygiene for this very reason:  the door is locked, her time is her own, and for a few minutes, at least, in her own home, she feels safe. 

It is interesting to note that the reporter included the detail of the locked door. 

GRACE: OK, right there, a fact I didn`t know. Unleash the lawyers, David Wolfe, veteran defense attorney, Atlanta, Danny Cevallos, defense attorney and analyst joining me out of New York.

The guest attorneys often give shill arguments for the purpose of entertainment and sometimes have to stretch quite a distance to make a point.  
David Wolfe, do you feel like you have to lock the door to keep your wife out? Oh, and there`s Susan Moss has joined us. Hi, Sue Moss.

David Wolfe, do you have to lock the door to take a shower so your wife can`t get in? You worried she might murder you?

DAVID WOLFE, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: No, but if I`m going to commit suicide, perhaps I would look the door so that I`d be...

GRACE: And take a shower?

WOLFE: ... in the privacy of the area...

GRACE: So what, you`ll be all clean...

WOLFE: Take a shower...

GRACE: ... to impress St. Peter?

WOLFE: Well, whatever difference it makes, the shower was taken. And she...


WOLFE: All the evidence suggests she killed herself.

It's interesting to note that he claims "all" of the evidence only "suggests" suicide.  Incongruity noted. 

Much of what follows is suicide versus murder gender tangent. 

GRACE: You know, David Wolfe...

WOLFE: Everyone believes it.

GRACE: ... you started this, my friend.

WOLFE: Nancy, even the police...

GRACE: You started it, and I`m going to finish it.

WOLFE: Even the police said it appeared to be a suicide when they arrived. The only person to say no is the medical examiner, who said it`s a press contact wound...

GRACE: Excuse me!

WOLFE: ... where a suicide would be shot (ph).

GRACE: Excuse me! Excuse me. And Sue Moss, where on her body was she shot?



MOSS: And unless you`re -- unless you`re a legless Olympian named Oscar, no one`s going to believe that you killed your wife with -- with -- 

you know, the way this is being said. It`s absolutely ridiculous!

GRACE: You know, Danny Cevallos -- let me see the lawyers, please. Danny Cevallos, I think the two of you defense lawyers need to read 

something that was like the bible to me when I was prosecuting, "Method and Assessment of Homicide and Suicide."

It is so rare that a woman shoots herself in the head as a form of suicide, number -- also that she shoots herself at all as a form of 

suicide. But if she does shoot herself as suicide, it will not be in the face or the head. It`s not thought out. It is instinctual. And it is so 

incredible that a female would shoot herself in the head, right there, that`s a red flag, Cevallos.

DANNY CEVALLOS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, that`s the statistics that are convenient to you, Nancy. The other statistics are that people use handguns overwhelmingly to commit suicide...

GRACE: Really? What people?

CEVALLOS: ... and they press them right up against their head and...

GRACE: What people?

CEVALLOS: What people?

GRACE: What people?

CEVALLOS: Handguns are -- statistics show...

GRACE: Males! Males!

CEVALLOS: Males, people, everybody uses handguns.

GRACE: No, males.

CEVALLOS: Part two is...

GRACE: No! Males!

WOLFE: ... that when they do so...

GRACE: Women do not do that!

CEVALLOS: When they do so, when they do commit suicide with a handgun, statistics show that they do put it up to their head, as opposed 

to other parts of their body, an area not covered by clothing. So while you have statistics that show that it`s rare that females use handguns than 

males, that may be true, but it does happen. So that same statistic...

GRACE: You know what?

CEVALLOS: ... can be a sword and a shield.

GRACE: David Wolfe, you and I both practiced in front of a judge that would tell every jury, It is your duty to make all witnesses speak the 

truth and impugn perjury upon no one. There is a very clear way that Cevallos and I can both be right. And that is handguns are used very often 

to commit suicide, he`s right, but not by women.

You know what? Hold on. Hold the thought. Let`s see what we learn from the 911 call. Roll it.

Here is what we have been waiting for, the actual 911 call:

911 OPERATOR: 911, what city is your emergency?

Note that this call does not begin with "What is your emergency?" but the location.  

What are we listening for?

1.  Order to show priority
2.  Specific help for the victim, not the caller
3.  Straight forward language; no passivity or signals of sensitivity or deception. 
4.  We listen for what is expected, and then are confronted by what is not expected.  We expect him to seek help for his wife and say, plainly what he knows.

We do not expect the words "I'm sorry" to enter his vocabulary, for any reason.  (See Casey Anthony) 


911 OPERATOR: What address?


The caller urges the assistance to "please come quick."  
911 OPERATOR: OK, tell me that one more time so I know I have it right. OK. And I have officers headed over there. Tell me the phone 

number you`re calling from, OK?


911 OPERATOR: I have officers on the way. I need to know what happened.

This is the critical question of "What happened?" which allows the subject to begin his statement where it is most important to him.  
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don`t know! (INAUDIBLE) I came to the building and I saw blood! (INAUDIBLE)

Think of what you would say:  My wife is bleeding; my wife was shot, my wife needs help. 
He begins with "I don't know"

If he does not know, why is he calling?
911 OPERATOR: I`m sorry. I can`t understand -- OK.


911 OPERATOR: Hello? I need you to calm down for a minute. I understand. (DELETED) My partner is dispatching somebody. I need to know 
exactly what happened. Who is bleeding?


911 OPERATOR: You need to slow down. Calm down, OK?


911 OPERATOR: I can`t understand you. You need to talk a little quieter, OK?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) My wife`s life is on your head! My wife!

We do not find him seeking help for his wife, instead, putting the blame on the 911 operator.  Remember, these words are chosen in less than a microsecond.  
911 OPERATOR: OK, OK, take a breath for me, OK? What is your name?


911 OPERATOR: OK, they`re headed over there. They`re headed over there.



GRACE: Straight out to Jim Kirkwood, KTKK. You know, wasn`t it noted at the time that the victim did not have any gunshot residue on her hands?

KIRKWOOD: That`s my understanding, Nancy. The -- it -- and the fact that he says the bath (ph) top was in the bathroom, and yet there`s no 

blood trail from the bathroom to the kitchen.


KIRKWOOD: The blood is all in the kitchen. His story is just full of holes, Nancy.

GRACE: Now, hold on. Are you telling me, Jim Kirkwood, there was blood all over the house?


GRACE: Now, why would there be blood all over the house if she committed suicide by shooting herself in the head? What, she shot herself 

in the head, then walked around the house? Is that the story?

KIRKWOOD: He`s claiming -- he`s claiming she walked from the bathroom to the kitchen, but that`s nonsense.

GRACE: After she shot herself in the head?


GRACE: OK, we`re showing you actual crime scene photos right now. And notice the crime scene photos include smears, not just spatters. This 

is extremely important. There are blood smears. Look what "GMA" showed this morning.

Let`s go back through the crime scene photos that we`ve got. The crime scene photos show spatter -- that is velocity spatter right there 

from the actual shooting, I can tell you -- now smears. See the difference? She could not have shot herself, then smeared blood like that.  

It`s forensically impossible.

Unleash the lawyers, Sue Moss, David Wolfe, Danny Cevallos. All right, David, I told you I`d come back to you. Let`s hear your explanation 

of how a woman shoots herself in the head -- and I haven`t even gotten to the part where he`s rubbing her feet in front of the nurses and she`s dead 

-- and then she smears it on the wall.

WOLFE: The evidence supports the contention. If someone was going to be murdering somebody, they press a gun to the head and pull the trigger 

and blow their brains out. If somebody`s attempting to kill themselves, they put the gun to the head and then reluctantly try to stop, and they 

could have injured themselves.


WOLFE: Right, she could have injured herself and been bleeding moving around the house. She was in a hospital bed, so she survived...

GRACE: OK, wait, wait!

WOLFE: ... the shooting. And the chances of her...

GRACE: Back that up.

WOLFE: ... moving around the home are very consistent with where the blood was found.

GRACE: David Wolfe...

WOLF: Yes?

GRACE: ... you`re not working a spell on me, all right, because I`ve seen you in court.

WOLFE: You do look younger than ever, but go ahead. I`m listening.

GRACE: Thank you. I`ve seen you in court. And you just actually said -- you know what, Sue Moss? I`m going to throw you a softball. Did 

you just hear Wolfe say she reluctantly shot herself in the head, then, quote, "moved around the house" afterwards? Impossible!

MOSS: So let me get this straight! This woman went into the bathroom, shaved her legs, took a shower, got herself clean, and then she 

decided, Oh, I don`t like the job I did, and killed herself?


GRACE: I shaved my legs, now I can go ahead and shoot myself.

WOLFE: There`s no evidence she shaved her legs that night.

MOSS: Absolutely...

WOLFE: There`s no evidence she shaved her legs that night. What we have...

GRACE: You know what?

WOLFE: ... is a girl that attempted to commit suicide...

MOSS: Have you read the background? Have you read the background?

WOLFE: ... attempted -- attempted...

MOSS: Yes, there is!

WOLFE: This is speculation!

MOSS; Yes, there is!

WOLFE: The razor in the shower does not mean that she did it that night!

GRACE: OK, you know what?

MOSS: She was taking a shower. She had a razor...

WOLFE: There`s no doubt she was taking...

MOSS: ... right in the bathroom where she had been...


GRACE: Wait a minute!

MOSS; I don`t know how you can come to that conclusion!


GRACE: I`m going to throw this one to Cevallos. Get ready, Cevallos. All right, Jim Kirkwood, KTKK, how many different stories did lovey-hubby 


KIRKWOOD: A shot from outside, but of course, no bullet hole through the window or wall. Somebody was an intruder, a mystery person that was in 

there and did it, that she -- 80 percent chance that she killed herself. I mean, this guy has a lot of stories, Nancy.

GRACE: OK. Right now, we just got in the 911 tape. Before I play the rest, to you, Cevallos. Did you hear that? He`s changed his story 

three times. He even said, Oh, there`s an 80 percent chance she killed herself.

CEVALLOS: Yes, number one, he was blasted, so to any -- at the time the police came, at the time this is supposed to have happened...

GRACE: You mean drunk?

CEVALLOS: Yes, drunk, whatever you want to call it. He`d had one too many hot toddies.

GRACE: You think that helps him?

CEVALLOS: No, it doesn`t help him...


CEVALLOS: Well, we know -- hold on. We know that voluntary intoxication isn`t going to be a defense.

GRACE: Not a defense.

CEVALLOS: But it may go to explain some of his bizarre and erratic behavior...


CEVALLOS: ... which includes some really bad statements for himself.

GRACE: OK, let`s see what we can learn from the 911 tape. We`ve just gotten it. Let`s see if there are any clues in his call to police.


Here the 911 call continues:  
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) I swear to God! She was in the shower! She came out of the shower, and I heard a pop (ph), and there`s blood! And she`s in blood!

"and there's blood" is passive language.  Passivity is often a signal of attempting to conceal responsibility.  
Note the need to call upon Divinity in an oath, is often an indication of deception. 

Note the order:
1.  She was in the shower
2.  She came out of the shower
3.  I heard a pop
4.  "there's blood"

He does not say she was bleeding.  



911 OPERATOR: I have officers and paramedics on the way, OK?


911 OPERATOR: OK? Can you -- OK, I understand. I need to help you, OK? All right, I`m here to help you. I have paramedics and officers on 

the way to help you. OK, go outside. I should have an officer there.

a wise practice. 

911 OPERATOR: OK, I have an officer that`s outside trying to find you. Can you go out and find him? Can you go out and find him? OK, go 

out and get the officer so he can help you, OK? My officer is outside.


911 OPERATOR: OK, to get help for her, I need you to...





UNIDENTIFIED MALE: His wife found shot to death.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was Conrad Truman`s frantic 911 call and strange behavior at the scene that raised the suspicion of Orem police.



GRACE: OK, we`re talking about the 911 call that we have just managed to get. This husband, in front of all of the nurses and doctors at the 

hospital, goes into a real act, rubbing his dead wife`s feet -- I wonder if he ever rubbed her feet when she was alive -- but rubbing her feet, kissing 

her forehead. All the while, she`s dead. He puts on a big show at the hospital.

Then we find out there is a $1 million life insurance policy all in -- about $950,000. Now we learn about bizarre behavior at the time police 

arrive. We also learn of another story he tells police, that he thinks she was shot from somebody outside.

Isn`t it true, Jim Kirkwood, that the window was closed and not broken? How could somebody shoot her from outside?

KIRKWOOD: Yes, there`s no bullet hole through the wall or the window. That`s nonsense. But he made the claim.

GRACE: OK, Clark Goldband, what is the bizarre behavior we keep hearing about?

CLARK GOLDBAND, NANCY GRACE PRODUCER: OK, well, Nancy, law enforcement testified under oath -- listen to this. He said he worked for 

20 years as a law enforcement officer. He never had someone scream at him and threaten him as he tried to control and save someone at a crime scene.

Cop said he was verbally abusive and screaming to the point that, Nancy, they tell him to, Stop, stop, stop, and calm down, and try to take 

him away from the scene and sit him down so he relaxes.

GRACE: OK, Jim Kirkwood, isn`t it true when police arrive at the scene of the shooting, the wife`s still lying in a pool of blood, right?

KIRKWOOD: Exactly.

GRACE: All right, a pool. Let me emphasize, pool of blood. Now, that suggests that she fell to the ground the moment she was shot, and that 

is where the majority of the blood is.

You`re seeing crime scene photos from ABC`s "Good Morning America."

If she dropped right there -- to Dr. Tim Gallagher, medical examiner, forensic pathologist. Dr. Gallagher, what about the defense theory that 

she walked around the house after the gunshot wound to the head when we know that she`s found by police lying in a pool of blood?

DR. TIM GALLAGHER, MEDICAL EXAMINER, FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST (via telephone): Well, that`s generally the case. A gunshot wound to the head 

is instantly -- at least instantly incapacitating and often instantly fatal. I`d have to know a little bit more about the caliber of the gun, 

but I have a good feeling that...

GRACE: Well, you know what? Hold on. I can tell you that right now. Jim Kirkwood, isn`t it a Sig Sauer 380?

KIRKWOOD: Exactly. That`s what it is, Nancy.

GRACE: OK, what about it, Dr. Gallagher? And I now find out that the husband bought his and hers Sig Sauers. OK, that`s a whole `nother can of 

worms. Let`s talk about, would she have fallen right where she was shot?

GALLAGHER: Well, every case that -- every suicide case that I had involving a 380 caliber was a through and through gunshot wound that was 

instantly fatal. I would say there`s a -- she had to have fallen and died in one position. She could not have been walking around the house...


GALLAGHER: ... after suffering an injury.

GRACE: ... I see David Wolfe tossing and turning in his seat. Unleash the lawyers, Sue Moss, David Wolfe, Danny Cevallos. What about it, 


WOLF: It depends on where the gunshot wound entered her head and how it exited. If it didn`t go through her brain and was only an injury to the 

head that allowed her to survive, then she doesn`t drop right there and she can move around. And the doctor will tell you...


WOLFE: Just hang on one second. And the doctor will tell you that injuries to the scalp and the head will bleed more than...

GRACE: OK. Put him back up, please!

WOLFE: ... most other injuries.

GRACE: OK, so hold on. You`re suggesting that she shoots herself. It`s not through the brain, it`s somewhere else in the head.

WOLF: It can injure the skull, yes.

GRACE: OK. And bleeds profusely because it`s a head wound.

WOLF: Exactly.

GRACE: So let`s follow through with your theory. Let`s think it through, and let me explain to you why that doesn`t work. In my thinking, 

because if she shoots herself in the head and she`s not dead, so she walks around the house for some inexplicable reason, and then comes and lays down 

in the original pool of blood? That would have to be your theory.

WOLF: The pool of blood could be there after she fell to the ground and continued to bleed...

GRACE: All right.

WOLFE: ... which may have meant her heart was still pumping and she was still alive. She wouldn`t have been in a hospital bed if she wasn`t 

still alive when they got her to the hospital.

GRACE: OK. Well put. What about it, sue Moss?

MOSS: Oh it -- it -- you know something? We`re all getting all worked up, but the reality is, the science is going to prove what happened!  

If she killed herself, then there`s just so far that she can be away from her head when she shoots the gun. If it`s him, then it`s probably going to 

be a little bit more of the distance. And the spatter marks and all of the blood marks and where it was all found is going to show what actually 


GRACE: ... and then -- and then that is why the pool of blood. That`s where the pool of blood comes from, after she`s walked around.

But Cevallos, look at the crime scene photos. There are smears that looks like -- it looks like maybe from fabric. That, when you`re seeing 

right there, from "GMA," the original one is the spatter. Here are smears. How did she do all that, Cevallos?

CEVALLOS: Again, it goes back to the theory that if the initial wound was not immediately fatal, then she can freely move about and smear, perhaps 

even the husband through contact, he himself smeared. There are many possible explanations for the smear and the spatter. And eventually, where 

she succumbs is where you have the pool of blood.


CEVALLOS: Now, remember, you have a competing theory, I have a competing theory. It`s not 50/50. If you believe he should be prosecuted, 

then it has be to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

GRACE: Well, what`s going to matter...

CEVALLOS: Our job is only to raise doubt.

GRACE: ... is where, where in the head was the wound? That`s the big thing. You know, interesting, I don`t know if there was a suicide note 

found. I`m finding that out right now. But what can we learn from his frantic 911 call? Take a listen.


911 OPERATOR: Who is this? Who am I speaking to? Hello? Hello?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m right here! I`m right here!

911 OPERATOR: OK. What is your name?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My name is Conrad! She`s choking!

911 OPERATOR: She`s choking? OK, does she have a gunshot wound?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It looks like she might have a gunshot wound (INAUDIBLE)

911 OPERATOR: A gunshot wound? Where is it?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Baby! Baby, come on! Baby!

911 OPERATOR: OK, where`s the gun right now? Where`s the gun right now? I need you to answer my question. Where`s the gun?




The continuation of the 911 call.  He has not given specifics and not even said it was his wife who is bleeding.  This is not lost on the 911 operator:

911 OPERATOR: I can help you. I need you to answer the phone and I need some information on where she`s bleeding so I can help you with that, 


UNIDENTIFIED 911 DISPATCHER: Where is she bleeding?  

CONRAD TRUMAN, SUSPECT: There was blood coming out of her head

He does not say "her head is bleeding"; this is also passive and an indication that he is concealing the identity of the one responsible for causing the blood to come out of her head. 
UNIDENTIFIED 911 DISPATCHER: Out of her hair? OK. Are you -- is she conscious? Is this a trailer park?  

TRUMAN: No. No, it is right across from Trafalgar, please.  

UNIDENTIFIED 911 DISPATCHER: It`s across from Trafalgar?  

TRUMAN: There is too much blood.  

Note the missing optimism and the lack of expected denial:  here he is communicating to the operator about death.  
UNIDENTIFIED 911 DISPATCHER: OK. Is the blood only coming from her head? Is this a trailer or a house?  

TRUMAN: It is a house.  



UNIDENTIFIED 911 DISPATCHER: OK. Is she -- is she still breathing?  

TRUMAN: I swear to God.  

He again calls upon Divinity and he avoids answering the question that would indicate if she was still, possibly, alive.  This question should be considered "sensitive" to him; particularly right after his statement about "too much blood."
UNIDENTIFIED 911 DISPATCHER: OK. They`re on their way, they`re almost there. They`re just outside. They need to find the house, OK? OK. Are 

you able to go outside?  

TRUMAN: Yes.  


NANCY GRACE, HLN HOST: Lovey hubby rubs his dead wife`s feet and kisses her on the face in front of nurses and doctors at the hospital. But did he 

murder her to cash in on a nearly million-dollar life insurance policy?  

When asked if he had anything to do with it, he says, "No, effing chance. What good is a dead wife to me?"  

To Kurt Hanson joining us tonight, breaking news and crime reporter with the "Daily Herald" at  

Kurt, what -- can you shed some light? You are privy to a lot of the forensic information. What can you tell me about the crime scene, in 

particular that pool of blood where cops found her lying?  

KURT HANSON, BREAKING NEWS AND CRIME REPORTER, DAILY HERALD: Yes, the pool of blood, you know, the prosecutors today said that there was brain matter 

in that pool of blood and going back to what was said earlier, there is no trail of blood. It is just a pool. Which makes it really hard for the 

scene that she staggered to stand.  

GRACE: Now let`s talk about what you just said.  

With me, Kurt Hanson, breaking news and crime reporter "Daily Herald".  

OK, Kurt, you said there is no trail of blood. Then I`m seeing crime scene photos where it looks like it`s smeared along the baseboards. What is 

that? And then I see spatter marks from "GMA."  

What is that, Kurt?  

HANSON: You know, a lot the -- a lot of the evidence may be from -- they had a family dog who -- and forensics say that the dog may have gotten the 

blood and they have rubbed the blood --  

GRACE: OK. Wait, wait. Wait, wait.  

HANSON: Or his tail may have gotten the blood and flicked some blood around.  

GRACE: Are you telling me he let the dog walk through his wife`s blood?  

HANSON: Yes.  

GRACE: You know, I almost wish I hadn`t asked you, but unleash the lawyers. Sue Moss, David Wolf, Danny Cevallos.  

All right, Cevallos, brain matter in the pool of blood. This woman did not walk anywhere. That is where she was shot. If there is brain matter, that 

only happens at the moment of impact with the bullet. The brain blows up.  

DANNY CEVALLOS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Nancy, when did you become a neurology expert? I`m not entirely sure that`s the case.  

GRACE: That`s your answer?  

CEVALLOS: Well, I don`t know that to be true. I would need a neurological expert to tell me --  


GRACE: As a matter of fact --  

CEVALLOS: That a piece of brain matter could end up outside of your body, a small piece, and that you could still function. There are many instances 

where you have injuries to the brain and you can continue to ambulate or walk around or do stuff.  

GRACE: OK. Let`s ask Doctor Gallagher about that.  

Doctor Tim Gallagher, medical examiner forensic pathologist. Yes, I`m just a J.D., I`m not an M.D. but Gallagher, you are. In the pool of blood where 

she`s lying is brain matter? What does that say?  

DR. TIM GALLAGHER, MEDICAL EXAMINER AND FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST: Well, that`s not a good sign, Nancy. You know, again, it would depend on how much, but 

any sign of brain matter in the pool of blood is a sign of a serious brain injury within the head. So I would, -- again, would severely doubt that 

she was able to ambulate at this -- sustaining such an injury, a devastating injury.  


UNIDENTIFIED 911 DISPATCHER: OK. Go outside, I sure have an officer there. That right -- OK, I have an officer that`s outside trying to find 

you. Can you go out and find him?  


The 911 call continued:  
UNIDENTIFIED 911 DISPATCHER: Can you go out and find him? OK, go out and get the officer so he can help you, OK? My officer is outside.  

TRUMAN: Come on, baby, let`s go outside. You can do it.  

Note that he is addressing his wife.  
UNIDENTIFIED 911 DISPATCHER: OK. To get help for her, I need you to let the officer know where you`re at.  

TRUMAN: Come on, please. Come on.  



UNIDENTIFIED 911 DISPATCHER: OK. I hear -- I hear a male, is that the officer on scene? Yes, that`s the officer. Hello?  

TRUMAN: You better get the (EXPLETIVE DELETED). No, I`m not.  

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Don`t touch me.  

possible confrontation with responding officers. 
TRUMAN: No, I`m not. That`s my wife.  

UNIDENTIFIED 911 DISPATCHER: His wife. I guess it`s taking the wife.  


There are enough indicators within this 911 call to make the subject a suspect in his wife's death.  

Polygraph Reliability and Mistakes

Polygraph Reliability and Mistakes
by Peter Hyatt

Those who oppose the polygraph cite that the "polygraph isn't admissible in court for a reason."

Polygraphs are not admissible in courts unless stipulated by both parties.

The President of the United States may be the single most powerful human being on the face of the earth.

He relies on the polygraph for his safety.  This is a case in which there is no limit to finance:  No expense is spared by the United States federal government.

If we are to believe advocates there are "thousands of innocent men on death row" or serving long prison sentences awaiting DNA to clear them, especially those who failed polygraphs.

Lawyers like to polygraph their clients often before the case is taken so that they know.  They need to know the truth if they are going to mount a defense.

It is my contention that the polygraph is very reliable when it is used in correlation to a simple Statement Analysis principle:

Enter into the subject's own Personal Subjective Internal Dictionary.


Recall the training in which we teach that each one of us as a personal, subjective and internal dictionary, unique to us, in which a few exemptions apply; that is, articles ("the, a, an"), pronouns (pronouns are instinctive, and "he" will always mean "male" and "we" will always mean plural) and objective time on the clock.  ("12:30PM" is the same time for all of us.)

In the training for both law enforcement and corporations, I use the word "boy" for the example, in which applicants than respond by what the word "boy" indicates to them, with the range of responses going from a newborn male child, right up to a 21 year old male soldier, and everything in between.

Therefore, the subject must do the interpretation for us and tell us the meaning of "boy", which is found simply through follow up questions.

President Clinton would have passed the polygraph had he been asked, "Did you have sexual relations with that woman, Ms Lewinsky?" because his personal dictionary, internal and subjective, held that "sexual relations" was specifically "sexual intercourse."

A few clarifying questions fulfills another Statement Analysis principle:

We do not interpret words.

The subject guides us with his own words.

Therefore, after a few clarifying questions, the playing field would be level.

Let's stay with the former President.

He is about to be given a polygraph.  Therefore, there are three steps to be followed:

1.  The screening interview

2.  The polygraph questions are asked without being hooked up to the machine.

3.  The polygraph questions are asked while hooked up to the machine.

1.  Let's assume that the President clarifies not only what "sexual relations" means, but then gives us the meaning of "sexual contact."  This is the screening interview in which we now have clarity.

2.  Next, the questions are given to him.  They are as follows:

a.  Is your name William Jefferson Clinton?

b.  Do you live at the White House?

c.  Is today Tuesday?

d.  Did you have sexual contact with Ms. Lewinsky?

e.  Are you telling the truth in these questions?

Therefore, there are no "surprise" questions that he should be extraordinarily nervous over.

3.  The polygraph

The same questions are now administered.

With his vitals being measured, he is quite nervous.  What is looked for is a change in nervous reaction.  Let's say the nervous scale is from 1 to 10 for the sake of clarity.

I now presume:

a.   Is your name William Jefferson Clinton?      Answer:  yes            Scale:  5

The first question shows a "5" on the scale, which is very nervous.

b.       Do you live at the White House?           Answer:   yes                 Scale:  4

this also shows nervousness, but a bit less.

c.   Is today Tuesday?                                       Answer:  yes                  Scale: 4

d.  Did you have sexual contact with Ms. Lewinsky?  Answer:  no       Scale:  10

e.   Are you telling the truth in these questions?    Answers:  yes          Scale:   9

Now the results are interpreted.

The subject is nervous and it shows with the common questions, average 4.3    This is his average.

The question about sexual contact was at the high point of the scale, showing an extreme increase in nervousness:   10.  This is indicative of deception.

The last question scored a 9, a slight decrease.  This is then interpreted as "deceptive" but not on all questions, which, looking at the scores of 4, 4, and 5, makes sense.

Result:  the subject had sexual contact and is deceptive.

When the polygraher uses Statement Analysis, he or she avoids interpreting words and makes the polygraph test highly reliable.

It may not be admissible in court unless stipulated, but it has been shown to be reliable when used properly.  The most common mistake is not listening to the subject, and coming to an agreement on words.

Mark Redwine did not take the polygraph about what happened to his son, Dylan, who was missing at the time of the offer on the Dr. Phil Show.

He was nervous.

Most people are nervous when taking a polygraph but can know that the machine will measure the nervousness and there will be no surprise questions.

Years ago, it was more common for businesses to administer polygraph to its applicants but no longer as companies fear lawsuits.  Corporate America recognized how much the deceptive employee could impact business, and even as the "let's game the system" mentality for various forms of law suits has grown exponentially in our country, so it is that Corporate America has even more need for Statement Analysis.

We now put together "pre-screening" questions for companies to ask potential employees before they even make it to the interview stage.

If they are found deceptive in the simple questions, they are not called for an interview.

This now increases the percentages of protection of the company.

Liars are more likely to:

"fall" on the job;
use substances on the job;
file frivolous or illicit suits against the company;
file inappropriate unemployment claims;
harm the morale of the company;
steal product, cash, or sales;
harm the reputation of the company...

in short, they are "problem bringers" rather than "problem solvers" and will cause trouble, top to bottom.

Statement Analysis Services gives two day trainings for Human Resources and internal investigations into disputes, thefts, accidents, and fraud of all type.

We help in the pre-screening questionnaire, the application and the interview, itself, based upon the writing sample of the potential employee.

We are tipping the scales strongly in favor of honest workers who hold the material interest of the company as priority.

Click here for "Wise As A Serpent: Gentle As a Dove: Dealing with Deception from

Lorenzo Johnson Interview

The following is an interview with Lorenzo Johnson, currently serving a life sentence for conspiracy to commit murder. 
He has advocacy organizations working to release him. 
If you were wrongfully convicted and incarcerated, what would you say?
A reliable denial consists of three components:
1.  The pronoun "I"
2.  The past tense verb "did not"
3.  The allegation answered.
Those who did not commit the crime readily say, "I didn't kill him", or something similar.  
Guilty parties often avoid the internal confrontation of a direct lie by saying things such as:
"I am innocent"
"I didn't do anything"
"I would never kill anyone..." and so on. 
Less than three components, such as a dropped pronoun, or additional language (more than three components) makes the denial "unreliable."
"Unreliable" does not mean that the subject has "done it", but that the subject has not denied the crime.
Sometimes, this just takes a few more questions to elicit the response. In the course of an interview, however, we may conclude:
If a subject is unwilling or unable to say "I didn't do it", we are not permitted to say it for him. 

HRC: How long have you been incarcerated and what are the facts of the case you are serving time for?
Lorenzo Johnson: I’ve been wrongfully imprisoned for seventeen years on a life sentence for conspiracy to commit murder. A witness stated I was present when a murder took place. In this case there was no eyewitness to the actual murder, and the witness who said I was present [her] original statement to the police was she didn’t know anything, she wasn’t there.
We look for a subject to say "I didn't do it" in the above format of a Reliable Denial. Here, he says he was "wrongfully imprisoned" and then states what others have said. 
He makes the claim, "there was no eyewitness to the actual murder", which should provoke questions about his knowledge that no one witnessed the actual murder. 
Please also note that the word "actual" is used when comparing two or more events.  What is the "murder", or the "actual" murder being compared to, in the subject's mind?
HRC: Can you describe how the appeals process works and what were the decisions in your case? Why did the Third Circuit release you?
Lorenzo Johnson: After my trial, my attorney filed a direct appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. The Pa. Superior Court denied this appeal, but one judge (Berle Schiller, who is now an Eastern District Federal Judge) filed a dissenting opinion stating that I was innocent of this crime. My trial attorney then filed an appeal to the Pa. Supreme Court that was denied.
During this time period, I enrolled in school and got my G.E.D., took some college classes. Now that I had an education, I started to teach myself the law with assistance from some old timers. At this time I had no lawyer. I had one year to file a Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) petition or habeas corpus appeal. If I failed to do so, I would be time barred and wouldn’t ever be able to appeal my case unless some new evidence turned up. It took me nine months to put together a solid PCRA petition. I filed it pro se on December 1, 1999.
The Common Pleas Court appointed Francis Socha to represent me. On March 7, 2001 my trial judge held an evidentiary hearing. In March 2002 the trial judge denied my PCRA petition. Attorney Socha filed an appeal to the Pa. Superior Court. At the same time, a witness in my case contacted attorney Socha and recanted his trial testimony stating the detectives forced him to put me on the scene. So a second PCRA petition was filed and labeled stayed until the outcome of my pending appeal. The Superior Court denied my appeal on July 17, 2003 and denied my reconsideration on September 25, 2003. October 27, 2003 attorney Socha filed an appeal to the Pa. Supreme Court. Shortly after, attorney Socha got lost on me.
It got so bad, I had to go to the discipline board to hear from him. Keep in mind that I only had 90 days to file my federal habeas corpus when the Pa. Supreme Court made their decision. I only had 90 days because I used 9 months out of the one year to file my PCRA petition. The Pa. Supreme Court denied my appeal on April 2, 2004 and attorney Socha never informed me. I sensed something was wrong and in an unusual move contacted the Pa. Middle District federal court. I let the court know I had nothing pending in their court, but I showed them documentation that my attorney was not keeping in touch with me and I wanted to get an extension on filing my habeas corpus.
To my surprise, the Middle District federal court informed me to file my habeas corpus petition within 14 days (Wow!) and every 60 days to contact them and let them know the status of my state appeal. Once again with the help of a friend (Antonio Horne), we stayed up writing and typing for 10 days and submitted my habeas corpus petition timely. After the disciplinary board contacted attorney Socha, attorney Socha contacted me and let me know that the Pa. Supreme Court denied my appeal two months ago and he was off my case. Once again, if I didn’t take the steps I took I would have been time barred.
It took me another year to get my second PCRA petition through the lower courts. At this time I wrote over 400 innocence organizations, lawyers in the east, Midwest, west coast and out of the country seeking help. In 2006 I contacted the Middle District federal court judge John E. Jones III and informed him I was ready to proceed. I requested three times to Judge Jones to appoint counsel to help me but was denied. At this time I reached out to attorney Michael Wiseman. Mr. Wiseman came to my aid and contacted Judge Jones informing him that if he would appoint him, he wouldn’t seek any funds. Judge Jones appointed attorney Wiseman. Attorney Wiseman quickly amended my petition.
In 2007 I had an in camera review hearing in front of Judge Jones. In 2008 Judge Jones denied my federal habeas corpus petition and did not grant me a COA (Certificate of Appealability) to file an appeal to the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Attorney Wiseman filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter the judgment to permit a Certificate of Appealability. This motion was granted and I was given permission to appeal only the sufficiency of evidence claim.

On September 30, 2009 my attorney Mr. Wiseman and Amy Donnella orally argued my case in front of Chief Judge McKee, Charages and Nygaard of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated my conviction on October 4, 2011 and remanded my case with instructions that the writ issue. After the Court of Appeals issued its mandate, my attorneys filed in the Middle District Court a motion for issuance of the writ or bail, requesting my release pending completion of the certiorari proceedings. Following an evidentiary hearing on January 12, 2012, at which family members and prison personnel testified on my behalf. District Judge Jones released me on conditions
HRC: When were you released and what did you do upon release?
Lorenzo Johnson: I was supposed to be released on January 17 but SCI Camp Hill didn’t get my paperwork done in time so I was released on January 18, 2012 from SCI Camp Hill. My attorney Amy Donnella and paralegal Jenna Rosania came to pick me up. We stopped and ate breakfast and headed to the Capital Habeas Unit in Philadelphia where all of the Capital Habeas Unit lawyers were waiting. After we all talked and celebrated, my brother (Tyrone Johnson) and friend (Bashir Garba) arrived from New York to finally take me home after 16 ½ years. When we hit New York we started clothes shopping and soon as  I got out of the truck and on the sidewalk in front of the stores, I was surrounded and searched by NYPD (Wow!). I said to myself “Only if they knew my story.” Made my rounds to my family and friends. I immediately started doing speaking engagements on wrongful convictions and speaking to the youth at local community centers. My lead attorney Michael Wiseman and his wife Judith Ritter taught law at Widener University, so I spoke at both of their classes. I started working for San Mateo Construction Company. My life was finally coming back together. I met my wife and I became best friends with a fellow exoneree Jeffrey Deskovic, who I was in touch with while I was in prison
please see post on Jeffrey Deskovic statement.
HRC: Where were you when you heard the Supreme Court had reversed the Third Circuit decision? Can you describe your reaction?
Lorenzo Johnson: I was at work when I got the call from attorney Mr. Wiseman. I couldn’t understand him ‘cause he was literally crying. Then I heard him say “The Supreme Court reinstated your conviction.” I instantly got numb, my worst fear/nightmare was coming back to haunt me. I was at work with my friend Bashir who came and picked me up with my brother when I was released. I can’t explain the raw pain I felt and am still feeling. I pray that no one ever has to endure it.”
HRC: Why did the Supreme Court reverste the Third Circuit decision?
Lorenzo Johnson: I still don’t fully understand why the Supreme Court made the decision they made. What I do know, my legal team was never afforded the opportunity to file a brief or orally argue my case. If they would have been allowed to, the mistakes the Supreme Court made in giving me a charge I was never charged with and using a Brady violation witness to base their decision on would have never happened. [Editor’s note: A “Brady violation” is named after the Supreme Court case of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and it refers to evidence that was withheld from a criminal defendant at the time of trial in violation of due process.]
HRC: Where does the case stand now legally?
Lorenzo Johnson: After the U.S. Supreme Court denied my legal team request for re-argument, they remanded my case back to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (the same court that freed me). There’s a couple of different scenarios that can play out that can lead to my release, or they can agree with the Supreme Court and go against their decision that sent me home.
HRC: What should the public know about wrongful convictions?
This is a good place for him to say "I didn't kill..."
Lorenzo Johnson: I’m one of MANY wrongful convictions. Whenever someone is wrongfully convicted of a crime, it affects the falsely accused, victims, families, taxpayers, and society as a whole.
HRC: What would you be doing if you were not in prison? What are your plans for life after prison?
Lorenzo Johnson: I constantly strive to be a better person. My family, friends and job is still waiting on me and I will take over where I left off. At the end of the day I’m still a son, father, brother and uncle. I will continue to speak out against wrongful convictions. One second is too long for an innocent person to spend in prison.