Friday, May 27, 2016

David Shoar Statement: Michelle O'Connell

Sheriff Shoar's statement on release of information on Michelle O'Connell.

The analysis of Jeremy Banks' 911 call indicates deception by Banks in the death of Michelle O'Connell.  

It is not difficult to discern. 

The family of Michelle O'Connell exhumed her body disagreeing with the DA's findings.  

Elected official, Sheriff David Shoar issued a public statement about the family's position. This, too, stands the same analysis:  expected versus unexpected. 

What is expected?

A respectful disagreement with the family and a statement showing that the subject knows Jeremy Banks did not kill Michelle O'Connell, while remaining sympathetic with a grieving family.  As an elected official, we can expect a personal 'plug' or political positive, to be made for re election.  This is a general expectation we consider before reading the statement. 

Please note:  most readers are familiar with some of the basics of Statement Analysis.  For example, in "Analytical Interviewing", we interview based upon the analysis by asking legally sound open ended questions.  We avoid leading questions and compound questions.   We let the subject speak for himself.  

Analysis Question:  What does David Shoar believe about Jeremy Banks?

Does he assert strong belief that Shoar did not kill Michelle O'Donnell?
Does he indicate doubt?
Does he show belief that Shoar may have killed Michelle O'Donnell?

Is this a typical 'blue wall' of defense of a law enforcement official?  

Also listen to a portion of the interview done.  Note compound and leading questions and the need for training:  NY Times

A news release from Sheriff David Shoar --

On January 12th, 2016 media reports circulated that the body of Michelle O’Connell was removed from her place of rest by certain members of her family.  At the time, no one was certain exactly why this was done but the speculation was that a paid expert witness would be hired by these family members to produce a report that of course would support their belief about the case. 

The first thing we notice is the additional language.  "Additional language" is that in which, if removed, allows for a complete sentence to still exist.  It takes an extra effort to add in words, and these additional and unnecessary words become vital sources of information in analysis.  

The subject targets not the family of Michelle O'Connell, but "certain" members of the family.  This may suggest a personal emotion regarding specific members of the victim's family.  We will have to wait to see if the statement affirms a personal negativity, negates it, or does not address it (neutral), as we progress through the statement.  

"At the time, no one was certain exactly..."

Here we have a specific time frame in which "no one was certain"; with "no one" a label of nondescript.  It is impossible to know this, therefore, "no one" must refer to specific people.  It is to go to each "one" and find "none" to know "exactly": 

"was certain exactly

This shows that many were "certain" but their certainty may not have been "exact."  This further weakens the assertion. 

"but the speculation was..." is passive voice. This is to conceal responsibility of knowledge.  This suggest much discussion and knowledge by very specific individuals.  

"a paid expert witness would be hired"

a.  Note both "paid" and "hired is used here.   When one is "hired", one is "paid", with the additional language (redundant) being "unnecessary" in analysis.  

Principle:  Unnecessary language is very important and here we have a weak "need to persuade" rather than report honestly. Expert witnesses that are paid are used in both defense and prosecution.  The "law of economy" says that the shortest sentence is best and additional language takes an additional effort, and the information from the "unnecessary" word is often vital.  

b.  "Of course" means to accept without question.  

Yet, there is much to be questioned in which the subject does not wish to allow.  This is another weak statement.  We believe what one tells us unless we have reason not to.  We must, however, hear the person to tell us the information and do not accept information that is not stated.  

The statement shows that the source of the information needs to be concealed and that specific people knew, though without "certainty" of the family's plans to exhume the remains of Michelle O'Connell.  

The subject is very concerned with tainting a testimony in the eyes of the public before testimony is given.  This is akin to ignoring a message but attacking the messenger.  

It's need is concerning.  We seek to learn if this continues.  

 Today we learn that this speculation was accurate.  The report of the paid expert was delivered by a resident of Clay County who has a “private investigators” license with no connection to any official entity including law enforcement. 

Note that which was known, though without "certainty", with the source concealed, is called "speculation."

Note next the repetition of paying an expert with "paid expert" as sensitive to the subject. 

Principle:  Social Introductions reveal the quality of a relationship.  We look for 3 elements:
a.  pronoun giving ownership
b.  title
c.  name

"My supervisor, John, said..." is an example of a complete social introduction, and reveals a good relationship.  

In a more distant context, "a citizen named John" would also be acceptable

"My ex husband John" is indicative of a good working relationship in spite of divorce. 

"The ex said..." is to avoid the possessive pronoun, title (husband) and name, and shows a very poor relationship.  

When no relationship is expected, we can see quality of thought, such as respect, as well as disrespect, or even contempt.  

Note "a resident" is now introduced, without name, which is an incomplete social introduction indicating that the subject (writer) has a 'bad relationship' or ill will towards him.  Note that it is unlikely that no name is given due to lack of knowledge:  the citizen's license is reviewed. 

The omission of the private investigator's name, being an incomplete social introduction, is an intended insult.  The "bad relationship" may not be a relationship, but a specific view point.  

The need to insult, via withholding the name, suggests weakness in position.  We must see if the "shoot the messenger" theme continues.  

Note next that "private investigator" is put in quotes, as to call the attention of that 'which is not real' to the subject.  This is the second insult of the PI.  

Then note that the need to insult the licensing procedure:  the entity that issues the license is not associated with any "official" entity (state?) nor with  law enforcement.  The attempt to smear (insult) the PI before any information is revealed on findings has been compounded.  

The need to insult rather than answer is acute.  

 It is critically important to note that no person officially associated with a prosecutor’s office or law enforcement agency was in any way involved including when she was removed from her place of rest. 

"Importance" is now made sensitive by the word "critically."

He states that this is "critically important" that neither he, nor other law enforcement (including prosectors) were consulted as "critically important" but does not tell us why this is critically important.  

This further weakens the statement.  

 Why did these certain family members not request a judge to order a proper and officially sanctioned exhumation? 

Here we have a question in an open statement.  He does not ask, "Why did the family...?" but "these" and "certain family members" show a specific target of the sentence.  The question given, without answer, indicates an increase of emotion for the subject.  

Since it is that law enforcement, which includes the prosecutor's office, cleared Banks in the death of Michelle O'Connell, the subject knows the answer to the question which means the question, itself, is to be considered "unnecessary", making it, again, very important to the analysis.  The need to cause the public to "join in" with the question is another element of weakness in a statement that has repeated areas of sensitivity and weakness. 

With the phrase "these certain" family members, the element of emotion is present.  We now expect the subject to strongly assert the answer for himself:  

 We suspect the answer is that they would not have met the threshold for a judge to order one.  

Note the use of "we" rather than "I."

Note also that the topic of exhumation is now brought to question; not the results, nor testimony, but the exhumation itself. 

If a family can legally exhume a loved one, why the need to go through a judge with the additional labor?   

This, too, is an attempt to discredit "these", specific family members as if what they have done is "lawless."

This is another "need to persuade" rather than report truthfully and further undermines the statement.  

Most importantly, there have been three separate officially sanctioned medical examiners review this case as well as two officially sanctioned special prosecutors (Jeff Ashton and Brad King) appointed by the Governor, all have determined there is NO evidence present to indicate anything other than that Michelle died by her own hand.  

"Most importantly" shows the increase of emotion here.  Note that the medical examiners are "officially sanctioned" medical examiners.  This is unnecessary language and is used to insult a medical examiner who may not be "officially sanctioned" (by whom, it is not given), which seeks to 

insult the medical examiner's findings before they are made.  

Please note the findings of special prosecutors who are given full names:  "NO evidence present" with the emphasis on "NO" (weakness noted) but the word "present" as unnecessary.

Being unnecessary means the subject has added it for support for his assertion.  This is a signal of weakness, but in using additional language, we are given additional information. 

"present" is to appear, or to show up.  

He could have written, "no evidence to show..." but he opted for "NO" (emphatic capitalization) and the evidence that was "present" is added.

This suggests that the subject may know or believe that evidence exists to the contrary that was not present.  

It also does not make a strong statement (in the wording) that "Michelle O'Connell committed suicide."

Look at the language: 

there is NO evidence present to indicate anything other than that Michelle died by her own hand.

compare it to: 

"they found that Michelle committed suicide." 

He does not assert that Michelle committed suicide but uses the lengthy sentence revealing that there was NO (in the negative) evidence that was there, or present, to indicate this, and that instead of stating she committed suicide, his focus is upon only the evidence present.  

The analyst must now consider if the subject, himself, believes that Michelle committed suicide. 

"These certain family members" shows, technically, an "incomplete social introduction", or avoidance of their names.  This suggests personal emotion, perhaps animosity, from the subject himself.  "These" indicates closeness to him, and "certain" seeks to separate "these" from others in the family.  He does not give the victim's family, in any account (suicide or murder) the norm and respectful status of

"the victim's family" or "the family."

He has thus far ridiculed the means, and not the end.  The attack of the means (not the findings) and the use of ridicule raises the level of insecurity in the findings of the special prosecutors, which is supported by the language of "by her own hand..." which should be examined and considered, separate from "suicide."

Law enforcement reports "suicide."  This is done regularly. 

To state that "Michelle died by her own hand" is to blame the suicide victim; something that is unnecessary. 

By virtue of suicide, the victim is the one responsible.  There is no need to say "she killed herself by suicide."

To state that "Michelle died by her own hand" is to blame the victim for that which she was already responsible for. 

This is, in Statement Analysis 101, "unnecessary language" which is 'to be deemed doubly important.'

Doubly important to whom?

Doubly important to the subject and subsequently, to the analyst.  

It is personal. 

He does it by identifying the victim by her first name, and it is to literally use a body part ("hand") belonging to the victim.

The subject has a need to blame the victim for something of which there is no need to assign responsibility by definition. 

This is to tell us that the subject has a need to persuade his audience, and perhaps, himself, that Michelle O'Connell committed suicide.    

The last special prosecutor went so far as to write that he was, “thankful it was NOT a homicide because had it been, it could never have been prosecuted due to the actions of the state agent who at one time was involved in this case.”  

Since it was "written", does the last special prosecutor (unnamed here) have in his final report the word "not" in all capitals?  

The information presented today is nothing new and all was reviewed during the initial autopsy.

This is the first mention of "information" and he does not offer refutation of anything; only using the dismissive "nothing new" and that it was "all" reviewed.  

How personal is this to the subject?

Molesting Michelle from her place of rest using some freelance type approach is beyond unconventional, it was reprehensible.

This is very concerning language.  

The exhumation is now labeled a "molestation."  It would be interesting to learn if the subject has ever been involved in an exhumation before, and if so, was it a "molestation."

The use of this word, in such a weakened assertion and personal attack is unexpected, unusual, and concerning.  

Note that exhumations are done 'conventionally' that is, through court order forcing the state to pay for its cost rather than fall upon the burden of the family. This is the 'conventional' ("normal" in analysis) means to an end. 

Here he calls the family's personal initiative "reprehensible."

This is to affirm the personal animosity noted above.  The subject, himself, would have to tell us why the removal of a lifeless corpse is "molestation" and why not going "normal" routine is "reprehensible."

This is the weighted personal contempt for the family.  

A person with a broken arm does not get upset nor defensive seeing someone with a fake cast on his arm.  

The subject has an intense need to personally punish the family members in this case.  He does not show confidence in the outcome of their investigation, nor does he show confidence in the work of prosectors.  

The analyst should at this point question if the subject knows or possesses information contrary to the official or "conventional" findings.  

He has ridiculed specific members of the family, but with "reprehensible", he has publicly condemned them for doubting or questioning the finding.  

He has specified and ridiculed specific members, and now he reveals 'their motive' for what they are doing.  They are not going through personal expensive (emotionally and financially), as he asserts to know their motive:  

The primary advisers to the few family members who will go to any lengths to maintain their moment in the spotlight consist of the private investigator, a former St. Johns County Deputy Sheriff who was fired for ethical misconduct and who is now a candidate for political office.  

They are "reprehensible" because they are going through all of this just to seek public fame, according to the statement.  This explains his use of "reprehensible."

How he asserts that he knows their motive is not revealed.  

He now takes to insult the private investigator "who was fired for ethical misconduct" and accuses the connection of "moment in the spotlight" with "political office."

He does not tell us what the ethical misconduct was, but we note the need to impugn the reputation of the PI, rather than refute the assertions made that Jeremy Banks killed Michelle O'Connell. 

Simplest is to issue a reliable denial.  

We see this in the language of defense attorneys.  They silence their clients but then reveal to us their own personal belief in their client's guilt or innocence.  On the few occasions where the reliable denial is issued, we have seen vindication.  

Interestingly, this same individual has been hinting at some recent political events that there was some “big news” coming regarding the O’Connell case.  Coincidently, the last time Michelle’s sister was interviewed on local television she actually told the reporter that this case is about, “politics”.  

The 'incomplete social introduction' in Statement Analysis shows 'bad relationship' and where no actual relationship exists, we are able to judge the emotional attitude the subject has towards the one introduced.  Here, he calls her "this same individual" ("individual" seeks to separate her from others in the family, and is consistent with "these" and "certain" used above; that is, to isolate her, as alone in what she is doing).

He then calls her "Michelle's sister" ; 

He then reuses "politics" without explanation.  It may be true that "politics" is part of the equation, but if so, why the need to present it without explanation is not known.  

"Politics" is a word repeated by the subject; making it important to him. 

Please note that David Shoar announced that he would be running for re-election in 2016.  

Though the reporter never followed up on her comment, as the political season evolves it has become very clear what she meant. And finally a career “drug” investigator and current state agent who was recently reprimanded for conducting a “substandard” investigation into the death of Michelle O’Connell.

Note the need to ridicule using quotation marks.  

A great question for the public and media to ask would be, why hasn’t the family filed suit against the person they think was culpable in Michelle’s death?  The answer is probably the same as why they did not seek an official exhumation, because there is no Probable Cause to indicate Michelle died by anything other than her own hand. 

He repeats the same victim blaming from above.  This question ultimately is answered.  

 Of vital importance that most folks do not understand is that the person that certain members of the family think is culpable in Michelle’s death, is one of only two people (along with Michelle’s brother Scott) who HAS filed a civil suit in relation to this case (against FDLE and Agent Rodgers).  People who are culpable or have committed crimes do not file civil suits because when they do, they can longer shield themselves behind the Fifth Amendment and a civil suit puts everything under a microscope.   

Note:  See Lance Armstrong  

Fortunately, the civil suit filed by Michelle’s brother Scott and Jeremy Banks is well under way and hopefully there should be closure within the next year.  I have always taken the position that if a jury ever gets to hear what Scott and Jeremy had to endure because of the conduct of a few people with personal agendas, it would shock their consciences and they would rule in favor of both Scott and Jeremy, I still maintain that position.  

This analyst is shocked at the 911 call made by Banks, and shocked that an elected sheriff would make such a weak, personally embittered statement using ridicule rather than reason.  

The record clearly shows that we have always held employees accountable at the St. Johns County Sheriff’s Office when they violate our policies or engage in criminal conduct.  In the past, I have had to discipline and even arrest employees for misconduct.  If, however, an employee is unfairly and maliciously targeted by external forces they will have no stronger advocate than myself.  This case is an example of the latter and not the former.       

The use of the pronoun "I" indicates an increase in importance.  This is to say that it is important that the public know "I have..." in several instances.  This is to defend his political record for the purpose of re election. 

Analysis Conclusion:

The subject does not possess confidence that Jeremy Banks did not kill Michelle O'Connell. 

He has a need to "shoot the messengers" rather than answer the message and while decrying "politics" he reveals his own political agenda.  

He holds both the victim and her family in personal contempt.  

Most telling is his need to report that suicide was by the victim's own hand.  This is to blame the victim in redundancy.  

He shows deep animosity towards the family and a need to persuade the public of his own record.  He offers no strong defense for Banks.  

It is likely that he has been made aware of reports of domestic violence and if he has had any training in analysis, he knows the 911 call reveals the status of guilty caller in a domestic homicide.  

Please note:  This public statement is not a defense of Jeremy Banks.  This is a statement made by a politician and not a cop.  This is not a blue wall of protection that law enforcement sometimes needs.  

This is a self-driven and self motivated statement in defense of early errors done in the investigation.   Note the word "employee" is how he views police and law enforcement;

not as a brother.  

They are not his brothers and he is not one of theirs.  This is to defend error, for the purpose of politics, which is why politics is part of this statement.  

His contempt for the family, and his use of "molest" show pragmatism, though there are other concerns regarding the choice of wording beyond the scope of the analysis question:

Does he have doubts about Jeremy Banks' innocence?

Yes, he does.  

He has a need to attack others, rather than defend Banks.  He avoids defending Banks, using arbitrary arguments, including the civil law suit. 

The final chapter tells the reader that this is about him and his political career, justice be damned.  The ego-centric exploitation for political purpose is readily seen in his victim blaming and condemnation of the family as "reprehensible."  

In employing the additional wording, in each paragraph, he first undermines, and then refutes his own credibility.  

It is not a defense of law enforcement.  

It is a defense of himself, for the purpose of election.  It is not loyalty to law enforcement; and it is not loyalty to truth, or the citizens.  He could have disagreed with the family politely and objectively.  Instead, he resorts to ridicule and targeting the messengers while avoiding the message. 

He does not state plainly his belief about Banks.  

This statement is a political attack statement and one void of ethics that respected law enforcement officials follow, hold to, and believe in.  

He smears rather than report.  

If a court had ordered Michelle's exhumation, would that have been "molestation"?

When a body is exhumed, is that "molestation"?

Has he ever been involved in exhumation of remains for the purpose of evidence seeking, and if so, is he "reprehensible" for doing so?

What of his prosecutors?

Are they guilty of molesting corpses any time they have had bodies exhumed?

It is likely that rank and file law enforcement are well familiar with his view point of them being his "employees", rather than his brothers in arms.  

It is likely that internal disagreement has been strong in this case, as most seek truth and justice, over all else.  

David Shoar shows a lack of familiarity with the language of humility, and shows little empathy for the family of the victim.  Spurious arguments and taunting insults are not the language of a professional.  

Thursday, May 26, 2016

Did Casey Anthony Have Sex With Jose Baez?

This from a recent report in MSM:  Casey Anthony paid attorney Jose Baez in sex.

Kimberly Gilfoyle, for Fox News, asked Jose Baez about it.  She asked him if he was having an inappropriate relationship with his client, Casey Anthony. 

Baez answered her:

"I’m not going to dignify that with an answer. I am not going to even dignify that with an answer.”

We learn that the question, itself, is sensitive to him.  Had it come from 'left field' a sensitivity to it might have come from being caught off guard, but the jail had stated that Baez refused to heed warnings.  

Some questions can be so bizarre that one may refuse to answer simply because they do not wish to dignify the question with an answer. 

Is this question one such?

Contextual View 

1.  Jose Baez was 'sanctioned' by the jail for repeated failure to follow policy and keep his hands off of Casey.  No amount of correction or warning would cause him to stop touching her. 

2.  Jose Baez was regularly photographed cuddling with Casey Anthony.  In spite of these very public displays of affection making the news, he refused to stop. 

3.  Then, the public learned that Casey Anthony was spending up to 6 hours a day in his small office.  She arrived in the late morning and left in the late afternoon, day after day.  

This puts his refusal to answer in context. 

His Statement 

The first point of sensitivity is the refusal to answer the question.  The question, itself, is 'sensitive', that is, important to him.  In his refusal to answer, we find:

The second point of sensitivity:  repetition. 

Thirdly,  in the repetition, he sought more emphasis, by adding the word, "even" though it not necessary.  This repetition showed further consideration given to the question.   This is a need to persuade, or a 'need to call in reinforcements' verbally, to his refusal to answer.  

The word "dignity" is repeated.  Thus news stories of his personal life followed including possible divorce and foreclosure.  His court room technique of obfuscation was anything but dignified.  

As to the question, he refused to say "no"  and it is in context that one may draw the conclusion that the question, itself, was not inappropriate.  

Casey Anthony, herself, said friends asked if "she was gonna hit it"; her reference to sex with Baez.  

Analysis Conclusion:  From the photographs and length of time they spent alone at his office, as well as her reputation for promiscuity, many people thought they were involved.  Baez' statement strengthens the assertion that is now made by the private investigator who has brought this public. 

update:  Baez issues denial:

"I unequivocally and categorically deny exchanging sex for my legal services with Ms. Anthony. I further unequivocally and categorically deny having any sexual relationship with Ms. Anthony whatsoever.I have always conducted my practice consistent with the high ethical standards required of members of the Florida Bar. My representation of Ms. Anthony was no exception.  Legal action is forthcoming," 

Besides being unreliable as a denial he should not have based his denial on his practice.  It is interesting to note how many times he was publicly inconsistent with the high ethical standards required of the Florida Bar.  

To "deny" is to refuse acceptance.  It is not the same as saying "I didn't" but it is a refusal to accept the allegation.  It is a way of avoiding a denial, by a form of 'describing' a denial.  

The additional wording is unnecessary and further weakens any attempt at denial.  It is interesting that he feels the need to first deny the use of sex as currency, and then to deny (unnecessarily?) sex with Casey Anthony.  


The Casey Anthony jury has likely had impact on many cases since its verdict came in and shocked the nation.  

The judge took no steps to combat the perjury by Cindy Anthony, further emboldening criminal behavior and contempt for authority in general.  This further emboldened defense attorneys to use the technique of 'confusion' and 'overload' to juror with ever decreasing educational standards and attention spans. 

It does not speak well for justice in cases we have covered which could have been prosecuted.  

Analysis in Second Language: Rape

This video is difficult to watch but useful for analysis. 

Analysis in 2nd language can be done, yet without some of the common detail we use in first language.  For example, while analyzing the transcripts from the Nuremberg trial, we may note the order in which information appears, as well as responses to questions, and sensitivity found in both deflection as well as in repetition.

Our words reveal us.

Here is a Syrian male addressing the rape of a Swedish woman.


Syrians have thus far in Europe, been shown to have extremely low IQ.  Some experts believe this is as a result of first cousin marriage, practiced over many generations.

Criminal psychologists have noted the combination of extreme low IQ with poor impulse control.

Cultural and religious belief:

The Koran teaches that the "kaffur" (the 'infidel') is inferior to the Islamist, but this is further heightened when it comes to gender.  Even Islamist woman's testimony is to be deemed "one half" the value of a man's.

The Koran also teaches that when in a foreign land, "Allah" has given to the Islamist male the females of the Kaffur to reward them by rape.   This means that the rapist must be physically sexually aroused by rape, itself, and that it is a sign of "Allah's favor" upon him.  Whereas most men would be incapable of sexual intercourse under the duress of rape, this is something that is not only cultural, but religious in nature.

We have heard that statistics from 2015 Sweden state that one of every four Swedish born women have been raped, documentation since that time suggest that this extreme number is, itself, deliberately underreported and that the true figure is between one of every three, and in some locals, one of every two.  It is called "the rape capital of the West."

The Swedish government responded by:

1.  Decrying the statistics, not as incorrect, but as "racist" and "Islamophobic" and threatens with arrest any quoting of the Koran that shows rape is a reward and a "right" given by the ideology.

2.  Giving out very short sentences for rape.

3.  Refusing to deport repeat offenders.

4.  Refusing to sentence some, at all, instead mandating state paid therapy.

5.  Employing state funded "imans" to teach the Koran but a 'toned down' version.

6.  Forbidding police to take descriptions of perpetrators because it is racist and Islamophobic.

7.  In some cases, the victims are held responsible; called liars, or told that their dress, appearance or use of alcohol caused the rape.

8.  Stated that the rapists are the real victims because they are suffering PTSD from war (this includes those who have not come from lands involved in war) and that PTSD as well as not having a job causes them to rape.

9.  Special "do not rape" instructional classes.

We have seen the European male response, including marching "in solidarity" while wearing mini skirts, as these males have grown up in a society that condemns masculinity.  

The rape victims suffer for the rest of their lives.  Some citizens have taken to dying their hair dark, while others are now wearing Muslim head garb and no longer going out at night.

How many more must be raped before any tangible response is made?  

Islam is a criminal ideology with specific sexual violence prescribed.  Here is an interview worth analyzing:

Tuesday, May 24, 2016

Jeremy Banks: Analysis and Profile

Here is an article from the New York Times that includes exerts from the interview conducted.  There are many errors in the interview, including compound questions and leading questions, but the information from Banks is important.  

It is found HERE

Domestic Homicide. 

What causes Domestic Violence?

This question is too complex for any single answer, but for investigative purposes, context is key. 

Men thrive on respect as women thrives on love. Men and women need both love and respect, yet the language often reveals a lack in one or the other.  

This need for respect and love is a normal course of life and is a bedrock for a good relationship.  Extreme need  on either part,  however, can lead to inappropriate and even criminal behavior.  

A man who has a desperate need for respect can pose a risk to society in general; anywhere he perceives the lack of respect can become problematic, however, it can pose a specific risk to a woman in the case where he perceives her being disrespectful, which he considers as a threat to his manhood and ultimately, his control over her.  He may not hear, "I disagree with your decision" as spoken, but "you hold me in contempt!" while the bewildered victim struggles to understand what he means.  

When this is combined with poor impulse control, the threat increases.  

When this couples with a job in which lethal force is necessary, it speaks to a failure of the screening process.  The extreme insecurity, often masquerading itself, comes out in the language and Statement Analysis should be a part of every hiring process for law enforcement, beyond the typical psychological screening.  

Michelle O'Connell committed suicide, concluded the investigation into her death.  In 2013, Statement Analysis of Deputy Banks' phone call, however, indicated him for deception in what happened to Michelle.  

The call revealed a great deal of information that should have been used in the investigation.  The polygraph should have been, almost uniquely, in the language of Banks, himself. 

911 calls do not have any special 'status' or change in principle within Statement Analysis.  'Check lists' are helpful, only in calling one's attention to an issue, but should not be relied upon for 

It is my assertion that the polygraph, when administered employing the subjective dictionary of the subject, is close to 100% fool-proof.  When the examiner speaks on and on, the subject learns and uses his language; language of which there is:

a.  No emotional connection
b.  No historical, that is, subjective connection personally.   

The molester who went on to repeat after passing his polygraph did not "molest" his girlfriend's daughter, he "tickled" her.  The word "tickle" was his personal subjective understanding, as he had no attachment with "molest" since "molest" means "pain", and he only "tickled." 

This it the cause of most errors in polgraphy;  the subject is given language that is not part of his personal, internal, subjective dictionary.  

Each person has their own personal subjective dictionary.  Had Bill Clinton been asked, "Did you have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky?" he could  have passed the polygraph in his denial. 

Had he been asked, "Did you have sexual contact with Monica Lewinsky?", he would have failed in his denial.  He had a personal and highly subjective definition of "sexual relations" which he shared with Lewinsky before testimony saying, "it means intercourse.  We didn't have intercourse." 

This gave us insight into a pathological (life long) liar.  It was why he was able to say:

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky." 
to the American public, plainly and without qualification.  

In Banks' 911 call, not only do we see enough signals to conclude "guilty knowledge" within the call, we have insight into his personality; something that ended with the death of Michelle O'Connell that was not suicide.  

Our words reveal us. 

Our words, even under 'excited utterance' or an emergency, will reveal our:

1. background,
2  experiences
3. personality
4. priority

One might be tempted to say "I know the priority of the 911 call:  it is to save Michelle."  This is a good place to start.  We must learn if the words affirm this, or if the words employed deny this.  

This is the study of psychological profiling via statement analysis that is taught in our Advanced Course.  It sets the state for both the strategy and the tactics of the interview and interrogation.  You get to "know" the subject and his own language before the interview and interrogation and hopefully, before a polygraph is administered.  

Here is another look at the call with some of the more subtle points given.  


JEREMY BANKS: Hey.  Please get someone to my house! It’s 

4700 Sherlock Place. Please!

We have already noted that in an emergency call, the typical 

Statement Analysis principle of "expected versus unexpected" is 

in play, as the call begins with "Hey" which is a greeting.  We 

do not expect politeness, in any form, in such an emergency 

as one finding his girlfriend bleeding to death.  Urgency is 


Please now consider the topic of "Urgency" 

In any emergency like this one, urgency is presupposed.  What 

do we look for?

We look for "Urgency" versus the "appearance of urgency" in the 


Consider that this is a deputy calling.  This means he knows

precisely how the 911 system works:   

while he is on the phone, dispatch begins.  This is an example 

of scripted or feigned urgency, as he repeats the call for help

yet he never asks for help for the victim. 

In fact, he says "get someone", and not anyone specific to come, 

but already:

1.  We do not expect the emergency call to begin with a greeting;

2.  We do not expect to hear politeness 

3.  We do expect the caller to ask for help for the victim, or, in

the case of CPR, help for himself, including how to stop the 

blood.  Even those trained, under emergency settings, still may 

require guidance, should the training give way to emotion.  

"Please" is repeated here. 

The 'need to ingratiate' or align himself with 'the good guys', that

is, with authorities, is evident.  

It is one single mistake made by the Dispatch that reveals great 

insight into Jeremy Banks' personality.  

DISPATCHER: What’s going on?

JEREMY BANKS: Please. Send─ my girlfriend, I think she 

just shot herself. There’s blood 


We note in analysis that he does not ask for help for her.  We 

have his third use of the polite and ingratiating "please", as if 

he does not know that dispatch has already taken place.  We 

then come to a critical place in the call where the victim is 

now introduced for the first time.  This is vital in our 

understanding.   Who is Michelle O'Connell?

This question is not for us to answer, but the subject, himself. 

Who is Michelle O'Connell to the caller?

We begin with Statement Analysis 101:  the social introduction.  

As this is an emergency call, we had already expected him to 

have already identified why rescue, not someone, was needed.

He did not, but gave the address, along with his politeness and 

his greeting.  He took the time to say "please" twice, but not 

to report that Michelle was bleeding. 

He reports that his girlfriend may have shot herself. 

He does not report that his girlfriend is bleeding.  

He does not report that he has his hand on the wound to stop

the blood flow. 

He only identifies her as she relates to him.  

This "incomplete social introduction" is an indication that at this

point in the statement, the relationship is not good.  

This is the essence of the teaching of social introductions.  We 

learn the quality of the relationship in the statement, in the

verbalized perception of reality, from the subject's unique point

of view. 

This is to tell us:

He has not asked for help for her, and that there is a problem in 

their relationship while she lays bleeding and he speaks to 


Context is key. 

That he has not asked for help for her is noted or 'red flagged.'


Because those who have committed the crime may not want 

help for the victim; but for themselves.  

If she lives, she may be able to tell authorities what happened.  

Psychologically, he is telling us that while Michelle lay bleeding

to death, he does not want to use her name, nor for her to receive

help as this might impact him.  (please see analysis of the 911 

call for clarity as this focuses upon the psychology of principle).

Next, he must report what happened:

1.  He only "thinks" she shot herself

2.  Passivity employed regarding the blood.

1.  He gives a weak assertion that she may have shot herself.  To 

use the word "think" here, he expresses a 'weak commitment' to

what happened.  It is a guess, at best.  This indicates that he 

either does not know if she shot herself, or that he does not 

want to be identified as knowing that she shot herself.  

This is then connected to:

2.  "There's blood everywhere."

This is in Passive Voice.  Passivity in analysis indicates a desire

to conceal, and this concealment is often responsibility. 

"There's blood everywhere" does not tell us:

a.  who's blood it is

b.  who caused it

In less than a millisecond of time, he chose wording that would 

conceal responsibility for the shooting while, again, 

psychologically distancing himself from her while she lay 

bleeding out. 

What could he have said?

"Michelle is bleeding from..." and what he is doing to remedy it.  

The use of passivity means he does not want it know who's 

blood is everywhere because blood does not just end up 

everywhere, it must be caused by someone and some thing.  This 

use of passivity does not sound 'right' to dispatch:  


With or without proper Statement Analysis training, the person is

going to recognize how awkward things sound...not hearing her

name as well as the passive voice.  Hence, the question is asked

for the purpose of clarification.  This ended up working out for

those interested in truth:  

JEREMY BANKS: She shot herself! Please. [unintelligible] Get 

someone here please.

Here he plainly reports the change:  "she shot herself."

a.  "She" is not "Michelle"; he again avoids using her name.

b.  "She shot herself" no longer is qualified by "think" which

reveals that he initially was not truthful when he used the 

additional word "think."  For those who would defend him 

based upon 'excited utterance'; the same defense is the same

that convicts him:  it takes more effort to add a word in than 

it does to leave it out (the law of economy).  By forcing him 

to repeat "what happened?", he goes to the shortest route of 

language dropping the qualifier.  

This is where "deception indicated" becomes strengthened.  We 

also have him making an effort with two more uses of the polite

"please" that is used to appear to be begging.  This need to 

appear to be urgent is undermined by his use of both passivity 

and of psychological distancing language; including his 

avoidance of saying her name.  

The next statement gives us insight into the negative relationship

that has already been discerned by the incomplete social 

introduction, distancing language and passivity:  

DISPATCHER: Ma’am? Ma’am, I need you to calm down.

JEREMY BANKS: It’s mister! It’s SIR!

This is critical.  Whereas most would not care to correct but to 

seek guidance on how to stop the blood flow, he uses the 

opportunity, instead of helping Michelle, to correct the 911 

operator.  He not only corrects 911, he uses two different 

words to do so.  

First he uses "mister" as to identify gender, but the language 

undergoes a serious change.  Remember the context:  not only 

has he not asked for help, nor guidance to stop the blood flow,

but he has a need for respect while she lay bleeding to death.

He makes certain she knows it is not only a "male" that 

911 is talking to, but he will be addressed as "Sir." 

As we consider that he does not ask for help, nor does he address

the blood flow or first aid techniques, he has already revealed 

a problem in their relationship.  Now, he shows more concern 

that he, himself, be respected, than Michelle, who's name he will 

not utter, who lays bleeding out.  

This is to provide insight and due to the extremity of the 

situation, respecting him is a priority far above that of 

Michelle's emergency need for help.  

DISPATCHER: Ma’am, listen to me─

With a loved one bleeding to death, one is not likely to care to 

correct the error, but to address the first aid need to stop the 


JEREMY BANKS: It’s SIR! It’s SIR. Listen─ hang on, let me 

tell you the truth.  I’m Deputy  Banks with the St. Johns County

 Sheriff’s Office. I work with y’all. Get someone here now!

This provides insight into his psyche.

He is "Deputy Banks" and you better address him as "Sir" as he

now takes "authority" yet a single word here, "truth", tells us

precisely what he wanted to withhold:  his own identity. 

He introduces himself by saying, "let me tell you the truth."

This indicates that the "truth" of this case involves him, 

on  a professional level. 

Not only did he not ask for help for her, nor offer help for her,

and that he distanced himself from her, her status, one of 

bleeding to death is directly related to his job.

This tells us to carefully go back and review the need for 

passivity in speech:  to conceal responsibility. 

Dept. Banks has the need to conceal who caused the blood of

Michelle O'Connell to be found everywhere.  

He does not ask for help for her because he does not want her 

to receive help.  

He has now admitted that he has not told the truth, but:

'You will call me "Sir", for I am "Deputy Banks" and I have not 

told you the truth before, but now I have revealed it. '

When coupled with passivity in speech, we have a connection 

between him as a professional (armed) and her blood. 

This is his connection, in which he attempts to conceal with 

his scripted "please please" (5x) as he continues to demand

what he already knows is happening, yet his brain, in choosing 

what words to speak, will not allow him to say why "someone" 

should come to his house.  

He does not ask for help for the victim.  

He has told us that this is a bad relationship and that he has a 

powerful need to be respected...or else.  This is likely what 

Michelle O'Connell lived under.  

DISPATCHER: Ok i need you to calm down you know how it 

goes. Whats the address ? I don't..

JEREMY BANKS: 4700 Sherlock Place.

DISPATCHER: Ok what's going on there?

Dispatch has a need to ask this because he gave conflicting 

accounts.  First he feigned that he did not know and then 

he told that he did know, and introduced the word "truth" all 

the while avoiding both her name and the request for assistance.

He did not ask for help for himself in administering aid to 

stop the blood, nor has he expressed any concern for her. 

Yet, while showing no concern for her, he makes quite certain

that he gets the respect his office demands. 

There are likely those who will attest to this personality, both

in the department and in the public, including those who may 

have been stopped by him in traffic.  

We all give ourselves away in language.  Here, we are hearing

not only deception, but classic insecurity and control that is

indicative of precisely what the language of incomplete social

introduction and distancing show:  domestic violence.  

JEREMY BANKS: My girlfriend has just shot herself with my 

duty weapon. Please get someone here now please.

Here is another critical point:  he already has admitted knowing

that she "shot herself" but now, rather than show any concern

for how he may assist her, the call continues to be about 

Jeremy Banks, himself:   this sentence reveals the ownership of

the weapon, as if this matters.

It does not matter to an innocent caller who owns the weapon, 

instead, the innocent caller wants the victim saved. 

He has not addressed any urgent need for the victim, but 

has the need to, now that he is telling the truth, identify the 

ownership of the gun.  

The scripting of "please" (7x) continues, while he avoids using

the victim's name; only relating to her how she relates to 

him.  We have his girlfriend and his "weapon."  

That he called it his "weapon" warrants further exploration into 

his cultural use of the phrase.  However, the pronoun "my" 

tells us of his priority.  

Do you know Michelle's condition?

Do you know where her blood is leaving her body?

Do you know if she is breathing?

Do you know if he has done anything to stop the blood flowing?

We know none of these but we do know who owns the weapon. 

We also know something else...


"has just"

Consider how close this comes to a confession. 

If he said, "my girlfriend just shot herself" it would indicate 

that he was deceptive when he said, "think" previously.  This 

deception is affirmed but the incomplete past tense use here 

tells us much more information than meets the eye.

He did not say "my girlfriend just shot herself" which the word

"just" would indicate something close to the present time; that 

is, quite sudden, or before this call.

Instead, he used "has just" which is an imperfect past tense 


"My girlfriend has just shot herself..." even though his point 

of admission is ownership of the gun, the use of 

"has just" indicates a passing of time. 

He took it from 'sudden' past, to a 'spread out' past time. 

This tells us, in the less than millisecond of time that his 

brain chose this word for the tongue, that time elapsed 

longer than he wishes to let on, of which he was eye witness.

Now, why would he do this?


Because he is thinking of what happened before she shot 

herself.  He is thinking of the time period that he was 

present, where something happened that he does not want

the 911 operator to know. 

He is withholding critical information.  

Something happened, in direct relationship to her shooting

herself, that Jeremy Banks is withholding.  

It is in this period of time that there may have been a brutal

fight, assault, or something else that is directly related to 

her death.  

If it is true that he broke her jaw, this is when it happened.  

DISPATCHER: Sir we're doing that while in talking to you. is 

she still breathing ?

911 properly addresses him as "Sir", and reminds him of what 

he already knows:  they are in transit.  

Since he has offered nothing about her, but lots about himself, 

he now must be asked about her current condition.  

Is Michelle breathing?

JEREMY BANKS: No,there is blood coming out of everywhere.-


He answered the question, used his "please" again (8) and

avoided her name, while going back to the passive voice

about blood.  Now it is coming "out" of everywhere.  This 

avoids telling us the source of the blood, while we continue to 

wait for him to say that he is trying to stop the blood flow.  

DISPATCHER: Ok, she's not breathing.

JEREMY BANKS: Call dispatch on Tac 2, get them here now.

He has gotten through the 'worst' of revealing who he is and 

has employed deception to avoid telling what happened 

in its entirety, and has regained his 'authority' over dispatch. 

This is affirmed by the sudden disappearance  of "please"; as he

no longer feels the psychological burden to ingratiate himself;

he has been called "sir" and he has been restored to his 

place of authority. 

This is a dangerous man.  

As to this regaining of confidence, it is quickly lost when a 

single word from the operator reverses the roles:  he is told what 

the police "need" him to do:   

DISPATCHER: Sir they're on the phone I need you to calm 


This puts him back into a subordinated role as police "need" or 

direct him to do something.  This brings back the script:  

JEREMY BANKS: Please please please-

DISPATCHER: Jeremy were coming as fast as we can ok? Calm 

down for me ok.

911 now calls him "Jeremy" and implores him to calm down.  

He gave them no information and how to be asked about her


JEREMY BANKS: Please, you don't understand she just shot 

herself, pleases get someone here.

As he continues this subordinated position, he implores the 

operator to "understand" what he has repeated.  This is to show

that he has a decent intellect; he understands the points that 

he made poorly, including "I think my girlfriend shot herself..." 

which then nullifies "my girlfriend has just shot herself"; as 

an outright lie.  

Jeremy Banks is the one in need. 

He needs to be understood. 

He needs to be justified.  

He gave no detail about her condition yet pleads for that which 

he already knows is underway (see his 'authoritative voice') 

and his need of personal respect. 

He is more concerned about himself and the ownership of 

the gun than the victim, of whom he did not ask for help. 

He did not offer her condition, nor how he would remedy her 

condition through first aid.  

Analysis Conclusion:

Jeremy Banks indicates deception via withholding information, and the interview will have to be combative in nature if it hopes to obtain an admission, or more likely, enough inconsistencies for a conviction.  

He is not likely  to admit much but investigators will have to focus on interrogation skills using blunt language and forensics but especially the tool of his own language, need for respect, and his need for control.  

They must exploit his need for respect, while putting him into a subordinated role by using his own words as well as evidence. He will feel 'shamed' in reading 
or hearing his own words and how they betrayed 
him.  His anger could provoke him into admission, or in the least, to revealing information, just as we saw when the 911 operator referred to him as a female.  

Collateral interviews should confirm or suggest confirmation about the relationship as well as his acute need for respect.  

The language is consistent with Domestic Violence. If the exhuming of her body has revealed a broken jaw, it is likely that this is what Banks had in mind when he used an imperfect past tense (elongated) reference above.  This is likely where the dispute escalated.  

 Jeremy Banks is deliberately withholding information about what happened.  

Please note that Jeremy Banks has been cleared by investigators and is judicially innocent.  

When one speaks, there is an expectation that the audience will believe or disbelief the subject, and retain the right of personal opinion.  

If you are interested in Statement Analysis training, for your department or business,  please visit for seminars, courses, on going training, and support.