Wednesday, June 20, 2018

Missing One Year Old: Updated Analysis

Shaylyn Ammerman (Provided Photo/Jessica Mae Stewart)

Sometimes investigators and analysts will ask for a sample of a truthful statement or of an innocent mother's statement to compare to others, including Kate McCann. 

There are not many found online because they do not create news.  Here is a very short statement by the parents of a missing child in which the father did not give us enough to go on, but the mother showed indication of concern for her child, which suggests belief that the child is alive. Regrettably, the child was raped and murdered and the killer found. News: 



Kyle Parker, 23, who was charged with murder, rape and a slew of other felonies in the girl's death. Of the three people questioned with polygraph machines, two failed.
That left one option: Offer a plea deal.
Owen Circuit Court Judge Lori Thatcher Quillan accepted the agreement after a hearing during which she expressed disgust for Parker, but said the risk that he could walk free was too great if she rejected the deal.
Quillan sentenced him to 60 years in prison, per the agreement. Parker pleaded guilty earlier this month to murder and kidnapping, and will serve 60 years for the murder and 16 for the kidnapping. He will serve the sentences simultaneously. The plea agreement also stipulates that Parker will register as a violent offender, but not as a sex offender.

  Consider mother's statement compared to DeOrr mother and father.  These are limited statements.  Even in a single statement, the mother expressed concern, not for herself, but for what her child might be experiencing.  This was not heard from in other cases, including, Madeleine McCann,  Baby Ayla, Lisa and above mentioned DeOrr, in spite of his parents speaking extensively in an interview.  Neither expressed any concern over DeOrr's condition or care.  


Investigators have been searching for 14-month-old Shaylyn Ammerman since Wednesday morning. Shaylyn is described as 20 inches tall, 20 pounds, blonde hair and blue eyes. She was last seen wearing white zip-up pajamas with an owl design and carrying a “Winnie the Pooh” blanket.

She was in the care of her grandmother and father Tuesday in their Spencer home, according to Indiana State Police. The mother and father are not together but share custody of Shyly.

Police say the child has now been missing for more than 24 hours and they are worried.

Tamera Sue Morgan, the girl’s grandmother, told police she put Shaylyn to bed and last checked on her around midnight Tuesday in a home in the 400 block of West Jefferson. When Morgan checked the crib in the morning, she told police the child was gone.

“The first feeling was panic,” Morgan said. “‘Where is the baby, she can’t get out of her baby bed so somebody had to take her.'

Note the contemplation of what occurred to the baby instead of "I have no idea" which is often heard when a subject does not want to give information. We all have lots of ideas about most of everything in life. Here, the grandmother identified panic and then immediate reasoning taking into account the baby's age. This is to show alert hormonal response, even from grandparent.  


Morgan said she won’t stop at anything to find her granddaughter. She was putting up signs Thursday morning. Next we see "impotence" from the parent or grandparent. This is where the parent (in this case, grandparent) has a broken pattern. 

The parent feeds the child when hungry.
The parent changes the child when messy.
The parent soothes the child when the child falls. 
Suddenly:  the parent is left bereft of the fulfillment of natural instinct: 

I’m going stir crazy at home. I’m not getting any information whatsoever from anybody so I’m just going out and trying to spread the word as far and as wide as possible,” Morgan said. “I am very concerned. It’s been so long since we’ve seen her. I’m just so scared to death of where she’s at, if she’s safe, if she’s being taken care of.”




Police said several people were at the home the night Shaylyn disappeared. Officials said they have interviewed several witnesses including family of little Shyly. This is important when looking at the short statement of the father. 


We like to hear parents express concern for what the child is experiencing at the moment the statement is made.  This is the father's quote and then the mother.  

“Just shocked that somebody would do this to me. I have no idea why or what’s going through somebody’s mind that would do this,” said Shaylyn’s father Justin Ammerman. “I’m going crazy. I don’t know what to think.”

a. "just shocked" is without commitment. Without the pronoun "I", we cannot say he is "shocked" since he does not say it. 

This raises the concern regarding who he associates with. 

He considers this done to him.  He does not know what to think after telling us what he thought. He puts the brakes on thinking (unlike grandmother) by having "no idea why" someone would do this.  When taken with the sentence beginning without the pronoun "I", we wonder if: 

He does, indeed, have some ideas regarding those he associates with. 

"To me" may indicate feeling of failure of father to protect. 

  No remark about care for child, but the quote is very short.  From this alone, I would question his associates closely as well as explore with him why he thinks this was done as a grudge. In other words:

In his perception of reality, those near him are capable of kidnapping for a grudge. 

Few of us might think this in our lives. 

Ammerman said he didn’t have people over Wednesday night, and he thinks someone took his daughter from her crib in the middle of the night. He now engages the idea process.  

“I don’t know who in their right mind would do this,” he said. “Somebody’s got a big grudge over us. I don’t know who it is, but they better confess and give my baby back.”

It would be someone not in their "right mind" that would do this. 
Also notice that 'confess' comes before 'give' in his language.  
He does not here express concern for what the child is experiencing at the moment.  It was done to "him" and "better confess and give my baby back" suggests, in order, that he sees this done to him and he is responsible. He does not issue a threat, but it may be implied. 

Here is the mother:  

Jessica Stewart, the girl’s mother, spoke to 24-Hour News 8 Wednesday evening.
She said her daughter’s blanket and diaper bag are also missing.

Next, this mother is concerned about the baby's comfort, at this moment in time, while missing:  

“I’m hoping that whoever has her is taking care of her and will bring her back home safe,” Stewart said. “I’ve got a bad feeling since talking to the cops today and I am hoping I am wrong.”

Stewart also said she knows of no one who would want to take the child. We don't have a quote, but my guess is this:  her friends are different than the baby's father's friends. 

“I just want her home,” she said.

Here the mother is concerned for the very thing a mother should be concerned about; in the moment. Recall in the early McCann interviews that this was missing. The same concern was missing from other parents indicated for guilty knowledge. 

Next, note the dent in denial/confidence, is explicitly caused by what was said in conversation with police. 
The word "just" is a comparative word of reduction, as to say "only"; her sole 'want' or desire is to have her home.  

Then note the unnatural pessimism is assigned as caused by the knowledge police gave her.  Yet even here, there is hope against it. 

The word "just" is a dependent word in which we know the subject is thinking of something else.  In context, it is related to what police told her. 

This did not end well. 

A sex offender was charged with the child's  murder. 

What did we learn from the statements?

1. Mom showed no signal of guilty knowledge that the child was dead. Instead she showed concern for the present circumstance of the child.

2. Mom assigned "blame" of pessimism upon why police told her. 

3.  Dad indicates some guilt over not protecting the child ("to me") and some sensitivity about those of whom he was associated with. 

4. Grandmother, who was caretaker at the time, showed immediate processing of information, like a machine, to facilitate information to lead to the child's recovery. 

Although these are very limited quotes, we do see, especially in the mother, a natural and expected reaction:

"I hope someone is taking care of her" which is to show concern for the child while the child is missing. 

This is something that may be absent from those who know their child is beyond helping or human care. 





Sunday, June 17, 2018

Happy Father's Day: Those Wintry Sundays



"Those Wintry Sundays" is still one of my favorite poems after all these years from Robert Hayden. 

To all dads,

from Peter and Heather: 

Happy Father's Day! 








                             Those Wintery Sundays

                                   By Robert Hayden


“Sundays too my father got up early
and put his clothes on in the blueblack cold,
then with cracked hands that ached
from labor in the weekday weather made
banked fires blaze. No one ever thanked him.

I’d wake and hear the cold splintering, breaking.
When the rooms were warm, he’d call,
and slowly I would rise and dress,
fearing the chronic angers of that house,

Speaking indifferently to him,
who had driven out the cold
and polished my good shoes as well.
What did I know, what did I know
of love’s austere and lonely offices?”

Friday, June 15, 2018

Dependent Words: Statement Analysis Lesson from Inspector General's Report


Here is a short lesson from Fall of 2016 on "Dependent" words in Statement Analysis. 

In the IG report, it stated that President Obama used a pseudo name to communicate to Hillary Clinton at her illegal server. 

A private server is used to bypass government oversight.  It was followed by:

1. Refusal to surrender physical evidence
2. Destruction of physical evidence, including smashing hard drives and phones
3. Deletion of more than 30,000 emails. 
4. Hostile actors accessing U.S. government classified information leading to ask if this was deliberately porous, particularly while her husband was being paid  by foreign actors. 

James Comey stated that Hillary did, in fact, use the server to conduct government business and it was accessed by hostile actors, but that Hillary did not "have intent" and "no reasonable prosector" would charge her. We learned that while James Comey was investigating Hillary Clinton's use of a private email to conduct government business, he himself was using a private email account while conducting government business.  It brings sense to the false claim of statute of "intent" and the unnecessary word, "reasonable." It also helps analysts understand what guilt projection indicates.  Being "extremely careless" rather than a violation is self protective for the subject. 

State employees at even entry level, social workers, therapists, doctors, nurses, and so on,  recognize that they would be terminated for sharing a client's name on a private email, and face possible legal consequence.  

The IG report is useful for deception detection training as we highlight a simple principle in use:  "Dependent Words in Analysis." 

In statement analysis, a "dependent word" is one that communicates appropriately when another word or topic is associated with it.  

We flag the dependent word for analysis. It sometimes reveals a great deal of information. 

For example, the word "just" is a dependent word.  It will not appropriately communicate a thought unless there is an attendant thought within the speaker's mind.  

We sometimes see "statement analysis confessions" by this word alone. 

"The car costs $15,000."  This is a straight forward, reliable sentence.  Now note a single word change that introduces a new, and missing topic:

"The car costs just $15,000

The word "just" is a dependent word.  It only communicates effectively when the dependent word is associated with at least one other word.  Here, "just" is used to compare the cost with at least one other cost, within the subject's mind. 

Patrol knows this dependent word:  "only"

"only had two drinks, officer" with the unnecessary dependent word "only" signaling that the subject is thinking of a number greater than two.  

Patrol:  "How many drinks have you had tonight, sir?"

Subject:  "Just two, officer."

The word "just" is a dependent word.  It must rely upon something else in order to be appropriately used in a sentence.  The subject is thinking, via comparison, of another number, greater than two.  It could be because he had more than two, or it could be that he is thinking of how he usually has more than two, but in every case:  it is the subject, himself, comparing "two" with a higher number. 

Officers, including those in rural areas, never know what will transpire during a traffic stop.  The elevation of hormonal response is indicated, even when the officer does not sense it. This takes long term toll on the immune system.  In some rural areas, the expectation of peaceful interaction, can actually increase the stress due to the unexpected escalation. 

Deceptive people often use a dependent word, inappropriately and reveal truth inadvertently. 

Negotiators and sales use dependent words routinely.  Some will use it incessantly.  We look to learn if, in context, it is appropriate (such as in sales) or inappropriately used in deception. 

Here is a question for you.  How many people are involved in this sentence"

"I have a brother."

Answer:  Two.  

We have the subject ("I") and we have a "brother", which is two.  The subject may have more, but that information would be outside this statement.  

Next, how many people are indicated in this sentence?  Note this sentence independently of the one above.  An example of this came up in a criminal investigation in which the subject was deceptive about the number of people involved:  

"I have another brother" 

Q. How many people are found within this statement?
A.   3 or more. 

We have "I", the subject, as one.

We have the brother as two. 

Then, using the dependent word, "another" we know that this word only works in a sentence when it is associated with at least one other brother, giving us three, or more.  Here, we say "more" because the number found, within this sentence, is not limited to three.  

Dependent words can even give confessions. 

" I parked my car at the gas station.  A car pulled up next to mine, and a man got out..."

This sentence tells us that there are two cars in the sentence.  The car belonging to the subject, and the car belonging to the man who pulled up next to her car, and got out. 

The problem?

This is not what she wrote. The analysts had already picked up linguistic indicators of not only substance abuse dependence but had considered that there was a 3rd party who entered the statement; a drug dealer.  

"I parked my car at the gas station.  Another car pulled up next to mine, and a man got out..." 

In the statement, the analysts explored the word "another" in context. 

Through analysis (examination by questioning) they knew that there was yet a third car within the statement, and going deeply into the statement, discerned that this third car was that likely of a drug dealer.  This changed the dynamics of the "event" that was reported.  The word "another" is a dependent word, meaning it does not work unless there is a noun missing that must be applied.  

It took a few minutes concentration and the open questioning of its use in the lesser context (immediate words and sentences around it) but it helped solve the case. 

Dependent words reveal withheld information, especially in advanced techniques and can not only reveal specifically withheld or surpassed information, but can show attendant crimes; those not alleged, but committed alongside the original allegation.  



The Illegal Private Server: Dependent Word 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation revealed Friday, September 23, 2016,  that  Barack Obama used a private email address and pseudonym to communicate with Democratic presidential nominee Hillary R. Clinton and her own private email account as early as June 2012. 

Barak Obama told the nation on March 7, 2015 that he did not know about Clinton’s private email while she was his secretary of state from Jan. 21, 2009 to Feb. 1, 2013.
Q: Mr. President, when did you first learn that Hillary Clinton used an email system outside the U.S. government for official business while she was secretary of state?
A:  Obama: The same time everybody else learned it through news reports.
The question is answered and it appears, on the surface, to be a straight forward response. Yet, did you flag the dependent word?

Let's look more deeply at the response with a change of language without the dependent word to see what happens.

Remember the "law of economy" in language. The need for additional words takes effort. The shortest sentence is best. 

Q: Mr. President, when did you first learn that Hillary Clinton used an email system outside the U.S. government for official business while she was secretary of state?
A:  Obama: The same time everyone learned it through news reports.
Here the wording is changed, and the dependent word, "else" is removed.  

A.  "The same time the public learned of it"  was also not said. Here is an even clearer way of answering the question.  


Remember:  the simplest answers are often the most reliable.  


A.  "I learned about it through media."  


This one would, psychologically, put the subject, himself, into the sentence with the pronoun "I", increasing the strength or commitment to the sentence. 


It is not what he said.


"The same time everybody else learned it through the news reports."


Although some may say that the President of the United States only learning this through the media without media first telling him strains credibility of which I reply:  this is statement analysis and we look for a reason for the opinion of deception.  For our reports, and for prosecution, we must be able to clearly articulate why we have concluded deception.  


The word "else" is a dependent word. It is unnecessarily added, meaning it violated the law of economy, took extra effort, leading us to know that it is very important to the subject.  Effort equals sensitivity.  The brain told the tongue to add this word to the sentence, and where to put it in the sentence, in less than a micro second in time.  


This rapid processing means:


The subject did not stop, pause and ask himself, "Should I answer with the word "else", or should I just say it without the word "else"?


Here the disruption of the editing process would have been severe, instead, we have a signal of proficiency within the answer.  This is a strong signal that the subject is well accomplished and life long in deception. 


Not only did the subject not use the pronoun "I", which would have placed himself within the answer, but we know his baseline is to use an overabundance of the pronoun "I" in his personal subjective dictionary. 


  
Note:  "else" is a dependent word that is not necessary to use here.  It is why we consider this 'coming close to an admission' of knowledge.  "Else" only works when it shows dependence upon a person who is being separated from "everybody" (that is, all) in his sentence. 

The question was, "When did you learn...?" in March of 2015.  


Analysis Conclusion:  Deception Indicated 


Most people are uncomfortable with a direct lie, and here we see that he removed 'self' from the sentence by avoiding using the pronoun "I", yet he still, unwittingly, identified himself, as one separate and distinct, unnecessarily, from "everyone else."


"Else" refers  first to himself, and although those who felt that it was not credible were correct, we seek to, within language, find the source of the deception.  


The stage is important.  This was a national (and international) audience. 

People often fear consequence of lying to the police and know that lying to federal police will carry even more consequence. This is why authority is vital for law enforcement to be respected:  it protects civilization. 

Think of the confidence in one's own ability to deceive to be willing to lie, with the consequences well known, to a federal agent.  


Now think of one who has the confidence in his own abilities to lie to Congress, under oath to God. We have a large list of examples from which to choose. 


Lastly, think of one who has the  confidence to attempt to deceive 
an audience of 300 million Americans.  

This is where we look for the trait of contempt. It should be used in the investigative interview.


For training in Deception Detection, visit Hyatt Analysis Services.

We offer seminars and the "Complete Statement Analysis Course" completed in your home or office, at your own pace. It comes with 12 months of e support. 

We also have a limited number of placements for advanced training, including live online monthly training. This is by approval only but allows the professional to immediately apply their training and work along with some of our best analysts and investigators from the United States, Canada and Western Europe.  

Thursday, June 14, 2018

Roger Kearney: Wrongful Murder Conviction or Embedded Admission


A documentary on BBC TV  about a possible miscarriage of justice for a man imprisoned for life for the murder of his girlfriend he was having a secret affair with gave us quotes for analysis. 

Did police get it right?

Or has a man been in prison for more than 6 years for a murder he did not commit? 

In the murder of Paula Poolton by Roger Kearney, the documentary reported that there was  was no forensic evidence, only circumstantial evidence upon which he was convicted. We listen to him speak. He should plainly tell us,

"I did not kill Paula" and even with years of processing, this should be the psychological wall in which he remains behind, with no possible alternative reality. If he did not kill her, he did not kill her. 

Period. 

If asked, "Why should you be believed?", we expect to hear the basis of truth as asserted. 

If he said: 

"I did not kill Paula. I am telling the truth" to investigators when first arrested, it is 99.9% reliable. 

Yet, even after years, we find an avoidance of the reliable denial. 

When asked if he had killed her, he said the following: 

"I can guarantee you that I did not do what they said.

"I've got nothing to hide." 

 "I've got nothing to be ashamed of."

In the part two of the documentary he gave us a larger statement for analysis. 

"One thing I wanted to say to you umm from the last time we spoke was the fact ah, you were concerned that if it came up that I actually killed Paula sometime in the future that it ah would make you look bad. Well ah really, I understand that. I you actually feel that I ah possibly could have done, I ah, I wouldn't blame you if you dropped my case at all but I assure you, I don't think you'll find any evidence to support the police and I promise you that I did not kill Paula, that's all I can say."

The denial comes after several programs and after 6 years in prison. 

Lets look at them all with the longest statement last.

1.  "I can guarantee you that I did not do what they said.

This is to avoid issuing a reliable denial ("I did not kill Paula") while specifying "what they said."

It is very likely to be true that some things that were said it court were not accurate. 

Except the actual killing. 

"I've got nothing to hide." 

Is another avoidance of a reliable denial and it is to enter into an expansion of time, very likely before the killing of Paula. It is also something that investigators see as an invitation to search. 

 "I've got nothing to be ashamed of."

This is actually making his lack of denial more pronounced:  it is to say "she deserved it."

Killers often blame the victim. In Statement Analysis, we look for this human nature guilt issue of assigning blame to a victim. In his statements, there is very likely to be some degrading, insulting or shifting of responsibility to the victim in his language. 

2.  "One thing I wanted to say to you umm from the last time we spoke was the fact ah, you were concerned that if it came up that I actually killed Paula sometime in the future that it ah would make you look bad. Well ah really, I understand that. I you actually feel that I ah possibly could have done, I ah, I wouldn't blame you if you dropped my case at all but I assure you, I don't think you'll find any evidence to support the police and I promise you that I did not kill Paula, that's all I can say."



 "One thing I wanted to say to you umm from the last time we spoke 

Here we have "one thing I wanted to say to you" is very personal to the journalist. This is something very important to the subject. It is not "I didn't kill Paula" but more important to the subject that that. He wants this to be first and it is something he is in earnest to share. 

Why?

He does not make us wait long to tell us why this one thing he wants to say. 

Pronouns are critical.  Note that "we" indicates a unity between two subjects: the accused killer and the journalist. 

The subject (accused killer) has a perception of reality that unites, in a positive way, himself with the journalist. It is a closeness he feels at the time of this statement. 

The journalist may have gotten him to talk via Ingratiation. The pronoun "we" indicates success.

Enter into the subject's verbalized perception of reality.  He sees himself unified or possibly even close friends, with the journalist. 

What does this unity produce?

was the fact ah, you were concerned that if it came up that I actually killed Paula sometime in the future that it ah would make you look bad. 

a.  This statement was produced by the unity between the subject and the journalist. 

b.  The subject is concerned about the well being of the journalist. This is a "positive linguistic disposition" towards the journalist. 

Now we deal with the language: 

"If it came up that I actually killed Paula" is an embedded admission. 

a. First note that the word "if" allows for the possibility of murder. 

Those who did not commit murder (or something of this elevated nature, including child molestation) will not allow for it as a possibility.  It is rejected because it is false and the emotional heightening comes from the accusation.  It is not to say, "if I had stolen $10 from you..." but is murder. 

The subject is allowing for the possibility of guilt.  We will not contradict him. 

b. "if it actually came up" is distinctly not the quote (or even the thoughts) of another. He did not say, "you said that I killed her" or even "police said that I killed her."

There is no "linguistic genesis" from another. 

It comes solely from the subject. 

It is wording produced by the subject. 

"people say that I killed Paula" is to report what people say.  This is not the case.  He is instigating the scenario and articulating it from his own personal subjective internal dictionary.  

This is what an embedded admission looks like. 


Well ah really, I understand that.

c. He affirms the embedded admission allowing for understanding of "it to actually come up" with the pronoun "it" indicating proof, evidence, etc.  

d.  "actually" is produced by the pronoun "we";  at the time of this statement, the subject believes the journalist believes he did not do it.  "Actually" is a comparison of two or more thoughts.  Here, the context tells us of the supposition of innocence. 

Believing them to be unified, he must make sure his "friend" does not entertain doubt. 


 I you actually feel that I ah possibly could have done

He allows for the journalist to entertain doubt, and he wants the journalist to know:


I ah, I wouldn't blame you if you dropped my case at all 

They would still be "we" if he dropped the case.  They would still be friends, or unified and it is, in the language of the subject, something "understandable" to believe in his guilt. 

This is the language of manipulation.  

We often find this in addicts. 

The victim died of 7 stab wounds, which is a very "personal" and "intrusive" crime. 

It is brutal and it is unclose. 

There is no linguistic connection between this brutal unclose personal murder and innocence. This is the "greater context" in analysis. 

His allotment of "understanding" as lesser context, indicates a willingness to accept the crime, in exchange for friendship.  

He "assures" the journalist


but I assure you, I don't think you'll find any evidence to support the police and I promise you that I did not kill Paula, that's all I can say."

This is not to say "You will not find evidence because none exists. I did not kill Paula."

Instead, he only "thinks" the journalist will not find "evidence to support the police."

Not "evidence of the crime" but he now triangulates the police.

He and the journalist, linguistically, are united against the police. 

PS Profile:  the journalist "supports" him, and in doing so, he can't think of the journalist "supporting" police.

He does not state that he did not kill Paula, but he "promises" that he did not kill Paula. That is an unreliable denial introduced by the indication of habitual deception ("promise") followed by the 
ending of communication:  "that's all I can say."

This is to indicate the following:

the word "think" is appropriately used.  He allows for himself or the journalist to "think" otherwise. 

It is the "rule of the negative" coupled with the weak assertion: 

"I don't think..." 

It indicates his belief that evidence could possibly surface. 

"that's all I can say" is in the lesser context, about his weak assertion about evidence that can be found.

This is to indicate:  the subject may feel strongly that there is something that could be produced as evidence that will "support" police. 

He manipulates this to be "us" versus the "police" as he and the police complete for "support."

"That's all I can say" is to self censor about evidence. 

Going further with what he could say, would harm the support.

This is very likely why he must not go on talking about evidence. 

Analysis Conclusion:

The subject killed Paula and police were correct. 

For training in Statement Analysis, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services. 

Home course and Seminars.