I am proud to introduce to readers of our blog Statement Analyst and investigator, Kaaryn Gough.
I met Kaaryn in several analysis forums through LSI and was immediately impressed with her work. She is a brilliant analyst who is especially gifted at "seeing" the "video" or "picture" of what happened, found inside of the statement. She has not only analytical thinking in gear, but combines creativity, which reminds me of one who can enter into the mind of criminal, in order to understand, and eventually predict the actions of the criminal, but in Kaaryn's case, she enters into a statement as if she were viewing a video or movie of the statement. She's gifted.
Here is a short biography of Kaaryn, and then her analysis in the case of missing 19 month old, Ayla Reynolds, in which she analyzes the 2nd statement released by the father, Justin DiPietro.
I hope to hear more from her on various cases and her contact information is below. If you like my work, you'll love hers. If we can convince her to submit more analysis here, or better yet, start a blog, I think we'll learn a great deal from her, especially why creative thought and open mindedness can serve an analyst well.
Kaaryn is an Ottawa-based private investigator, statement analyst and case analyst working in the government, corporate and private sectors.
In 2003, Kaaryn earned her basic certification in statement analysis and co-founded Integra View Inc., a company specializing in detecting deception and gathering information in statements, interviews and testimony. She attained advanced level certifications in the SCAN method of statement analysis from Avinoam Sapir at the Laboratory for Scientific Interrogation in Phoenix, Arizona in 2006.
In 2007, she became a licensed private investigator in the province of Ontario and since then, has provided her investigative services through Investigation Counsel Professional Corporation [ICPC], a Toronto law firm specializing in fraud investigation and litigation. Kaaryn is a regular contributor to an online statement analysis forum headed by Avinoam Sapir. This forum of highly skilled statement analysts works on current and cold cases from around the world.
Kaaryn’s combined skills as an investigator and analyst have proven valuable in cases of fraud, criminal negligence causing death, assault, child abuse, missing persons, perjury and developing author profiles in anonymous letters and communiqués. Kaaryn’s skills are augmented by her ability to maintain focus on the larger picture while simultaneously uncovering and organizing the minute details.
Kaaryn is available to work in both Canada and the United States. She can be reached at: email@example.com
Case: Missing toddler Ayla Reynolds, from Waterville, Maine.
Analysis: 2nd written statement from Justin DiPietro, father of Aya Reynolds.
Background: Baby Ayla was reported kidnapped from Waterville, Maine, on December 17th, 2011. She was reportedly put to bed at 8PM and the next morning, at approximately 9:30AM, her father, Justin DiPietro called 911.
Since that time police have reported that Baby Ayla's blood was found in the basement, that Ayla met "foul play" in the house, and that the adults in the house are withholding information. The last news was that the single father, unemployed, took out a $25,000 life insurance policy on Ayla about 6 weeks before she was reported missing. Police declined to comment when asked if there was a link between the Federal DEA's arrest of Briana Reynolds and the Ayla Reynolds investigation.
You have my analysis here, and you have seen Mark McClish' analysis here:
The basic application remains the same, but differences in depth and in emphasis exist between analysts. Mark McClish (analyst, author, instructor) concluded from these statements the same that police have: that Ayla's father knows more than he has let on about what happened to Baby Ayla.
Setting: 2nd statement from the father, analyzed by Kaaryn Gough.
We should assume, at this point, that the subject has probably been accused or confronted and this letter was generated not as an “open statement” but more as a statement of defense or explanation. He is responding to allegations or comments. This should be kept in mind when analyzing the letter.
First of all, I’d like to thank everyone who’s been involved in their continued efforts in finding my daughter, Ayla.
First of all, I’d like to thank everyone who’s been involved in their continued efforts in finding my daughter, Ayla.
The first sentence usually includes why the statement was written. The subject is thanking everyone. The subject is not addressing the person who took Ayla or even Ayla. His first thoughts are about “everyone who’s been involved”.
NOTE: It should be noted that the first letter began with thanking people.
“First of all…”
The subject has an agenda in mind containing more than one point.
This sentence is the most important for the subject.
NOTE: The first letter began with the sentence: “First, I’d like to thank everyone for their continued support in finding our daughter, Ayla.”
“in finding my daughter, Ayla.”—the subject does not say anything about bringing his daughter back home. The parent of a kidnapped child will continue to believe the child is alive until presented with proof otherwise. The parents’ objective is always to get their child back home safely. In this sentence, the subject simply talks about “finding”.
“finding”—suggests the subject considers Ayla “lost”. One “finds” a missing person. One does not “find” a kidnapped person.
“…my daughter…”—the subject considers Ayla to be his alone. It should be noted that in the first letter the subject wrote, “First, I’d like to thank everyone involved for their continued support in finding our daughter, Ayla.” This indicates the subject no longer feels Ayla belongs to both him and Ayla’s mother.
A special thanks to the residents of Waterville that came together to offer a reward for information leading to Ayla’s return.
“A special thanks to the residents…”—not “I would like to give a special thanks…” The subject does not include himself. Q. Why wouldn’t he be grateful for this effort?
“…leading to Ayla’s return.”—not “safe return”. Getting their child back safely is paramount for parents of a missing/kidnapped child.
I am pleased with the amount of resources being expended from all departments of law enforcement. Until now, I have not participated in any interviews for I don’t want to in any way hinder the investigation.
However, it is important that the public hear it from me personally that I have no idea what happened to Ayla and that I am not hiding. I have been in full cooperation with everyone in this effort, including not adding additional media hype.
“…I have no idea what happened to Ayla…”—not “I have no idea who kidnapped Ayla”. Given that the only possibility is that Ayla was kidnapped and that the subject reported her as being kidnapped, this statement is false (deceptive) for he does have “an idea” as to what happened to Ayla.
“I have been in full cooperation with everyone in this effort…”
“with everyone”—not “with authorities” or “the police”. One should wonder, other than the police, who else would require cooperation in a kidnapping/missing child investigation?
“I have been in full cooperation with everyone in this effort”—not “I have cooperated fully with everyone in this effort”. “have been” is passive language. And while the subject includes himself in this sentence, indicating a level of commitment, he does not take a direct route with his language. Often a person will insert extra words as they approach a sensitive or dangerous point of their statement.
I would never do anything to hurt my child. The questions of Ayla’s arm or bruises or anything else being said are simply ludicrous. I would never want anyone to spend even a minute in my shoes. No one should ever have to experience this. It has affected me in more ways than anyone can imagine.
“my child”—change of language from “my daughter” or “Ayla”. A change in language indicates the subject perceives the ‘object’ differently at this point and, if it is a legitimate change of language, that something at this point of the statement has altered his language. Note the subject talks about “hurt” at this point. Re: "child": the word being associated with abuse.
The questions of Ayla’s arm or bruises or anything else being said are simply ludicrous. –The subject does not include why they are “ludicrous”. Obviously, the subject is addressing particular issues that were raised so it would be expected he would put forth the reason(s) as to why the questions are ludicrous.
“…Ayla’s arm…”—not “Ayla’s broken arm”. The subject does not include the information that the arm was broken. Why?
“…bruises…”—the subject does not specify what bruises he is referring to.
“…anything else…” –there are other issues besides the “arm” and “bruises” but the subject chooses not to include what “anything else” is. Why?
“…or anything elsebeing said…”—the “anything else” is not part of “the questions”. “being said” indicates these are statements and that the subject is aware of the statements being made.
“…simply ludicrous…”—“simply” lessens importance and serves to mitigate.
“…ludicrous…”—not “untrue”. Since the subject included “anything else being said” as being ludicrous he does not say they are “untrue”.
I have to believe that Ayla is with somebody and I just want that person to find the courage to do the right thing and find a way to return her safely. Even if that means, dropping her off at a church, or hospital, or some safe place …
“I have to believe that Ayla is with somebody…”—“have to” = doesn’t want to
“I have to believe that Ayla is with somebody…”— the subject is not committing to this. If she has been kidnapped, then she is with her kidnapper(s) so it would be expected and known that she is with somebody. Again, a parent will think of their child as being alive until otherwise proven. From the subject’s perspective, he should “know” Ayla is with somebody.
“I have to believe that Ayla is with somebody…”—singular. Hides identity.
Q. Why would the subject assume that only one person has Ayla?
The subject does not include that he has to believe Ayla is “safe”. Above all, a parent would want to believe their child was safe, especially while in the kidnapper’s possession.
“I just want that person to find the courage to do the right thing and find a way to return her safely.”— “just” indicates there are other options present and the subject is narrowing his focus to a specific option or set of options. The focus is on that person to:
find the courage to do the right thing
find a way to return her safely.
Note the subject focuses on “that person”, the one who supposedly took and has Ayla. The focus is not on Ayla.
“I just want that person to find the courage to do the right thing and find a way to return her safely.”—not “I just want that person to return her safely”. The indirect route of the language indicates the subject feels he is approaching a sensitive/dangerous point in the statement. In this sentence, “return her safely” would be the sensitive/dangerous point.
“I just want that person to find the courage to do the right thing and find a way to return her safely.”—earlier the subject wrote “…in their continued efforts in finding my daughter, Ayla.” “find” is an important word for the subject.
“find a way to return her safely.”—“find a way” suggests the subject knows that “to return her safely” would pose a problem.
“Even if that means, dropping her off at a church, or hospital, or some safe place …”
“Even if that means, dropping her off at a church”–“Even if that means,” indicates the subject knows the actions would be something out of the ordinary, expected or preferred actions for the person who has Ayla. Its use suggests the subject knows it would prove to be difficult or uncomfortable.
“Even if that means, dropping her off at a church…”—not “Drop her off at a church, or hospital, or some safe place…” The subject does not present this using “active” or commanding language.
“someplace safe…”—ellipses are used to say there is more information that is not included. Essentially, it tells the readers to “fill in the blanks” themselves.
Again, Thank you to everyone in trying to help and thank you to everyone showing your support! Please don’t give up or lose hope, because that is easy to do. Please be grateful for what you have. I know what I don’t have.
Please don’t give up or lose hope, because that is easy to do.
“that” –distinguishing from others. Distance.
“easy”—with little or no effort. “easy” is a word of subjective comparison. The only way for someone to know if something is “easy” or difficult is to have experienced whether it is easy or difficult. The subject knows it is easy to give up or lose hope.
“Please be grateful for what you have. I know what I don’t have.”
—the subject does not specify what it is “you have” or what it is he doesn’t have. It is a very broad and vague topic. And while the subject may be trying to send the message “be grateful that your children are safe and at home, because mine is not” the subject does not say this.
“what you have” “I don’t have”—speaks to possessions.
The truth is the truth and when the case is solved, it will be out there. Until then, please try to remain positive and hopeful as I remain confident the Aylawill return safely.
“the Ayla”—not “that Ayla”. Typo? If not a typo, then the “the Ayla” suggests the subject views his daughter as an object and not a person.
“…will return safely.”—not “will be returned safely.” The way it is written suggests that Ayla will come home on her own and not that the kidnapper will return her. Given her age, this is impossible.
“safely”- the word “safe” “safely” appears three times in the letter in the following sentences:
“I just want that person to find the courage to do the right thing and find a way to return her safely”
dropping her off at a church, or hospital, or some safe place …
I remain confident the Ayla will return safely
The subject associates “the return” with “safe”. Nowhere does the subject include anything about Ayla being safe or hoping that she is safe in her current situation.
The subject refers to Ayla 10 times in the letter:
The subject refers to himself 19 times in the letter—almost double. The subject is more important than Ayla.
The mother is not mentioned; 0 times in the letter.