Below is the statement from a Wall Street Trader who was found guilty of arson in burning down his own home. Was he guilty of setting the fire? Did the jury get it right? Statement Analysis gets to the truth.The quote is in italics, with analysis in bold type following the article. Do not go by the jury, nor by his suicide, but only by his statement. The subject is dead; the statement is alive.
A formerly successful Wall Street trader apparently committed suicide in court by swallowing a pill after he was found guilty of committing arson. Michael James Marin, who owned a $3.5 million Biltmore Estates mansion in Phoenix that burned to the ground, heard the guilty verdict read, then appeared to swallow something that triggered convulsions. He died on his way to the hospital. Authorities have not confirmed the cause of death.
Marin graduated from Yale Law School, and once successfully climbed Mount Everest, but reports have surfaced that he couldn’t pay the $17,500 monthly mortgage on his lavish home.
Marin, who was found outside his home in SCUBA gear while his house burned down, had been convicted of “arson of an occupied structure.”
But before he was arrested, Marin boasted of his innocence:
"Here's the unvarnished version from the horse's mouth. One, you don't set fire to something that you're in and then go trap yourself upstairs to make a more dramatic exit. The second thing, if you bore into my finances, this was the worst thing that could have happened to me. Not only did I not have any incentive personally, I totally had a counter-incentive. The Phoenix Fire Department people will figure out what they figure out."
But arson investigators were apparently smarter than Marin. And it surfaced that Marin had a collection of 18 original etchings by Pablo Picasso but still had tried to raffle his Biltmore home months after he'd bought it.
Ironically, Marin had said, "I'm very calm under pressure, and I've certainly been tested in that way.”
Here is the statement with emphasis of underlining and color added.
"Here's theunvarnished version from the horse's mouth. One, you don't set fire to something that you're in and then go trap yourself upstairs to make a more dramatic exit. The second thing, if you bore into my finances, this was the worst thing that could have happened to me. Not only did I not have any incentive personally, I totally had a counter-incentive. The Phoenix Fire Department people will figure out what they figure out."
Note the statement beings with the article, "the." Articles, like pronouns, are exempt from the rule of personal, internal, subjective pronouns. This is "the" unvarnished version which tells us that other versions have been "varnished" though he does not tell us who did the varnishing.
Next, we see that he presents in logic, with "One"
Then we learn that he uses the 2nd person with "you don't set fire..." which is not that he did not set fire. This is distancing language.
Please note the highly sensitive "to" in the statement. Whenever "so, since, therefore, thus, to, because...and so on" enter a statement, the subject is telling us "why" something happened. Here, he tells us the reason of being upstairs trapped: to make it appear more dramatic. This indicates his planning and hope to deceive.
Next he uses "second" as logic, versus emotional: if you "bore" into "my finances, indicates that a simple review will not suffice, but a "boring into" will be necessary as it indicates there is a concealing of finances that is complex. Note that "not" is in the negative, and the motive denied is "personally" indicating that others, outside of himself, were part of motive; likely he had kids.
The "people" not firefighters, will figure out what they figure out may indicate that he knows the inevitable will be learned: that the fire was deliberately set.
In this statement, he uses distancing language and attempts to portray the lack of motive, yet tells us that finances are so complicated that deep digging is going to be necessary.
Lastly, he does not tell us that he did not set the fire, therefore we cannot say it for him.
The distancing language, the attempt to portray a lack of motive, and the lack of denial within his statement cause the conclusion: