Saturday, November 3, 2012

Tristan Evans: Statement Analysis of Assault


                 Statement Analysis of Tristan Evans' Affidavit 
                                               by Peter Hyatt


We are continuing the use of Statement Analysis of the case of Chad Evans, who was convicted of causing the death of Kassidy Bortner, 21 months old, a decade ago.  

Part one is here

We began with Statement Analysis of Chad Evans initial interview with police when he was asked what happened.  The analysis showed:

1.  Deception Indicated
2.  Animosity towards his victim 
3.  Time period of assaulting his victim
4.  Attempts to blame others, including subtle disparagement of the victim.  
5.  Details about how he assaulted his victim
6.  Details about why he assaulted his victim 

Comments by readership show that picking up deception was not challenging.  Kassidy died in the home of a babysitter, of whom we will do analysis of his statements as well, but we did see that Evans inflicted abuse upon Kassidy.  We seek to learn more about what happened to her by analyzing other statements associated with the case. 

Below is the affidavit signed by Chad Evans' ex wife in which she alleged he assaulted her.  Evans was eventually convicted of domestic violence against her and also against his girlfriend, Kassidy's mother, Amanda.  Here is her signed affidavit, by itself, repeated with emphasis and statement analysis in bold type. 

On March 28, 1999 I arrived at 191 Milron Rd. to see my husband Chad Evans When I walked 
through the door, I went upstairs kissed my two children and went into the bedroom where 
Chad was lying down. I layed down beside him and asked if he had gotten the
boys cloths for tomorrow.  When I was finished asking the question, he turned over, and grabbed me 
by the neck, yelled at me, picked me up off the bed threw me on the floor and dragged me 
down the stairs by the hair.  Once we were down stairs, he threw me onto the couch, slapped me 
in the face while yelling at me. He then grabbed me by the hair and threw me onto the other couch. 
I got up and covered my head and tried to sit down on the couch, and talk to him, but he hit me in 
the head again and yelled at me. This went on until about 100 am, then he sat me down on the couch and yelled at
me, when I tried to talk to him, he grabbed me by the throat and squeezed until I grabbed his hands.
He then ###  went upstairs, layed down, went to sleep and I left with my two children.  

             (Signature)


On March 28, 1999 I arrived at 191 Milron Rd. to see my husband Chad Evans 

Here we have several points:
1.  Statement begins with pronoun, "I", making it strong.
2.  The word "to" tells us that she had a reason to tell us why she went there, making it sensitive.  
3.  "My husband, Chad Evans" is a complete social introduction which indicates that at this time, to the writer, she has a very strong favorable view towards him.  She calls him her husband, with the possessive pronoun, "my" and gives his full name.  This shows her mentality when she went "to" see him.  She wants the relationship.  


When I walked 
through the door, I went upstairs kissed my two children and went into the bedroom where 
Chad was lying down. 

There is no reason to tell us that she walked through a door unless, to her, it is important.  "Doors" opening and closing, in statements, may indicate that the subject was abused in childhood.  
"Kissed my two children" indicate trouble in the relationship.  Here is how:

1.  The children's names are not given, unlike the husband's.
2.  She takes ownership of them with "my", which is positive, yet "kissing them" is something we all do to our children, but often do not feel the need to tell others.  The need to tell the police/court that she kissed her children speaks to the strain or distance she likely felt.  They were with him, and this likely troubled her. 

Next, note:   Body posture:   it is important to her that the police/court know the body posture of Chad Evans.  As she wrote this, she was likely reliving the tension.  Taking this along with the use of the pronoun, "I", and it appears that the subject 
is writing from experiential memory.  She appears bonded or committed to her husband, and feels distance with the children, which may be because they are apart (she went for the purpose of seeing him; not seeing the children).  


I layed down beside him and asked if he had gotten the
boys cloths for tomorrow.  

1.  Strong sentence beginning with pronoun, "I"
2.   Body posture:  tension increasing.
3.  "asked" is polite/gentle.  She did not chide him by "telling" him to have the boys' clothes ready. 

By asking him this, she called attention to his responsibility as a parent to have the boys' clothing ready.  Please note his reaction to this reminder of parental responsibility: 

When I was finished asking the question, 

Note that she uses the time period, which is very short.  She asked him a single question and at the end of the question, he reacted: 

he turned over,

This first tells us that he had his back towards her, which is significant, or
that he turned his back towards her as he was looking at her.  Either way, it is a bodily reaction that she recalls (sight) and indicates sensory perception.

 and grabbed me 

Note the pronoun, as well as the strength of the statement.  In deceptive affidavits on domestic violence, we often find passive language (passivity conceals identity or responsibility and is often used in deceptive statements).  Here,  grabbed "me" is strong. 

by the neck, yelled at me, picked me up off the bed threw me on the floor and dragged me 
down the stairs by the hair.  

Note the  order.  

The worst thing that happened was likely being dragged down the stairs by the hair, yet it is named last:
1. turned over
2. grabbed me by the neck
3.  yelled at me
4.  picked me off the bed
5.  threw me on the floor
6.  dragged me down the stairs

Order speaks to priority.  What is seen here in the priority is an indicator of truth:

Chronological order. 

There were many ways of saying this, and she could have started with a statement about being dragged down the stairs, but instead, her priority is to tell the truth, therefore she stays within the chronological order of what happened.  She could have said "he dragged me by the hair down the stairs after picking me off the bed..." (and so on).  

This statement appears truthful to this point. 

Once we were down stairs, he threw me onto the couch, slapped me 
in the face while yelling at me

Pronouns are vital.  Note the pronoun, "we" is found after the assault.  This confirms:

She still considers them a couple.  

An analyst must draw a conclusion based upon principles, and this is where a 'big picture' must come in focus. 

1.  She went there for the stated purpose of seeing him.  She did not go to see the children, nor to pick them up (according only to her statement).  She tells us what is important to her. 

2.  She introduced him in the highest terms according to principles of Statement Analysis Social Introductions, using both the possessive pronoun, title, and name.  

3.  She gives us his body posture turning, indicating, one way or another, he had his back towards her, indicating his viewpoint of her and their relationship.

4.  Doors:  indicate earlier childhood abuse (or perhaps, even earlier abuse at his hands, or at the hands of another man)

She suffers from him physically, yet still considers him with the pronoun, "we" which shows cooperation. 

Please note that many victims of domestic violence report being victims of abuse in childhood, and often return to the abuser, minimize his activities, and either live under his control (avoiding physical abuse by 'walking on eggshells') or are further injured finally convincing them to leave.  Returning to an abuser is often considered part of the process of breaking away and is something domestic violence counselors deal with regularly.  Few women will be assaulted only once and leave. 

He then grabbed me by the hair and threw me onto the other couch. 
I got up and covered my head and tried to sit down on the couch, and talk to him, but he hit me in 
the head again and yelled at me. 

Note the additional detail of the "other" couch. 
Note "covering" is often found in abuse victims' statements, and even those who suffer PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder) symptoms, something victims of domestic violence can be diagnosed with.  It is marked by sleeplessness, depression, hyper vigilance, etc.  

Note that "tried" in the past tense, indicates "attempted but failed":  here, she "tried" to sit down, indicating failure, and confirms the failure with the word "but".  This is another indicator of veracity. 
Note the pronouns' consistency:  "he hit me"

Repetition = sensitivity.  Whatever we repeat is important to us. 

Note repetition of "yelling" in her statement.  My guess is that in interviewing her, the "yelling" is something that bothers her greatly.  She would likely say that she is a person who hates being yelled at, even, perhaps, more than being hit.  This is another indicator that she was abused earlier in life. 

What of the articles?

She uses "the head" and "the neck" and "the hair" but then switches to "my" hair.  

Question:  What does this tell us?

Answer:  Indicator of truth. 


What we view is the change, from "the" to "my" and see, if in context, there is justification for the change.  If not, it can signal that the subject is not working from memory.  If there is a justification, it is a signal that 

Question:   What is the difference in the three uses of "the" and the change to "my"?

Answer:  The inclusion of the pronoun, "I" 

Notice how when she becomes involved, it turns to "my", but when he touches her, it is "the"?  

When she brings herself into the situation, it is very personal and it is "my" as triggered by the use of the pronoun, "I", but when he has his hands on her, it is "the hair, the neck..." and so on. 

Conclusion:  the change is justified by the context and is an indicator of veracity. 
(Thanks to VitaK for the observation and inclusion.)  

This went on until about 100 am, then he sat me down on the couch and yelled at
me, when I tried to talk to him, he grabbed me by the throat and squeezed until I grabbed his hands.
He then ###  went upstairs, layed down, went to sleep and I left with my two children.  

"This went on" until about 1:00 am' is a passage of time (temperal lacuane) which is noted here that the subject does not specify what went on, nor how long it went on. 
 We do not know what time the event began, and it appears that the subject may have skipped over information until 1am.  

This missing information is likely sensitive (since she gave us the time it ended) and given the nature of domestic violence and her indications of how she viewed the relationship, I will venture an educated guess on what it may be:  

in this period of time she may have been attempting to pacify him so that she could get the kids out safely.  This attempt to pacify could be verbal, or even sexual.  It is not uncommon for victims to 'barter' or 'negotiate' their way out of danger, especially for one who has used a complete social introduction and the pronoun "we" after the violence commenced. 

Confusion of emotions is common for victims of domestic violence which is why there are counselors who specialize in domestic violence, itself. 
(I would have asked Susan Murphy Milano to weigh in on this point had she still be here with us today.  She would have done a good job in explaining the mixed emotions, confusion, and even perseveration that victims experience.) 

This is very sad.  This shows the acute tension (note "sat me down" is sitting down at the will of another and not of herself), and the theme of yelling as highly sensitive to her continues. 

Note that when she "tried" to talk to him, he silenced her by grabbing her by the throat and squeezing. 

Since "tried" means, in the past tense, attempted and failed, she indicates that she was unable to talk for a very specific reason:

He cut off her windpipe. 

He silenced her. 

Kassidy was trying to talk when he squeezed her face too hard and bruised it. 

Evans said that we did not know "what" killed Kassidy; rather than saying "who killed Kassidy."

This, along with his original police interview, shows the profile of Chad Evans, section by section, giving us more insight into the man who killed Kassidy. 

That Kassidy was female was part of the reason he assaulted her, and here we see a misogynist (one who hates women) and cannot bear a woman speaking to him or defying him.  He "had to" put Kassidy into the seat.  Kassidy did not comply with him and it trigged hyper sensitivity. Evans raised the issue of gender while being interviewed in Kassidy's death. 

Kassidy did not eat when he wanted her to eat (she was likely in pain and did not have appetite due to injuries) and this triggered his anger.  His statements reveal a tremendous ego and sense of entitlement.  It is unknown at this time if the use of steroids contributed to a heightened high view of self.  

The affidavit is an example of truthful writing.  It has sensory description, appropriate use of pronouns, and shows confirmation within itself, linguistically.  We do not need pictures, eye witnesses, nor even medical confirmation to know that she is truthful.  These other forms of evidence are helpful, and needed within court, yet, we may know from the words used that she is truthful. 

We are, by this affidavit, given a glimpse into Tristan Evans, but we are also given a powerful profile of Chad Evans.  

For further information, please see the Statement Analysis of Chad Evans found here

Chad Evans has a following on Facebook that seeks to gain him a new trial.  








15 comments:

Vita said...

Peter I have a question regarding Tristan's written statement.

Her written

grabbed me by the neck,
grabbed me by the hair
I got up and covered my head
he grabbed me by the throat

Where she is detailing her abuse sustained in her order of memory, she wrote " the neck" not my neck, "the hair" not my hair, " the throat" not my throat.

She midway wrote ' my head' which is the base that connects all, neck, hair, throat, one's head, she wrote MY head.

S.A. is defined for analysis. Does it change in any way in psychology?

When she was being attacked by Chad, her referring to " the" vs " my" is this an abuse victim removing themselves from the event in memory, that they turn themselves into an object? Out of self preservation? that they do not relive it, they pull back, as she was to write her statement of her attack.

Relive it from memory, to write it, to press charges. Makes me wonder how deeply this young lady was abused that she even her own body doesn't quantify with her, as she wrote it. Her parts no longer belonged to her?

Wedding photo online of Tristan and Chad, she is as shown, is much smaller than he is.
http://www.chadevanswronglyconvicted.org/images/971124MarriageofTristanWentworthandChadEvans_000.jpg

john said...

Peter it's nice to see an example of truthful statement,to be able to compare it with deceptive ones,it's all well and good to be able to spot deception.it is however important to be able to see the truth also...

Seamus O Riley said...

Great observation!

What we view is the change, from "the" to "my" and see, if in context, there is justification.

Question: What is the difference in the three uses of "the" and the change to "my"?

Answer: The inclusion of the pronoun, "I"

Notice how when she becomes involved, it turns to "my", but when he touches her, it is "the"?

Great point. I will add this to the analysis!

thank you for the contribution,

Peter

Anonymous said...

Are you ever used as a professional witness in court cases giving your analysis? It seems utilizing your skill in the manner would be beneficial to light of truth.
Anna

john said...

OT.

Jimmy Savile scandal:

'celebrity hedonism no excuse for child abuse'
Child protection expert criticises Max Clifford for saying celebrities didn't ask for birth certificates.

Publicist Max Clifford says he has been contacted by stars from the 1960s and 70s who say they are frightened of being implicated in the Jimmy Savile scandal. Link to this video
A child protection expert has rejected the assertion of pop stars of the 1960s and 1970s that the "hedonism" of the era was an excuse for having sex with children.

Paul Roffey said that the pop stars used their position to manipulate young women to carry out acts which were as illegal then as they are now.

The PR guru Max Clifford said he had been approached by dozens of celebrities from the 60s and 70s who are "frightened to death" that they will be implicated in the Jimmy Savile child abuse scandal.

He said the stars, some of whom were still big names, had approached him to handle any fallout from inquiries. He said they were worried because at their peak they had "never asked for anybody's birth certificate" while living a hedonistic lifestyle in which young girls threw themselves at them.

Roffey said: "There is obviously much greater awareness of paedophilia today but in the 1960s everyone knew about the age of consent and people were regularly tried for breaking the law over it. The fact that someone may have looked 16 or 21 if they were male may be mitigation but it is no defence."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/27/jimmy-savile-scandal-celebrity-hedonism?intcmp=239

annie said...

OT

I thought you might be interested in this book review.

Mental imagery gives language meaning
17:14 30 October 2012
Books

David Robson, features editor

WHAT do you think of when you read the phrase "flying pig"? Chances are that a striking image will have fleetingly passed through your mind. Perhaps it's a winged "Pigasus", as imagined by John Steinbeck. Or, if you are a fan of The Simpsons, it might be Homer's precious roast pig launching past Mr Burns's office.

In Louder Than Words, Benjamin Bergen, a cognitive scientist at the University of California, San Diego, builds a strong case that such "embodied simulations" lie at the centre of the brain's processing of language. Every time we hear a word, he argues, it brings to mind sights, sounds, feelings and actions, as if we are experiencing them first-hand. Importantly, what is brought to mind depends on your unique experiences - your flying pig will be very different to mine.

Writers have been working with this principle for thousands of years, of course, but the idea has only recently attracted the focused attention of cognitive scientists, with fascinating results. We take longer to comprehend "I kick" than "I eat", for instance, simply because the neurons that process sensations from the feet are further from the language centres than those handling the mouth. Considering how the brain embodies words - whether or not you have a strongly visual imagination, for example - might even explain a preference for the vivid imagery in Jane Eyre over the wordplay of The Importance of Being Earnest.

Bergen writes with a lightness of touch and a jovial wit. He is particularly captivating when he explains the hoops the brain jumps through to embody mercurial sentences that seem to flip halfway through, such as the Groucho Marx quip that "time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana".

After reading this book, words will never hold quite the same meaning for you again.

Hobnob said...

the bedroom where
Chad was lying down. I layed down beside him


This caught my eye straight away.

Why did she lay down?

If she walked into the bedroom to ask if he had gotten there clothes ready, why not ask him from the dooeway, a standing position or even sitting on the edge of the bed?

She tells us he turned over and attacked her implying his back was towards her when she asked the question which again makes me ask why did she lay down next to him when his body position indicated ignore her?

Was this normal behavior for her?
was this a case of the King and I where she couldn't be higher than him?

Did she willingly lie down next to him or was she told to?
Was it expected of her?

What is missing?

Jazzie said...

Tristan Evans: (Chad) "dragged me down the stairs by my hair"

http://www.chadevanswronglyconvicted.org/documents/990329TristanVoluntaryWStatementreincident.pdf

I witnessed my foster sister being dragged down the stairs by her pimp boyfriend. It was brutal and willful malice.

Chad Evans is a cretin bastard who brutalizes women and girl children. Ironically enough, the website devoted to his "innocence" freely offers up the most damning evidential/affidavit gems for the Prosecution's case against Chad.

What I found encouraging is the State actually pursued Amanda (Kassidy's mother) for co-conspirator in Kassidy's death:

http://chadevanswronglyconvicted.org/documents/011115StatemotiontoadmitAmandastatementsascoconspirator.pdf

I can only hope the State of Michigan/FBI pursues Jaimee Chamberlain as Co-conspirator with Anthony Bennett in the Death of her son Carnel Chamberlain.

"ChadEvansWronglyConvicted.Org"
Gotta love irony.

Nic said...

OT: Peter, please lets not forget this little guy as his one year anniversary is sadly almost here...

http://redmond.patch.com/articles/sky-metalwala-nov-10-event-to-mark-year-of-toddler-s-disappearance

Anonymous said...

OT
Lance Armstrong
8:44
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thyFmxusB9E&feature=watch-vrec

"My best defense is I've been doing this a long time"

john said...

OT. Lance Armstrong goes up in flames ..

http://news.sky.com/story/1006696/lance-armstrong-effigy-goes-up-in-flames

john said...

Although what lance Armstrong done is wrong,I do think this is out of order..

sidewalk super said...

Jazzie:
Correct!
Poor abused , murdered, burned, and buried, Carnel Chamberlain was the victim of his mother long before anthony bennett began his systematic torture with her assistance.
jaimee chamberlain is guilty of her child's murder as well as anthony bennett.

Seamus O Riley said...

Thanks, Nic. I got it there now. Peter

morrisonbonpasse said...

For more information about the Chad Evans case, please visit the website, www.chadevanswronglyconvicted.org and the book, “EYE CONTACT - The Mysterious Death of Kassidy Bortner in 2000 and the Wrongful Convictions of Chad Evans and Amanda Bortner.”