“ S I know I haven't written in a while but I feel this needs some clarification and I will provide some although I wont expand on all the details. Justins did not take the any trip the morning we reported Ayla missing. I will never forget his reaction to finding out his daughter was not in her bed and it is something that I never want to relive. He did not leave the property that morning at all. The trip to Portland happened before she went missing.”
Here is the statement again, with analysis following:
“S” may be the recipient of the message, and if so (and not a typo), the “S” would be someone the subject knows. The familiarity is evident in the abbreviation and “S” is likely the name or knick-name of someone known that begins with the same letter.
I know I haven't written in a while but
Where one begins a statement is often the reason for writing. The subject acknowledges that she has not written “in a while”, which is not specific to time, and it is also written in the negative, making “not writing” important. This suggests that the subject has had information to share but has chosen not to, previously, but something had provoked her into writing. The word “but” is in contrast to not writing.
By acknowledging that she “knows” she has not written suggests that people have wanted her to write, and to share information but she has not done so. Here she is no longer wanting to remain silent, as she feels she has a reason to write. She knows that she has not written, which may be that she understands that her audience has wanted to hear from her, and now, something has come up that she wants addressed.
This may be the reason for writing, with “but” the ‘overruling’ factor, refuting not writing as now she has a reason:
I feel this needs some clarification
This is the key sentence and she will now present why she has written.
1. “I feel” is a weak assertion. She recognizes that she might “feel” differently, or someone else might “feel” differently. She began with the pronoun, “I”, but immediately weakened it with “feel.”
The information she is going to give is not to correct what is known, but is only to “clarify” or make clear, and this, itself, is weakened by the word “some.”
This is to admit that the information is essentially correct, but only that she “feels” that it may need “some” clarification; not “clarification”, but only “some.” It does not need correction, but only that it may (and it may not) need to be made clear.
This is information that should be considered correct, with only some of it needing to be in better focus. In Statement Analysis we allow the subject to guide us; that is, total belief in the subject.
She is not correcting wrong information, or refuting false information, she is only bring “some” clarity, which may or may not even be necessary (“I feel”)
and I will provide some
Here she will provide only “some” clarification to her recipient audience. This indicates that she is going to deliberate limit her clarification. A clarification is not a correction or refudiation.
although I wont expand on all the details.
In clarifying only “some” things, she will not “expand” or enlarge upon “all” the details. This is consistent with only “some” clarification.
Another key word is the article, “the”
She calls the information in need of “some clarification” the “details”
They are “the” details, and not false information.
The subject is presupposing that the details are true, but some may need, she feels, to be made clearer. The recipient should not consider the information addressed as “the details” and should consider “the details” to be factual and correct, and only in need of being able to see them more clearly.
The subject is telling us the “details” are true.
Justins did not take the any trip the morning we reported Ayla missing.
Do not interpret, but listen to her:
Justin did not take the any trip the morning we reported Ayla missing.
We have “the” and “any” and we have it delivered to a specific time period: the morning.
Please note that she uses the phrase “we” reported Ayla missing. This pronoun is essential.
Either: all three were on the phone to police, or there is deception present. “we” reporting Ayla missing means that they were in concert, or agreement: if the 911 call does not contain all three voices, deception is present.
The speaker has a need to share the responsibility of the call with others.
Note that “the morning” does not mean that Justin did not take a trip overnight, or in the morning before “we” reported her missing.
Note that there are two portions of speech that are exempt from Personal, Subjective Internal dictionaries: pronouns and articles.
Pronouns are used from childhood on up and are highly reliable. Articles (“the, a, an”) are instinctive and reliable. When there is a confusion in pronouns or articles, it is likely that deception is present.
Here, we have two indicators of possible deception:
“the” and “any” as well as the pronoun “we” reported. “The” and “any” show a change in language where “the” trip may not have been able to say, without the internal stress of lying, but “any” would then become more vague, reducing the stress of lying.
It is unlikely that all three made the initial report to police, indicating a likely deception, but that the pronoun “we” is used, showed that there is a connection among the three. This is likely the three that have conspired to stay to the same story.
It should also be understood that these are the “details” of the case she addresses as in need of “some” clarity.
She claims he did not go on the, any trip, which is something that she only “feels” needs “some” clarification. If one did not go, the “detail” would be incorrect, or a lie. She does not say so, but affirms that these details are true, but only in need of clarity.
This should be considered a deceptive point in an attempt by the writer to deceive, while not wanting to lie outright.
I will never forget his reaction to finding out his daughter was not in her bed and it is something that I never want to relive.
Please note that she reports that she will never forget this but does not say what his reaction was. This should be considered suspect: she wants the audience to be impressed by what she saw, but she did not say what she saw.
SCAN deals with what people say, and what people do not say. Here she does not tell us that he was in panic, pain, helplessness, or anything else; only that she will not forget.
She does not attempt to bring any clarification but may want the audience to feel as if this was something impressive but does not give any detail. This is not to expand or explain or clarify anything and should be considered deceptively attempting to persuade rather than truthfully report.
What she saw, she does not want to reveal, but would prefer that the reader interpret her words. This should cause the reader to consider that the subject knows that his facial reaction was not something that would help Justin's case, but hurt it, and increase suspicion. There could be two types of panic:
1. missing child
2. panic over how to cover the crime
It would be plain for her to choose number one, but direct lying is stressful and is avoided whenever possible.
The reader should consider, carefully, why this sentence was added, without giving a single word to describe what she does not want to "relive."
As to the word "relive" it is not "remembered" or "recalled" but "relived." What did the subject experience that day in which she would never want to go through again?
Please compare this with prior analysis which showed that Elisha DiPietro was deceptive via withholding information, that her polygraph results are sensitive, and that police stated publicly that all "three" are deceptively withholding information. This statement is consistent with what police said. She may want to recall it, remember it, but not live through it again.
No sane person would.
He did not leave the property that morning at all.
Please note she reports in the negative and contradicts the report.
This does not bring “some” clarity to “the details” but seeks to refute it, while not being able to say “it is a lie that people said he went on a trip…”
Please note that “at all” is added and weakens the assertion.
Please note the distancing language of “that” morning. The analyst should seek to enter her personal subject internal dictionary to learn if, while the sun was not yet up, if that is “night” and not “morning” to her.
The analyst should seek to learn why the need for emphasis of “at all” is employed and why she affirmed “the details” to begin, and only “felt” that they needed “some” clarification, and not refutation.
This is a deceptive statement.
The trip to Portland happened before she went missing.
It should be considered that Justin took the trip before the sun rose that morning. This is likely a truthful statement, within a deceptive letter. Here it is “the” trip, which is consistent with “the” details and is admitting that a trip did, in fact, take place.
She avoids saying when the trip took place and employs passive language. Passivity in language is used to conceal or hide identity or responsibility. She is being deliberately vague about the time period of the trip which should cause the analyst to consider that she does not, deliberately, say when or what time the trip was, while she knows this would end any controversy.
This is a parsing of words, seeking to be technically accurate, while being deceptive.
She gives herself away.
1. She calls his trip “the details”
2. She says that these details might need some clarity
3. She does not say he did not make a trip but only limits the time period
4. She then affirms, again, that a trip took place while avoiding (withholding information) about when the trip was.
She is deliberately deceptive about the trip Justin took just prior to the report of Ayla’s disappearance. Deception indicated.