Friday, April 12, 2013

Melinda Duckett Statement Analysis of Suicide Note



Statement Analysis of the case of Melinda Ducket has shown deception on the part of Melinda Ducket regarding the disappearance of her son, Trenton, as well as knowledge of his death while missing and while police had not given indication that he was dead.  

Here, she was on the Nancy Grace Show:   MELINDA

Here was another interview:  VIDEO

In analysis, we say "let the subject guide you" which is to allow the words spoken to bring you to the subject's reality.  We note both what the subject says, and what the subject does not say. 

Melinda Duckett was upset that she was now suspected in her son's disappearance, so we may begin with the Expectation.

Expectation is what we say so that if that which is expected does not appear, we must deal with the "unexpected"; that is, with what remains. 

What would you expect the mother of a missing child who is upset about being suspected in the disappearance to say?

"I did not cause my son Trenton's disappearance."
"I did not cause my son's disappearance."

This is my expectation:  declaration of innocence in our simple formula (LSI) of a reliable denial.

It is the first thing we look for, and the first thing we note that is missing.  

If she cannot bring herself to say she didn't do it, why do her supporters?  If a person is unable or unwilling to say that she didn't do it, we are not permitted to say it for her. 

The Suicide Note:  Analysis


"Public"

  Where a person chooses to begin a note or letter is often important and sometimes will tell us the purpose of writing.  Here, she tells us who she is addressing, the public, of whom she has been accused of causing the disappearance of her son. 

"I'm sorry"

We note the words "I'm sorry" anywhere they arise, but are especially keen to them when they appear as a possible form of regret, acknowledging guilt.  We find these words, "I'm sorry" to come from the lips of the guilty, even in strange settings.  

Why?

It is to be noted that if someone is lying, their brain knows what really happened.  The brain must now choose words while attempting to deceive.  This is the imagery that comes to us from Analyst Kaaryn Gough:

Kaaryn describes words as marbles. 

Picture each word being a marble, all stored in a cabinet.  Some are red, some are blue, and the subject must choose which marble to take out of the cabinet.  

Since reality is stitched together as one, when one is deceptive, he or she must keep track of the lies told, because of the interconnection of words to reality.  If the subject wishes to lie about Point C, then Points A and B must be kept in line, and Point D must also follow.  It is simply easier to tell the truth, which is why direct lying causes internal stress.

As the person opens the cabinet door to choose a blue marble, a red one falls out, and then she reaches up with her hand to stop the marbles from falling out, which is difficult. 

This is called "leakage" as words unintentionally come out and 'give the person away.'

Always note the words "I'm sorry" from someone who is suspected of involvement. 

"Usually I plan things out" is what the subject usually does.  This is a possible indication that what happened to Trenton was inadvertent, unintentional, and not something planned.  Did he die from an accident?  Was she, in her own mind, unsuccessful in executing her plans, with the cut window wire?
The subject expresses regret at the lack of planning.  Why is this?

"Your focus came off of my son"

This is now the perfect time for her to say "I didn't do it" in the simple, reliable denial of three components:

1.  The pronoun "I"
2.  The past tense verb "didn't" or "did not"
3.  Specific to the allegation "cause my son Trent's disappearance"

This is the perfect spot for it, yet she does not bring herself to write these words.  Neither shall we write them for her. 

Note also the incomplete social introduction:  she does not say "Trent, my son"

"I love him and only wanted him safe in my arms"

Note the word "only" as what she wanted.  What happened that she was not able to keep him safe? Did you notice that "love him" is present tense, but "wanted him safe" is past tense?  She still loves him, but she "wanted" him safe. 

"in my arms" 

Did he fall?

She next admits that the words have impacted her, and blames her youth even as she speaks about how hard she has worked.  

From there, she was only able to bring herself to call reports about her "errors", but does not specify.   The suicide note does not issue a reliable denial. 

From her appearance on the Nancy Grace Show, with Statement Analysis in bold type:  

GRACE: With us also a special guest, Melinda Duckett. This is Trenton`s mom -- simply watching a movie in the next room, goes in to check on her son, he is gone. Melinda, thank you for being with us. Melinda, where was the bed in relation to the window?

MELINDA DUCKETT, MISSING BOY`S MOTHER: The bed is underneath the window.GRACE: Question. I want to talk to you about that screen. When you first went in the room, was the window still open?

It may make for good television viewing, but what is best is the simple, open-ended question, "What happened that day?" which would allow the subject to begin the question where the subject wants to.  Where a subject begins a statement is critical.  The open-ended question allows the subject to enter into the Free Editing Process, speaking for herself, using her own words.  It would have been helpful to see if, and when, she introduces the words "window, screen" and so on.  

MELINDA DUCKETT: Well, it had only been cracked about three or four inches to begin with. And second of all, when I walked in there, that`s obviously not the first thing that I was looking for.

Note "second of all" does not have a "first of all" preceding it.  Also take careful notice that she tells what she was not looking for as the "first" thing.  Anything said in the negative is important information.  
Note the word "obviously" means to take as fact without questioning. 

Updated:  Additional Analysis by Kaaryn Gough:


"And second of all, when I walked in there, that`s obviously not the first thing that I was looking for."


What was the first thing she was "looking for"? "looking for" implies "searching". Why would she be "searching" for her son when she supposedly was going in just to check on him? This suggests she had knowledge he was missing before she walked in there.

GRACE: Of course.

MELINDA DUCKETT: As soon as I saw him not in the bed, I was looking throughout the room and in the closet.

Here is an indicator of deception. Note that we are to listen to what we are told; and not interpret for her. She said "as soon as I saw him not"....This tells us that she saw him, and he was not in his bed. She would like us to interpret it as she saw an empty bed, but it is not what she said. Melinda Duckett shows an indication of deception: always note when a person tells us what they did not see, did not hear, did not think, etc, as critical information.

GRACE: Could he get out of the bed?

MELINDA DUCKETT: He`s in a toddler bed right now. He`s not in a crib. And there`s a lot of things...

Note that the question about getting out of bed is sensitive, since Melinda did not answer it.  
Notice the verb tense being present.  Is she re-living this in her mind, as she speaks?  Note that past tense references to past events help establish a commitment to truth.  Here, listening to her go to present tense language took Nancy Grace by surprise. 

GRACE: What is that? What`s a toddler bed?

MELINDA DUCKETT: I beg your pardon?

This is a confirmation of the sensitivity; she is stalling to think of an answer and has been caught off guard by the question.  This is to stall the conversation. 

GRACE: What`s a toddler bed?

MELINDA DUCKETT: Oh. It`s real low to the ground. It`s got a wooden frame on it, all soft curves and everything, soft edges, a regular crib mattress inside. Just basically what you use for an average toddler.

Note the additional information unrelated to the question. Note also that she used the description "average toddler"; something that no mother ever uses. This is an attempt to portray a "normal" situation. Every mother believes her toddler to be extraordinary and her description is a red flag that something is not
"normal" nor "average" about Melinda's choice of words.  Most mothers do not feel that their own child is "average"


Do you also notice that the description given in one in which, if a child should fall, would be okay?  It is as if she is thinking of how he could fall, and pre-empts it with this description but note that Nancy Grace did not ask if he had fallen, nor hinted that he may have fallen.

Now refer back up to the suicide note to the public. 

GRACE: Was he able to get out of it?

MELINDA DUCKETT: Yes, he was. But he was very good. He would -- you know, once he was tired, he would lay down. He wouldn`t, you know, fuss or anything. And he wouldn`t get out and, you know, start messing around or anything.


Here is the critical piece:  The mother of a missing 2 year old used past tense language; an indication that she knows he is deceased. It is an unmistakable element that Nancy Grace missed.  She has a guest on now that has seen this principle, but uses it in a backwards way:  Bethany Marshall recently said that when a mother references her child in the present tense, it proves she has no guilty knowledge of the child being dead. 

We see it differently:  The deceptive mother will seek to always use the present tense, but it is only a "slip" where her words go just a little too fast and she attempts to catch herself. 

Casey Anthony:  "Caylee loved the park.  Caylee loves the park."  She caught and 'corrected' herself. 

For mothers of missing children who gave linguistic indicator of death:

Casey Anthony, Billie Jean Dunn, Susan Smith, Misty Croslin, Deborah Bradley 
Also see:  Justin DiPietro

GRACE: Was he sleepy that night? Was he ready to go to bed, or did he resist?

Interviewers should avoid compound questions as it allows the subject to pick and choose which to answer. With Duckett's reply, we do not know to which question she is responded.
Training in interviewing is essential, but most often overlooked. In interviewing, we seek to avoid introduction of any new language; even a single word, and only use the wording of the subject.


MELINDA DUCKETT: No. Extremely. He was tired. We had had a long day out. And my son is not a light sleeper whatsoever. You can move him from room to room, and he`ll still be asleep. And on top of that, he is very friendly and very outgoing to everyone. He can walk in a room full of strangers and make friends with people. And so I mean, if he met someone new, he would start playing with them. He wouldn`t cry. He never had tantrums or anything.

Note "extremely" as unusual descriptive word for a toddler which she may have referenced above. We do not know what she references. Note also "my" son, taking ownership in response to Josh's assertion that he was a light sleeper. Note the sensitivity of "very" friendly, and "very" outgoing to "everyone". Note that he can "walk" into a room full of strangers. "And" begins a sentence meaning withheld information. Note "he met someone new" would cause investigators to attempt to learn if Melinda had recently begun dating someone new.

Note that toddlers have a healthy and protective "stranger anxiety" that is natural.  When it is absent, it is often an indicator of parental neglect. 

Mothers who have had their children removed from them by the State often boast how "mature" their toddler is, going from stranger to stranger.  It is an indication of neglect where the child learned, very early, to adjust and have no choice but to trust strange faces.  It is the absence of stranger anxiety that alarms child protective professionals even more than extreme or acute stranger anxiety.  

Introducing "never" having a "tantrum" is in the negative and important.  I've known some children to have more tantrums than others, but the word "tantrum" is introduced to us by Melinda and not NG.  Why?  This is a "marble" (Gough) that fell from her "cabinet" and in Analytical Interviewing, we note the words introduced to us, and ask follow up questions on.  This is a perfect time for Nancy Grace to explore if Trenton had a tantrum and Melinda lost her temper. 

GRACE: Where were you sitting in relation to his bedroom?

MELINDA DUCKETT: The bedroom is connected to the hallway. The living room is -- gosh, if you picture the apartment like a U shape, the front door would be at the bottom of the U shape. The living room would bed at the top left-hand corner. His bedroom would be, I guess you`d say, catty- corner...

The question is not  answered

Therefore, we cannot say that she was seated when the child went missing. This is vital in the analysis: that she was not seated while he disappeared is critical information. Ms. Grace does not recognize that the question is avoided. It is relevant to his disappearance and since lying causes internal stress, the subject avoids answering the question.

GRACE: Got it.

Nancy Grace didn't get it; she missed an essential element in the interview: where were you, Melinda, when he went missing?  Melinda Duckett avoided answering the question. 


MELINDA DUCKETT: ... from the living room.

GRACE: So you were a hallway, essentially, away from him, and the TV was going.

MELINDA DUCKETT: Quite a ways. Right. The TV`s at the other end of the living room, right.

Note that Duckett avoided answering the question and does not say where she was seated, but only tells NG where the TV is. This allows NG to assume, which is to play into Duckett's hands and is often seen in deceptive people:  they wish you would interpret their words. Note that Duckett has not told us that she was seated in the living room when the child went missing.

GRACE: OK. Last time you saw him was around 7:00, when you put him to bed. And what time...
MELINDA DUCKETT: No, that`s wrong.

GRACE: OK.

MELINDA DUCKETT: I put him to bed around 6:30. I`m not sure how technical they`re getting, but my friends arrived at 7:00. I checked on him before that.

The question, is in the form of the imperative, is that Duckett last saw him around 7PM. Duckett says "that's" wrong, and introduces the word "technical", which may indicate that she understands the suspicion of her, in particular, of the time line. Note that she does not say when the last time she saw him was. The time line is a sensitive issue, which is why she is attempting to build support.
Note that a subject should tell us what happened, and whenver a subject tells us why something happened, it should be considered sensitive. This is why the words, "so, since, therefore, because, "etc, should be flagged.
"They're wrong" shows that there is opposition in play. This speaks to the issue of unity and cooperation with investigators.  In her language, there exists a "they" and a "we"; but the two are not unified.  

Pronouns tell us so much in life. 

GRACE: Right. OK. So 6:30, you put him to bed. You went back in to check on him at what time?
Here, NG recognizes that she did not answer the question.

MELINDA DUCKETT: It was before 10 to 7:00 because that`s when I got the phone call that they said they were on their way.


note "so, since, because, therefore, etc" as sensitive; it shows the subject is attemting to prove or persuade rather than report.  Duckett has the need to explain why she checked on him which makes checking on him very sensitive.  In the realm of color coding, blue is the highest level of sensitivity.  

Note "phone call":  phones do not call, people do.  Phones, in statements, often tie the subject to the crime scene. 
With "phone" having caught your attention, please now note that she did not receive "a" phone call, but "the" phone call. 

Every human has an internal personal subjective dictionary.  There are two exceptions:  pronouns and articles. 

When an article (a, an, the...) is used out of order, deception is present. 

This phone call was not "a" phone call, but it was "the" phone call and it is very much apart of what happened to the child. 

GRACE: OK. And when did you realize he was missing?

Good question.  It is directed to Melinda, herself.  A missing baby, to a mother, is very personal and we expect her to answer as such, with the pronoun, "I."  When the pronoun "I" is avoided, commitment is reduced.  

What the parents of every teenager knows:  The pronoun "we" is used when someone wishes to share guilt.  When it is 'overused', or used repeatedly, it is a very strong signal that the subject does not want to face something alone:  

MELINDA DUCKETT: It was after the first movie that we had watched. We`d actually planned on two. We went back and we asked them what time we had called the officers, and they said, I believe, it was 9:14. So it was between that time period I`d say...

Deception indicated. 

Note that this is a mother speaking of a missing child, which means that maternal instincts are enflamed and hormonal levels would have been on high alert. We would not expect to hear the pronoun, "we" from a mother, only "I" since this is something of vital importance. The pronoun, "I" would show ownership and unshared responsibility; something entirely expected from a mother, but in particular, from a single mother. The "we" reduces commitment regarding the time line.

Whenever someone says "we called the police" it is a red flag.  The reason?
It is very rare that more than one person actually called the police.  Few exceptions are when two or more calls were made, with one person calling first, and the other person calling back again.  Other than this rare exception, it is an indication that deception is in play.  It is very unlikely that Melinda dialed "9" and handed the phone to someone else who dialed "1", and then handed the phone back to Melinda who hit the last "1" and then both leaned in and spoke to the 911 operator at the same time. 

"We" did not make the call.  Some one made the call.  Here we have the need to share. 

GRACE: So only...

MELINDA DUCKETT: ... 10 or 15 minutes before.
Duckett does not wait but interrupts out of impatience.

GRACE: About two-and-a-quarter hours...

MELINDA DUCKETT: Right.GRACE: ... is all that had passed since you had checked on him? Now, it`s my understanding thought he was hiding, and you started looking for him.


This is also compounded and should be avoided. 

MELINDA DUCKETT: Yes. He had just learned how to open up the closet door that morning. And I thought that it was, you know, really a moment, like a Kodak moment, there. So that was the first place that I looked. The window, the rest of the room -- there`s nothing there for him to hide or anything, so I didn`t even think about it. And he`s not one to go under the bed or anything like that.

Note that she tells us what she did not think.  Truthful people tell us what they thought. 
The word "And" at the beginning of a sentence indicates missing information between sentences. 

Note that when someone has a need to exlain "why" they did something, when answered "what?", it is very sensitive to the subject.  Here, she has the need to tell us "why" she looked first in one place, and then tells us "why" she "didn't even think" (in the negative).  

Taken together, we can conclude that she is being deceptive. 

"That" day: distancing language.  How about "that" for bad luck?

When someone tells us what didn't happen, what wasn't said, what wasn't thought, we are looking at high sensitivity and possible deception. Here, she tells us what she didn't think (note bold type for emphasis). 

We note "you know" as a pause to think during a sensitive moment.

"Kodak moment" and "moment" enter the language. The interviewer should simply make note of it, and look for opportunity to ask questions about cameras, video, or anything related to Melinda Duckett and cameras, pictures, video, pornography, etc...anything related should have been explored and if police were listening, would also take note.


GRACE: Now, when did you notice the screen on the window slashed?

MELINDA DUCKETT: Well, when -- after I checked out his room, I checked the bathroom and my room, which are right down the hallway, which he could have gotten to without me seeing him.

The question of time is once again avoided: when did you notice the screen? is the question and it is not answered; instead she told NG that she checked the bathroom and her room after checking his room, but avoided giving an answer about the screen. This non-answer indicates sensitivity and should be revisited by the Interviewer.

GRACE: Right.

MELINDA DUCKETT: Like I say, he doesn`t ever do that kind of thing, so it would have been extremely unusual, but you know, when you`re in panic, you, you know, want to check every possible thing there is. When I came back up the hallway, I looked in his room again, and there was actually a picture that had been on the windowsill and that had fallen. And that`s why I looked to the window because there`s curtains and everything else there. So it`s not like, you know, it`s just open to the world.

"Like I say" is self-referencing, meaning that the subject is not working from personal, experiential memory, but from her prior account and is not reliable.  It is usually heard in "like I said" but here, she is in the present tense. It is unusual. 

Note that she tells us what the child doesn't do; via negation.
"you know" is repeated; sensitive within itself, but sensitive again due to repetition. NG is at a critical point in the interview.
"when you're in panic" is 2nd person. She does not say she was in a panic, so we cannot say she was in a panic.
"actually" is a word used to compare two thoughts. 'do you like vanilla? actually, I like chocolate" which compares two thoughts.
then she said "it's open to the world"; this is a red flag since mothers and fathers protect their children "from the world" which is a dangerous place, especially to a child. That the window was "open to the world" may be that in the subject's eyes, she opened the window of the world up; and gave her son to that dangerous world, or is now free and open to go to that world. The exact reason is not known, but with her wording comes follow up questions by a trained interviewer to uncover what she meant by employing these unusual words. Given the circumstances, it is likely not good. Note that windows and doors entering language has been associated with child abuse and/or neglect.

GRACE: Melinda, the window -- you said when you put him to bed, the window was up about three inches. What position was the window in when you saw it again?

MELINDA DUCKETT: Gosh...

We would expect to hear that a mother on full alert would know exactly the position of the window since her child is missing. Here she is stalling to answer.


MELINDA DUCKETT: ... the window was open, and the screen -- I know they have taken measurements. It was cut up, up to 10 inches on one of the sides. and that screen -- it is not a hard-wire screen, where you`re going to get cut by it if you touch it. It is very soft. It`s very old because it`s been in that apartment complex. And so for them to say, Well, you know, we think that, you know, he`s fine and all this other kind of stuff, you`re not going to get hurt on that thing.

Note the reference to "they" have taken measurements.  She is not unified with investigators:  She is not working with them to locate her child; she is working in opposition to them. 

Sentences that begin with "And" indicate missing information. What is "all this other kind of stuff" she references? It would require follow up questions. 

note the need to explain the window screen.  
GRACE: OK, question. Did the person -- I mean, did they take the screen off in order to get the boy out?

Nancy Grace has a very negative attitude towards Melinda Duckett. She does not believe her.  Nancy usually heaps lots of praise on a mother in order to get her back on the show.  Here, she is angry and it is seen in the unusual avoidance of the child's name.  

MELINDA DUCKETT: No. No, and I don`t know why all these things are coming up. It was in the window. All it was was cut along the sides and the bottom. There was nothing that was missing.

The defensive posture is obviously noted, but within this statement, there is deception.
Note the repetition and tells us what she doesn't know nor define what "all these things" are that are coming up. "All it was" is minimizing, and she stated that "nothing" was missing.
Note that her son was said to be "missing".
Note her language that there "was" nothing that was missing; meaning that it is a negation: similar to "nothing happened"; here, she indicates that her son was not "missing", meaning that she may have knowledge what happened to him and where he was; so that to her, nothing was missing.

GRACE: OK. Was the cut -- you said 10 inches?
NG should ask the question without reminding her of a prior response allowing her to self reference.

MELINDA DUCKETT: Yes. When they came in, the investigators, they measured everything, and they said it was 10 inches high.
Note that she said that "they" said it was 10 inches, not that Melinda said it.

GRACE: OK. I`m just -- so you think the person went in and out leaving the screen on the window?MELINDA DUCKETT: Well, I don`t think it came off at all...GRACE: OK. Got it.

MELINDA DUCKETT: ..because it was still there. They dusted everything for fingerprints. Unless someone was wearing gloves or whatnot, they wouldn`t have been able to do that. And we`ve gone over this a million and one times and thought of all the possibilities with it.

This is a very strong signal that the mother is concealing information and wants the flow of information to stop. 

We heard this from many other guilty parents where what is said may sound like, "that's all I know", "I have looked everywhere"; "I told police everything..." and so on.  No matter how it is worded, when a parent wants the information flow to stop, they often indicate this by claiming to have no further information. 

An innocent parent does not say "I told them everything" because the innocent parent loses sleep trying to remember any or everything possible, often waking up and calling police with something that came to mind.  Innocent parents 'camp out' in front of police stations; that is, they contact them over and over as the anxiety destroys them. 

Note that exaggeration is employed. Note also that Melinda Duckett shows no hope for her son because "all" of the possibilities have been already thought of. We would not expect an innocent parent to shut down any possible thought to regain a child.

If one has told "everything", there is nothing else to say.
If one has searched "everywhere", there is no place left to search. 

GRACE: So you think the screen stayed on the window and the person came in and out, out that window. Was there any other entrance to the bedroom, other than that window and the door?

MELINDA DUCKETT: No. There aren`t.

JOSH DUCKETT: It would have to be somebody that`s cold-hearted, I mean, to take somebody`s little kid away from them.

GRACE: Out to Trenton`s father, Josh Duckett. Have you taken a polygraph?

JOSH DUCKETT: Yes.
Note the economy of words is associated with truth. "Yes" is the simplest and most straight forward answer.

GRACE: You pass it?


JOSH DUCKETT: They didn`t say whether you pass or fail, but the response was favorable, they said
This is standard procedure for many departments.

GRACE: What questions did they ask you on the polygraph?


JOSH DUCKETT: Just if I knew where he was, if I had anything to do with it, just everyday questions that they would ask in case like this.


"just" is reduction; showing that the polygraph is a very simple procedure of plain questions asked. 

These are the basic questions.  I would like readers to picture this scenario:

your child is missing. 
You did not cause her disappearance. 

When you go into the police station, you are told, "Here are the questions you are going to be asked:

1.  Is your name Mrs Smith?
2.  Did you cause your child's disappearance?
3.  Is today Wednesday?
4.  Do you know where your child is?
5.  Are you telling me the truth?"

Then, you are asked the exact same questions; that is, no surprise questions, again, while your vitals are monitored. 

Would you want to avoid taking this test?

Would you think you should take a tranquilizer to help you pass the test?

GRACE: Did they strap you into the machine?

JOSH DUCKETT: Yes.

GRACE: Who was there?
JOSH DUCKETT: FBI agents.
GRACE: Did you have a lawyer with you?


JOSH DUCKETT: No.

GRACE: Did you feel like you needed a lawyer?

JOSH DUCKETT: No, not at all.


Note the additional words; it may be that now that he is on the NG Show, he may have thought he has a need for an attorney.

GRACE: Do you currently have lawyer?
JOSH DUCKETT: No.

notice the difference to the above?  I wonder if he had any concerns that Melinda might try to blame him?

GRACE: Out to Melinda Duckett. This is Trenton`s mom.   Melinda, have you taken a polygraph?

A simple "yes or no" question:  "Melinda, have you taken a polygraph?"

MELINDA DUCKETT: I`ve spoken to the investigators, and Joshua is on the outside loop of it, and as far as the investigative techniques are concerned with polygraph, stress test, physical searches, interviews, et cetera, my family and I have fully cooperated with local law enforcement and...

Note the simple question: have you taken a polygraph?

 Instead of a direct answer, Duckett avoids an answer yet employs the word "polygraph"; denoting that this is a highly sensitive subject: lying or telling the truth. 

When someone does not answer a question, the question is sensitive. 

Update:  Do you recall Joe Tacopina being asked about the searching of Baby Lisa's home? 

 He said that his clients had "fully" cooperated, making "cooperation" a sensitive topic.  We later learned that police were not permitted to search the bedroom, but were restricted to outside the bedroom window and near a door, but were given actual limitations for searching. 

A cadaver dog hit on human decomposition at (near) Deborah Bradley's bedroom. 

Back to Melinda's answer:

1.  She avoids answering the question
2.  She seeks to insult or point towards Joshua 
3.  She mentions her family's cooperation before her own. 
4.  Their cooperation, which includes Melinda's is described as "fully" making "cooperation" sensitive, just as it was for Joe Tacopina. 

Nancy Grace notes that the question is avoided: 

GRACE: Have you taken a polygraph?

MELINDA DUCKETT: ... the federal and everything...

In Statement Analysis, when a question is avoided, it is sensitive. 

We have a saying: if the subject refuses to answer, the subject has answered.  

Question:  Justin DiPietro, how did you do on your polygraph?

Answer:  They never showed me the results.

Later, when pressed:  "I smoked it" is to avoid saying "I passed it."

MELINDA DUCKETT: And locally, they don`t have enough necessary experience, and that`s why the FBI was called in to begin with. I`ve been instructed to only speak with them, with their unit, and anything that they release to the media or public is up to them. Now, as far as...

note the judgement: "necessary" experience
Note also the passive language, "I've been instructed" conceals identity.  

She continued to avoid answering the question.  Nancy Grace has the scent of deception:

GRACE: Have you taken a polygraph?


This is a very plain question but the tension is increasing.  This answer reveals principles we have talked about many times here: 

MELINDA DUCKETT: ... or anything -- like I said, I mean, anything that do or anything is in cooperation with them. I`m doing everything they want me to. But as far as details and everything, I mean, I`m leaving everything up to them.

"Like I said" means she is not working from experiential memory, but from memory of what she said earlier. 
"With":  the word "with" when found between people indicates distance.  "I went shopping with Heather" shows distance.  
"Heather and I went shopping" is more unified.  (in the first sentence, I didn't want to go). 
She has "I" and "them" separated by the word "with" showing that she is distant from investigators. 

She is not doing "everything" but "everything they want me to" which would include taking a polygraph. 

The question "Did you take a polygraph?" is not what she is avoiding, but if you listen to the questions to Trenton's father, you will note that she expected to be asked a follow up question:

Did you take a polygraph?

Yes.

"How did you do?"

GRACE: Right. Have you taken a polygraph?

MELINDA DUCKETT: I`ve done everything they`ve asked me to.

Melinda Duckett would not answer the question.  She even violated the 'rule of three' where when asked the same question three times, a person will usually answer. This puts her in the statistically category of hostile.  She is not cooperating with anyone but herself. 

Nancy Grace does a good job staying with the question. Melinda Duckett knows that she is caught and should have known prior to agreeing to be on the show that this question would be asked. For Josh to use the word "just", shows that the test was simple, easy, and his answers show no sensitivity indicators (except the slight increase about an attorney). We can conclude that Josh told NG the truth and Melinda is being deceptive about:
time line
her location in proximity to the child
her own lack of truth telling.
Nancy Grace would have done well to use the same line of questioning with Tiffany Hartley and the polygraph.

commercial break
GRACE: Can you help us find this little boy, Trenton Duckett, apparently taken from his own home in Florida, his mom watching a movie in the next room, between the hours of 7:00 and 9:00 PM on a Sunday evening, the window screen found slashed about 10 inches.
To Melinda Duckett, Trenton`s mom. Could they tell if it was slashed from the outside? Have you asked them?

MELINDA DUCKETT: No, honestly, that never came to mind. I mean, there wouldn`t have been anyone in my house.


Note deceptive answer. She uses "honestly" along with what wasn't thought; two indicators in one sentence.  When someone says "I will be honest with you" it is an admission that they have not been.

GRACE: Are they taking prints on it?

MELINDA DUCKETT: They`ve already -- right, they did two. One the police department did and then I believe one the FBI did.

Note that she did not complete her sentence; we cannot say that she said prints were taken because she has not told us so.

GRACE: Melinda, my producers tell me police say they offered you a polygraph and you haven`t taken it yet.

MELINDA DUCKETT: Well, I`m not sure what the police are doing. I`m not working with the police. But everything with the FBI is being handled.

Note her own words: "I'm not working with the police" whereas innocent parents will work with anyone, at any time, and push as many people to work with as possible.
1.  Not working:  is in the negative
2.  "With" shows distance
3.  "is being handled" is passive.  Passive language seeks to conceal identity or responsibility.  

The mother of a 'missing' child is uncooperative and will not answer questions and she is deceptive. 

A deceptive mother of a missing child has the need to be deceptive. 

GRACE: Have the FBI offered you a polygraph?

MELINDA DUCKETT: I beg your pardon?

GRACE: Have the FBI offered you a polygraph?

MELINDA DUCKETT: Everything that they have done (INAUDIBLE) and asked and everything, we`ve cooperated with. Just like with my husband, obviously, you know, there`s nothing coming up with anything.

Deception indicated.  Follow the pronouns.  She was asked a direct question, "Have the FBI offered YOU a polygraph?" in which she answered with the pronoun, "we" instead of "I."

GRACE: To Josh Duckett. That`s Trenton`s father. You say the FBI poly-ed you?

JOSH DUCKETT: Yes.

GRACE: Did they offer it to you or tell you you had to do it?


JOSH DUCKETT: They offered it to me. They asked if I`d do it voluntarily, that they couldn`t make me do it, and I voluntarily done it.


GRACE: To Melinda Duckett, Trenton`s mom, was it already dark at 7:00 p.m. there?

MELINDA DUCKETT: Honest to goodness I don`t remember. But I do know that when the investigators came in to do the visuals and everything, when they leaned in through the window they could hit the bed. God forbid if Trenton was up or something like that and he was standing up or what not. Nobody would need to crawl in the window. I don`t know if that would be a possibility or not, they`ve already gone over that. But the people, I mean they`d stretch in there and they`d be perfectly fine getting in and out.

Note the need to emphasize as the language of deceptive people as she adds in "honest" in her vocabulary.  Before you dismiss it as "only" a "figure of speech" or a "habit", we agree. 

It is only a figure of speech, or a habit. 

Statement Analysis notices when such habits arise...

and when they don't. 

Statement Analysis notes carefully what questions provoke a figure of speech to enter the vocabulary, and what questions do not. 

Note body posture, "up" and "standing up" under the banner of "God forbid" in correlation to the suicide note and "arms."

Mark Klass spoke next and avoided the issue of Melinda's deception, leading to the next guest, one known for speaking plainly: 


GRACE: I want to go out to Vito Colucci, private investigator with Colucci Investigations. Vito, when does the FBI get brought in on a case like that?

COLUCCI: Well in this case they got brought in right away and I`m glad because when you have, sometimes if you have a smaller police department like you know Nancy, they throw up their hands, they say we`re in over our head, come in and help us. You know, so that`s what`s going on. I`m very glad of that. And even the police department -- don`t forget, there`s 50 sex offenders within five miles of this house. They`re interviewing them, re-interviewing them. They`re not locked in on any tunnel vision. These cops are doing a good job. They didn`t graduate from the Boulder Colorado Police Academy. These people are good, they`re doing a good job. But I`m telling you Nancy, one and one is not adding up to two on this case.

GRACE: What do you mean by that?

COLUCCI: Well what I mean is, I`ll give you one possibility that I know the police are looking at. There`s a possibility the child wasn`t in that bed to start with. The two adults that were in that house that night did not see the child at all. So if I`m the lead investigator I`m going to interview everybody, like I said, not pointing the finger at anybody. Father, mother, relatives, I want to know if there is any drug use, I want to know everything that`s going on, on both sides. This is a bitter nasty divorce but these people need to get on the same page. Father says the child is a light sleeper that would cry and scream. The mother says a heavy sleeper, would go with anybody. You have to answer a lot of questions for me if I`m the investigator on this.

Vito is attempting to not point the finger at Melinda, but we note anything and everything said in the negative.  
In his simple math, he is, indeed, pointing directly at Melina. This is not lost on Nancy, who then turns back to her: 

GRACE: To Melinda Duckett, Trenton`s mom, who were the two guys that came over that evening?

MELINDA DUCKETT: All they were, were friends. In fact one was going off in the military for years afterwards, the next day.

GRACE: Have they been questioned?

MELINDA DUCKETT: Yes, they have.

GRACE: Did they take polygraphs?

MELINDA DUCKETT: I don`t know.


She does not want to touch this one at all costs. 

GRACE: Have you spoken to them since they were questioned?

MELINDA DUCKETT: One of my friends I have, the other one completely disappeared.

GRACE: Where did he go?

MELINDA DUCKETT: I have no clue.

It is an answer I never accept in an interview.  Is it true that she has "no" clue?  

GRACE: Is that the one that went overseas?

MELINDA DUCKETT: No.

 

GRACE: What about that to Josh Duckett, Trenton`s dad. Did you know one of these friends had disappeared?

JOSH DUCKETT: No, not to my knowledge.

After the word "no" his additional words are sensitive.  It appears that he does not want to insult Melinda. 

GRACE: Let`s go out to the lawyers, David Schwartz, Nicole Deborde, both of them veteran defense attorneys. Joining us out of the New York and the Houston jurisdictions. To David Schwartz, how do you approach a case like this? And are you surprised that everybody hasn`t lawyered up?

DAVID SCHWARTZ, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yeah I`m very surprised. Especially I`m very surprised that Melinda hasn`t lawyered up. I mean her answers to your questions are elusive at times and one in particular is that she`s not working with local police. You know you`re in this situation, it`s a horrible tragic situation, now you`re going to pick and choose what law enforcement agencies you`re going to work with and what you`re not going to work with? This is a desperate situation for desperate measures. You`re going to be working with everybody. That answer makes absolutely no sense to me, Nancy.

GRACE: Explain, Melinda. I`m sure you have an answer. Melinda Duckett, Trenton`s mom.

MELINDA DUCKETT: All four of those agencies, Leesburg Police, Lake County Sheriff, the FBI from Quantico and the FBI from Ocala, none of them are on the same page. The FBI out of Ocala specifically told me to only speak to them and to deal with them so that all of them could be on the same page with everything. And it was ridiculous because people were getting their facts wrong, they were misinterpreting things and they weren`t getting the information across correctly. That was their fault.

The passive language conceals "what" things were being "misinterpreted" by "people" (but not which people).  This is a perfect time for her to straighten them all out with the truth.  She will not give the truth. 
Nancy puts Josh on the line: 
GRACE: Did you also get that same lecture, Josh Duckett, to only deal with one entity?

JOSH DUCKETT: No, not at all.

GRACE: Have you been working with local police, as well?

JOSH DUCKETT: I`ve been working with local police, FDLE and the FBI.

GRACE: So Melinda, do you feel that you are being given different instructions than your husband?

MELINDA DUCKETT: Well obviously that is the case, but I mean, I`m all hands in the pot with this whole deal. I`m not sitting down either crying my eyes out in my house not doing anything or gluing myself to the police department door. I`m actually physically doing things.

Note that she reports what she is not doing first: she is not crying her eyes out.  

This does not likely sit well with parents reading or hearing her statement. 

Doing "physical" things may be intended to insult Josh. 
GRACE: Tell me what you`re doing?

MELINDA DUCKETT: In addition to all the flyers and everything, we`ve done -- we`ve dealt with the media many, many, many times, with the FBI on this case, with obviously the chain letters that are going through across the internet and everything trying to spread it out as far as we possible can. Not only that, but with our local churches, there`s prayer groups and everything like that. Also, one other thing, as far as the lawyers go, we have been ongoing for two years with this. Joshua does have a lawyer and I also have one.

Note:  she avoids saying what she did, in the lengthy answer, only what "we" would have done, or "we" had done.  The only thing that caused her to use the easiest of all pronouns, "I" is about having a lawyer. 

GRACE: For your divorce?

MELINDA DUCKETT: No, for the entire thing. For the custody and everything and for the injunction.

Josh is not lawyered up but Melinda is a habitual liar and attempts to portray him as if he does.  She is deceptive.  Nancy Grace caught this and was able to clarify what Melinda attempted to cloud: 

GRACE: Ok. Josh, it`s my understanding you guys have had a very, very bitter split but I`m talking about lawyers as they relate to the disappearance of your son. You don`t have a lawyer for that, right, Josh?

JOSH DUCKETT: No. I don`t have a lawyer for anything to do with the disappearance of my son.


GRACE: Out to Lillian Glass, psychologist. Dr. Glass, you have taken a hard look at the facts in this case. What`s your opinion?

LILLIAN GLASS, PSYCHOLOGIST: Well, one of the things that the father said that was very powerful. He said it cook a cold hearted person to do this, to take this boy from his home. And in child development the first five years are so important and this child will suffer the rest of his life for this.

Lillian Glass used "Analytical Interviewing" technique intuitively by simply picking up on a word or phrase, and honing in on it skillfully.  It would be interesting to ask Josh to describe Melinda.  Chances are, eventually, you and I would hear the word "cold" in his vocabulary. 

The lack of stranger anxiety in the child speaks to Neglect.  
Neglect proceeds from the extinguishing of the natural maternal warmth that flows from mothers. 

Lillian is politely agreeing with Josh:  Trenton's mother is of a very cold heart.  She is not home crying her eyes out.  

GRACE: Welcome back, everybody. Tonight won`t you help us find a 2- year-old missing boy out of Florida. Trenton Duckett, reportedly taken from his own home as he lay in his crib. His mom in the next room watching a movie. With us on the phone, his mom, Melinda Duckett. Melinda, tell us about the baby. Tell us about him. You say he`s friendly and he would have gone with someone?

MELINDA DUCKETT: Extremely. He`s great with any kind of people, old, young, even little kids. He`s very playful and very, very intelligent. He learns on the drop of a dime.

There are two signals of neglect:
1.  The lack of stranger anxiety
2.  The praise of how he learns "on a dime."
They must not be separated. 

Neglected children do often learn to change their own diapers, make their own meals, and do some very advanced things for themselves because they have had to do these things. 

This is where we have mothers who have lost their children to the state boast not only how their child goes with anyone, but how many great things the child can do on his own, as if the mother taught the child how to make his own breakfast. 

In a way, she did. 

By laying on the couch, for example, the hunger pains drove the child to learn. 

By screaming at him, the child later learned to pick up after himself. 

I have literally seen children taken away from their mothers who did not even stop to say 'good bye' to Mommy.  
GRACE: You stated you`ve been putting up fliers, where?

Melinda did not say she was putting up flyers in her previous answer.  Will she here?  

Statement Analysis teaches you to listen to the words a person chooses: 
MELINDA DUCKETT: We`ve been putting up flyers in restaurants and stores. We recently went down to discount and they`re doing a television ad throughout the nation on their commercials like that. Where I used to work we have trucks that go out and they`re putting flyers on the back of the trucks laminating them, different things like that. And even at church we`re putting fliers in the bulletins.

GRACE: Melinda, where had you been with him that day?

This is what should have been asked in the beginning of the show:  Where were "you", with the name, Melinda, added for personal emphasis: 
MELINDA DUCKETT: All we had basically been out is driving around. There is something about a convenience store. I don`t know where that came into play because whenever I go out somewhere, you know, I always have gas. I`m not shorthanded with anything. And I`m always prepared for it all.

She avoided the question.  Where she had been during the day is directly related to Trenton's disappearance.  
"Basically" indicates there is more to the story but she is withholding it. 
GRACE: So where had you been that day?

MELINDA DUCKETT: We had been all through Lake county and up into Orange.

GRACE: Doing what?

MELINDA DUCKETT: Basically just shopping, going around driving.

GRACE: Shopping where?

MELINDA DUCKETT: Well we didn`t go anywhere specific.

Deception 

GRACE: Well I mean if you went shopping you had to go into a store. What store did you go into on Sunday?

MELINDA DUCKETT: We went throughout the county.

GRACE: Any store? I`m thinking of video cameras Melinda. I mean maybe they have a picture of someone watching you, following you back out to your car. I mean what store did you go to, Wal-Mart, JCPenney`s, what?

MELINDA DUCKETT: I`m not going to get in any specifics.

GRACE: Why?

MELINDA DUCKETT: Because I`m not dealing with media very well.

GRACE: Well can you remember where you were that day?

Liars can bear almost anything except being called a liar.  By calling in memory to play, it is coming very close to accusing her of lying:  

MELINDA DUCKETT: I can remember perfectly well where I went that day. Just like I have spoken to the FBI with it. But as far as anything else goes we haven`t had very good dealings with any of them.

Notice how the challenge produced the pronoun, "I"?  
Notice also that "just like I have spoken to the FBI with" is an indiction that she did not speak to the FBI from memory, but from a script, and she is, now on television, referring back to the script she gave the FBI, not to the experiential memory of where she was, and what she did. 

This challenge gave the pronoun, "I" its sudden emergence from hiding. 

Pronouns are instinctive. 
Pronouns are reliable. 
Learn pronouns and you will learn to detect deception. 
GRACE: Well don`t you think it would be a great idea, for instance if you were at a local JCPenney`s or Sears Roebuck to tell the viewers right now this is where we were. Did you see anything? Did you notice anything? Here`s your child`s picture? Here`s my picture. Help me. Where were you? Why aren`t you telling us where you were that day, you were the last person to be seen with him?

MELINDA DUCKETT: And we have already gone out and distributed the fliers and spoken to --

GRACE: Right, why aren`t you telling us and giving us a clear picture of where you were before your son was kidnapped?

MELINDA DUCKETT: Because I`m not going to put those kind of details out?

GRACE: Why?

MELINDA DUCKETT: Because I was told not to.

passivity means she is withholding the identity of the person who told her not to.  The person was not police, but may have been her own advice to herself. 

GRACE: Ms. Duckett, you are not telling us for a reason. What is the reason? You refuse to give even the simplest facts of where you were with your son before he went missing. It is day 12.

MELINDA DUCKETT: (INAUDIBLE) with all media. It`s not just there, just all media. Period.

GRACE: Let`s go to Dr. Lillian Glass, psychologist. Weak spots?

GLASS: This doesn`t make any sense to me. And the fact that she`s skirting around the issue and can`t get to the point concerns me a lot. Her reaction is not the typical reaction of a mother who has a missing child, whose child was taken from the bed when she says I don`t cry my eyes out. Most people would be emotional about it and the fact that she`s been skirting the issue through this entire interview concerns me.
Dr. Glass is not one to mince words. The behavior of the mother raised questions, but her answers, according to Statement analysis, show deception.

Melinda Duckett was deceptive and showed knowledge that her son was dead. 

27 comments:

Shelley said...

Outside of the SA peice of it, if your child is missing, your concern is about finding then.

Not worrying about what others are saying about you.

Your child could be suffering. So what, someone says mean things about you?

If that is not clear cut I dont know what is.

Anonymous said...

Hey Shelly are you in LE? If so how common is SA practiced by LE, and do they know how to find truth in statements? Are there skilled professionals behind the scenes that have ability in SA?

Peter Hyatt said...

Shelly, that is the point.

Good post.

Anonymous said...

Peter and Shelly, I'm wondering if SA is a requirement for all branches of LE? my confidence in LE is fading...cases where there are obvious criminal statements being made, including underlying story arcs, yet years go by, and LE ignores the words!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

I hate murderers!LE ignoring SA is allowing them to win! LE needs to employ more SA experts!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Statement validity assessments are common practise but the results are not admissible in a court of law

Statement validity assessments are also an integrated component of the polygraph and polygraphing is common practise but the results are not admissible in a court of law

Peter Hyatt said...

Yet, here we are, reading.

It may not be admissible in court, but it is sure nice to get to the truth of things.

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous losing confidence:

The training is offered all over, and there are those who complete the training, but without practice, there is no benefit. The benefit is seen in the interview, and when an interview brings out truth, a confession may follow.

Skilled prosecutors use Statement Analysis in the courtroom, on the fly, just as Nancy Grace did, when she noted that Melinda avoided the question.

Polygraphs are not admissible, unless stipulated by both parties, but they are helpful in getting to the truth.

There is a large loss of confidence in law enforcement and it is for many reasons.

You would be pleased to witness an analytical interview live, by a skilled LE investigator but then perhaps feel disappointed when the investigator hands over the case to a prosecutor who shakes in her boots at the thought of facing a private, high powered attorney in court, so she blames the investigator for not getting enough info for her.

Randie said...

It has always bothered me when she says: "the phone call".......

Her son wouldn't stay in bed. When she found him again out of bed, she got mad and out of control. She hurt her son. He died. She called for help or went and got help. When she got "the" call they were on their way....it was a releif to her.

BostonLady said...

I agree Shelley. The focus should be on the missing child and not worried about yourself. I believe it speaks volumes about the parent who is more worried about their own reputation.

Jeff said...

I had forgotten about this case, and had never before read this wealth of information. It is disheartening to see Nancy Grace was blamed for Melinda Duckett's suicide - yet another case where somebody wants to lay blame because of the $$$ it may bring. Nancy asked the same questions she always asks, and since other of her interviewees aren't committing suicide, it should be a further signal - Melinda Duckett's obvious deception aside - Nancy Grace did nothing wrong. From what I read in today's account, Ms. Duckett was clearly involved in the disappearance of her son. I read some of her other suicide notes on another blog, and when added to the information presented here, offers illuminating reading. I presume Peter may cover that additional information at another time.

Trigger said...

I don't think that Melissa Duckett would have ever admitted the truth about the fate of her son Trent.

She had so many opportunities to answer a simple yes or no about the poly, about what stores that she visited, and who she had with her.

"I'm not crying my eyes out" was something that I would have not expected to hear from a mother who had a missing child.
The tears would flow in streams down my face coupled with wailing if my toddler was missing and I thought that someone had taken him from his room. I would be inconsolable.

Jimbob said...

With 2300 people missing every day,it makes more sence to me that only a handfull of the cases stand out,now I see why.They never say "I didn't do it",and here is one I notice they say alot "I don't know"

Anonymous said...

Justin was hiding in his bathroom and wouldn't come out when his daughter Ayla went missing

bigmtn said...

Justin where is Ayla. Three can keep a secret if 2 are dead. The truth will come out.

I think about Ayla daily. Justin sacrificed his baby for a lousy 25 grand and all because he is a worthless piece of garbage that refuses to get a job and be a real man. He doesn't know the meaning of being a man.

I/we will never forget Ayla. Hear that dipets and cohorts in crime?

Trigger said...

I have interviewed many LE officers in California and asked them how accurate the polygraph is in detecting lies.

All of those that I talked with said that the poly has proven to be accurate and effective for a long time.

According to Nancy Grace, Melinda Duckett purchased a shot gun two days before Trent went missing. She took Trent and the new gun on a nature walk through a swampy area before he went missing.

Also, Melinda like Billie Dunn "starred" in her own porn videos. Did Melinda suffer abuse in childhood, like Billie?



Anonymous said...

Trigger said...
LE officers in California and asked them how accurate the polygraph is in detecting lies.
How about hypnosis?

Lis said...

A few more of my thoughts on her note:

"You created rumors and twisted words"

-Melinda does not deny that she was deceptive or try to set the record straight. She is angry because she did not control the information successfully and now people are going to see through her.
-passivity with 'created rumors' and 'twisted words'
-she does not address any specific 'rumors' or words that were supposedly twisted
-She does not take ownership: not twisted MY words just twisted 'words'
-'twisting words' does not mean a lie was told it simply means her words were not used the way she had planned for them to be, she lost control of her words, they were used in a way she did not want them to be

"Usually I am strong and what others say does not affect me"

-what is said in the negative is important.
-what does "usually" mean to the subject? what percent of the time is 'usually'?
-she is strongly affected by what others say

"However, I am young, have worked my ass off and still being faced with ridicule and critisism [sic]"

-"however" refutes what was said before; she is not strong and what others say does affect her
-ridicule and criticism are sensitive subjects to the writer. I suspect she has faced a great deal of criticism and ridicule, perhaps in her upbringing or in her school experience.
-'still' means she has faced ridicule and criticism before - being young and working her ass off were apparently expected to change that?
-she brings being young into her excuse, what does being young have to do with it? Is this usually an excuse that takes the spotlight off of her?
-profanity used indicates an increase in tension and anger "I have worked my ass off" this seems like the most heartfelt statement in the note, the anger is allowed to bubble out.
-what does working hard have to do with the situation? If she is young and has 'worked her ass off' should that give her a pass or mean others have no right to question her?

"I only wish you do not push anyone else"

-not 'falsely accuse' but "push"

"I do not bleed my emotions to the public and throughout this situation you did not understand that."

-another statement in the negative that indicates sensitivity. The subject is sensitive about her emotions and about "bleeding" them "to the public." She does not want the public to know what she is thinking and feeling; her emotions are carefully guarded. Again I wonder if she faced a lot of criticism and ridicule growing up and learned to hide her feelings?
-Why the choice of the word "bleeding"? is this a "marble" that has leaked out?


"There were many more errors you made in understanding me"

-people who are being dishonest will often take great offense at a small factual error made by someone who sees through their dishonesty
-the errors were in "understanding me"

"but time is short and I have more important people to speak to"

-time is short cuts off the flow of information; perhaps the subject had to cut things short before she said too much
-having more important people to speak to is an insult, the subject is angry and wants to insult her accuser and minimize their importance, however, it gives the impression of the opposite- that the person is, indeed, very important.

I feel that Melinda Duckett was fiercely proud and could not bear being exposed to the general public. There was nowhere left for her to hide.

Shelley said...

No, I'm in Human Resources.

Shelley said...

I am obsessed with SA. My mother is a liar. And so much of what you describe I feel like describes her to a T!

I was the child that was alaways aware when questiones were not answered of aware when things didn't make sense because of my mom.

I just never realized till about a year ago there was an actual study!


My mom has disowned everyone in her family, including me for calling her on lies. She would rather sit alone than just own it. Even lies that serve no purpose.

Shelley said...

And a parent worried about there child out there is not ending her life!

I could see if they found the body abd dealing with the fact your child is gone.... But if he was out there... Your basically leaving him to fend for himself!

To blame anyone for her taking her life is just the family looking to blame someone rather than face the fact that she killed her own child.

Maytruthprevail said...

Your hearts are good but you are wrong about Melinda Duckett. And you are wrong about Josh Duckett. Josh lied and Melinda was bakeracted all to get custody of Trenton and NOT pay child support. He admitted that lie and filed an affidavit in the Sumter County Florida Circuit Court. He admitted that Melinda was a good mother and not crazy and would never hurt Trenton and that he did this under the influence of his mother Carla Massero. Because he was mad at Melinda. And because his mother wanted Melinda to NOT have control over her son Josh. The same scenerio is now repeating itself with Josh Duckett's other son and his son's mother. He impregnated her when Trenton was missing 6 months Josh was 22 and she was a junior in high school. Today Josh and his mother Carla are repeating the same harassments against this mother and her now 5 year old son. They are calling DCF, accusing her of doing Meth, prostitution, and putting a knife to the boy's throat. Sound familiar? It should. It's the same stuff they threw at Melinda. Since you put up the Nancy Grace interview, look also at the one where Nancy Grace talks to Josh Duckett about the pornography. He was shocked by it. Melidna in porn movies. What he failed to say was that HE Josh Duckett was the CO Star of that porn movie. It's not about the movie. It's about the lie. The lie about the baker act, the lies to DCF and the lie about the porn. But Josh passed the lie detector test. That's because he believes his own lies. I invite you to read my blog. I have all the documents to back up what I suspect. And one last comment, I believe that the ultimate set up was Melinda's death was a murder made to look like a suicide. The magazine in the shotgun was jammed in backwards and could not be shot, yet there were TWO shots and no fingerprints on the gun and no GSR on Melinda's hands or feet. Melinda believed that Jason Fort, Carla Massero's boytoy boyfriend who is 79 inches tall and the top of the window to Trenton's room is 81 inches high, is the one who took Trenton. But he was never questioned. Why not? www.duckettbucket.blogspot.com

Lemon said...

You're not really familiar with Statement Analysis are you?

Michele Frazier said...

She killed her son & left him in the swamp to be eaten by alligators. Come on, "Maytruthprevail," if you are still around: Melinda sent a threatening email to herself by hacking Josh's account. She was trying to get him arrested. Remember that?

FreeWM3AZ said...

I think the best proof that this woman wasn't being truthful is the fact that she committed suicide - as I sit here with my baby girl in my lap, I assure you, if she went missing and I didn't know for a fact that she were dead, I would be out looking for her. I also wouldn't kill myself because I would want to be there when she came home. Melinda Duckett KNEW that child wasn't coming home, IMO.

Shanghai C said...

I realize you are all over the Internet believing Melinda is innocent and Josh is responsible for Trentons disappearance.
But why have you never answered to Melindas refusal to answer certain questions? If she was truly innocent there's no WAY she would have wasted her time worrying about her own reputation. A mother who has lost her child is desperate to work with anyone anywhere and DOES rack their brain trying to remember any little thing that can possibly help find her missing child. Instead very early on- Melinda starts putting up walls and gets exacerbated with certain lines of questioning. The police HAVE to eliminate those closest to the child as a suspect first thing. But as soon as Melinda realized she was going to be asked to go over N over her answers and possible inconsistencies or questions would be asked going deeper into her responses- she gets angry and starts shutting down. Sorry but that's someone who is hiding something. And how do you know so much about what was really going on anyway in Melindas head? Are u her family? A friend? Were you questioned? If u know so much you should also be interviewed by police and FBI.

Peter Hyatt said...

Shanghai C said...
I realize you are all over the Internet believing Melinda is innocent and Josh is responsible for Trentons disappearance.
But why have you never answered to Melindas refusal to answer certain questions? If she was truly innocent there's no WAY she would have wasted her time worrying about her own reputation. A mother who has lost her child is desperate to work with anyone anywhere and DOES rack their brain trying to remember any little thing that can possibly help find her missing child. Instead very early on- Melinda starts putting up walls and gets exacerbated with certain lines of questioning. The police HAVE to eliminate those closest to the child as a suspect first thing. But as soon as Melinda realized she was going to be asked to go over N over her answers and possible inconsistencies or questions would be asked going deeper into her responses- she gets angry and starts shutting down. Sorry but that's someone who is hiding something. And how do you know so much about what was really going on anyway in Melindas head? Are u her family? A friend? Were you questioned? If u know so much you should also be interviewed by police and FBI.


To whom is this addressed?

Peter