Thursday, April 18, 2013

Statement Analysis: Bob Bashara


 Bob Bashara for a Q&A focused on his wife, her death and their relationship.
For more than one hour Bashara answered every question Marc had for him. His mother, Nancy Bashara, and his sister, Laura Mauer, sat by his side during the entire interview.
Marc Santia: Bob, did you kill your wife Jane?
This is a "yes or no" question.  The proper answer is "no." Whenever one goes beyond that response, we must note it carefully. 
Bob Bashara: Absolutely not. I had nothing to do with it.
This is not a reliable denial, as he does not give the answer, "no", instead using "absolutely" not, making "not" sensitive. 
But it is in his additional words that he adds to his denial: "I had nothing to do with it" which is something that surrounds the killing.  Unreliable Denial

MS: Did you hire someone to kill your wife Jane?
This is another "yes or no" question
BB: No. No I did not.
Note that "no" is now sensitive, as it is repeated. This is not a reliable denial. 
MS: Talk to me about your marriage. How was your marriage with Jane?
BB: We had great years together.
Note "great" as superlative.  They had great "years" together. Were there any years that were not great?  Were there any years they were not together?  
I would like to know if there were times where one did not live under the same roof as the other.  Follow the pronouns: 
 We were a team. We worked on community services together in Rotary. I'm big in Rotary. We worked together in the schools
note:  "we, we, I, we"
"We" shows unity/cooperation, but then he says "I'm big in Rotary" suddenly dropping the pronoun "we".  
One should question if he met a woman at or through the Rotary, or if the Rotary was the cause of trouble:  it is the Rotary that broke the pattern of "we" he used and should be followed up with questions. 
He used the word "we" and we expect to hear consistency, yet he slips in something that he is into, not her, but now he uses distancing language: 
Like any marriage you have your ups and downs. You have your rough patches that you come across. 
Since he was so much about the "we", we now see he changes to "you"  Consistency would have been "we had our ups and down" but he uses "you" with ups and downs and "you" have rough patches that "you" come across (not "come across" is passivity)
"We" did not have ups and downs or rough patches.  This should be considered sensitive as he avoids committing to the trouble in the marriage. 
About a year ago we went to a marriage counselor to sort through some things and we ... we ... we loved each other. We cared for each other and we were there for the kids.
Note the stuttering on the pronoun "we" with its heavy use.  The pronoun "we", which shows unity, is sensitive to the subject. 
MS: Was there talk of a divorce? Were you separated?
BB: No. Not at all.
"No" is strong but then he adds "not at all"
MS: Were you having an affair?
This is morally charged language and should be avoided.  He may need the direct "did you have sexual contact with...?"
BB: No. I was not. I loved my wife and I love my children and I would do nothing to hurt them. She meant everything to me.
Note that the word "no" answered the question, but, he went on beyond the answer of "no", weakening his response.
Note that "would" is future/conditional tense
MS: So the reports, and the other woman by the name of Rachel, you would characterize that as?
BB: She was a good friend, that's it.
Note the past tense language of "was" regarding their relationship. Note "that's it" seeks to shut down the information.  If that is "it", there is nothing else to ask him about Rachel.  This would cause me to focus more questions about Rachel. 
MS: Were you involved in S&M?
This is another "yes or no" question in which he goes well beyond the boundary of the question with a very sensitive response: 
BB: No. And I don't want to get into that because I have my children to worry about. There are so many peripheral issues that have been brought up. So many of them that I can't comment on that or say anything because of my children.
Note that an innocent person has no need to explain why he cannot answer as there is no consequence that awaits "I didn't do it"  
Here we have a 'cluster of blues' showing high sensitivity
MS: Because of these other reports, what have you said to your children? Your son and your daughter? I mean, because of talks of extra marital affairs and S&M, what have you said to your son and daughter?
He is asked what he told his son: 
BB: Don't believe what you hear. This has been sensationalized. Things have been brought up that aren't true. Just focus, and the focus needs to be on finding Jane's killer.
Note that he told his son not to believe what he hears.  This is not to say that what he hears is untrue.
Note next that "this" (close) has been sensationalised.  This means that what has been said is not "untrue" but has been "sensationalized", which means to enlarge or publish. 
Laura Mauer: I've been with my brother and we've been going through this terrible tragedy and yes, we've looked each other in the eyes. I've watched him. I've been with him every second and no way would my brother ever do anything like this. Never. He's such a good man. He cares about people. He's wonderful. No, he would never do this.
MS: Do you believe your son had anything to do with Jane's murder?
Nancy Bashara: Absolutely not. I don't believe (Bob) would hurt (Jane) in any way, shape or form.
The sensitivity to this question may come from having her son accused. This is not the same as asking the subject directly. (above). A mother may feel the need to persuade especially if she has even a small doubt. 
Watch Local 4 News at 11 p.m. Sunday for the rest of Marc Santia's interview with Bob Bashara. He asks Bashara about who he thinks killed his wife, about his first polygraph test administered by police, the man named Joe and his emotion during this past week's news conference in front of his Grosse Pointe Park home.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Another great post but I'm discouraged. Every time I think I'm getting the hang of this, I find another post that I would have interpreted incorrectly. I am grateful you post so many. I just wish I wasn't doing it so 'subjectively'. It's hard to know sometimes which way to read something, like when two rules might apply, I always seem to apply the wrong one. Still, this is a fascinating blog. Thank you, Peter.

Pak31 said...

It seems, to me, that the people supporting him can't come out and say he didn't do it. It's more like "I don't believe he's capable" or "he's such a nice guy". Those could be true statements but it's nothing definitive where I'd feel better knowing that they are truly behind him. I personally think he's guilty and nothing said in those interview clips convinces me otherwise.

Anonymous said...

O/T: Not sure if you are up to this one but this conspiracy text was posted to a conspiracy site earlier this week about the bombings.
http://i.imgur.com/paK3lGJh.png

Nervous said...

And from the FBI, after they've been grilled a few times about some official- yet- suspicious looking fellows in other pictures:

http://www.fbi.gov/boston/press-releases/2013/remarks-of-special-agent-in-charge-richard-deslauriers-at-press-conference-on-bombing-investigation-1

"For clarity, these images should be the only ones—the only ones—that the public should view to assist us. Other photos should not be deemed credible and unnecessarily divert the public’s attention in the wrong direction and create undue work for vital law enforcement resources."

To me, it's pretty clear they are concerned about what's in the other pictures. What little I know about SA has me concerned.

john said...

Supporters can say he didnt do it all day long,unless it comes from him, it means nothing...

john said...

Jodi Arias trial:Would you put your faith in this guy..

https://www.facebook.com/DrDrewHLN?ref=stream&hc_location=stream

Anonymous said...

Legally, this could be one of the most fascinating trials in recent memory.

Dee said...

Wow Peter, you nailed parts of this...

"we, we, I, we" "We" shows unity/cooperation, but then he says "I'm big in Rotary" suddenly dropping the pronoun "we". One should question if he met a woman at or through the Rotary, or if the Rotary was the cause of trouble: it is the Rotary that broke the pattern of "we" he used and should be followed up with questions.

***It was reported by other Rotarian's that Bob and Rachel(not Jane, his wife) attended events at the Rotary as a couple.

MS: So the reports, and the other woman by the name of Rachel, you would characterize that as? BB: She was a good friend, that's it. Note the past tense language of "was" regarding their relationship. Note "that's it" seeks to shut down the information. If that is "it", there is nothing else to ask him about Rachel. This would cause me to focus more questions about Rachel.

***It was reported he continued his relationship with Rachel up until shortly after the murder. Rachel cooperated with police, broke off the relationship and filed a restraining order. Bob continued to try to contact her.

MS: Were you involved in S&M? This is another "yes or no" question in which he goes well beyond the boundary of the question with a very sensitive response: BB: No. And I don't want to get into that because I have my children to worry about. There are so many peripheral issues that have been brought up. So many of them that I can't comment on that or say anything because of my children. Note that an innocent person has no need to explain why he cannot answer as
there is no consequence that awaits "I didn't do it" Here we have a 'cluster of blues' showing high
sensitivity

***He owned a building in Detroit that housed a bar. He was a regular there. It was a well known fact by some of the other regulars that he had an S&M "dungeon" in the basement of the building. He hosted S&M parties there. He was "Master" and Rachel was his "Slave".

Back when The Hinky Meter was an active blog this case was covered extensively with a lot of locals commenting. People who knew his wife Jane said she had found out about his extra curricular activities. Bob was in the process of buying a house for Rachel. They were grooming another slave who they met online and were trying to get her to move to Detroit from the west coast (it was either WA or OR). The locals thoughts were - Bob couldn't let Jane divorce him, she'd take what little was left. He was in financial trouble, owed a lot in back taxes and the city was trying to take some of his properties.

Hobnob said...

Hi Dee

The Hinky Meter covered this in great detail. There were lots of statements and stuff concerning the case and she was spot on with many of her conclusions.

I think most of the Hinky's went over to reality chatter

Dee said...

Hobs...Val was the best. She was very good at what she did on the blog and I miss it. She was able to dig up a lot on old Bob with the help of some locals. I tried reality chatter and still look at it occasionally but don't find it as easy to use as some sites. I noticed a lot of the former Hinky's there.

Dane said...

Dee... I miss Val too. What part of the state are you from? I'm in Sterling Heights.

Dee said...

Dane...My husband was born and raised a Michigander (I'm a New Englander). Most of his family is still there. We lived in the city briefly on Tacoma, then in East Detroit (now Eastpointe) on Normandy which is in between 8/9 mile and Gratiot/Kelly. My husbands grandmother lived in Sterling Heights. We moved to what's home for me (Connecticut) back about 15 years ago. I miss Michigan. We go back once a year to visit and I'm a Michigan gal at heart. I love my sports teams, (except for the Pistons - I can take or leave them) hence the logo I use, lol.

Hobnob said...

o0o i learned a new word

Michigander

now i know what they are called

thankies

Dee said...

Lol Hobs.