Saturday, November 30, 2013
Michael McStay Statement Analyzed
A man, his wife, and two children went missing in 2010. Their remains were found in makeshift graves. Recently, Michael McStay spoke out. Readers here have requested analysis of his words.
There is no conclusion to be drawn from this short statement.
"Good morning, it’s not really the outcome we were looking for. But umm… itgives us courage to know that they're together and they're in a better place. I know umm (I talked to?) my father, who is in Texas and my Aunt Carol, and um, it’s been a tough road. Um, so we would ask that you would give the family members their space and let us go through the grieving process. Mm, my family, appreciates all the support and the love that we’ve been shown. They were a loving family, ...and I know that all of America loves the Mcstays. ...We're gonna find this individual, or individuals and everyone want’s to bring them to justice. ..And if it’s the last thing I do I wanna, I just wanna know ... that you know, ... when it’s over. Umm..(shakes head) that’s all.
Michael McStay was under duress when he spoke these words. The video appears that he was not reading them.
When someone is under duress, we recognize that the brain is working rapidly, with high levels of hormones, and choosing its words for the tongue to speak. It is the words, themselves, that matter to us. Here it is again, with emphasis added. This is a short statement and it is that a longer statement, or one in which he recognizes that he may be under suspicion would yield us much more information from which to go on.
"Good morning, it’s not really the outcome we were looking for. But umm… it gives us courage to know that they're together and they're in a better place.
When someone says "it's not really...", using the word "really", there is another thought (at least one) that the subject is thinking. We do not know what he was thinking here, regarding other outcomes, but their death is worded in a strange way.
If you found your family dead, would you say "this is not the outcome we were looking for"? I would. Yet, I must consider why he did not. What has taken place in the past few years in conversations with family and with law enforcement?
He can only say that it was not "really" the outcome they were looking for, speaking for himself and others (plural).
Did this come because the possibility of them being found dead was something they had discussed? If so, it would have entered into this thinking. Given the length of time that they had been missing, this possible ending would likely have been discussed many times, including with law enforcement.
The passage of time will impact language. His confidence or lack of confidence in law enforcement will impact language.
The word "but" refutes, even if only in comparison, that which preceded it. Here, the word "but" enters his vocabulary and it is that this "outcome" now gives them "courage";
He answers: "courage to know" something. Why would he need courage to know something?
He needed courage to know:
1. That they were together
2. They they are in a better place.
Why might someone need courage to know that they were together?
The Expected: Enter into this from the point of the subject being innocent, possessing no guilty knowledge of their disappearance or death. Listen for what is expected and when you don't hear it, confront the "unexpected" for analysis.
If your loved ones were missing, would you worry that they were separated?
If your loved ones were found dead, would you need courage to believe that they are in a better place?
Both thoughts are comforting to the suffering mind and are not indicative of deception.
I know umm (I talked to?) my father, who is in Texas and my Aunt Carol, and um, it’s been a tough road.
This may be a broken sentence, indicating missing information. It is significant that the change from plural to singular has taken place. It is personal. It is important. I do not know if he intended to say something else here. He would "know" if he talked to his father and his aunt. These two people are very important to the subject.
Um, so we would ask that you would give the family members their space and let us go through the grieving process.
He returns to "we", as speaking for the family. This is expected.
"would ask" is weak, and appropriately polite, likely revealing that he does not expect the media to allow them the space to grieve. He may have made this request, rather than a demand, to not anger the media. We all recognize how aggressive media can be.
Is it the aggressiveness of media that he is thinking of? Listen to him:
Mm, my family, appreciates all the support and the love that we’ve been shown. They were a loving family, ...and I know that all of America loves the Mcstays.
That they "were" a loving family is expected, given the passage of time.
That America "loves", in the present tense, is also appropriate since he recognizes that this is a very large news story.
thus far, he has spoken the expected.
...We're gonna find this individual, or individuals
To call the murderer (s) "this individual" is not expected, nor is "individuals", in the plural.
Why not, "the killers"? Why not the "murderers"?
The word "this" indicates closeness. What has caused this word to enter his language? Does he have an idea of who might have done this? (that would make the killer "close").
Why the soft language?
If he has called them "killers" or other harsher terms in other statements, freely given, it may be that he has used soft language in an almost defeatist view of law enforcement not finding the murderers. We do not know.
and everyone want’s to bring them to justice.
This statement is utterly unnecessary making it very important. Why would anyone feel the need to report that "everyone" "wants", that is, has a desire, to bring them to justice? This should not need to be said.
This causes me to want to ask many questions about it, and it may be, that through the questions, we learn why. It is only when one may not want the killer brought to justice that the need to say such a thing arises. This, plus the soft language, concerns me.
..And if it’s the last thing I do
This is expected, but only if it is completed. That he does not complete it is concerning.
"If its the last thing I do, I will find the killer!" is expected.
He, however, does not say this, and I cannot say it for him. Is he exasperated with law enforcement?
I wanna, I just wanna know ... that you know, ... when it’s over. Umm.. that’s all.
This is also concerning but I must learn why it is concerning. He wants to know "when it's over"...not when justice has been served? What has been going on with law enforcement, with hopes raised, hopes dashed, etc. I am not convinced that this is "unexpected."
Has he had many discussions with law enforcement that he led him to believe that they are so incompetent that this nightmare will never end? It may be.
We do not have enough statement to conclude guilty knowledge within this statement, but we have enough to need more information. It may be that he does not possess guilty knowledge and should suspicion arise, he may speak directly to media and issue a reliable denial, but thus far,
I remain concerned but do not draw a conclusion based upon this statement. Should Michael McStay be asked by media, we would have much more to go on.
We do not jump to conclusions, and we recognize that the passage of time will have impact upon the family's reaction, especially if they have been frustrated by law enforcement.