Thursday, February 27, 2014

Statement Analysis Exercise: Theft


Many companies assign internal investigations to Human Resources for resolution.
In this case, an expensive sweater was stolen and HR asked the accused to write out a statement.

By asking all participants to write out a statement of "What Happened?" companies are able to solve crimes, small or great, even when law enforcement either cannot, or chooses not to.

Companies with such training will find that as they solve cases, they will gain a reputation for truth gathering and may discourage shrinkage.

Enter into this statement.  Don't just analyze it, enter into it.  Learn what happened, and learn the nature of relationships between people.

The "Subject" is the author.
"Tommy" is the victim who has reported that the Subject stole his expensive sweater.

The company sought to learn the truth.

I will post analysis later...

                                                    Sweaters versus Hoodies!



                                    I'm a sweater guy, who owns but a single hoodie... this is a hint!


Can you solve it?  Remember, language does not change on its own!


"Saturday March 23rd, Tommy had a small get
together at his house.  Tommy had a monster
 jacket sweater that matched my Jacket. 
I asked Tommy if I could try the sweater
on with my Jacket.  Tommy complied.  I only
had the hoody for about 20 minutes. I
then took off the hoody and laid it
on the back of the recliner.  When I
left the hoody was still on the chair.
On Tuesday, March 26th, at about 1250pm, Tommy’s
mom found me down town and accused me of stealing his hoody. I told her
as politely
as possible what I knew about the hoody
and where I last saw it.  She went on

about what would happen if the hoody wasn’t found…"

81 comments:

getthem said...

It seems legit to me, the only weird thing I could spot was he said when he "left."

getthem said...

Oh wait! There is no reliable denial!!! And, he likes the victim because he calls him by his first name. Missing information from -- when he left. Maybe something about Tommy's mom "found" him. Not saw him, or ran into him. Found sounds like he was hiding.

elf said...

The article of clothing changed from sweater when Tommy was wearing it to hoodie when the suspect was wearing it and laying it on the recliner. And why the sentence 'Tommy complied.'? Maybe Tommy would only let the other person try it on after some persuasion? Also recliner is what the hoodie was laid on but when suspect left the hoodie was still on the chair.
Guilty of taking the hoodie?

elf said...

Good catch on the word found:)

Anonymous said...

That, and him changing the description from jacket to sweater to hoody. Then leaving it on a recliner, but when he left it magically appeared on a chair instead.

ima.grandma said...

no denial of allegation; no commitment of innocence

building of alibi: sweater matched his jacket = took it by mistake

change in vocabulary: jacket becomes sweater; sweater becomes hoody

recliner becomes chair

immediate correction-: crossing out jacket to become sweater

missing time and omission of actions: using word "left"

shows dynamics of relationship of power: Tommy complied

gotta help find girls' shoes
be back
this is interesting

C5H11ONO said...

--Tomy had a monster jacket sweater that matched my Jacket.

This person indicated that Tommy “had” – past tense which means when he wrote the statement he was aware that Tommy was no longer in possession of a jacket/sweater. He initially wrote jacket then crossed it off to read sweater. Not only was his jacket a monster one, it matched his own jacket.

This person asked Tommy if he could try the sweater on – again he added the unnecessary “with my jacket”. Why was it important for this person to keep repeating something about his own jacket? – I’m getting the feeling that both jackets were the same and he left his old one and took Tommy’s and is trying to claim that he doesn’t know who took Tommy’s jacket.


--Tommy complied.
Tommy must have initially said no, and must have been bullied into letting him wear his jacket.

I only had the hoody for about 20 minutes.
When the jacket/sweater is in his possession it becomes “the hoody”.

I then took off the hoody and laid it on the back of the recliner.
This is a stressful time because he is giving positioning of the “hoody”. He laid it on the back of the recliner.

When I left the hoody was still on the chair.
--The recliner becomes the chair when he left.
I believe this is when he took Tommy’s jacket and left his behind.

On Tuesday, March 26th, at about 1250pm, Tommy’s
mom found me down town and accused me of stealing his hoody.
--If Tommy’s mom found him, that means he was hiding from her.

In his statement he didn’t tell us he didn’t take the hoody.

He swapped his hoody with Tommy's hoody.

ima.grandma said...

he tried to make himself look better by explaining how polite, sincere and helpful he is when responding to mother's allegations

statement too short; omission of facts; what happened in the twenty minutes; what happened between when he laid the sweater on the chair and when he left

he portrays himself as victim when accused by mother and suggests he was threatened (his statement contains just about as many sentences about the accusation by the mother toward him than his response to stealing the sweater

he gives the motivation for taking the sweater in the second sentence: it matches his jacket

additional info would be helpful to determine truthfulness such as:
was the situation discussed between HR and subject before statement was written; did the subject sign statement; was subject invited to tommy's get together?

my cluttered house is calling me; the doctor finally cleared me for light physical activity so i'm ready to get busy. will check back later for analysis

Nic said...

"monster" sweater matches his jacket (appeals to his sense of style)

complied - it's not like saying, "he let me try it on". Complied sounds like there was a bit of coaxing.

Trying it on *with* his jacket. Jacket layers/conceals what is under it.

Is "sweater" when it is Tommy's but becomes hoody when author puts it on. Hoody is something that is worn as a "jacket" or under a jacket. Change in reality (sweater to hoody indicates change in owership.) But the hoody doesn't revert back to a sweater again (Tommy's) when he takes it off. It is referred to hoody until the end of the statement.

"I only had the sweater on for about 20 minutes."
Alibi building/making excuses. Trying something on is usually for a few moments. Wearing it for 20 minutes is not trying. It's wearing.

He *laid* it on the back of the recliner. When he *left* it was still on the "chair" - another change in reality. Left implies a sense of haste. Recline is relaxed. Chair is upright and stiff, like "sitting".

"told" as politely as possible. Not said (softer).

__________

I detect deception.

It sounds like Tommy reluctantly let the author try the sweater on and the author didn't take it off for some time (creating a sense of ownership over Tommy). Author says he laid it on the back of the recliner, but "left" implies haste and the recliner changes into a chair like it isn't on the back of the recliner anymore.

There is a lot of tension between Tommy's mother and the author. She "found" him downtown (find implies looking for something/someone and it also implies that he was hiding). He telling her "as politely as possible" what he knew about the sweater is not a reliable denial in response to her accusation of author stealing the "hoody". He doesn't deny it. He says the last time he saw it was still on THE chair (author's house), not "a" chair (Tommy's house).

Peter Hyatt said...

Nic and Ima,

combine your comments!

You are both digging in and learning the truth.

Good work.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

getthem,

the subject knew well the accusation. In the interview, he was given opportunity after opportunity to issue a reliable denial.

As you point out, he did not.

I liked reading your first post, too, as it shows progression of thinking...

"Oh wait!"

:)

Peter

ima.grandma said...

okay, tommy was wearing the sweater and was asked (ordered) to take it off in order for the subject to try it on. that is where the word complied comes in.

a sweater is not a hoody.

did Tommy trade the sweater for the jacket (hoody)?

john said...

Peter, lol :)

ima.grandma said...

oh hell, what's another day of clutter.

peter, has anyone ever told you this blog can be addictive?

perhaps, the three (there's that number again)terms (jacket, sweater, hoody) are not interchangeable at all)

this is turning into a conundrum.

Maggie said...

Does"Tommy"have a car????? If so...what color are it's doors????

S + K Mum said...

Love everyone's comments.....

I just want to add; (and it's not SA) why would he try it on for 20 minutes? That's not trying on, that's wearing! LOL

I think Tommy doesn't trust this person ('complied' - makes me think he had to be persuaded in the first place or forced). Has this person been suspected of stealing in the past? If someone accused me of stealing I would be fairly annoyed - this person doesn't seem to be.

'Small get together' why didn't the accused suggest it could have been anyone else there?

'Politely as possible' probably not polite to Tommy's mom at all but meaning he(?) was as polite as he could be having been accused of stealing.

C5H11ONO said...

Many companies assign internal investigations to Human Resources for resolution.
--I'm wondering how HR asked you to find out who stole an In this case, an expensive sweater was stolen and HR asked the accused to write out a statement.
expensive sweater that was allegedly stolen from a private party (Tommy had a small get

together at his house.)

Who were the employees?
It sounds to me like these are kids, teenagers at oldest, since one of their mom's came after one of them.

Your statement reads
In this case, an expensive sweater was stolen and HR asked the accused to write out a statement.
You abbreviated Human Resources in your second paragraph. In this case, did you become HR and asked the kids to write a statement?

ima.grandma said...

i still don't know the answer but after looking over the statement again, i decided to read between the lines.

both tommy and the accused are fearful of tommy's mother

maybe tommy wasn't even supposed to have this get together in the first place. maybe it was just the both of them at his house. the word "small" isn't necessary.

the accused seemed to use his words very carefuly when speaking to the mother (as politely as possible)

i think both tommy and the accused have been deceptive

perhaps they are covering for each other

i would also need more info in particular, how old are these two?

i know when my girls were in high school, they were always trading clothes with their friends without permission. i often heard excuses about where their jeans or shoes were.

if they are younger, how does HR come into play? why would the mother call their job? why would hr get involved unless the alleged theft happened on their premises

(insert slang word for aggravation) you're killing me peter

Peter Hyatt said...

C5H11ONO said...
Many companies assign internal investigations to Human Resources for resolution.
--I'm wondering how HR asked you to find out who stole an In this case, an expensive sweater was stolen and HR asked the accused to write out a statement.
expensive sweater that was allegedly stolen from a private party (Tommy had a small get

together at his house.)

Who were the employees?
It sounds to me like these are kids, teenagers at oldest, since one of their mom's came after one of them.

Your statement reads
In this case, an expensive sweater was stolen and HR asked the accused to write out a statement.
You abbreviated Human Resources in your second paragraph. In this case, did you become HR and asked the kids to write a statement?
February 27, 2014 at 11:13 AM >>


Can I interest you in a job as an investigator?

:)

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

It's heartening for me to read the comments here, and see how some are getting so sharp!

I was discouraged reading the use of Statement Analysis in the Leanne Bearden case, as I saw many comments (including deleted ones) where the commentator tried to force analysis to fit his or her own conclusion, rather than be guided by the words.

This statement is rich with information.

Go very slowly, not simply line by line, but pause at each word and ask,

Why would someone choose this word??

It is helpful if you have an intelligent person seated next to you and can ask, "Hey, what do you think of this word?"

As already seen, "complied" indicates pressure, and yielding.

Also...

I do work for company's HR as an analyst, trainer, and sometimes, as an Interviewer.

In this case, I conducted the final interviews so I will be able to confirm many of your assertions.

I am seeing, thus far, great work!

Peter

Jen Ow said...

"Saturday March 23rd, Tommy had a small get together at his house. 

-Subject starts by stating why he was at Tommy's house, for a get together. However the subject doesn't state that he specifically was invited. It may be that Tommy and the subject are not particularly close.

Tommy had a monster (jacket) sweater that matched my Jacket. 

- Subject uses the past tense 'had' when speaking of Tommy's ownership of the sweater. He first calls the sweater a 'jacket' which is also what he calls his own garment. This could indicate he was already thinking of Tommy's sweater as his own.

I asked Tommy if I could try the sweater on with my Jacket. 

- Subject gives his reason for coming into possession of the sweater. He also uses 'the sweater', rather than 'his' sweater, which may indicate that he is already distancing Tommy from ownership.

Tommy complied.  

- Complied sounds as if Tommy relented under pressure

I only had the hoody for about 20 minutes.

- Subject minimizes his contact with the 'hoody'. Once the subject is in possession of the garment it becomes a 'hoody'.

I then took off the hoody and laid it on the back of the recliner. 

-Subject gives position of the garment, indicating tension.

When I left the hoody was still on the chair.

- Subject uses 'I left' to describe his departure indicating high sensitivity, and possible missing information. The 'recliner' has changed to the 'chair'. This change in language indicates the subject may not be speaking from memory. The garment is still a 'hoody' at this point.

On Tuesday, March 26th, at about 1250pm, Tommy’s mom found me down town and accused me of stealing his hoody.

-Subject uses the word 'found' in relation to his encounter with Tommy's mom. One can only be found if the are lost, or hiding. The subject continues to refer to the garment as a hoody.

I told her as politely as possible what I knew about the hoody and where I last saw it.  

- Subject does not state that he denied taking the garment to Tommy's Mom, only that he told her what he knew about it. The subject does not issue a reliable denial throughout. The subjects language indicates the encounter with Tommy's Mom may have been unpleasant, as he feels the need to state that he was 'as polite as possible', which is not the same as saying he was polite.

- Also the subject calls the garment 'HIS' hoody (Tommy's) when Tommy's Mom is accusing him of taking it, but he reverts back to 'THE' hoodie (ambiguous ownership) when speaking of where he last saw it.

She went on about what would happen if the hoody wasn’t found…"

-The subject previously stated that Tommy's Mom accused him of STEALING the garment, however he now softens the allegation, saying that his Mom went on about what would happen if the garment wasn't FOUND, implying that the garment wasn't stolen, but lost. He continues to call the garment a 'hoody' throughout his account. Since the change in language occurred when he took possession of the garment, the subject likely still has the 'hoody'.

Sus said...

There is so much in here.

In the second sentence the writer used past tense to say, "Tommy HAD a monster jacket sweater..." This should be present tense to show Tommy still has it.

When Tommy had it, it was a JACKET SWEATER. Interesting since it goes with the writer's jacket. Then it became THE SWEATER when he asked to try it on. From then on...wearing it, taking it off, and putting it on the back of the chair... It was THE HOODY.

I notice also that the writer ASKED Tommy, yet Tommy COMPLIED. Complied to me means some reluctance or some strong arming on the writer's side.

The writer laid IT on the back of the RECLINER. When he LEFT (mind on where he left from - something occurred) the hoody was still on THE CHAIR. He changed names.

It's funny that the writer has the exact date and time and place he was FOUND and accused.

I think it is important that he states "accused of STEALING HIS HOODY." He should be questioned on what his internal dictionary tells him STEALING is. I have a funny feeling that a jacket sweater that goes so well with his own jacket just feels right for him to own.

Anonymous said...

OT: re: Amanada Knox
Raffaele Sollecito told Anderson Copper of CNN in an interview earlier this month that “There is nothing against me and nothing very strong against Amanda… And in my case, I really did nothing wrong, and I don’t want to pay for someone else’s peculiar behavior.”

http://crimefeed.com/2014/02/amanda-knoxs-ex-dont-want-pay-someone-elses-peculiar-behavior/

Really??? Why add the word "really"?

Sus said...

I read other comments now and see I missed that the writer did not give a reliable denial when accused by the mother. Good point.

Nic said...

Thanks, Peter! This statement really showcased "the" versus "a" to me.

sweater/hoody reminded me of a previous statement you posted about vehicle/car... but in this instance the author continued to call the sweater "hoody".

______

Complied implies a lack of trust. When someone is complying with something, it implies they don't have much of a choice. So maybe the author is a bully.

Small get together - more words than necessary. Perhaps there was enough of a commotion that nobody gave any thought to/noticed the sweater (was missing) after "20 minutes" because it was being worn like a hoody under the author's jacket... which matched the jacket which served to camouflage it. So the intent could have always been to deceive/steele the sweater which goes directly to the boys character and probably why Tommy didn't trust him. He knew he stole things.

"his hoody". Technically, the author didn't steal Tommy's "hoody" he stole Tommy's sweater. "The" hoody in question was still (at home) on the chair.

The word "found" x 2 - What appears in the negative is sensitive. She "found" him but didn't find the hoody (which had been stolen).

He's awfully specific about time... 20 minutes, )(about) 12:50.

If it was at 12:50 (specific) how could it be "about". Most would expect someone to say "about Noon" or "close to Noon" or "around lunch" not "about" 12:50??




Peter Hyatt said...

Nic,

you and a few others that are doing the statement are going to feel good about the analysis results...

you will be proud of your work, and will be able to take this into other statements, proceeding carefully.

This is why choosing a name is so important. Not only are you responsible for your own words, but you also get to grow from interaction here.

You're going to feel very good when I post the results!

Peter

GeekRad said...

There are some very sharp people here.

ima.grandma said...

Peter said:
Nic and Ima,

combine your comments!

You are both digging in and learning the truth.

Nic, where are you? Help, I need you here sitting beside me.

Peter Hyatt said...

Sus said...
I read other comments now and see I missed that the writer did not give a reliable denial when accused by the mother. Good point.
February 27, 2014 at 12:14 PM

Humility opens the door for learning, Sus. Never so much as in analysis. Good for you!

Peter

ima.grandma said...

oh there you are nic. can you help me determine what the key difference between our two statements before peter addressed us? i just noticed we both posted at 9:37, we're in sync here. everyone else, your clues are helping bring this together. the picture is getting clearer.

Rachael said...

One thing I haven't seen mentioned that jumped out to me is the subject capitalization of the item that is his... the Jacket. he capitalizes it not once, but twice.

It's not just a jacket, it's a Jacket. Why does this item warrant that type of emphasis?

a) His belongings simply have more value than the belongings of others.

b) This Jacket is how he smuggled the jacket/sweater/hoody out of Tommys house. I suspect that he 'left' during the 20 minutes of trying it on.

ima.grandma said...

remember peter's initial instructions:

learn the nature of relationships between people

C5H11ONO said...

I'm beginning to think Tommy plays hockey doesn't he? You know his mom from the little league hockey teams. She is the one that asked you to see who stole her son's sweater.

Not only that, his name is probably not Tommy either.

I'm even willing to bet that the rambunctious little fella (Tommy's friend) has behavior problems on the ice.

You conducted final interviews. I gather this was pro-bono work?

Am I still in the running for investigator work? All kidding aside, I love your work Peter.

Sus said...

I really should be getting ready for our next 8-10 inches of snow, but I notice some more things. :-)

He wanted to try the SWEATER ON - this implies wearing the sweater.

"I ONLY HAD THE HOODY about 20 minutes..." When it is the hoody he only had it, not wearing it.

I don't know what it means, but why did he try on or wear the sweater and only have the hoody?

Sus said...

Oh Rachel, you are so correct! I noticed that he capitalized the J, but didn't know what it meant. Yes, his possessions are more important than others. Yes, I get the feeling it feels right for him to own something that goes so well with his JACKET. Omgosh! That's why he called it a jacket sweater at first...

Rachael said...

I can't put my finger on it, but something about 'as patiently as possible' keeps poking at me. I'm not sure how to word it, so please bear with me. When I first read it I thought this was his way of showing that the accusation was outrageous, that it took effort to be polite in the face of it. However, it still seems overeactive, why couldn't he just explain and be done with it, why would that require patience?

I wonder how often he has been accused of taking things that don't belong to him?

Red Ryder said...

10 lines in statement.
2 lines introduction
6 lines body of what happened
2 lines post event

25% 50 % 25 % is expected form.
This statement is 20% 60% 20%.
Based on form it is in the acceptable parameters but is only one element to consider.

The change in name from sweater to hoody once the writer "tries it on" and from recliner (where he picked it up) to chair (where he allegedly left the sweater) are more indicative of deception to me.

The use of "complied" suggests coercion or strong arming or the writer would have used "agreed ".

There is no first person, past tense, event specific denial.
The writer ends with an ellipsis, an unfinished thought, missing information. What is he omitting?

Hobnob said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Sheriff: U.S. Marshals Join Search For Missing 14-Year-Old Girl
http://www.abc22now.com/shared/news/top-stories/stories/wkef_vid_18862.shtml

Rachael said...

'I asked Tommy if I could try the sweater on with my Jacket. Tommy complied.'

'with my Jacket' is unnecessary information, and 'Tommy complied' is an unexpected response. Did this exchange even happen, or did the subject take what he felt should be his, without asking if he could try it on?

Skeptical said...

Sounds like Mrs. Cleaver went looking for Eddie Haskell.

ima.grandma said...

why would tommy report a sweater was stolen? and then the subject writes:

Tommy’s mom found me down town and accused me of stealing his hoody. I told her as politely as possible what I knew about the hoody and where I last saw it. She went on
about what would happen if the hoody wasn’t found…"

why do people cross out a word? could it be that jacket was the truthful term in the first place? isn't that when the free editing process is going on? there is always a reason why a person choses a certain word at a certain time.

take the subject's second line and take out the qualifier or unnecessary words and it leaves you with:
'tommy had a jacket' or 'tommy had a sweater' - one of those statements is true!

i'm not going to get a dang thing done today

Sus said...

You and me both, ima.grandma. I'm going to starve while snowed in if I don't get groceries. Thanks Peter.

Red Ryder said...

Now that I've done my first run through, I've read through everyone else's posts. Brilliant!
Another thought~ when the writer says "I told her as politely as possible what I knew about the hoody and where I last saw it."
This reminds me of Misty Croslin(Haleigh Cummings case) when she said "and that's all I know." As a way to try to shut down the flow of information/questioning

ima.grandma said...

sus, i dont know how peter is going to get from maine to oklahoma to straighten up my house by the time my grandkids get home either.

kidding aside,i want to thank you peter for balancing us out. things were getting a little dark lately. i welcome the sunshine.

Hobnob said...

"Saturday March 23rd, Tommy had a small get together at his house
Where the subject starts their story tells us what they consider important/their priority.
Here he tells us it was a small get togeather. Get togeather is an unusual description, i would expect party as more usual language given their likely age (teens/20's)
Who was at this get togeather since it implies multiple people
He tells us Tommy had a get togeather he doesn't include himself in this get togeather as in "I went to a small get togeather or i was invited to a small get togeather".
Did he turn up uninvited?

Tommy had a monster jacket/ sweater that matched my Jacket.
Here we have a change of language from sweater to jacket, i look to see if this stays a kacket or if he changes language again indicating a change in reality.
Is he going to claim it was accidentally mixed up with his own if confronted?
he is telling us why he was interested in the jacket/sweater.
Why did he write jacket and then cross it out and replace it with sweater?
A jacket is usually worn as an outer layer over a sweater, a sweater is usually worn under something such as a jacket.
The change from jacket to sweater for the clothing that belonged to Tommy is warranted as the subject tells us he was wearing a jacket.

it explains why he was interested as the "sweater" matched his jacket as opposed to the "jacket matched his jacket" in which case why would he want to try it on if it matched jacket to jaclet?
He wouldn't wear 2 kackets, he would though wear a sweater and a kacket.
This is his motive, it matched.

I asked Tommy if I could try the sweater on with my Jacket.
He asked which is passive and it still remains a sweater.
The language has not changed, will this continue?
He uses lower case J when it it Tommy's jacket but capital case J when the subject wears it.
he regards it as his, taking ownership.

Tommy complied.
This is unexpected. The expected would he he said yes/sure/ok or similar,
Complied implies an order or demand was given, that he was made to do something or forced to rather than offering voluntarily.
He ASKS Tommy and Tommy complied.
What were his exact words when he asked if he could wear the sweater?

I only had the hoody for about 20 minutes.
Here we have a change in language, the sweater has now become a hoody.
Is there a change in reality to warrant the change in language? YES.
It became a hoody the moment he put it on.
Note the inclusion of a qualifier (ONLY) this weakens his statement.
Only is also used to minimise,here he says he only had it on for 20 minutes. he tells us he tried it on for only 30 mins.
When you try something on you wear it for a couple of mins at most before handing it bacl or taking it off.
It is trying as in testing something.
That he wore it for 20 mins is not simply trying it on, it is wearing it, taking ownership of it.
I then took off the hoody and laid it on the back of the recliner
Here the language is consistent it still remains a hoody when he tells us what he did with it.
He tells us he laid it on the back of the recliner.
He tells us he laid it on the back of the recliner rather that the more expected i put it or hung it over.
This indiacates tension and thus sensitivity

When I left the hoody was still on the chair.
When someone tells us they left it is noted as sensitive.
I also note here the recliner has now become a chair.
Is the change in language a chane in reality?
YES
The recliner becomes a chair when the subject leaves.
He doesn't tell us where the chair is so i can't assume.
he could be telling the truth, the hoody is on the chair, at his house.

Hobnob said...

On Tuesday, March 26th, at about 1250pm, Tommy’s mom found me down town and accused me of stealing his hoody.
There is a temporal lacuna, i would asked what happened on the days Between the 23rd and the 26th.
Notice also he gives a specific time rather than just the day making it sensitive to him.
Gound implies she was looking for him, that he was hiding.
Why would he be hiding if he had done nothing wrong?
This sounds like a mom who is not a happy bunny and knows what happened.
I suspect there was a big row with accusations flying.
Tommy's mom is an incomplete social introduction, could this indicate a poor relationship?
Possibly since she accused him of theft.
He still refers to it as a hoody.

I told her as politely as possible what I knew about the hoody and where I last saw it.
What did he tell her exactly?
Why does he need to tell us he told her as politely as possible?
Was there a limit to what he could tell her politely?
What could he tell her that wasn't so polite?
He told us where he last saw it, which was on a chair.
This is truthful
What he omits to say though is the chair was not at Tommy's house, it was at his own.
deception by ommission.

She went on about what would happen if the hoody wasn’t found…
He is still referring to it as a hoody.
It is THE hoody and not Tommy's hoody.
What would happen if it wasn't found?
When it is on Tommy it is a sweater, when it is on the subject it becomes a hoody.
For the rest of his explanation it remains a hoody, therefore i would believe it was still in the subject's possession else it would have reverted back to jacket/seater.
He makes no strong reliable denial as in "i did not take Tommy's Hoody" and if he can't say it i can't say it for him.

If this was a get togeather at tommy's house why would human resources be involved unless it was to stop it becoming a criminal investigation?
Were there other things going on that were affecting the work environment?

The subject indicates deception, no strong reliable denial as i d did not take Tommy's jacket/sweater/hoody.
He doesn't say someone else could have taken it after i left.
he immediately admits that he was the only one who could have taken it making it sensitive.
If he was innocent he would be asking who else was there who could have taken it.

Tommy's mom found him so he knew she knew,
Tommy told her what happened or she asked where's your jaclet/hoody and he said (perhaps unwillingly as he knew what would happen) the subject took it

Hobnob said...

If Peter can get from Maine to Oklahima to do housework it is way easier to get from maine to my house where he can play with wallpaper, paste and paint to his heart's content plus all the coffee and donuts and cookies he wants.


Grab a numbered ticket and form a disorderly queue behind me and no pushing or cutting in !

Nic said...

Thanks, Peter! I appreciate the feedback.
This is stuck in my craw...

...only 20 minutes.

Could it be that is how long the author stayed at the "small" get together before he "left"?

Nic said...

ima.grandma... I'm north of 49th parallel outside of Canada's National Capital region. :0)

Rachael said...

ima.grandma, are you saying that the subject never had his own Jacket, that that was what he stole? No hoody, no sweater, there was always just one Jacket?

That's really interesting, and if true, this kid lies a LOT.

You're getting plenty done today!

Anonymous said...

I found it interesting that the person writing the "What Happened" referred to Tommy's house as "his house" but when he talks about the jacket/sweater he leaves out those kinds of possessive pronouns. He says "a monster jacket sweater" and "the sweater" when describing Tommy's sweater.

Lemon said...

"Tommy complied". The subject doesn't say Tommy "said" anything- we can't assume he did.

GeekRad said...


February 27, 2014 at 12:48 PM



C5H11ONO said...
I'm beginning to think Tommy plays hockey doesn't he? You know his mom from the little league hockey teams. She is the one that asked you to see who stole her son's sweater.

Not only that, his name is probably not Tommy either.

I'm even willing to bet that the rambunctious little fella (Tommy's friend) has behavior problems on the ice.

You conducted final interviews. I gather this was pro-bono work?

Am I still in the running for investigator work? All kidding aside, I love your work Peter.

February 27, 2014 at 12:48 PM
----------------------
I think you solved that piece!! I kept going back to the "monster"
sweater and captilized Jacket. That is the hockey team and the team jacket.

Come on team. I'm not good at SA yet. All I can say is there was no relaible denial.

ima.grandma said...

Rachel said:
ima.grandma, are you saying that the subject never had his own Jacket, that that was what he stole? No hoody, no sweater, there was always just one Jacket?

yes, look at peter's caption clue underneath the sweater photo.

Red Ryder said...

It could be the team jacket or it could be the "Monster" brand energy drink apparel. They have hats, shirts, hoodies, jackets, that are popular with mid-teens to early 20's mostly. I know because one of my kids has been saving up to buy one of these (overpriced) hoodies.

ima.grandma said...

my son probably has the same jacket. both of my sons drink those monster energy drinks all the time. last year we saved the little flip tabs from the cans and he ordered a jacket as a promotional item. and it took a lot, i mean a lot, of them to get that jacket too. i can see why the mom was mad. i got sick and tired of picking up those green tabs in my kitchen and besides that, they are expensive. btw, they are grown adults and they paid for the drinks themselves, i only offered to keep track of them so they brought handfuls every time they came over.

ima.grandma said...

nic said:
ima.grandma... I'm north of 49th parallel outside of Canada's National Capital region

great, can you get to oklahoma in twenty minutes?

Rachael said...

If there was only one jacket, that was the sweater, the hoody, 'my Jacket', and Tommy's crossed out jacket, then the subject is a liar of Casey Anthony proportions.

I had posted an earlier comment, wondering if perhaps the subject had never asked to try on the sweater, so that Tommy's compliance was essentially that he never stopped the subject.

I almost deleted that comment, because it seemed silly, as it would be so easily confirmed. How hard would it be to give ole Tommy a ring? 'Tommy, did Subject ask to try on your sweater? No? Ok then.'

I didn't delete it, because there are liars so committed to their stories that the ability to fact check doesn't matter.

If either, or both, of those scenarios is correct, than the subject is someone I would be wary of.

GeekRad said...

Of course, monster products. Can you tell I don't have kids😄

Ivanna-Anna said...

It seems like he didn't fully feel that the hoody belonged to Tommy until he was accused of stealing it.

He acknowledges ownership regarding
- his Jacket ("my Jacket")
- Tommy's house ("his house")

But when he talks about the hoody (monster jacket sweater/sweater/hoody), he only acknowledges ownership when he's accused of stealing it.

ima.grandma said...

I then took off the hoody and laid it on the back of the recliner. When I left the hoody was still on the chair.

lots of false statements are directly before the word 'left'

something happened that has a direct tie to the lie\theft in between 'laid it on the back of the recliner' and 'when i left'. possibly an argument between the two but the omission of information is indicative that something clearly went down.

Sus said...

I never even noticed jacket is crossed out...duh.

That explains something bothering me...that he uses "WITH" as, "try it on WITH my jacket."

The sweater and jacket matched in the preceding sentence. Now they are separated...as for two different purposes.

Is he by chance, changing language on his own jacket to hoody, and that's what he left on the recliner/chair? Not that he changed language on the missing sweater/hoody as I first suspected?

ima.grandma said...

here's what went down

tommy is leaving out crucial information therefore lying by omission but there are truthful parts of this statement. remember no one likes to lie directly.

he came over, probably uninvited because tommy didnt know him very well but knew of his bully reputation so he reluctantly let him in the door.

subject tells tommy he has his own monster jacket/sweater at home and asks if can the take the sweater/jacket to his house to try it on and see how it looks together. he leaves with the jacket/sweater and is gone for twenty minutes. he comes back with the sweater/jacket and tommy sees him lay it on the chair. somehow he smuggles it back out and now if he is seen with the same sweater/jacket he has already laid out his foundation by putting it out there that he has his own jacket/sweater.

this is crazy, i know how it sounds and i havent explained it that well. i dont have the sweater or jacket in the right place and now that i type it, im doubting myself but it has something right about it. i'll come back to it later and start from the beginning and read the great ideas by everyone else.

Martina said...

I asked Tommy if I could try the sweater on with my Jacket. Tommy complied. I only had the hoody for about 20 minutes.

I cannot get rid of an impression that the sweater from the first sentence, and the hoody from the third are two different items.

ima.grandma said...

martina,
i also think they are separate items. i think there was only
one real sweater or jacket
PLUS
one imaginary sweater or jacket that subject says he has

i just cant verbalize what my theory is but in my mind i'm very clever and think i'm onto something=definition of self delusion and thoughts of grandeur.

can you tell i've been at this too long but i would rather use my crazy wild imagination on this thread than the one about Heather Elvis. at least the only one i could possibly hurt here is the imaginary family of an imaginary subject with an imaginary sweater.

grandkids need the computer for homework so i'll come back after supper. over and out.

Anonymous said...

I'd like to know his definition of jacket, sweater, and hoodie. I'd like to know precisely how much of a match the sweater and jacket are.

Anonymous said...

So Tommy allowed the writer to try on the sweater, but not the hoodie, which was stolen. When he left, the sweater aka hoodie, jacket to writer, was still on the chair. Two separate items?

Anonymous said...

Have they checked behind the recliner for the lost sweater/jacket/hoody?

Anonymous said...

Just how big is this town that the mom found him so easily and how did she know who to look for? This whole story sounds sheisty.

JerseyJane said...

Why isn't that little HOODLUM in school on a Tuesday at about 12:50p? LoL
Hint: It's all about the BUTT !
Someone needs a swinging push on the tush! LoL

I was just policing the situation, old school! LoL

Anonymous said...

I'm in suspense. . . what really WOULD happen if the hoodie isn't found??

Anonymous said...

Where was mom while all these shenanigans were going on? She needs to watch who she lets in their house. .so she won't have to go hunting for them downtown.

Dacea said...

Complied seems as if the author has been in trouble with the authorities before. My husband was a CO for several years and complied is a word used by law enforcement types when speaking of a subject. Also, he doesn't say he was polite, he said he was as polite as he could be. Found can be he was hiding or that they were seeking him.

Anonymous said...

I Haven't read all comments yet, trying to be objective. So here's my attempt to. Granted I may have goofed on the reasoning behind some.

- he states "Tommy had* a monster sweater…" had is past tense verb, "has" is expected. he knows T no longer has it, but why? or feels it no longer belongs to him? (Possible Deception indicator?)
-"matched my jacket," (unnecessary excess detail, establishing an alibi, or justification for motive?)
- he references Tommy's sweater/hoody using "the" & not expected "his" repeatedly. Yet references his own jacket as "my." Generalizing the article in question, (struggles to associate the object as Tommy's possession? Distancing the item from Tommy?)
- he makes a change in how he references the article, from "sweater" to "hoody." (Timing of change may be significant in his account of events?)
-the change coincides with same timing he was wearing the sweater, about to remove it, & claim to part ways with. (So is significant… Bc it's a key part in the timeline. And what is claimed could be deceptive?)
-using "I then..." Word in ref to relaying time sequence, indicates a lapse in timeline, or omitted details.
- "about 20 minutes..." About* before a pd of time is an indicator of an inaccurate assessment of. (Deceptive?)
- in the altercation with the mom, he changes from "his hoody" to "the hoody" & "it". (Indicates significance? Distancing of item?)
- "knew about the hoody... saw it."(possibly deceptive?)
-CM

GeekRad said...

Peter, please reveal the analysis. Sitting on pins and needles here.

Rachael said...

GeekRad, I'm torn between wanting the analysis now, and hoping it doesn't come until I've had time to apply the 40% more rule. :)

Eleni said...

The author can be a female. Maybe that is why the author calls the victim "Tommy" and not "Tom." The spelling of "hoody" is different than Peter's spelling "hoodie", maybe the author has dominate urban influences. Maybe the hoody belongs to Tommy's mother, but Tommy allowed author to try it on.

GeekRad said...

Good point Rachael. There is more work to be done!

Anonymous said...

Additionally to my prior assessment (-CM)

-"Complied," implies Tommy was reluctant to allow, & most probably coerced into relenting. Tommy had clear reservations to let this person try it on.
-His repeated reference to the accuser as "Tommy" seems weird. I would guess they aren't close, acquaintances at best. In conversation, repeated ref using a person's name is done to be condescending. So written, besides sounding formal, without any real introduction of their basis for association-- vs "my friend," "classmate," "coworker." Nor even pronouns to ref him at points. I'd guess some animosity towards T exists by suspect. (Distancing the accuser by suspect?)
- Suspect already suggests his motive by stating it matched his own jacket. That he wants to try it on is just odd. Why? Safe assumption was to assess how it looked with jacket, & see if it fit. This gives probable cause for intent to take it. Also cements it was in suspects possession, giving window of opportunity to steal it.
> All circumstantial evidence in theory, but enough probable cause for this "person of interest," as now a "prime suspect." And suspect has confirmed the reasons for this in his own writing.
Hypothetically, cause enough for a Warrant to search--
But granted, this is far too trivial for it to be pursued as a real crime by authorities.
- Age dependent-- the time of day Tommy's mother finds suspect downtown, indicates kid is truant from school or a dropout. So possible degenerate tendencies in character.

***Conclusion: This time the butler did NOT do it, but the author of statement DID..
-CM

Some Confusion:
I've seen contradictory points that in statement analysis-- the 3 parts should be 25/50/25, but elsewhere should consist of equal 1/3 parts to?? Does it really vary by LE agencies, as to which they follow?? That's a scary thought!
I've also seen word-formulas applied to decide deception. Any validity?

Rachael said...

Another try:

Saturday March 23rd, Tommy had a small get together at his house.

'small get together' implies a more official gathering, rather than a party or gathering of friends. It is possible that the subject is present due to official affiliation only, not genuine camaraderie.

Tommy had a monster jacket sweater that matched my Jacket. I asked Tommy if I could try the sweater on with my Jacket. Tommy complied.

Perhaps 'my Jacket' is capilitalized because, as ima.grandma suggested, it is the only garment referenced that actually exists? Of course it 'matched', it's the same item! The capitalization is a leaking marble, of sorts, he is claiming ownership of what is NOT his.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Tommy's compliance = Tommy simply didn't/couldn't stop the subject. If he is willing to create the illusion of multiple garments, why not the illusion of active compliance?


I only had the hoody for about 20 minutes. Ithen took off the hoody and laid it on the back of the recliner. When Ileft the hoody was still on the chair.

'Only' is sensitive, why is he minimizing what to most would seem an excessive amount of time to try something on?

I feel like I'm reaching here... but... is there an improper introduction of the recliner? What recliner? Where is this recliner? Where did he leave from, and what chair is he now talking about? Suddenly there is a recliner, then he leaves, now there's a chair. This part hurts my head a little bit.

On Tuesday, March 26th, at about 1250pm, Tommy’s mom found me down town and accused me of stealing his hoody.

As previously noted, being 'found' suggests being lost, or hiding. Had Tommy's mom been calling him, or had word reached him that he was being sought, did he just expect that this wouldn't be overlooked?

I have to wonder, what he was up to, downtown, that he noted the approximate time. Why does the time matter? Is he alibi building?

I told heras politely as possible what I knew about the hoodyand where I last saw it.

As politely as possible suggests that it was possible for the subject to be impolite to the mother, which is unexpected as she is just trying to retrieve her sons property. If the subject had nothing to hide, why would being impolite even be considered?

She went on

about what would happen if the hoody wasn’t found…"


Does the statement just end here, or is there a part two coming?

If it ends here, it would seem that the consequences are irrelevant to the subject. It feels (I know... emotions! I know!) like it should end with 'if the hoody wasn't found...blah blah, I stopped listening so there is no point in continuing my statement.'