Friday, March 7, 2014

Statement Analysis of Steven Capobianco ex of Charli Scott, Missing



The interviewer did a good job and the hawaii news now is to be commended for publishing the transcript of the interview. 



More items, possibly belonging to Charlie Scott, were found Friday in a remote area off the Hana Highway. 

It's the same area were the missing, pregnant woman's clothes were found Thursday night. 
Police found the new items but wouldn't provide details of what those items were. 
The area was cordoned off with crime scene tape as family and friends of Charli stood outside waiting for any updates from MPD.  
Another search will resume Saturday at 8 am.
PREVIOUS INFORMATION:
Charli Scott's sister found clothes that she says Charli was wearing when she disappeared Sunday night.
Sources tell Hawaii News Now, the sister found the items while searching the area around the Hana Highway.  The family called police Thursday evening and were apparently told them to stay there with the items until a detective arrived.  But the sister instead drove the items to the police station in Kahului where the clothes and blanket are being processed.
This comes one day after Charli's SUV was found torched near Jaws surf break.
Hawaii News Now's Mileka Lincoln spoke to Charli Scott's ex-boyfriend and the father of her unborn child, Steven Capobianco. He is the last person to have seen Scott Sunday night before she disappeared. 24-year-old Capobianco has not been charged and is not a suspect.

                          Here is the interview:  
Interviewer:   "Hi, my name is Mileka Lincoln I'm calling from Hawaii News Now, KGMB/KHNL. I'm calling to see if I can ask you some questions about the ongoing search for Charli -- I know that you've helped to participate in it and I know there are questions about you being the last person to have seen her. I just wanted to see if we could clarify some things."
Steven: "Go for it."
This is a phrase that shows up as in a challenge.  For the subject, being asked to "clarify some things" is taken as a challenge.  This makes the interview, itself, sensitive. He is "up" for the challenge:  
Mileka: "I'm going to record this if that's okay, and this is going to be for our coverage. Tell me how you know Charli."
Steven: "First off, I don't want my voice on the news."

Where someone begins is always important.  Here he employs "first off" which indicates that he is using logic and he has a "second" thought, in the least.  
Mileka: "You do not want the recording used?"
Steven: "Yeah, I do not want the recording used. I don't want my voice coming out on everyone's TV on this island."

What one says in the negative is always important. 
Mileka: "I understand."
Steven: "But I will answer all of your questions and you guys can record it for your own personal use."

"But" means that emphasis is in play, in contrast to what preceded it.  Note that he will not "answer your questions" but "all of your questions..." with the emphasis.  This is a challenge to the subject. 

"for your own personal use":   Did the subject know it would be published? What did he mean by this phrase?
Mileka: "Ok."
Steven: "So I knew Charli because she was my ex-girlfriend from three or four years ago {asks someone, "Does that sound right?"} Five years ago, it was five years ago and we have kept in touch this entire time. We were still friends. We still knew each other."
The subject begins the information about Charli by speaking of her in the past tense.  Even while reducing their relationship to being "friends", he said, "we were still friends..." as if she is deceased.  

The subject either knows or believes that Charli is not alive.  We will see if the past tense reference slips out again...

He did not say "So I know Charlie because she is my ex girlfriend..." which is expected.  This is a strong indication that he knows/believes she is dead. Have the police told him that she is dead?  Has he received word, at the time of this interview, that has convinced him that she is dead?

As to the past tense:  Is she no longer his "ex girlfriend"?  

Regarding Charli, he references her in past tense, as a person, four times in this one answer.  
Mileka: "Are you the father of her unborn child? That's what we've been told."
This is now more than "friends" but the father of her unborn child.  The question is good, but she should not reveal that there are things that "we've been told" (passivity noted)
Steven: "That's what I've been told. I never got a piece of paper that said it or anything, but I would believe it."
The word "that" is distancing language, while "this" indicates closeness. Here we have the word "that" coupled with passivity:

"I've been told" is passive.  Passivity is when one does not want to reveal the source.  He does not say "Charli told me..."

"Would" is future/conditional tense.  

Under what conditions "would" he believe it?  This is distancing language.  This is an indication that he knew she was pregnant and he was the father. 

We have the word "that", and then the passivity of where the information came from, concealing the identity of the person who informed him (which may have been Charli), and he only "would" believe she was pregnant. 

These are three examples of him linguistically distancing himself from the child.  
Mileka: "So were you guys dating again?"

This is a "yes or no" question.  
Steven: "No, we just occasionally hooked up."
He does not give his sexual relationship with her the status of "dating" nor does he give any status to her being the mother carrying his pre born child. 
Note that "hooked up" is used and not "hook up", which would be present tense.  This indicates that he knows he will not be 'hooking up' with her again. 
Mileka: "So tell me about what happened Sunday night."
Good solid question.  

Although it pinpoints time frame, and better is, "Tell me what happened...", we learn that the time in question is sensitive to the subject:  
Steven: "Sunday night? She picked me up from my house at 8:30, drove out to my truck that I got stuck in Keanae and she dropped me off at my truck -- it took me about 10 minutes to fix my truck, 'cause I had extra light tools with me at that time. And then we came back to Haiku. And I'm pretty sure I saw her lights in my rearview the entire time. I'm absolutely certain I saw her headlights in my rearview mirror until I got to Twin Falls and then I started speeding up 'cause I drive a little faster than she does."
1.  "Sunday night?"  He answers the question with a question, which is a pause to allow him to think, making the question, itself about Sunday night, sensitive to him. 

Principle:  When one answers a question with a question, the question itself is sensitive. 

2.  "Drove out" does not have a pronoun.  There is no "we" (connection) in driving to "my truck"; yet he uses "we" afterwards while being in different vehicles.  Driving to the truck caused a dropped pronoun, but while allegedly in different vehicles, it produced the pronoun "we", which shows unity and cooperation.  Why would there be no unity before when they were physically together?

A dropped pronoun is a reduced commitment.  He does not say "She drove me" or "we drove" and there is a reason why he wishes to not commit to this statement.  It may be from a number of different causes, but for certain, a dropped pronoun is done for a reason.  We see this when teenagers do something wrong.  "Went to class" when skipped. There is a reduced commitment for a very good reason which the investigation will likely show. 

3.  Note the repetition of "my" truck, and not "the" truck after taking ownership.  Usually, someone will say "my" and then "the" following. The "truck" is of sensitivity to him. What is it about the truck that causes him to not use an article ("the") but the possessive pronoun?  An in depth interview likely revealed this answer.  
4.  Question Boundary. 

He was asked "What happened?" which is appropriate.  When someone feels the need to explain "why?" instead of "What?", it should be considered very sensitive.  This is color coded in SCAN with blue, making it the highest level of sensitivity.  When there is more than one "blue" highlighted, it is an indication of extreme sensitivity, as Mr. Sapir calls it a "cluster of blues", and the interview (and investigation) should target itself within these two "blues."
He feels the need to explain this time period "ten minutes" which may be precisely where there is missing information. 
5.  Note the reduced commitment with "pretty sure" but then the heavy emphasis of "absolutely certain", making seeing her headlights something sensitive to him. 

within this short statement,  information is missing, and it is very sensitive (the highest level of sensitivity) to the subject.  The Interviewer seems to grasp this. 
6.  He then feels the need to explain why he sped away.  This is very sensitive to him.  That he drove away from Charli at a high speed is sensitive to him.  

7.  "Extra light tools" is unnecessary information, making it important to the subject.  It may prove that these "extra light tools" were part of the case. 

8.  Change of language.  

When language changes, there should be a change of reality within the statement.  If not, it may indicate that the subject is not working from memory. 

Note that "rearview" became "rearview mirror" and "lights" became "headlights"; yet, there is nothing within the statement that appears to justify this change.  

This may be another indication of deception. 

The Interviewer caught this: 
Mileka: "What made you speed up ahead of her?"
Steven: "I was in front of her in the first place, in case my truck broke down and she would pull up behind me.
If this was "in the first place" it indicates that there was another reason, at least, why he was speeding. "In the second place" is missing. This is where the Interviewer should have asked, "Why else did you speed?"  There is a second place, and perhaps a third, in his mind. 
Mileka: "Right, that makes sense. So it was around Twin Falls that you say that you stopped seeing her headlights?"
Steven: "Yes."
Mileka: "And did you call her at any point afterwards just to make sure she'd gotten home? Or..."
Steven: "I actually didn't think to do that until the next morning. I sent her a text that said, 'Thank you' but I figured she was working, that's why she didn't get back to me right away and it wasn't until the cops showed up at my house at 5:30 in the morning the next day that I realized something was wrong."

please note the following:

1.  "actually" is a word when comparing two or more thoughts.  
2.  He reported what he "didn't" think
3.  "that" is distancing language.
4.  "I sent her a text" is similar to "phone" in statement analysis.  This can tie a person to the crime scene.
5.  "Thank you" is polite and is often used when one wishes to portray himself in a positive light, leading to the analysis question:

Why does he have a need to be portrayed positively?
6.  Note the passage of time:  he sent her the text "the next morning" but when she did not text him back "right away", that morning, he figured she was working.  He does not comment on the fact that she did not respond later that morning, that afternoon, that evening, that night, either.  The next time he mentioned is not that police informed him that she was missing:  but that "something was wrong."

This is a truthful statement:  something was wrong.  

Remember, he is speaking for himself.  If he "did it", that which is "wrong" is not Charli missing, but what he, himself might be facing as consequences.  

He did not realize that she was missing, but that something was "wrong" as the cops were at his door.  This is to avoid showing concern for the victim, and instead showing concern for himself.  The Interviewer has seen that he did not say the police reported that she was missing: 

Mileka: "And so when the cops arrived, what did they tell you?"
Steven: "They said, they told me that her parents had filed a missing person's report and gave them my name and they came to my address just to follow the lead."

In Statement Analysis, we ask you to consider, "How would I answer this?"  The first thing that comes to mind is that 

"police told me Charli was missing!"  This would be a powerful and shocking event.  I also note that he avoids using her name, which is distancing language and not at all expected during a critical time of a person carrying his child gone missing. 

Instead, note his answer:

Police told him

1.   "that her parents..." filed the report.
2.   They gave police his name. 
3.  It was a "lead" to seek him out. 

He does not report that Charli was missing.  This is not only distancing language, but his answer shows his focus:  it is not on Charli. 

4.  Note that they came to "my address" and not "my house" as he said before.  Charli came to his house, but the cops came to his address.  This is also noted as distancing.  It is not a "home" nor even a "house" but an "address", that is, a location.  

One might consider:  Does he expect a change of address?
Mileka: "Have they officially questioned you? Sometimes they make people take a lie detector test."

Mileka did a good job in a sensitive, short interview.  She was seeking to learn the polygraph question.  The instinctive "on the fly" questions show an intuitive interviewer who would prosper at training of Analytical Interviewing.  
Steven: "I volunteered for all of that. I went down there as soon as I could. I let them interrogate me. I let them polygraph me. I did everything."
Note that he let them "interrogate" him.  Here is where he could say he didn't do it, and he proved this by telling the truth and passing the polygraph.  Instead, he avoids it, so the Interviewer must now ask about the polygraph. 
Please also note the need to control:

a.  I volunteered
b.  I went down
c.  as soon as I could
d.  I let them interrogate me
e.  I let them polygraph me.
f.  I did everything.

The police may be dealing with a controlling narcissist.  
Mileka: "How'd the polygraph go?"
Steven: "To the best of my knowledge, it went ok."
Note that he is not able to say he passed it.  An honest person will say "I passed it because I told the truth"; with often only "I passed it" if no need to affirm why it was passed. 
In his personal, subjective personal dictionary, the word "ok" does not mean success.  

"To the best of my knowledge" is to acknowledge that to the best of someone else's knowledge, there will be a difference of an opinion.  He only did "ok", which is not a strong response.  This is an indication that he knows not only that he failed, but why he failed. 

Sometimes someone will say "I told the truth" but can refer to some questions, but not all, and will quickly become defensive when asked specifics.  He may have told the truth about his address, for example, but not about what he knows what happened to Charli.

Here is where he should say, "I told the truth.  I don't know what happened to Charli, and I don't care if they say I failed.  I told the truth on every question..." and so on. 

As to the question of did he really know he failed, we also hear "it went ok" as if "it", the polygraph, had a life of its own.  This is passive language.  He does not even say "I did ok", but "it", which is to conceal responsibility for the results of the polygraph. 

Remember:  passivity in language can conceal identity or responsibility.  It is appropriate if the subject does not know the source, such as, "I have been told..." but when it is used with direct knowledge, it is an avoidance of responsibility.  "The gun went off..."
The Interviewer presses: 
Mileka: "Did you pass, fail?"
Steven: "The Police told me I failed."
Note communicative language.  He does not say "police said I failed" but he uses the stronger, firmer, "told."

He failed the polygraph and even if he challenges the result, the expected response is, "I told the truth" and not to accept anything else.  Recall "the righteous are as bold as a lion" and boldness is often found in brevity.  We even like to hear people say, in response to, 

"What if you were told that you lied on the polygraph?"  

"I told the truth. "
" If you can't see that, its your tough luck" and "You need a new job"
"You don't know what you are doing..." and so on. 
Steven: "They didn't make me take it again. I'm honestly not convinced I failed, I think they might have just said that as a tactic, but I really don't know I'm walking around right now without handcuffs on."

1.  "Didn't" is in the negative, making it important.  
2.  "make":  Since police cannot "make" someone take a polygraph, it is likely that the subject is entering the Interviewer's own language (she used "make" above) 
3.   "honestly":  the word "honestly" is added here as he is likely being deceptive.  When one who is deceptive now wants to be believed, he will add this for emphasis.  
Note that he is "walking around" without handcuffs on "now" which indicates that he expects to be walking around with them on at a different time. 
Mileka: "So what do police tell you?"

The Interviewer moves into present tense.  
Steven: "They've just been questioning me. They haven't really told me anything." "I mean, it's undeniable that I'm probably the prime suspect, so they're not going to tell me any details."
Now they have been "questioning" him; not "interrogating";
they have not "really" told him anything, but he has been able to glean information even from the withholding of information, therefore, the word "really" is used to qualify.  They have told him some things.  
Mileka: "Was the dog Nala with Charli when she came to pick you up?"
Steven: "Yeah."
Mileka: "So does it make sense to you how Nala was found?"
Here is shows that he does know how to answer "yes and no" questions with a straight "no":
Steven: "No."
Mileka: "But Nala was still in the car with Charli when you guys left Keanae?"
Steven: "Yep."

Not "yes" or the above "yeah", as it would be interesting if "yep" is something said on a challenge-like atmosphere conversation in his personal, internal dictionary. 
Mileka: "What do you think about the fact that the car was found torched and on its side?"
Steven: "I'm not really sure what to think about that yet."

Instead of saying "I don't know" he uses a 'Casey Anthony-like' response.  He is not "really" sure, indicating that he does have an idea, but it not certain, which is to qualify his answer, yet he adds the element of time into the answer with the word "yet", which suggests he will be sure sometime in the future. 

Why this answer?

It may be that the subject was not expecting to be asked to give an opinion on how the car was found.  "Yet" would mean that if he had more time to think of an answer, or that in the future, he will have more information for his opinion.  The Interviewer presses, just the same and we do see that he has an idea.  It may have been suggested by the Interviewer.  This reminds us to be careful not to teach the subject how to lie by our questions: 
Mileka: "Is that a problem area?"
Steven: "I mean, probably. Did they say that was the only car torched and flipped over, 'cause that's a load of crap. There's like a dozen of them down there.

Note "probably" instead of "possibly" may indicate that he likes this answer.  Next, he says "they" without identifying who "they" are, who would say this "load of crap."  Is it police?  Is it Charli's family?

Note that there was "a dozen of them" down there shows familiarity.  This may have been a mistake that the Interviewer caught:
Mileka: "Oh, really? So this is something that happens in that area a lot? I don't know -- that's why I'm asking."
Steven: "Yeah, Peahi is a pretty bad notorious area for people who steal cars to go and ditch them.

Note that those who steal cars are not "car thieves" or "criminals" or anything else:  they are "people."

It would be interesting to learn if theft is in the subject's background. 
Mileka: "And so what do they do? Strip them and torch them?"
Steven: "From what I've seen just by driving by, yeah - it looks like it."

Here he uses the word "just" which indicates that he is comparing "driving by" with something greater.  This is what the Interviewer seemed to grasp:  he has been there before.  
Mileka: "And I'm sorry, you said the spot was Peahi?"
Steven: "Yeah, or the Jaws area if that's what you guys want to call it but the road is called Peahi."

"You guys" could be media, but it could be something else, to the subject.  I would like to explore if he has an issue with authority and considers law abiding citizens "them" versus "us" in his mind, like someone oppositional, who feels that "they" are against him. 
Mileka: "Peahi Road, okay -- we want to make sure we're being accurate."
Steven: "Yeah."
Mileka: "What is it that you want -- and I understand that you don't want your voice to be used -- but in terms of what you're sharing and telling us, what is it that you want viewers to know?"

This is a great question in spite of the additional words.  She is literally given him yet another opportunity to issue a reliable denial. 

A reliable denial has 3 components.  If it has only 2, or 4, it is not reliable. It must have:

1. The pronoun "I"
2.  The past tense verb "didn't" or "did not"
3.  The allegation specifically addressed.  

Here he has the opportunity to say he didn't do it.  
Steven: "I mean, I don't really care what they know. I just want Charli to be found."
He is unable or unwilling to say "I didn't do it" and we have a rule in Statement Analysis:

If the subject is unwilling or unable to say he did not do it, we are not allowed to say it for him. 

The interviewer now makes it plain, with a yes or no question.  A yes or no question is the easiest to lie to, as it causes less stress:


Mileka: "Did you do anything to hurt Charli?"
Here is the yes or no question for him to answer:   The word "no" should stand by itself.  We look at:

a.  Every word AFTER the word "no" as weakening.
b.  The avoidance of the word "no" as unreliable

Steven: "Absolutely not."
He avoids the direct answer "no" and uses emphasis with "absolutely" a la Joey Buttafouco.  This is unreliable.  
Mileka: "Do you understand why people think you might have?"
Steven: "Of course."

An innocent person does not generally like to allow for guilt where guilt does not exist.  This is seen as an attempt to portray oneself as "understanding."  .  Here, he allows for it.  See Charlie Rogers.  An innocent person does not understand how one could be wrong about the innocent person in an extreme crime, like a missing person, murder, molestation, etc.  It is 'anathema' to the innocent subject, who will not allow for the understanding. 
Mileka: "So what's next for you, what is your next step?"
Steven: "I've been doing everything I can to try help her, but her family is getting hostile with me so I've just been -- I'm sitting here at my house just waiting for any news to come through."
Note carefully:  "Everything he can" to him is just "sitting" at his house.  He is waiting, not for Charli, but for "news"; he likely awaits his arrest.  Note the additional words to understand how he removes himself from searching for her:

"I've been doing everything I can to try to help her"

1.  "everything I can" adds in limitation with the word "can", which is not necessary.
2.  "to help her" is to avoid saying "find her", since she is missing. 
3.  "but" refutes what he claimed to do: "everything he can" and blames her family.  
4.  The word "with" between people, indicates distance. Here it is "family" and himself at distance. 
5.  Body posture.  When body posture enters a statement it is a signal of tension.  "My boss said be at work at 8" is different from "My boss stood and told me to be at work at 8" with the body posture showing an increase in tension for the subject.  

He is not waiting for Charli to be found.  He is waiting for news.  This may be a change of address for him. 
Mileka: "Are you worried about your safety at all?"
Steven: "A little bit, but that's of little consequence because Charli's safety is first and foremost."
Mileka: "Steven, do you think they'll find her?"
Steven: "I don't know. I f--king hope so."
Mileka: "Did you love her?"

The Interviewer enters into his past tense language ,and likely, herself, believes that she is dead. 
Steven: "Of course."
Mileka: "Were you excited about being a dad?"
Steven: "Sort of. It was unexpected. She didn't tell me right away, but it was growing on me."
Note the negative report.  She kept it from him and he did not like that.  
Mileka: "Yeah, I guess you had more time, huh?"
Steven: "Yeah. I mean last time we talked we were talking about naming it. I thought we were getting there."

Note "last time we talked" he only "thought" that "we were getting there", which may suggest that the last time they were "talking" they did not agree. This may indicate a disagreement over the child, that may have led to Charli's disappearance...this is what police likely explored as a possible domestic homicide. 

"it" indicates that he does not know the gender; something the Interviewer may not have believed...
Mileka: "Was that on Sunday?"
Steven: "Yeah, that was on the ride out there."
Mileka: "Do you know if you were having a boy or girl?"
Steven: "I don't know for certain, but I was really hopeful that it was a boy. What man doesn't want a son?"

He does not say "I am really hoping for a boy" but "I  was really..." in the past tense.  

This is an indication that he knows or believes the child is dead. 
Mileka: "Do you know what she was hoping for?"
Steven: "She was probably hoping for a girl, what woman doesn't want a daughter?"
Mileka: "But you guys didn't talk about the sex?"
The interviewer is tipping his hand...
Steven: "She didn't know. Somebody else was supposed to know and it was supposed to be like a surprise at the baby shower and all that crap. So they never told me either because they didn't want me to spill the beans to her."
Mileka: "I see, they wanted to do it like that."
Steven: "Yeah, it's kind of old school. Traditional."
Mileka: "That's cool."
Steven: "Yeah."
Mileka: "So you literally just sit and wait, the cops didn't call you after Charli's car was found?"
Steven: "I had a friend who notified me, but the cops never did."
Mileka: "Is it true that you live nearby?"
Steven: "Yeah."
Mileka: "You think that someone might be trying to set you up?"
Steven: "I never really considered it until you said something, but maybe."
Mileka: "I mean, if you didn't do anything -- right?"
Steven: "I definitely did not do anything."
The additional word "definitely" makes the denial sensitive, as he feels the need to add emphasis. 
Mileka: "It would sure seem like it then."
Steven: "Yeah."
Mileka: "You have any enemies?"
Steven: "Her family."
Mileka: "Just her family?"
Steven: "They're the only people I can think of that would not like me enough to do anything about it. Everybody else on the island seems to love me."
Mileka: "So did you never have a good relationship with them? Or did you used to have a good relationship when you guys were dating?"
Steven: "No, I mean -- me and Charli always had a pretty good relationship but not me and her family."
Charli is referenced in the past tense, as their relationship is "past" at this point in his speech.  He speaks of her as if she is dead, and this is picked up in the Interviewer's wording: 
Mileka: "How long did you guys date?"
Steven: "I don't really recall, two years -- maybe three."
Mileka: "It was for a little while then."
Steven: "It was for quite a while, we lived together in a three bedroom house for a minute."
Mileka: "But you've been broken up for about four or five years?" {someone tells him, 'I think it's more like three or four.'}
Steven: "It might be more like three or four, it wasn't really something I cataloged."
Mileka: "I understand."
Mileka: "Was the family excited about Charli being pregnant?"
Steven: "I believe so. I had never talked to them about it. I had never had any contact with her family since I stopped dating her, up until they wanted me to come help them -- Monday morning when the showed up."
Mileka: "Monday morning they showed up?"
Steven: "They showed up -- one of them showed up at work and told me what was going on and then called me later and I rushed out to show them exactly what had happened the night before and proceeded to help them look."

They did not show up and say "Charli is missing" but "what was going on";
note that he only "rushed out" when it was "later"; this makes for an artificial emergency reaction.  He would "rush out" to help the first time he heard the news, but here, he did not "rush out" until "later" after being called. 
Mileka: "What do you think might have happened to Charli? Do you think there's a chance she just got tired of life on Maui and left?"
Steven: "I don't think so, not under these circumstances. She was a very caring person and she loved her dogs. and to have one of her dogs show up in Nahiku and one of her dogs had been locked in her house for a whole day -- she wouldn't do that Above all else, she would not leave her dogs unattended."
Note that he again speaks of her as "dead" and as a "person" (gender neutral) though she was carrying his child. 
Mileka: "Do you think Charli may have had any enemies?"
Steven: "That's hard for me to say. I didn't hang out with her very often. But, I mean, she had kind of a mouth on her -- I could see her pissing somebody off. But again, I don't want to speculate -- I don't know for certain."
Note that it is "hard" for him to say if Charli had enemies.  Did he consider himself her enemy when she became pregnant from a "hook up", of which he would now be responsible for 18 years of a child's life, financially?
Mileka: "I understand."
Steven: "Her family might be able to better answer that one."
Mileka: "That is a good question for them, you're right."
Mileka: "What's next for you Steven?"
Steven: "I don't know. I'm going to do everything I can to help."
That he "can" indicates limitedness.  The Interviewer recognizes this as thin, so the next question is direct: 
Mileka: "Are you still participating in the searches?"
Steven: "In my own way, but as a said -- the family's getting kind of hostile, so I stopped joining the search party myself. I've sort of ventured out on my own."
He qualifies his "help" by saying "in my own way"
Mileka: "Can I give you my information and will you be in touch if you learn anything or you can point in a direction we should be looking?"

yes or no question 
Steven: "Absolutely."
He is not likely to be interviewed by her again.  
The subject is withholding information about Sunday night, and it is likely related to his truck. 
He failed his polygraph, and is unable to say he didn't do it, and that he told the truth. 
Police should focus upon Steven Capobianco.  He believes or knows that Charli is dead.  He is deceptive and this analysis agrees with his polygraph. 

66 comments:

Deejay said...

This shows control issues on his part. Also the truck broken down 'might' have been a set up to get rid of her- In the place with damaged cars- note the time was 8:30 pm. Almost like an appointment.

Kosmo said...

Steven: "I don't know for certain, but I was really hopeful that it was a boy. What man doesn't want a son?"



This says it all right in this sentence... I was and IT WAS....

Anonymous said...

Peter,

Steven uses the word 'just' a lot. Just is often unnecessary and implies someone is stating one thing, but also thinking about something else.

Why is 'just' not always being underlined (as a standard) in statement analysis?

I hope I made clear what I meant as English is not my first language.

john said...

Hi Anon 11:42.

This maybe part of his everyday language. For instance. Over here across the pond. I know a lot of people who say "Yeah know what i mean" almost every time they finish a statement.

It's when they stop saying the above at the end of what they are saying, that's when i take notice. And wonder why they have dropped their usual norm.



Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous said...
Peter,

Steven uses the word 'just' a lot. Just is often unnecessary and implies someone is stating one thing, but also thinking about something else.

Why is 'just' not always being underlined (as a standard) in statement analysis?

I hope I made clear what I meant as English is not my first language.
March 7, 2014 at 11:42 AM

Good question.

It could be underlined and explored. Sometimes it is a matter of time, and other times it is overall impression, whereas it might not lead to much in-depth, other than an interviewer seeking to know what the subject is comparing the topic to.

As of today, it was a combination of both!

I will take another look.

Thank you,

Peter

Randie said...

"Mileka: "What is it that you want -- and I understand that you don't want your voice to be used -- but in terms of what you're sharing and telling us, what is it that you want viewers to know?"
Steven: "I mean, I don't really care what they know. I just want Charli to be found."

*****

There are so many red flags. With the quote above. He should have said: "Yes, I want them to know what she was waring last, jeans, pink sweatshirt...(etc.), help us to look for her. I want them to know she is carry our baby and is in a delicate condition. I want them to know I didn't hurt her!"

Jen Ow said...

Agreed, Kosmo!

Annonymous17 said...

Kudos to this interviewer. S/he did a great job.

Mymindkeepsexpandingjustliketheuniverse said...

Interesting how the body of the letter (the way it is set up for anyone not familiar with the term) written by anon 11:42 is so very similar to the way someone else on here sets up their posts.

Peter Hyatt said...

Given that I would be nervous out of my mind, on high alert and speaking to someone in authority, I would give out the full name and address as quickly as I could.

I have gone back and added to the analysis, as time has allowed this afternoon...

please see updates.

Peter

Jen Ow said...

So many red flags, I don't know where to start!

First, why on earth would he call a pregnant woman to come help with a stuck/broken down truck? Even if he only needed a ride to the truck, surely there is someone else who could help.

He stated that his truck was STUCK, then says it took him about 10 min to FIX IT. (When did it go from being 'stuck', to needing repaired?)

He shows sensitivity in his need to explain how long the repair took, saying... "it took me about 10 min to fix my truck, cause I had EXTRA LIGHT TOOLS with me at THAT time".
He uses 'that' which distances him from the time period he claims to have been fixing his truck. He also just stated that Charli picked him up from his house, and drove him to retrieve his truck, so why didn't he bring the appropriate tools for the job?

Only one paragraph into his account of what happened, and he has already revealed that what he is saying DIDN'T happen. There has already been a change in language/reality regarding the issue with the truck, along with a need to persuade/explain his actions, rather than report.

CarlaP said...

Do you think his speculation to motive is an embedded confession? Charli said something that "pissed him off" so he killed her?

Mileka: "Do you think Charli may have had any enemies?"

Steven: "That's hard for me to say. I didn't hang out with her very often. But, I mean, she had kind of a mouth on her -- I could see her pissing somebody off. But again, I don't want to speculate -- I don't know for certain."

john said...

Hi Peter, was i wrong with my reply to Anons question about using the word "Just" a lot?

Thanks.

john said...

The reason i say that Peter, is that some people have a habit of saying " just" "I know" "do you understand" etc.

Its "Just" part of their everyday language no matter the situation.

What i was saying is that. When someone stops using their (normal) vocabulary..Is it that we take note? Of the change?

Sus said...

OT Myra Lewis

http://m.msnewsnow.com/#!/newsDetail/24907111

This is not good. Police are walking the Lewis property in a grid pattern with K-9's. Heavy equipment has been brought in for digging.

Anonymous said...

Sus I tried going to the link you provided but it is just bringing up a page that says it doesnt match any documents on google. Is the address right?

Hobnob said...

Steven: "I definitely did not do anything."

Definitely weakens the statement making it sensitive.

If he definitely did not do anything, does this mean then he did do something?

Anything is vague, what is his definition of anything?
since it is impossible to do nothing he had to do something.

What does his anything relate to since he has told us he met her drove out to his truck with her, fixed his car and then they both allegedly drove back.
That is doing something.
If he did not do anything then it means he didn't do the above which contradicts his admission.

Do you follow my thinking??

Sus said...

http://m.msnewsnow.com/#!/newsDetail/24907111

Hope this works. This is how it copies for me. Safari...I-phone, don't know if that makes a difference, or not.

Sus said...

Here's another article about today's search for Myra Lewis.

http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20140307/NEWS/303070046/State-search-teams-heavy-equipment-hunt-missing-toddler

Shelley said...





I find it interesting that when first asked if he is the father of the unborn baby he states “that’s what I have been told”. Almost like he heard that but is not sure.

I was asked about a rumor at work and even though I also heard the rumor, I don’t know anything more. So my reply to them was “that’s what I heard”. I also don't want to be responsible for spreading the rumor. It's not my rumor. I only heard about it.

It sounds like he just heard but does not know for sure. Instead of him just saying “Yes, I am”



But then clearly later he states they talked about it in the car. Even states that one person does know the sex and it was supposed to be a surprise for the baby shower. He knew very well he was the father.


He clearly wanted to distance himself from being the father.

Shelley said...

Good catch Jen Ow on him saying his truck was stuck then later he fixed it.

Shelley said...

The article on Myra stated

"Gregory Lewis has publicly recounted searching for the child until the ATV stalled"

I have not heard him publically state that but so he stopped searching with the ATVbonly cause it stalled.

I said it before, but I am now more convinced he used that to hide her body.

Shelley said...

They also question if Myra is Gregory's bio daughter.

Moms Facebook said they have been together for 8 years so if that is not his child, there are more issues here that we ever realized

Anonymous said...

Sus I was able to read the second article. That is disheartening. It is coming into focus for me now what may have happened and it hinges on the mother's language that she claims to have told Myra and her sister to "get back in the house". When I picture her saying this, I am picturing that she wanted Myra and her sister to get away from something outdoors she didn't want them to see or be around. Is it possible that the father was domestically abusing the mother, who was either fleeing from him (perhaps even holding Myra, or Myra could have followed the mother out there or have been playing outside) or being attacked or threatened by him outside. It was also pointed out how the mother stated "she was going to go to the grocery store" and people pointed out that they may mean she never actually went (but I don't think it rules out her having left in the car). I am wondering if the father harmed Myra in the midst of some kind of domestic attack or threat of attack on the mother. I get a bad vibe off him.

Anonymous said...

Shelley I pointed that possibility out on the other thread of her possibly not being the father's bio daughter (and that people of some religious persuasions may not react very well to that within their family), and was severely ridiculed about how useless my points are by some. It's OK, just thought I'd point it out.

Sus said...

Anon 5:29 and 5:33,
I will discuss Myra missing with you if you join the discussion nicely...meaning listen to others, respond to others with the idea they have value, and know it is not about being right or wrong. We can work together. Oh, and stop thinking I'm out to get you and trying to set me up for others to think that. I'm happy to discuss SA with you.

Now, as to your first post here on Myra, I don't remember the mother saying "get back in the house" Please share where you got that.

Anonymous said...

Sus I do apologize if I was inconsiderate of others. I can see that I was and I am sorry. I did become a bit defensive for being accused of things I didn't do. I wasn't trying to set you up. I genuinely thought you were LTAZA (or whatever that name was) but realized you were not. I apologize.
As far as what the mother said, I'm going on memory, but you are right those were not her exact words (I wrote too quickly.) Going on memory, I believe she said she "told Myra and her sister to go back in the house". I would still stand by my point about it possibly indicating the mother was trying to get Myra to get away from something occurring outside (my thoughts are that the mother was either fleeing from, being threatened by or being attacked by the father.) Just a thought, it is interesting word choice about "go back in the house", probably indicating they (Myra and sister) had just come out of the house. But who knows? Very sad case.

john said...

OT:

Attempted murder charges for drive into ocean.

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2014/03/07/ebony-wilkerson-pregnant-ocean-attempted-murder

Peter Hyatt said...

john, I always enjoy your posts.

With anything that becomes a habit in speech, we note where it appears...

and where it doesn't.

I hope this helps!

After seeing "Just" not underlined, I went back and added it...

when I added it, i saw more and added more...

the analysis is almost 25% more.

Peter

Sus said...

Ok, that's it. I was going to try to answer you and have a discussion.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, my memory is wrong. The mother actually said she "saw Myra and her sister walk back into the house". Well, anyway, it's the "walk back into" that I feel may suggest Myra and her sister had just walked out of the house, and I'm thinking maybe following the mother as she may have been fleeing or the kids may have followed to see what was going on if the Dad was giving the mother a hard time, threatening or hurting her outdoors. Anyway, terribly sad case.

Anonymous said...

Sus, I did not write the post at 6:16.

john said...

Thanks Peter. )

sambo said...

This is such a compelling analysis, I really enjoyed reading it. Could someone please enlighten me as to the meaning of the word "phone" indicating a connection with the crime scene?

Sus said...

I am confused on who says what anymore. I always use Sus. Count on it.

john said...

Hi Sambo, have you tried the search engine on the home page, its on the right hand side.

john said...

Hi Sus, you would be wise to choose an Avi.

That way, you will be able to delete you comments if you have left something out of your analysis and then add it to your next post. And also no-one can try to impersonate you because it is unique to you..Just a suggestion

Sus said...

Anon,
So as not to be off topic too much I'll post on the Myra post. Join me there. ;-)

Anonymous said...

Sus OK thanks I will follow along there :)

polywog said...

What is the story with the dog?

Anonymous said...

Steven: "That's hard for me to say. I didn't hang out with her very often. But, I mean, she had kind of a mouth on her -- I could see her pissing somebody off. But again, I don't want to speculate -- I don't know for certain."

Could this be considered leakage, or as CarlaP pointed out, an embedded confession?

“But,” meaning a brief pause, possibly a personal reflection, then he goes on to say that Charlie had a mouth on her and could piss someone off. Could he have been talking to himself? Did he get “pissed off” about her pregnancy and its impact on his life as they talked that night and reality sunk in?

I also agree with Jen Ow that calling Charlie to help him get his truck unstuck was unusual, especially since he went to a lot of trouble explaining how he didn't “hang” with her anymore.

Anonymous said...

*tumbleweed*

CarlaP said...

What a grim reality. Charli was reportedly 6 months pregnant. It doesn't seem far fetched to think they argued about something pregnancy related, he snapped and murdered her. I can't imagine under what circumstances a woman 6 moths along would take off without letting anyone know on her own accord.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/26/us-deaths-pregnancy-idUSTRE79P7OK20111026

"Expectant mothers are more likely to die from murder or suicide than several of the most common pregnancy-related medical problems, U.S. researchers have found.

Roughly half of those women who died violently had had some sort of conflict with their current or former partners leading up to the death, causing experts to call for more thorough screening and follow up for domestic problems during pregnancy check-ups."

polywog said...

OFF TOPIC HEATHER ELVIS: WMBF Is reporting DNA related to the case found in the Moorers truck. Attatched to an article on the Angie P murder

( Can't post a link from my phone)

Anonymous said...

Did he admit it(Reuters)

john said...

"I mean, she had kind of a mouth on her -- I could see her pissing somebody off."

Is this a form of disparagement?

Nic said...

Mileka: "Is that a problem area?" Steven: "I mean, probably. Did they say that was the only car torched and flipped over, 'cause that's a load of crap. There's like a dozen of them down there.


To me his knowledge of the area contradicts what "they" might have said. The way he refutes the assumption of what they might have said, makes him sound like ditching and torching the car was premeditated and made to look like a common occurrence in a place where there were "problems". Like it would not be out of the ordinary/a surprise/questionable to find her car ditched and torched there.

Nic said...

Further to my above post, "probably" minimizes his knowledge of the area/distances him. Then specific knowledge about cars being ditched and torched shows intimacy. The chosen area was likely meant to point to a different group of people (random) than have LE look directly at him. He sped ahead and she was not within his sight, anymore. So vulnerable.

Nic said...

light tools

We have a lot of tools in our household and I have never heard my husband refer to any of them as light/extra light/heavy. Equipment, yes. As in "heavy equipment". But not tools.

So was he carrying something heavy? Like a super duper heavy wrench?

Nic said...

John, I would agree with you that he is disparaging the victim.

Nic said...

His numerous references to the rearview mirror and being followed (supposedly by Charli) makes me think he was paranoid about having been seen/reported/followed.

Nic said...

John, "hook-up" is also disparaging. It implies that Charli's behavior was to have random sex. The interviewer qualified more than once that their relationship had been long-term. Whomever was in the background had to keep reminding him how long they had been together, so my impression was that Charli felt more for Stephen than he for her. He even said that it wasn't something he "cataloged".

"Cataloged" is a weird word. Documented would have been a better description, i.e., with pictures. Catalogue is impersonal? I don't know what the connotation is. But when someone documents something, it is something they have personal knowledge of/participation in? It's more official to the person.

jmo

Nic said...

People catalogue things.

People document events.

john said...

Hi Nic,

I would ask him what his definition of catalogued is, in his subjective internal dictionary.

Hobnob said...

Perhaps he refers to light tools as tools that could not be used as a weapon.
Does this mean then there are tools that could be used as a weapon ie heavy tools?

He introduces light tools making it sensitive to him.

Are we looking at beaten to death with a heavy tool such as hammer/wrench/crowbar/hammer etc?

CarlaP said...

Good catch, Hobnob! "Light tools" is such an odd qualifier to make, it does jump out at you when you read it. I think you're definitely on to something with the "heavy" tools being used as a weapon.

Anonymous said...

Mileka: "Do you know if you were having a boy or girl?"

(a yes or no question)

Steven: "I don't know for certain, but I was really hopeful that it was a boy. What man doesn't want a son?"

He didn't answer "yes" or "no."
He parroted her language:
"Do you know..."
"I don't know..."

And does the use of the word "but" there negate what came before it?

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2013/03/understanding-word-but-in-analysis.html

I wonder about the tone of his voice in this part of the interview especially because the line "What man doesn't want a son?" seems goofy, like he lost a little control, (especially if he's a controlling narcissist,) and it is one of the only three times he phrases anything as a question in the entire interview. (The others being "Sunday night?" at the start of the interview, and "Did they say that was the only car torched and flipped over 'cause that's a load of crap.")

Charli's family didn't make an announcement to the public that the baby was a boy, until after Steven gave this interview. Supposedly neither Charli or Steven knew the sex at this point.

Mileka: "Do you know what she was hoping for?"
Steven: "She was probably hoping for a girl, what woman doesn't want a daughter?"
Mileka: "But you guys didn't talk about the sex?"
Steven: "She didn't know. Somebody else was supposed to know and it was supposed to be like a surprise at the baby shower and all that crap. So they never told me either because they didn't want me to spill the beans to her."
Mileka: "I see, they wanted to do it like that."
Steven: "Yeah, it's kind of old school. Traditional."

Maybe Steven knew the baby was a boy before this interview and before her family made the public announcement. A controlling narcissist would be angered about having that kept from him.

Anonymous said...

Mileka: "Do you know if you were having a boy or girl?"

(a yes or no question)

Steven: "I don't know for certain, but I was really hopeful that it was a boy. What man doesn't want a son?"

He didn't answer "yes" or "no."
He parroted her language:
"Do you know..."
"I don't know..."

And does the use of the word "but" there negate what came before it?

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2013/03/understanding-word-but-in-analysis.html

I wonder about the tone of his voice in this part of the interview especially because the line "What man doesn't want a son?" seems goofy, like he lost a little control, (especially if he's a controlling narcissist,) and it is one of the only three times he phrases anything as a question in the entire interview. (The others being "Sunday night?" at the start of the interview, and "Did they say that was the only car torched and flipped over 'cause that's a load of crap.")

Charli's family didn't make an announcement to the public that the baby was a boy, until after Steven gave this interview. Supposedly neither Charli or Steven knew the sex at this point.

Mileka: "Do you know what she was hoping for?"
Steven: "She was probably hoping for a girl, what woman doesn't want a daughter?"
Mileka: "But you guys didn't talk about the sex?"
Steven: "She didn't know. Somebody else was supposed to know and it was supposed to be like a surprise at the baby shower and all that crap. So they never told me either because they didn't want me to spill the beans to her."
Mileka: "I see, they wanted to do it like that."
Steven: "Yeah, it's kind of old school. Traditional."

Maybe Steven knew the baby was a boy before this interview and before her family made the public announcement. A controlling narcissist would be angered about having that kept from him.

sambo said...

Hi John, yes I have tried searching for phone but it comes up with 8 pages of results. Sorry if my question was out of line, I'm just curious what the connection is as it was mentioned in the article but not elaborated on.

charlotte from denmark said...

"Steven: "I was in front of her in the first place, in case my truck broke down and she would pull up behind me"

Why does this need to mean something else? He may have been literally in front of her in the first place, his car in front of hers.

Anonymous said...

Peter wrote:
>>>Mileka: "Is that a problem area?"
Steven: "I mean, probably. Did they say that was the only car torched and flipped over, 'cause that's a load of crap. There's like a dozen of them down there.

Note "probably" instead of "possibly" may indicate that he likes this answer. Next, he says "they" without identifying who "they" are, who would say this "load of crap." Is it police? Is it Charli's family?

Note that there was "a dozen of them" down there shows familiarity. This may have been a mistake that the Interviewer caught:

Mileka: "Oh, really? So this is something that happens in that area a lot? I don't know -- that's why I'm asking."
Steven: "Yeah, Peahi is a pretty bad notorious area for people who steal cars to go and ditch them.

Note that those who steal cars are not "car thieves" or "criminals" or anything else: they are "people."

It would be interesting to learn if theft is in the subject's background.

Mileka: "And so what do they do? Strip them and torch them?"
Steven: "From what I've seen just by driving by, yeah - it looks like it."

Here he uses the word "just" which indicates that he is comparing "driving by" with something greater. This is what the Interviewer seemed to grasp: he has been there before.
Mileka: "And I'm sorry, you said the spot was Peahi?"
Steven: "Yeah, or the Jaws area if that's what you guys want to call it but the road is called Peahi."

"You guys" could be media, but it could be something else, to the subject. I would like to explore if he has an issue with authority and considers law abiding citizens "them" versus "us" in his mind, like someone oppositional, who feels that "they" are against him.
Mileka: "Peahi Road, okay -- we want to make sure we're being accurate."
Steven: "Yeah.">>>


Background:
Steven is familiar with the Pe'ahi Rd/Jaws area.
And he lives about 3 miles from Pe'ahi Rd.

The "us vs. them" issue is Hawaiians and locals vs. haoles and tourists. Steven is a local. Locals call it "Pe'ahi." Tourists call it Jaws and have a hard time finding it because there aren't signs for "Jaws" anywhere and it's not easy to find.

He has issues with authority too though and a prior arrest record.

If you go to Pe'ahi/ Jaws, you do more than "just driving by." To get there, you either walk in, two miles to the ocean, or need at least a 4wd or vehicle that can offroad. (Btw, it's well known on the island that Steven and his friends are into modding and offroading Toyotas.) Pe'ahi is an unpaved, usually muddy "road" through cane fields leading to the ocean at a point where there are some of the biggest wave breaks in the world. People go there to see that and some of best surfers in the world. You can't drive a regular vehicle in there without ruining the suspension, and more than likely getting stuck. That's part of why there used to be so many burned out vehicles there- if it got stuck and was left for a while, some locals would light it on fire.

When the surf isn't up, and late at night, the only people around there tend to be transients and drug addicts. Police don't regularly patrol it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peahi,_Hawaii

Anyway, Steven was being deceptive in this part of the interview regarding his familiarity with the place where Charli's truck was found.

Also:
Mileka asked if cars being torched and flipped there was something that happens a lot, and Steven adds new info, replying:

"Yeah, Peahi is a pretty bad notorious area for people who steal cars to go and ditch them."

Seems like he wants everyone to think someone stole her truck and went there and ditched it. (Or that's what he was thinking.)

Anonymous said...

This part is so weird:

"Mileka: "Do you know if you were having a boy or girl?"

Steven: "I don't know for certain, but I was really hopeful that it was a boy. What man doesn't want a son?"

What would we expect Steven to reply if he didn't know?
"No."
or "I don't know."
or "No, because it was being kept a secret from me and Charli until the baby shower."
or "No, but her family (or a friend) knows... and Charli was going to find out at the baby shower and then tell me."
or even "I don't know for certain, but I kind of thought it might be a boy..." (if Steven were willing to let on that he thought he'd found a clue previously from someone who did know.)

Her family or whomever was keeping the secret until the baby shower might know how Steven could possibly have found out. (Was he at a sonogram appointment? Or friends with whomever was keeping the secret and persuaded them to tell him?)

If one of her family members were the only one who knew the sex of the baby, he wouldn't have found out from them if this is true:
Mileka: "Was the family excited about Charli being pregnant?"
Steven: "I believe so. I had never talked to them about it. I had never had any contact with her family since I stopped dating her, up until they wanted me to come help them -- Monday morning when the showed up."

Anonymous said...

Mileka: "Was the family excited about Charli being pregnant?"
"Steven: "I believe so. I had never talked to them about it. I had never had any contact with her family since I stopped dating her, up until they wanted me to come help them -- Monday morning when the showed up."

"...they wanted me to come help them."

Doesn't that speak volumes!

What's the expected? What would we expect to hear from someone who doesn't know where the missing person is, or why they are missing, (whether she is dead or being held somewhere against her will.)
And keep in mind that this is Monday morning, less than 24 hours since he last saw her, and before any signs indicated foul play, (before the clothes or dog were found or the truck was found torched.)

That early on, Steven framed it as if looking for Charli would only help her family.

It leaked out when he was distracted/focused more on explaining something else.

Anonymous said...

The whole thing with talking about how he is speaking of her in the past tense is ridiculous. Even her best friend accidentally did that himsel, and then corrected himself. I' People tend to do that when they're looking for a missing person. They're hoping for the best and don't want to believe The worse. But sometimes they tend to speak that way. I'm talking about the show that aired on the ID channel. This is where I saw the family &her friends talking about what was going on. My heart goes out to the family. God bless them and Charlie. <3

Anonymous said...

The analyst seems to be a real piece of self promoting work. Typical "shrink" posturing. He occupies a high ground position and places himself in command while he grandly dispenses "expert" analysis of everyone from his superior vantage point.

A key statement he makes shows his self promoting agenda:

"The instinctive "on the fly"
questions show an intuitive
interviewer who would prosper
at training of Analytical
Interviewing."

Notice that "Analytical Interviewing" is capitalized like it is a proper noun. In fact it is a proper noun. It is a training seminar sold to law enforcement. See http://www.iainterviewing.com/
Looks like the analysis is pitching his money making seminar to the news media now as well as law enforcement.

This guy is nothing more than an infomercial huckster promoting his for profit seminar.

So analyze that buddy!

Sandi said...

I totally believe Steven knows exactly what happened to charli and where,because he is the one who got her to leave the safety of her home. he answers these questions like he barely spoke with her and yet she was who he called for help? when everybody on the island "seems to love him" he calls his "hook-up"? it is ridiculous. In my experience it is usually the most obvious person, with something to gain or something to lose that will make someone disappear. He did not want a child, he did not want to have to pay support, and he did not care about this woman enough to allow her to have control over him in any way, (having his child). He killed her.