Sunday, April 13, 2014

Statement Analysis: Letting it Go

There are times when sensitivity indicators regarding a difficult topic often mean simply walking away.

I hope this helps explain why some analysis is not pursued vigorously. It is a personal judgement call on my part, as author of the blog, and it varies from case to case.

When a crime has taken place, and the subject has been deceptive, it is important to learn if the subject is being deceptive about the crime itself.  There are times in investigations where a subject has written a statement about the event, and has been indicated for deception, except that the deception was not about the allegation.

On one such case, a few years ago, a company had reported missing money, and the difficult issue was that there was an unknown number of people who had access to the missing money, including sub contractors, and visitors to the building.  This means that even if all the workers write out statements, the thief could still have been someone else who is not known, and who has not written out a statement.

In cases where the missing money had to be one of __ number of workers, the written statement is going to find out who took the money.  This is the norm.

In the above case, I asked for assistance in my analysis, for I had seen deception, but it did not appear to be related to the thief.

I sent the statement to LSI.

SCAN is the place where it all begins, and is the foundation for all Statement Analysis.  I sent the statement seeking a review of my work and received back the answer that I had, indeed, uncovered deception, but that something else had taken place.  I was instructed to inquire if another theft had taken place.

When I spoke to the company, I learned that there had been, recently, a break in and robbery of high tech equipment where there appeared to be no forced entry.

I approached the subject who agreed to take a polygraph but, she said, only if the questions were about "this" theft (the theft of money).


In reviewing statements for companies, I have often found deception within the statements, though unrelated to the allegation.

There are those, for example, who will reveal that they lied about time off, or stole time from their employer, or felt a need to brag up poor work; all points of sensitivity, but all unrelated to the allegation.

This is where the Analytical Interviewing shines:  it allows the subject to choose his own words, define these words, and for the innocent to assert so, even while alerting employers to other problems that need to be addressed.

Recently, a tragedy took place in which two children died.  The mother's language indicated sensitivity about leaving them with her own mother. The mother of the deceased certainly appeared to have questions, within herself, about her choice to leave her toddlers with their grandmother, and she will be haunted for the rest of her life.

She would not need to read analysis of her words here, as it will serve no purpose even in justice for the toddlers.

Yes, there is a story behind the words and it could be anything from a grandmother who fell asleep while being ill, right on up to substance abuse and so on, but there are just times when there is no purpose to pursue analysis.

Years ago, a boy went missing and his mother's words indicated sensitivity about leaving him in the case of his father and step mother.  To analyze her words would have meant nothing but added pain.  It would not help the case.  Even a letter from the mother, open the public, was left unanalyzed.

Terry Elvis' pain is acute and his words about his own daughter showed, from the beginning, veracity.  Yet there are those who continue to have their malicious comments deleted here as the comments are intended to add to the family's pain.

Trista Reynolds is another of whom a small group of DiPietro supporters delight in posting her shortcomings in life for the whole world to see.  Statement Analysis of Trista Reynolds showed that she did not know what happened to Baby Ayla, and she had no guilty knowledge of where Ayla was.  Justin DiPietro showed guilty knowledge of Ayla's death.

"Letting it go" means just that; there is no purpose in further analysis.

Sometimes, this is best.

Recall the "Zumba" scandal in Maine.  The husband of the prostitute suffered many things and the more he spoke...well, you get the picture.

Later on, the words can be taken, long after the case is forgotten, and be useful for instruction, with the names redacted.  This is different.

For now, readers, use discretion and wisdom, even when analyzing comments.


Anonymous said...

nicely said.

Nanna Frances said...

Are you going to have the show today?

Anonymous said...

Peter, is this why you never followed up on Fred Murray's statement? It was posted back in January, but no analysis was ever provided. I thought that was strange as you usually do follow up...

Anonymous said...

What? Scanned language proved both guilty! Perhaps they'll befriend George Zimmerman.

She seems to be doing incredibly well considering: Ryan Ferguson opens up about his newfound friendship with Amanda Knox
Ryan Ferguson, 29, walked free from a Missouri prison last November after spending almost ten years in jail for a crime he maintains he didn't commit
Ferguson had been convicted of the 2001 murder of Columbia Daily Tribune sports editor Kent Heitholt when he was just 17
Ryan says he could identify with fellow former American prisoner Amanda Knox, whose book Waiting To Be Heard, he read while in jail
Says he knows what it's like to have 'the world turn against you based on a series of lies'
Since leaving jail he has been in touch with Knox who was a prominent Free Ryan supporter
Ferguson revealed Knox is coping well as she awaits the verdict of her third trial for the 2007 murder of her roommate Meredith Kercher
PUBLISHED: 08:28 EST, 28 January 2014 | UPDATED: 13:38 EST, 28 January 2014

Read more:
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

elf said...

OT anyone wanna practice?
Subject makes allegation of child abuse.
"Not starting sh** u asked if I dated him I told u and y we didn't stay together take it how u want to perceive it but he did beat my 2 yr old with a belt he was high on meth and his cousin Michelle was a drunk who stayed with us and was infatuated with wanting to f*** him we drove to new Orleans and on the way back I got a ticket for speeding hoping I would go to jail cause his cousin was annoying and I was sick of him abusing my daughtet"
that was sent to me via personal message on Facebook. I've done what analysis I can, but I'm still only a novice and would love to hear different thoughts. *note* all capitalizations were done by my phone with the exception of the first word 'not', it was entirely lower case, with no punctuation. Here is her public post on her wall:
"Here I can post the truth Joe Smith and I dated when Maria was 2 and he worked at (job) and he also beat my 2 yr old with a belt so I kicked him to the curb for abusing my child"
**names are changed. (Job) was used by me to indicate that the subject said the name of the work place.
Additional comment ---
"Yea well think what you want I know he knows John Doe knows too and his drunk cousin Michelle stayed with us and she had an infatuation to f*** him lets blame it on drugs"
Again an alias was used (john doe) by me.

elf said...

Oh and what started all that was I expressed surprise that the two had dated.

shmi said...

Sounds like they did more than dated. They lived together?

Anonymous said...

That's some harsh response.

Amanda said...

Elf, My analysis of what you posted, is that the individual seems to be telling the truth about the child abuse. There doesn't seem to be deception indicators surrounding that.
There does seem to be some deception regarding the child abuse may not have been the reason why she "kicked him to the curb".
"he also beat my 2 yr old with a belt so I kicked him to the curb for abusing my child."

The repetition of the child abuse
"he (also) beat my 2 yr old with a belt"
"for abusing my child"
in the same sentence makes it sensitive in regards to it may not have been the reason she decided to kick him to the curb.

trustmeigetit said...

Nel got Oscar in another pretty big contradiction.

Oscar stated the duvet was on his bed NOT the floor. It is one of the many items he says the cops moved.

So… there is blood on this duvet.

In court today, when asked how there was blood, Oscar first states it must have gotten there when he carried Reeva out. Then Nel shoots that down. Then he tries to say he must have gotten blood there when getting the cell phoneS. Interesting he says phones not phone since Reevas phone was in the toilet and he even said he pulled it out when he first broke down the door to find her.

Nel also brings up the fact that Oscar didn’t mentioned the opening window in his bail application yet now states there is no doubt that is what he first heard.

I love that Nel states that him hearing the window open and the door slamming was critical information and the fact that he DIDN’T initially put this in his bail hearing is to be questioned. I totally agree. Those were 2 points that would have been the most important. Vs. I “heard a noise”. Hearing a window and a door open/slam would be scary. But a noise in the toilet when you are not home alone is clearly an issue.

Best part so far…. “Nel picks up bail application affidavit in which OP says; ‘realized intruders were in toilet because toilet door was closed'…. OP says he told his counsel many things that were not put in bail or pleas statements.”

There you go, blame your attorneys. They failed to report CRITICAL facts that you told them. I am sure the attorneys don’t mind being blamed. But then Roux does come in later and state that Oscar did tell him about the slamming door.

I don’t believe Roux. I think he is just protecting his client. You don’t forget the most important point in your story. The opening window and slamming door are. They are the only thing that would somewhat support an intruder.

Oscar is clearly messing up and Nel keeps calling him out on it.

This is a good attorney.

I wish Nel would move to Scurry County Texas and become the prosecutor. I fully believe he would file charges against Billie and Shawn and would rip them apart with their lies.

We need more like him.

People are getting mad that he is being so hard. But sometimes we need hard. And, I think if you are innocent, it will show by your consistent testimony. Your story won’t change as things are questioned.

trustmeigetit said...


See below…

OP says he guesses the wood moving notice he heard from toilet was magazine rack moving.
Nel seems delighted at this admission from the runner. 'I'm going to show you something'.

Nel says Oscar heard the magazine rack as RS fell against after first shot. Says he then changed aim…..

Nel shows photo showing trajectory of bullets into toilet. Says first shot aimed at toilet, two more at magazine rack.

You say you heard magazine rack. Reeva fell on it. then you fired two more shots at rack.

GeekRad said...

trustmeigetit- Yes, if only Scurry County had a prosecutor with 1/10th the skill and conviction as Nel. I would love to hear Nell question Billie and Shawn.

Anonymous said...

Every time Oscar is losing,,,he crys.causing a delay in proceedings.his voice "tone"goes higher and higher.He is guilty.

Anonymous said...


gj05 said...

Anon at 4:24 4/13 the daily mail is trash.

Anonymous said...

It's better than "The S*n".

Nic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nic said...

I haven't been following the OP case too closely. Every now and then they play snippets of his testimony on my city Talk Radio. When I hear OP speak/testify, I'm struck by the lack of intonation/inflection in his speech. It's as if each and every word is spoken in the same tone/pitch. Watching the 11 o'clock news they showed images of him with his head down and drool falling away from him. To me it was contrived emotional distress.

Anonymous said...

I've noticed he goes against the grain of the accused"and says"I did nOt shoot her on purpose"statements that people on here say he wouldn't say.

Princess Buttercup said...

Peter will you look at the statements by Stephen Nodine? I am watching the 48 Hours episode he is on right now, and I am noticing dropped pronouns and extra information that he doesn't need to give when asked questions.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 7:25, I have not seen him give a strong denial but he might have at some point. Here is the issue as I see it WRT questioning in this format, ie. being questioned on the witness stand. What we are seeing is a back and forth, question and answer type exchange and it can be much less reliable than an open statement.

In the SCAN course they discuss getting the pure version of the witness statement. This means it is "what happened" in the subjects own words and is very different than being directly questioned. If I were on the witness stand for murder and the prosecutor asked me if I killed the victim I have no doubt that I could and would lie if I thought it could get me out of the charges. 25 years to life or tell an outright lie? Heck, I would lie through my teeth. I would guess almost anyone would.

But here is the difference, almost no one, in an open statement, will give you a strong denial if they are guilty of the charge. The open statement, the pure version is where SCAN really works best. It does have application in other areas but it is just a tool and works best when applied to the correct task.

One final thought: I mostly use SA to identify sensitive areas that I will use to focus my real questions on. It is an opening move. I still pay close attention to pronouns throughout the questioning but mostly it tells me where to look other evidence or what follow up questions to ask.


Anonymous said...

_Akula thank you very much!! I'm still learning,but that's taught me a lot :)