Friday, June 6, 2014

Child Molestation Allegation Analyzed


by Peter Hyatt

This is a statement previously analyzed that I am publishing again, upon request, of a full Statement Analysis report of how the principle of molestation of a child is evidenced:

"A man cannot molest his own daughter in analysis" has caused confusion for some.

Accusation:  molestation of subject's daughter

Present:  Subject, wife, daughter, one law enforcement, one social worker.  The daughter did overhear the initial statement by the father.

This short statement is ripe with principle and is especially helpful in instruction.  The subject spoke up immediately, making this a 'clean' statement; that is, one that is not influenced by the questioning, or by a police officer.  This is the "Free Editing Process"; that is, one in which the subject freely uses his own words.

The subject was angry and spoke without interruption.

"This is a load of crap.  You people should be disgusted with yourselves. Do you think that I am disgusted?  This is a bunch of lies and you people know it.  
What I did is this.  I got home from a friend's at 10AM and my wife and my daughter were home.  She was ticked that I was out early because she
wanted to go shopping.  She left.  I was busy and the girl had homework anyway. 
The next thing I know she gets home from shopping, wants me 
to carry in the groceries and my daughter is crying like there's
something wrong.  you get called.  Cops get called and here

I am with this crap."

We now look at the statement with emphasis added.  


"This is a load of crap.  

The subject was immediately aware of the accusation and uses the appropriate word "this", which indicates closeness.  The situation is upon him and he reacts.  We note the use of the word "crap" or the phrase "load of crap" and wait to see if he will actually deny the allegation.  For some, an allegation may be too much to bother to deny, but in the scenario he finds himself in, it would be appropriate to deny it, and then question what has caused his daughter to make such a claim.  

It may be a "load of crap" but is it true?  


You people should be disgusted with yourselves. Do you think that I am disgusted?  This is a bunch of lies and you people know it.  

Next, we note that "disgust" has entered into his language.  He said that "you people" are the ones who should be "disgusted" with themselves.  Why?  What have they done?  We note that "disgust" is within his language, while he then asks a question but does not wait for an answer.  This is critical.  When one asks a question, it is imperative for the Interviewer, or responding officer to remain silent: 

it may be that the subject is speaking to himself, as he is reliving the moment of the event.  

It was difficult to hear whether he said "disgusted" or "disgusting" but it is "disgust" on his mind.  It may be that the accusation, itself, is disgusting, whether he "did it" or not, and we allow the subject to tell us that he did not do it.  

Principle:  if a subject is unwilling or unable to say he didn't do it, we are not allowed to say it for him.  

Next please notice that "load of crap" has become "bunch of lies", with "lies" being plural.  What, exactly, is a lie?  The accusation is that he molested his daughter, which is singular.  There are things, plural, on his mind, which produce "disgust" and these things are more than one.  This is something to note, quickly, for the questions to be asked.  

Again he accuses others of "knowing" it.  Here, "you people know it"; recall who was present, including his wife.  

This should lead the analyst to consider that if he molested his daughter, someone beside himself (and the victim) may know something about this.  This is a tidbit of information to hold and use in the interview with others, including his wife. 


What I did is this.  

In the context of molesting his daughter, he has now admitted that he "did" something.  Remember, we all "did something" each moment we breath, but here it is placed in the context of the accusation.  Now we know that "something" did happen and we listen for him to guide us.  


I got home from a friend's at 10AM 

After training, the article, "a" versus the possessive pronoun, "my" should instinctively speak to the Interviewer.  Here, it is not "my friend", nor is the friend's name given.  

This is a subtle distance stance in language. 

a.  Does he not want his friend contacted?
b.  Is it a relationship where the friendship is strained?
c.  If there is strain, why, and with whom, does it exist?  
d.  Is it a female friend that his wife does not approve of?

In the interview with the wife, it was learned that this "friend" was not a female, but a male, of whom his wife feels is a bad influence, as the friend has a reputation in town as a pervert.  Hence, the distancing language of the article "a" rather than the possessive pronoun, "my" as to his friend. His wife does not allow his "friend" to come to the home when her daughter is home. 


and my wife and my daughter were home.  

Here we have the principle of Social Introduction:

"my wife" and "my daughter" have the possessive pronouns, which is positive, but without names, which is negative.  In context, while the daughter and the wife are home together, they are "mine"; we look for continuity.  Will they remain 'good'?

Humans are possessive creatures and we take ownership of what we want to take ownership, but do not take ownership of that which we do not wish to take ownership.  Hence, pronouns are instinctive. 


She was ticked that I was out early because she
wanted to go shopping. 

Here he gives a tiny hint as to the nature of their relationship by explaining why she was angry.  She wanted to go shopping, which we later learned was food shopping.  

There are two, and only two, reasons we give the color coding blue:

1.  The leaving of a place
2.  The reason why something happened, when not asked "why" 

Blue is the highest level of sensitivity we note.  

 She left. 

The leaving of a place is given our highest level of sensitivity in analysis, with our color coding of blue.  

Leaving is 70% likely due to rushing, but 30% is critical missing information.  When we have two or more "blues" close together in an open statement, we call it a "cluster of blues" in which we focus our investigation and interview.  It means there is missing information, of the highest sensitivity to the subject.  

What is missing here?

A great deal.  

We later learned that there was a bitter argument about shopping as his wife did not want him to come back from his friend's and find the daughter home alone.  She did not want him left alone with her:

The wife feared something like this would happen.   

Carefully consider the "leaving" of a place:  Where is the subject's mind?

It will either be on the place she went to, or it will  be on the place that was left. 

For example:

"I went to McDonald's" is a very straightforward sentence which shows the principle topic in my mind is where I went to eat. 

Extra words give us additional information:

"I left and went to McDonald's"

Here, my mind is upon the leaving, which is the focus.  This means there is missing information at the time of leaving.  7 of 10 times, we find that the leaving was due to rushing, or traffic, or time constraints.  

We ask 100% of the time.

The missing information will likely be simply rushing, or something about time, but 30% of the time, the missing information is critical to the story and we learn that by color coding this, without hesitation (instinctively) we know where to focus our questions.  


 I was busy and the girl had homework anyway

"I was busy" is to avoid telling us what he was busy doing and is alarming.  Remember that most people do not lie outright, but simply withhold information in order to deceive.  

What was he busying doing?  

Why does he have the need to avoid telling us?  This is the critical question. 

"the girl"

Principle:  Where there is a change in language, there should be a change in reality. 
Principle:  A man is not able to molest his own daughter. 

Let's look at these two principles:

1. Change of language

When language changes, we look for justification for the change.  "The weapon was pulled and the gun fired..." changes "weapon" to "gun", and the cause for the change is the pulling of the trigger.  When there is no justification for the change, it may be a signal of deception. 

2.  No man can molest his own daughter. 

I have investigated hundreds of child molestation cases and have found this strange principle to be true.  Generally, a man cannot molest his own daughter, therefore, in order to accomplish his sexual perverse action, he must 'change' her, in his mind, to something else.  What is in the mind, comes out in the language. 

Question for analysis:  What has happened that caused her to change from "my daughter" to "the girl"?


The next thing I know she gets home from shopping, wants me 
to carry in the groceries 

"The next thing I know" is the phrase of the "Temporal Lacunae" which is Latin for passage of time.  There is missing information as the subject has "jumped" or "skipped over" a period of time.  When we see a passage of time, we focus our questions within this period of time.  A guilty subject, when he sees us focusing our questions on that period of time, will become very nervous and this is where we get our information and admission.  

We note another hint into his personality:  he is being questioned in molesting his own child and he is complaining that he was asked to help carry the groceries. 

Selfishness.

A child molester has a vile sexual attraction to a child:  he does not have to molest her.  He is not compelled to do so.  It is a choice he makes to act out this perversity.  To do so, he must be, by nature, narcissistic, or extremely selfish.  His momentary sexual gratification is more important, in the moment, than a life time of pain he sentences her, and everyone who loves her, to. 

Present Tense Langauge

Present tense language reduces commitment and sometimes is used when one is making something up.  But it is also used when one is "reliving" the event.  This can be difficult to discern. 


and my daughter is crying like there's something wrong.  


"the girl" which is gender specific, is now changed again, back to "my daughter" in his language. 

Question for Analyst: 

What has changed her from "daughter" to "girl" back to "daughter"?

Answer:  We look for the answer in the statement itself to guide us.  

It is the presence of his wife, the girl's mother, which causes the change of language. 

While the wife is home, she is "safely" his "daughter" but when the wife is gone, she is changed to "the girl" and is no longer given the title of "daughter" to him. 

He did not molest "his daughter" but molested the "girl", in his wicked, sinful mind.  

In a subtle way, he is blaming his wife for leaving him alone with her, further giving insight into his inability to take responsibility.  This is a very strong signal that he will reoffend.  

He blamed his wife, who "knew", in a rather unspoken way (she was shouted down each time she brought up the topic of perversion, his own child abuse experiences, or his perverted friend, so it was spoken, but not much) and blamed her. 

In a strange way, he blames the social worker and the police officer as well:



You get called.  Cops get called and here


I am with this crap."

We now know why "this" is so close, and what is "crap" to him. 

He molested his own daughter, while his wife was at the grocery store.  She was indicated for neglect, as she knew she took a risk by going shopping while he was at risk for being home alone with her.  The timing was a bit difficult to discern, but the longer the interviews went, the more things became clear.  

His short, initial outburst, left uninterrupted, provided all the information necessary to know what happened. The follow up interviews, as well as collateral interviews, gave enough to prove what happened.  

The child victim's statement was truthful.  She tried to stay away from him and do her homework, but he offered to help her, which is when it happened.  Interestingly enough, each time he came to her room, she described it as coming "down" to my room, and "opening the door."

Readers here know the significance of "doors" in sexual abuse statements.  


9 comments:

Baxtie said...

Hi Peter,
I noticed that you underlined the word "anyway" in this sentence:

"I was busy and the girl had homework anyway."

You didn't explain why it was underlined. Is this a justification (like “because”)?

Thanks,
Baxtie

Anonymous said...

A California pastor is being extradited to Nevada on a murder charge in the death of a man outside a Las Vegas sports bar -- despite claims by witnesses that the father of two was acting in self-defense.

Robert Cox, of Manteca, Calif., claims he did not throw a punch at Link Ellingson, knocking him to the ground and causing a mortal head injury. But prosecutors claim Cox changed his story, first telling officers he punched Ellingson after the man threatened him outside Four Kegs bar, and then later claiming in a written statement that he grabbed Ellingson by the waist and the two fell to the ground, according to the criminal complaint charging Cox with felony murder.

A detective from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department responded to reports of a fight outside thebar on June 13, 2013. The officer claims in his deposition that Cox said he was punched in the face by Ellingson in the parking lot of the sports bar after Ellingson threatened and "moved aggressively" in his direction. The detective, identified in the complaint as "D. Barringer," claims Cox told him he then punched Ellingson in the face with his left hand and that the man fell down, striking the back of his head on the ground.

The officer said that Cox later provided a written statement that was "similar to the information he verbally provided" with "one significant difference."

"In the written statement, Cox alleged, after he was battered by Ellingson, that he attempted to get control of Ellingson by grabbing him by the waist," reads the complaint filed by the Clark County District Attorney's Office. "They both fell to the ground with Ellingson landing on top of Cox's left ring finger, which caused the finger to break. Cox did not indicate in the written statement that he had punched Ellingson."

Cox, pastor at the Place of Refuge in Manteca, Calif., was traveling with his wife, young children and a church service group on a trip from California to Florida when they decided to stop at the Las Vegas sports bar for dinner.The 35-year-old father of two is currently being held in the San Joaquin County Jail awaiting extradition to Nevada, which was first reported by Fox40.com.

Anonymous said...

Cox's wife, Julia, called the detective's recollection of events a "straight up lie," saying she was at the scene when the fight occurred and that her husband "never punched that man."

"This is absolutely insane," Julia Cox told FoxNews.com. "There's no logical reasoning for the murder charge. This was the most unexpected thing they (prosecutors) could ever have done."

Cox said the group of 22, which included her children, ages five and seven, had stopped at the restaurant for dinner. She said the group entered the Four Kegs through the restaurant side but left the eatery through the bar section.

"None of us had anything to drink," Cox said. "My husband, myself and my kids exited first. My husband escorted us to our RV and then he waited outside for the [group] to pay their tabs."

What happened next took Cox and the entire youth group by surprise, she said.

Cox said that as she put her children to bed inside the RV, she could hear obscenities yelled from outside the vehicle that "did not come from my husband."

She promptly closed the windows, she said, shielding her two young children from the screaming after she heard a man yell, "F--k you," and "This is your day to die."

Cox said she watched from one of the RV's windows as the man, whom she identified as Ellingson, began assaulting members of the church service group.

"I had a direct line of sight of my husband and I could see he was in a defense mode," she said. "I saw my husband grab him [Ellingson] around the waist. They spun out of my view and then there lies this man on the ground. My husband had fallen on top of him and we all just kind of stood there in shock."

"My husband was acting (in) total self-defense. The attacker was huge. He was assaulting people in the group who were trying to intervene and get him to stop but he wouldn't stop. And that's when my husband grabbed him by the waist.

Cox said she is "doing everything we can" to prove her husband is innocent of murder.

A description of the bar's surveillance video in the criminal complaint raises many questions and does not state Cox was captured on camera punching Ellingson.

"The video shows Ellingson exit the bar with a cigarette in his hand. Moments after exiting the bar, Ellingson walks into the parking lot after appearing to exchange words with someone," the complaint reads. "It appears that Ellingson is heading towards something and not just walking through the parking lot.

"Ellingson is observed on video getting into an altercation with an unidentified male," the complaint goes on to state. "There are several additional unidentified persons in the vicinity. There are a few seconds where Ellingson cannot be seen on the surveillance video. Ellingson reappears on the video stumbling backwards. He falls to the ground where he remains until he is moved by medical personnel. It does not appear that anyone falls to the ground with Ellingson."

Anonymous said...

A description of the bar's surveillance video in the criminal complaint raises many questions and does not state Cox was captured on camera punching Ellingson.

"The video shows Ellingson exit the bar with a cigarette in his hand. Moments after exiting the bar, Ellingson walks into the parking lot after appearing to exchange words with someone," the complaint reads. "It appears that Ellingson is heading towards something and not just walking through the parking lot.

"Ellingson is observed on video getting into an altercation with an unidentified male," the complaint goes on to state. "There are several additional unidentified persons in the vicinity. There are a few seconds where Ellingson cannot be seen on the surveillance video. Ellingson reappears on the video stumbling backwards. He falls to the ground where he remains until he is moved by medical personnel. It does not appear that anyone falls to the ground with Ellingson."

john said...

From Anons OT.

I'm wondering given the language she uses if her husband, herself, or both are ex Military, ex LE, or if they have worked in the private sector in security etc, or trained in some sort of unarmed combat or self defence.

" My husband escorted us to our RV"

"I could see he was in a defense mode,"

""My husband was acting (in) total self-defense."

john said...

OT.

Phil Mickelson Releases Statement on FBI Investigation.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2081323-phil-mickelson-reportedly-involved-in-fbi-insider-trading-investigation

Peter Hyatt said...

Thanks, John

Peter Hyatt said...

Baxtie,

"anyway" sounded like "disappointed" at "other" plans.

I wondered what to write, but was concerned it might raise more questions than not, particularly for new readers.

thank you,

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous, I will look into the pastor's charge.

I do wonder if he was not a person of faith if there would have been any charges.

I also have come to question prosecutors who seem to , more and more, pick on those whom they feel would be an easier target, rather than focus on justice.

People of faith are the "bad guys" in today's politically correct word.

If he wore Muslim garb, would he have been charged with anything?

In reading the article and the statements, I have more questions than I have answers.

Thank you for posting it.

Peter