When someone is deceptive while a family member is missing, there is something amiss.
Most times it turns out that the deception was directly related to guilty knowledge of the missing person's status.
Once, it had to do with drugs and neglect, and not the missing child.
We must, therefore, remain open, even when "deception indicated" unless we find that the deception is directly related to the question of involvement.
Good journalism goes a long way, though sadly, it is rare.
"I had nothing to do with her disappearance" initially sounds strong when Wesley Hadswell first said it, but he was not finished speaking:
"I had nothing to do with her disappearance..." with the rest of the statement:
"I didn't have anything to do with her disappearance; I don't know where she's at. I can't bring her home unless somebody gives me the information."
This came after almost 20 minutes of speaking. I would prefer:
"I didn't cause AJ's disappearance."
This is something he could have said, right from the beginning, without the need to wait, nor the need to add to it. It is almost as to say "The interview is over. I didn't cause AJ's disappearance. " This is why when someone does issue a reliable denial, media only gives a short blurb, if anything, at all. It is when they sense that something is wrong, that the story remains alive.
Wesley Hadsell had lots to say and his "I had nothing to do with..." not only has distancing language of "nothing to do with" but...
"nothing to do with" can come later, but the reliable denial looks like "I didn't cause AJ's disappearance", rather than "nothing to do with", as if it is just an association with a crime.
Having "nothing to do with" is not a reliable denial, by itself.
He was not done there, however. He then said:
"Honest to God, I didn't have anything to do with my daughter's disappearance" brought in the element of Divinity, increasing the statistics that his statements hold deception.
At times, when someone says "I swear to God", the person is sending a signal:
"Please believe me because I have not always been truthful. I really want to be believed now, so I am using this oath, but at the same time, I am telling you of my need to make an oath."
In his jail interview, he stated that police accused him, among other things, of being attracted to AJ, to the point of marrying her mother, 5 years ago, just to be near AJ.
He then did not deny it.
We sometimes come close to a reliable denial, but the subject goes beyond the elements, or alters a single word.
"I didn't steal the f***ing iPad" only to later confess.
I. The pronoun "I" is present
II. The past tense "steal" is present (though I prefer "take", in morally neutral language)
III. The "iPad" is the specific item.
This sounds reliable. Remember: if it has 2 elements, or 4 elements, it is not reliable.
Note that the item is not an "iPad" but a "f***ing iPad", which altered the statement, showing a need for both emphasis, and an element of anger. This makes it 4 elements or 4 components. This also made it unreliable. Later, the subject confessed.
The innocent will say so, early, and without addition nor subtraction. Wesley Hadsell took almost 20 minutes of rambling to express a denial, yet did not limit it to make it stronger, but did, as deceptive people do, added to it for emphasis.
Now, his sister expresses doubt. A liar troubles the world, and puts himself before the material interests of business, and the natural interests of his fellow man. They trouble police departments, as we saw in the recent shooting in North Carolina.
The officer's written report said one thing but the video said another. We do not have the report yet, but suffice for now: it contradicted the video. He is now under arrest for murder.
Here, what is Wesley Hadsell's most pressing interest? Finding AJ?
Wesley Hadsell’s sister doubting brother’s innocence in AJ’s disappearance: “I had blinders on.”
Norfolk, Va. – Just hours after police find human remains during a search for missing teen Anjelica “AJ” Hadsell, her aunt speaks to NewsChannel 3.
Wendy Stokes says she’s losing faith in her brother, Wesley Hadsell — AJ’s adoptive father.
“I’m not a judge. I’m not a jury. I’m not saying he’s guilty. I’m not saying he’s innocent, but it’s really hard to have faith in someone when he can’t be honest,” Stokes said.
Hadsell, who already has a long history of felonies, is in jail right now facing several more charges, including breaking and entering and obstruction. Those charges are all in connection with his adoptive daughter’s disappearance.
Since his arrest, Stokes says she’s had her brothers back and believed him when he says he was just trying to find AJ. At least, that was the case until remains were discovered Thursday during a search.
“I have always had faith in my brother no matter what. Every time he has gone to jail, every time he has gone to prison, every time he has gotten into trouble, I have always had faith in him,” she said. “But with everything that has already come out and the charges they got on him I just don’t know. It’s hard to keep that faith.”
When asked if Stokes believes her brother is involved in AJ’s disappearance she said, “I don’t know anymore. At one time, I didn’t think he was, but now I don’t know. In my heart I don’t want to believe he did, but there are things that when you start seeing on TV, places they are looking. I’m his sister you never want to think that anybody in your family could ever do anything like this.”
From jail, Wesley Hadsell has been calling Wendy almost every day and she says in those conversations, red flags popped up. She says his story kept changing and that he asked her to put up a GoFundMe page for him, wanting money for his support rather than to find AJ.
“It’s a support page. He was wanting more people on the support page than the AJ page. I don’t understand it.” Stokes added.
Stokes says she doesn’t want to convict her brother, but as of right now, all faith in him is gone.