Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Statement Analysis: Wesley Hadswell on The Last Time He Saw AJ






Here is another interview  of Wesley Hadswell, weeks before AJ's remains were found.  Thank you to the reader who submitted the transcripts for analysis. 
For those new to the case, the young woman, AJ, was reported missing and Wesley Hadswell, claiming that the police were ignoring evidence, broke into the home of someone he claimed he suspected and was jailed for the break in, and for hindering the investigation.  He has not been named a suspect. 
The interviews analyzed thus far indicate Wesley Hadswell for deception.  
He does not deny causing AJ's disappearance.  He references her in the past tense, a signal that he knew or believed she was dead.  He does not deny being sexually attracted to her, beginning when she was a 12 or 13 year old child, and he used the language of violence in his answers. 
Statement Analysis is in bold type.  I have added emphasis.  To the contributor:  Thank you for the transcript.  
IR is the abbreviation for Interviewer.  In Analytical Interviewing the IR should use as few words as possible, and seek to use the subject's own words in questions.  
*****************************************************************************
IR: You’re on the air. Is that you, Wesley?

WH: Yes ma’am, it’s me. Sorry, I didn’t see you were ready.
We note the words such as "sorry" or "apologize" in the language, no matter what causes them.  This is because these words sometimes enter the language of the guilty, regardless of context.  

IR: It’s alright.

IR: Um, I’m going to let my listeners know that this is the father of missing woman Anjelica Hadsell. This is Wesley Hadsell. How are you doing tonight?

WH: Uh, as well as can be expected in the situation we’re in right now.

IR: I understand it's a very tough situation. You're going through a lot right now - not only with your missing daughter, um the details of the case that you’re having to deal with that you can't really release all of them I understand. And –

WH: Yes, yes.

IR: – On top of everything else that goes with being part of a case that gets attention in the media. It’s definitely not pleasant.

WH: No, no. There’s – it’s a double-edged sword and I do apologize if I’m not emotional to people’s standards but trust me, um, we have our moments. We’ve gained a little bit, uh, better control of ourselves, you know, when we’re around people; but I’m gonna tell ya, people that know us, our family, our close friends, they know – this destroys me, my wife. We have five children in all, you know, and uh our family is under attack from a faceless enemy right now because I guess I don’t believe my daughter walked away – drifted away like people have said in the media and Facebook posts. My daughter was responsible, she cared about us as a family, and, uh, she was, uh, an overall good girl. I know my daughter, so I will fight for her and I won’t stop until we do find her and bring her home, so…
The pronouns show a desire to be seen with someone else, and not alone.  Although he is speaking for himself,  the use of "us" and "we" and "ourselves" should cause the reader to consider that this subject may have a need to share guilt.  
Note "apologize" is the 2nd use of such a term.  Then, notice the phrase, "trust me" which is something deceptive people use to convince. 
Now, look at the employment of language associated with violence, while the context is his missing daughter;
a.  "double edged sword" (along with Biblical reference)
b.  "attack"
c.  "faceless enemy"
d.  "fight" 
Next, notice the repeated reference to AJ in the past tense.  There is one that is appropriate:  "walked away" because it references a specific period of time. 
When he talks about character, however, this is the strongest past tense reference that indicates guilt, because it addresses the person as in a eulogy.   Next, he uses the singular, "my" pronoun with "my daughter was responsible..."
"My daughter was responsible."
"She cared about us as a family."
"She was an overall good girl"
This indication is so strong as to cause me to move from one classification to another. 
The initial classification:  the subject knows or believes his daughter is dead.   This could be anything from guilty knowledge, down to details shared by police that has caused him to give up hope.
The secondary:  He knows.  
As he has referenced her character as if she is dead, this is a strong indication that he knows she is dead and has already "moved on" in the grieving process, and is against the natural denial of a parent. 
At the time of this interview, Wesley Hadswell knew that his daughter was not going to be found alive. 
The reader may not presuppose this and continue to view his answers with this in mind. 
Lastly in this answer, I note that he calls her "overall" a "good girl" with two points of interest:
"overall" suggests that there were things about her that were not good, and...
"girl" is a reference which should cause the reader to ask if there has been anything else in his speech that might point to the possibility of sexual abuse. 
Answer:  yes, there has been.
He addressed an accusation that he claimed the police made against him, that he was sexually interested in AJ from the  time he married his wife.  
He did not deny it. 
Rule:  if a subject is unwilling or unable to deny an accusation, we are not permitted to do it for him. 
Given the vile nature of the allegation, some response was expected.  None given.  Even a "I won't dignify..." would have been unreliable, but some response.  He did not even issue an unreliable denial about it.  
There is something else to keep in mind here, about "overall" that is worth consideration:  In domestic homicides and domestic assaults where children are mentioned, the guilty parent will sometimes find even a subtle way of blaming or disparaging the victim.  This statement has not only indicated that AJ was dead, but also that there may have been something about her that was not good, and perhaps, in the language and mind of the subject, brought the consequences upon herself.  


IR: That leads me to my first question then, and that's very well said, and you can hear – I can hear the pain in your voice and if people don't believe that then I don't know what to tell them.
An interviewer should not advocate for the subject...

WH: Yeah, um, I can’t prove to people how I feel. You know? I was emotional so much in the beginning and I’ve learned to keep those feelings in check for my daughter, because.. IF she is watching, you know, we are her strength. And that’s the only thing I hold onto, is that when I talk to someone about her, she needs to feed off of our strength and if people don’t understand that mentality, that rationality… then God help them because I have my faith and I have my hope and no one’s gonna change who I am. That’s my character, that’s my person. It’s just, I’m here for Anjelica and there is no right or wrong way to deal with this in my eyes.
Note, again, the immediate jump from "I" to "we", even in the imbalance, such as this:
"when I talk to someone about her, she needs to feed off of our strength"
Pronouns do not lie.  

IR: Well said. Now, like I said earlier, there have been some conflicting reports regarding when she was last seen, who last saw her, and all of the circumstances. Do you care to clarify on any of this?
Nancy Grace asked the same question, but without the preamble.  Better is to ask him about the last time he saw her, without introduction.  
The question is "Do you care to clarify on any of this?" which is poorly worded.  First, it is a "yes or no" question about caring to clarify.  It is not a question asking for clarification but only caring to. 
Secondly, "on any of this" is so generalized that he can pick and choose any portion he wishes to address. It is asked in the plural, yet answered in the singular.  
I have broken down the lengthy response for clarity of comments and analysis;  

WH: Yes ma’am. I can clarify this very clearly. I don’t understand why it is so muddled with the media. My wife left at seven o’clock in the morning March 2nd. She leaves for work, she drops her siblings off at school and whatnot. 
"Yes" answers the yes or no question as to caring.  "This" indicates singular closeness.  It was asked in the plural.  We cannot say with certainty that the issue was singular. His clarity is going to be "very clearly" done.  He thus begins in the negative, not understanding why it is so "muddled" with media.  "I" and "media" could not be further apart than they are, separated by the word "with."  This should lead the reader to consider if he, himself, caused this distance with "muddling" the topic. 
note the flow:  "My wife left at seven o'clock in the morning March 2nd.  She leaves for work, she drops off siblings..."
As stated, this would appear to be his wife leaving (a signal of missing information, 70% likely rushing, but 30% likely critically suppressed information) and then "she" leaves for work, drops off siblings...and so on. 
Does his wife have siblings to drop off at school?
*If so, the change in verb tense is strange. 
However:
If he has jumped to his daughter, this is a significant change. 
1.  AJ's name is not only avoided, but it is avoided in a manner that took effort (disrupting the speed of transmission), making it very important. 
2.  The verb tense went from past tense to present tense.   Past tense is to commit and reliable.  Present tense is not.  
3.  "what not" indicates that more activity took place, but is not mentioned and should be explored. 
That morning I had actually dropped off the red truck for her so she could drive: she’s home from spring break and I knew she would need it on Tuesday. 
He can clear "this" up, but goes to "that" morning, distancing himself from this sensitive time period. 
*Thus, he distances himself from AJ, awkwardly using "she" when in context, this would be misleading, then he affirms such distance with the word "that."
By moving into present tense and avoiding her name, we should consider that on March 2nd, after 7am, something is very sensitive to the subject about AJ. 
I didn’t speak with her, I left the keys in the mailbox – just for the truck, the ignition key only, not the door key. I left and then I heard from Anjelica. She did give me a phone call, so people know, she called me on the phone and asked to borrow money. She doesn’t ask to borrow money. I want to clarify, yes, she does not ever ask to borrow money. She didn’t ask to borrow money but her exact words were “can I get some money?” Let me clarify that, if I can, the reason she asked me to borrow or um get some money in her words. Today was her boyfriend’s birthday. We had a birthday party for him and let me just say it wasn’t a party, okay? It was not a celebration. It was what my daughter wants. I overheard a conversation between my daughter and his mother the week prior and I heard them talking about a GoPro. Now, I do heating and air. I don’t know what a GoPro is. I had to google it and it took me a few hours to figure it out. But I figured it out and when she asked if she could get some money I understood what she was probably asking, so I gave her $200 because these things are a little over that.
Something that stands out here:  He is unable to use her name but once, "Anjelica" in the context from hearing from her with great emphasis:
"I heard from Angelica."
"She did give me a phone call."  Not that AJ called me, but she did "give me", that is, to emphasize the will of AJ.  
"She called me on the phone" is unnecessary repetition, making it very important.  It is likely that this is something he feels will be verified by police, not so much as a conversation, but that her phone dialed his phone.  Its repetition is very sensitive and it is the only time it produced her name.   
He has a strong need to affirm that there was a phone call; hence the repetition.  He reports what he did not do, and explains why he did what he did, anticipating being asked "why" he did something.  With his 'leaving', there is missing information.  
He went back and forth about "borrowing" versus "getting" some money, introducing a controversy of sorts about not only money but for whom the money was to go towards:  her boyfriend. 
He has no name given which is either indicative of a problematic relationship with Wesley, or that he does not want to use it publicly.  
Avoiding AJ's own name is extreme distancing.  
IR: Uh uh
This short affirmation allows the subject to continue, and is best. 
WH: It depends on which way you go with them. I gave her a hundred dollars the week prior and I figured she still had it because she’s very good with money. She just doesn’t spend money loosely... so bottom line is that’s why I gave her the money. I left work at 11:53am and I drove over to the gas station - the police know all of this – the public does not know, so I’m going to release this information so people can stop attacking my family and my character. I met her, I would say, around 12:10, 12:15. That’s on record with the police department. We talked, uh, we didn’t really talk about much- we aren’t a talking kind of family.
He feels a need to explain why he gave her money, but he did not just give her "money" but it was, in his language, "the money."
"The" indicates specific money.  Not spending money "loosely" is likely part of an acute problem between them.  
That they may have argued over money is not alone:  was there jealousy here, over her having a boyfriend, also?  If so, was the animosity heightened by having Wesley give money towards a young man he rivaled for AJ's attention? 
He tells this so people can stop "attacking" (language of violence) "my family." People were not accusing AJ's family, but were suspicious about him.  Regarding him, he uses "my character."
We then have three very strange sentences, all three with the pronoun "we":  
We talked. 
We didn't really talk about much. 
We aren't a talking kind of family. 
He uses "we", which indicates unity or cooperation, yet, in context, he has not clarified who "we" is:  he and AJ, he and his wife, or he and someone else.  This is because he has avoided using AJ's name.  
"I met her."  
This is on record with the police.  
This meeting:  we talked, we didn't really talk about much, we aren't  talking kind of family.  
1.  We talked is postive. 
2.  We didn't really talk about much is in the negative. 
3.  We aren't a talking kind of family is also negative, and speaks to "family."
When speaking for himself, he uses the plural, in many cases, which seeks to spread or share guilt/responsibility.  
Here, we would like to believe the conversation was positive, since it produced "we" but he contradicts this, himself. 
This meeting, therefore, is very important.  
That he used the word "talk" three times, makes this a very sensitive word for him. 
What would make it so very sensitive?
a.  The unity shown by the pronoun "we" did not exist.
b.  It is all a lie, not proceeding from memory, therefore, the awkwardness exhibited.  

IR: Mhm

WH: We kind of just hung out and stared at each other, you know. I asked her how she was doing, we talked about a little school, um, we are a family of few words with a lot of love. She departed my presence at I would say about 12:40, 12:45pm. I was actually late getting back to my job and I got reamed from my boss. Fact: okay, you know I’m not beyond reproach with my work either but my daughter called me, that’s something she don’t do, I dedicated extra time outside of my lunch break because 12:45pm I’m supposed to be on the clock for lunch.
He continued his answer avoiding her name.  She wanted money, but they only talked about school.  By claiming "fact" he is signaling a wish to be believed.  This should cause the reader to question the veracity of what preceded it.  
She "departed my presence" is language that sounds haughty, or the language of divinity.  We have already seen strong verbal indications of narcissism, and to "depart" one's presence may even cause us to question whether AJ, if she even did speak to him, stood up to him, or dared to challenge him.  Did she leave when he told her not to?  Was this a challenge to his controlling authority?
IR: I understand.
Here, he next attempts to indict someone else:  

WH: I got back around 1:15, 1:20pm – fact. Boss reamed me. Okay? Now, this is something the media public does not know: About, I wanna say, and I can’t really speak a whole lot about this [unintelligible] fact, I know someone saw her after one o’clock departing, our neighbor she waved to. What happened was, it’s a kid, I can’t really speak a name because of the case, but the information is simple. The kid that we all know and love, we always wave to him, she saw him. I mean, they saw each other and then he brought to the police that at 2 o’clock he saw her pass by again. His words are “driving with purpose” and “not herself.” Those are his words, not our words. He went to the police on his own accord and he struggled with it. He came out later than he should have because he didn’t know she was missing to begin, and we didn’t report her until the next day since we didn’t know what to do exactly. Now 2 o’clock is the last physical sighting of her driving the red drunk back towards the house. Now this info is also not in the public - well not truthfully in the public - a minute or minute and a half later he recognized a white small compact car following her. Did not know this. Bottom line is my neighbor reported at 2:03 [unintelligible] 2 o’clock– he smokes, he doesn’t smoke in the house, he smokes on the porch –

IR: Mmhm

WH: He said a little after 2 o’clock he saw behind my red truck that was parked in my driveway a small white 4 door compact car. I understand that there is a person in the media right now, and I will mention her by name CINDY B, my brother has a white car. Yeah yeah, he does. My neighbor knows my brother’s white car, you know? My brother works. My brother was at work the whole day. I wanna clear the conspiracy theories, the b.s. involved in this. We have a serious situation here and I would appreciate people’s, ummmm, I would appreciate people’s help as far as helping push the police. Helping with the investigation, not hindering the investigation, not sidetracking the investigation.

IR:  Understood

WH: The neighbor did not see my daughter. No one has seen my daughter after 2 o’clock – she came to the house, whatever. No one saw anyone get in or out of this white car. He said it was there a little bit after 2, he said 2:03, he didn’t have the exact time but a few minutes after two is what he said on record. Understand this: Justice, my second oldest daughter, comes home from school. We know for a fact she was in the house at 2:25pm that day.
"No one has seen my daughter after 2 o'clock" will cause people to ask how he knows this.  


IR: Mmhm

WH: My 18yo daughter, Anjelica Hadsell, was not present at the home. The red truck was still there. Now understand this: that red truck was moved from the left side of the drive to the right side. I don’t know why. I can’t tell you why. I don’t have the fact. No one saw anything, but that is the fact of the last time that anyone saw her and the events that led up to us knowing that something wasn’t right, basically.

Here we have the complete, formal introduction of AJ:  "my 18 year old daughter, Anjelica Hadsell" 


IR : Do you have any idea being in the area of anybody who drives a small compact white car?
This is a good question because it is what he, himself, reported. 

WH: I did not at the time. I do now. We can speak on that on your other questions down the road if you’d like to, um, keep on track with the questions or not is up to you. I don’t really care how we do this because the facts are the facts. I have a wealth of facts, and I want to find my daughter
IR: Understood

WH: That’s my goal. That’s my bottom line goal and I can only release some facts out there. I can’t release names due to the nature of the investigation. God, I would love to release names.

IR : I bet you would. Um I was gonna ask you the media reports say that you found pieces of her debit card. Some say a friend found them and some say that you found them. Did you find them?
The topic of money, particularly money to be used on AJ's boyfriend, is a topic that is sensitive to Wesley Hadswell:  
WH: All I can tell you about this is a person.. I can explain how it happened and what was described to me and the police. A person of interest found part of her credit card. Now, understand why I say a person of interest. Because the first person to find the pieces of evidence could be a person of guilt, it could be coincidence. I don’t really believe in a whole bunch of stuff, I believe in fact. The fact is that this person found half of her credit card – the bottom half, the part with her name on it. This was Thursday. Thursday afternoon the first week she was missing, I don’t know the dates I just know it was the first week that she was missing on Thursday. I got a call – I was at work out of town, not out of town, but an hour away. I wasn’t in my home residence, Norfolk home. But I was working and they called and said “so and so” found part of a credit card with her name. I didn’t ask questions at the time, rushed home whatever, the next day I organized a search party to search from my driveway up the road like you would be driving out of the neighborhood. That’s the only logical thing I can think do to. Now understand this, in that search party the searchers found three or four more pieces of the credit card after the evidence was found. I didn’t find anything. At all. It was searchers that found it I just happened to have the drive, the will to find out answers and we found more parts of the credit card. That doesn’t give us many answers, really, but it did hold a very crucial piece of an answer to me. And I did relay this concern to the police. The person that found the credit card... the piece he found, I could have pulled it out of my wallet and handed it to him, that’s how nice and pretty it was for lack of anything better to say. But, the pieces that we found were ran over, fractured, destroyed - been on the road. Now my brother was actually present [when the first half was found], and he took a picture of the gentleman – arms spread wide… tried to maintain as best we could, all the evidence we could give to police. Well, the next day we searched the same location. We used the picture that he took against the house and put someone about the same spot, took pictures, matched them up pretty well and let me tell you they searched three, four houses down on the same side, three four houses up on the same side. They found no more pieces that day... but the next day that’s when they found the additional three to four pieces of the credit card.

IR: Interesting. That’s very suspicious.

WH: Very, very suspicious. Raised a lot of questions, a lot of doubt, concern, mostly fear for my daughter. All of this is about my daughter. Where is she? What is she doing? This solidifies more and more every day that she is not on her own, that she did not walk away. The texts were not real from her supposedly from her.


Dropped pronoun reduces commitment, even when using the IR language. 
IR: Now, in some of the reports that have been covering this case regarding the cell phone – oh, I’m sorry – the credit card finds, a 7-11 store is reportedly nearby this area. Have the police thought about looking at surveillance footage? Or are there even cameras?

WH: Yes actually there is cameras and and it’s sad because the police showed me a video on their cell phone  That was the only piece of information that they showed us in this whole case.


note the change from "me" to "us"
IR: Oh, wow, well hopefully they have more than that and they are on the right track to finding her and getting to bottom of what happened.

WH:Yes ma’am, yes ma’am.

IR: I know like you said you can’t name names –

WH: No ma’am

IR: And you cant share too many specifics but can you think of anybody who would want to harm her?

WH: Yes ma’am yes ma’am. You know I read your questions and I don’t really have to write the answers down because its all in my mind, burned in my brain. You know, you asked me former boyfriends or enemies, if they investigated any possible POIs or suspects. Let me say it like this: there is an answer in that question. Former boyfriend, exboyfriend, whatever, current boyfriend, enemies... my daughter didn’t have enemies. But lets say she had someone, and I can’t put them into context, but say she had someone who liked her… loved her, obsessed about her… information I know out here backs all this stuff up. Without going into detail, I won’t put them into a category but yes it is a category. I will just say that the current boyfriend is a great guy – he’s helped the family a lot and that could be raised into question or not. I wholeheartedly believe and I’m honestly sure the police believe he had nothing to do with this. He helped every step of the way he has just been there for us and the family. The police have interrogated someone. I will give you this. The same person has been interrogated four times. Three times because, let’s say they interjected themselves into the case without their finding anything. You probably get what I mean - how someone could interject themselves into the case – bringing themselves to the front line of the case. Do you understand what I’m saying?

IR: Yep

WH: Okay, without saying it out loud, but yes someone has brought themselves to the forefront. They did interview them three times. And let’s just say someone happened to see something that maybe they didn’t want them to see... maybe a friend, you know, was hanging out with someone. There was a search warrant executed on this person and their house

IR: Oh

WH: and lets just say that my daughters jacket, because I’m not going to beat around the bush, my daughter’s jacket that she was wearing when she saw me last, that someone recognized as she was driving as a dark navy blue color - something up top - obviously that’s the jacket, her Longwood softball jacket with her name stenciled in it, now that was found in this guy’s possession hidden in his house


Please take careful note of his point of interest:  "when she saw me last" and not when I saw her.  He is the focal point; central to his own sentence.  

A person is missing and the focus, when upon the person, is the person was last seen by...but here, we have the subject, himself, as the point of reference, as this case is about him, and not about AJ. 

This is a very alarming sentence.  
IR: Oh

WH: Now the police did verify that information, never showed us a picture. That was on Saturday the first week. Understand that the case moved this past Monday, you know, they brought some new detectives on board. The cream of the the crop.. “la crème la crème” [sic] was how it was put to me.. homicide detectives. I knew what they were saying. I said: just give me your card, I know you’re homicide cops. I get it. I do, I get it, ok? It’s been a week. I get it, you know, whatever – I have hoped, I have prayed... I get it. I’m getting angry now, but uh…

IR:I understand

WH: But lets just say I asked, they showed me a few pictures of stuff that was found I really couldn’t tell if it was my daughter’s stuff. It was just generic stuff that could be anybody’s. But they didn’t show me a picture of the jacket. I said: wait a minute, my wife told me you found my daughters jacket. Ok well, the cops said“we don’t know.” I said what do you mean you don’t know? It’s a Longwood softball jacket with her name stenciled into it. the cops said “We cant verify it’s hers because...” – I don’t know where he was going because I cut him off. I don’t have patience anymore. You mean to tell me this person of interest could have bought a Longwood softball jacket and had her name stenciled into it... because of what reason? He just calmed me down - “handled me” that’s what I call it. These facts you’re getting are facts the public don’t have yet. I’m tired of being attacked, I’m tired of publicly being attacked for my past because it has nothing to do with my future and my present. I wish people would respect our family, respect my daughter. You know, if you didn’t know us then you maybe missed out on something but my daughter was an awesome person. She helped people, she excelled, she inspired, she loved people. Her friends, I mean, I can’t sit here and tell you who she was but her friends and family can. So, yeah...

IR: And I-I-I-I agree. I’m not here to attack you for your past. Everybody has a past. In cases like these, this is probably your first time with a big huge deal like this, but the trolls come out full force. They’re always gonna be suspicious of everybody, no matter what. You could have a speeding violation and they’ll try to tie it in.


WH:Yes, it’s sad.

IR : Whats important is finding Anjelica?  Do you think the cops are doing a good job? Do you think they could be doing better?
Compound questions are always to be avoided as they allow the subject to pick and choose.  Here, he is asked three questions including the first, which should not have been asked because it is a leading question that accuses him of the very thing his own words and priorities have revealed.  

WH: I don’t have any experience with this, really, never had a problem with them doing their job before. You know its wham, bam, done. This case is sensitive, I get that, and I am honest to God trying to find the faith and the courage to give them that time. I could blow this case wide open. I could put the names out there, I could do so much damage to the case – that’s what I consider damage because my daughter, I have to hold my anger and not give in to these trolls because my daughter is the common goal. If I damage the case, how does that help my daughter? If people want to judge me, I’m sorry but I do honestly feel the police are doing their job the best they can because she is a missing person. There is no evidence of foul play. They have now publicly said they are not ruling out foul play. To me, that’s a small victory for my daughter because before they said there was no evidence of foul play. So, just those words. If people would listen to the media, just those words are hope that we’re moving in a direction. They may not offer that hope to most but to me they speak volumes for my daughter. I do believe they’re doing their jobs.
That he has the need to declare that "she is a missing person" is a strong indication that he knows she is not really "missing", even as previously he has indicated knowledge that she is dead.  
Note that he may have been threatening to derail the case in the words above. 
Note the red highlighting.  
Note "I'm sorry" enters his language again. 
Does he regret an angry response to finances over AJ's boyfriend's birthday, and cut her debit card in rage?  Jealous rage?
Even if police are unable to link sexual abuse to the case, money is important in this language.  
IR: Is there anything you want to say to anyone listening right now before we end our call?
who is "anyone"?  AJ?  The kidnapper? The public?  His wife?

WH:
No ma’am not really. The words I have to say is if my daughter’s listening she knows how we feel, she knows I have her back. The family’s not going to leave her, we aren’t going to forget her. We’re gonna be there for her and I do wanna say that if you had anything to do with this, anyone, if you can hear these words: you will be brought to justice whether legitimately or not. But if you had anything to do with hurting my daughter the media won't be able to handle the repercussions of this. That’s all I can say because they stole a piece of my heart, a piece of my family, and uh yeah justice will be served. AJ will be brought home.
His use of the plural pronouns shows desperation to share guilt/responsibility with others. 
We note the times that she is:
Anjelica
my daughter
"my daughter, Angelica Hadswell" and when she is almost always just "she" in his language.  We note the context of all usages, especially in the critical time period after she "departed" from his "presence", as if he, himself, is divinity.  
This interview continues with the same theme, but adds in finance to the equation:
1. He believes that AJ is dead, and not "missing." She won't be "forgotten."
2.  He has a desperate need to share guilt/responsibility with others
3.  He uses extreme distancing language from AJ, particularly after the last time she was seen. 
4.  There is missing information in his language
5.  He uses the language of divinity with regard to himself, and the danger of "departing" from his "presence"
6.  That he may have even been jealous of AJ wanting to buy a video camera for her boyfriend. 
7.  The person responsible will be brought to justice, but it might not be "legitimate."
8.  When he finally brings himself to call her "AJ" it is in the context of bringing her home.  It is the only reference to "AJ" who, he shows, is dead.  
This is a man  who is deceptive about what happened to his daughter while she was yet missing and not known if deceased.   

32 comments:

C5H11ONO said...

"Wesley Hadsell: On the Last Time he Saw AJ" should the headline of your analysis be revised? He didn't tell us the last time he saw her, but rather the last time she saw him.

Bonnie Blue said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sus said...

This is a great analysis. Thank you for doing it, Peter.

I have a question about "called me on the phone." Seems I remember something about the killer uses the word "phone." Am I crazy? (Don't answer that.) Is this part of SA and does it apply here since phone is unnecessary to the meaning of the sentence?

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Wesley is desperately trying to portray himself as father extraordinaire, with his repeated and insistent use of "my daughter". He repeatedly alludes to how close he is to his daughter (as if she solely belongs to him and her mother is just there=possessive). He employs "tough talk", that a real father might feel if his daughter were threatened.

However, he continually undermines his own statements, acknowledging that he and AJ didn't talk much and he didn't know who her friends were.

He begins the story with and made a big production of dropping off the truck keys in the mailbox. If it was his house, why wouldn't he just go in and leave the keys on the counter? Did he leave that morning and come back to drop off the keys or was he staying elsewhere because AJ was home for break and that created a problem at home(like AJ complaining to her mom about Wesley creeping her out or something)? Why didn't he just go in and hand them to AJ? He makes a point of saying he didn't speak to her. Had there been a recent argument or ongoing tension between them? He overemphasizes not leaving a door key-why? Why would she even need a door key, as most college kids have a house key? If she didn't have one, why wouldn't he leave it? So, she'd need to call later to ask for one and meet to get it?
Strange.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

It's alarming that only four comments into this, Wesley's referencing "we have better control of ourselves" when talking about himself and his emotions.

1. There's that shared blame pronoun "we" again.
2. He's referencing control (i.e. his other interview he referenced losing control, spoke about mistakes he made wherein he "didn't hear from God this time", and promises not not be in jail again and promises broken)

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

He says of their meeting, "We just kind of hung out and stared at each other." That's such normal behavior for a close and loving father and daughter...NOT. Then he hurriedly tacks on that they're a family of few words, but a lot of love. Loving families don't need to advertise it because it's their normal-they do it unconsciously. That's clearly not the case in this family, or at least with Wesley and AJ. Using his own words, it paints an awkward and uncomfortable picture.

Did he control the household money and AJ was forced to come to him for money? I wonder if he stole/confiscated her debit card and cut it up, forcing her to call and ask for money (and meet him)? The repeated references to: AJ's boyfriend; his birthday; the not-a-party celebration; the overheard phone call between AJ & boyfriend's mom over the gift; the subtle disparaging that the boyfriend's help & support could be seen by some as suspicous; and the money all seem to indicate Wesley was jealous of AJ's boyfriend.

His language indicates a bad relationship with AJ, that she wanted little to do with Wesley, and what little relationship there was by virtue of him being married to her mom, was strained and tense. His language describing their meeting indicates an argument/escalating tensions (little talking, just staring).

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Why did he meet her at the gas station? How far is it from their house?
He left work at 11:53 and arrived at the gas station at 12:10-12:15 (17-22 min. drive if he went straight to the station). He says they just kind of hung out and stared at each other, didn't talk much, and AJ departed his presence about 12:40-12:45. So they stared at each other for 25-30 minutes??? Hmmm. Notice he "left" work, but she "departed his presence". The difference? He had permission to leave from the person in authority; AJ's leaving was without her "father's" permission.

He got back to work "about 1:15-1:20". If is was a 17-20 minute drive from work to the station, why did it take 30-40 minutes to drive back to work? Did he go somewhere before returning to work?

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Thinking back to a previous interview with Wesley that Peter covered. Wesley's comment then was "She's screaming for help."
We should compile a list of embedded words Wesley uses in his descriptions (mask, chop up, evil acts, staring, screaming, losing self-control, hate, etc.).

Also his, "She wants us to get her." Come is a close to us term. Go is somewhere else away from us/distant to us. We say we need to "go" to the store. We tell our children to "come" here or tell our friends/family to "come" over. He knew she was close by, like he knew she last saw him.

Peter Hyatt said...

Great comments, all.

Sus, you are not crazy.

"Phone" is considered a person, since it is a means of one speaking.

Often by use of "phone" a subject will tie himself to the murder scene.

The why is that the subject is thinking of the murder...his brain connects to the locale.

Time for an article!

GeekRad said...

U number of red flags struck me but the biggest one is his constant use of the word fact. I strikes me that he is liar trying to convince us that what he is saying is true and what others are saying is not.

Lily said...

Excellent analysis, thank you so much Peter!

Peter Hyatt said...

Geek,

if you count the number of times he used "fact", you not only have sensitivity but it points to other presentations of details without the word "fact" attached.

Your conclusion is correct.

His is not simply a conclusion that he is deceptive, but properly, he is a deceptive person.

There is a difference.

Peter

GeekRad said...

Thanks Peter. I see those other presentations of details now that you point it out.

Off topic, Billie Jean Dunn was on local TV today talking about how she wants justice for Hailey, wants an arrest and the remains released. I look for it on-line to post but it isn't on their website.

Peter Hyatt said...

Billie Jean Dunn's language indicates an acute need to control as well as narcissism.

Narcissists cannot uphold being seen as inconsequential. They crave attention and will use all means, negative and positive, to get it.

for her, it began early.

Perhaps as Lillian Glass pointed out, her need to be noticed, when usurped by her daughter, led to horrific consequence.

Peter

GeekRad said...

I know we all hope that law enforcement will get it together and arrest Billie and Shawn. It sends me screaming to hear her insist they make an arrest to get justice for Hailey. That justice will only happen if she tells them the truth about what she knows and I don't see that happening. She, like Casey Anthony, another narcissist, events her own truth. According to the news she has been re-posting some of her older posts on Facebook.

Anonymous said...

Hailey Dunn did not usurp Billy Jean. Shawn usurped Hailey by making his intentions known, that being that he intended to have his dangerous violent sexual fun with innocent Hailey, and it was partly HIS ursurping that set Billy Jean off; not frightened out of her mind innocent Hailey who had no one to run too or turn too to escape their evil claws.

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous,

As it is seen, so it is.

This is an expression (I don't know the latin phrase) which, in context:

Billie Jean Dunn may have seen her daughter as the usurper.

I am not calling Hailey a usurper, nor did Dr. Glass.

Her meaning of the word was from the perspective of the nutty jealous mother. I agree with it.

Peter

trustmeigetit said...

The last time they were together they "stared at each other"

I think this was a flash to the time of murder.

They were staring at each other as she died.

That was the last time they were together before she "departed"


Bonnie Blue said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bonnie Blue said...

I think WH killed her that morning.

He left work to dispose of her. The reason the "staring in silence" happened is because he was burying her. That is why he says she "departed his presence" at that time.

JMO

Bonnie Blue said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bonnie Blue said...

You refer to the dead as "dearly departed". These are words you would hear at a funeral as apart of the Eulogy: "We are gathered here today on this sorrowful occasion to say goodbye to the dearly departed."

give that some thought!!!

Anonymous said...

LE has taken notice of Wesley Hadsell's references to AJ in past tense:

[URL]http://wtkr.com/2015/04/16/could-interviews-with-aj-hadsells-adoptive-father-be-used-against-him/[/URL]

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Greg Treacy said...

To Foolsfeedonfolly: The Gas station mentioned 7-Eleven, isn't that far from the house. I live in the city she went missing from and know her area she lived quite well. It would take just around, maybe at the most ten minutes to get to the gas station by car, (I've ridden my bike around that area and it takes me 10 minutes by bike to get to the 7-Eleven). As for the time frame that Wesley said, He said it took 30-40 minutes to get to work. I personally dont think he could of hid the body in that time period. Her body was found behind an abandoned house in Franklin, Virginia. The distance is 56 miles away and would take over an hour and includes a toll according to Google Maps. Either he had someone hide the body for him which would explain why he used we and us in the interview allowing there to be an accomplice or he lied about the time he went to work. Personally, its just all suspicious to me but I am not personally accusing anyone of murdering Anjelica until I have seen all the facts from Norfolk Police Department here in Virginia.

Bonnie Blue said...

Keep in mind though, Greg Treacy, that the Police told Wesley that they did not find him on surveillance tape meeting Anjelica.... so I think that was most likely a lie by him.

Greg Treacy said...

Boonie Blue: im not surprised that there isn't any surveillance video of the meeting or maybe there is an police aren't saying so. The police here are like that and with this particular case, they have been really touchy feely with what they have released which hasn't been much. But the gas station that they "met" at could even be in question. The 7-Eleven that was named, is close to the house but It isn't a gas station just the convenient store. Now there is another 7-Eleven just five minutes away that goes have the gas station. Now I dont know if 7-Eleven has outside surveillance on all their stores or if its just on their gas stations but it wouldn't surprise me if there was and police haven't said anything. Police haven't released a lot in this case which is why there is a lot of conspiracy around this case and a lot of suspicion around Wesley Hadsell. And which is why im not drawing any conclusions until information from the Police Department is released.

Bonnie Blue said...

Hi Greg Treacy!
I realize that the Police haven't released much information as far as what they have in this case, but, Wesley has told us so much already! By using Statement Analysis, we (actually Peter, with me following & learning) are able to pick out which parts are sensitive and which part is truth or lie. He has given much insight whether he meant to or not.
AJ was seen by her mother and sisters at about 7am, day of disappearance. Later, WH claims he met with her around noon at the gas station to give her money to buy her BF a birthday gift.**

There were no other sitings. The neighbor who said he saw her at 2pm (and there was a 4-door white car in the driveway also), said that he couldn't be sure it was that exact day he saw her. So you have to discount that time as the last time she was seen.

Her sister returned from school after 2pm and although AJ's truck was there, AJ was no where to be found. So the last time someone is sure they saw her was Wesley about noon, (IF that was true).

The police told him that they could not find this on surveillance tapes of the area he claimed to have met her. When he relayed this to us via jail interview, he never disputes it. He never says, "that's too bad you can't find the tape because we were there!" He says nothing to defend himself but only diverts. For other issues, like planting the jacket or justifying the break in, he has long monologues explaining away. This tells me that he is concerned with what the public thinks involving those things, but why isn't he concerned about the MOST important meeting of the investigation?

There is no tape because there was no meeting.

Here’s what he said;
WH: Like meeting at the gas station, they said there was no video of us meeting there. Um um uh they-they said that uh the cell phone was pinging around my hotel. They said that was in my room, on my bed, next to me. This is what they said, now, I don’t know what, you know, they say things, um..
Interviewer: they try to get you to say things
WH: Exactly! I don’t know, I mean, I don’t know what-what relevance that had but, you know, I kept telling them she wasn’t with me. I did not see her! She was not at my hotel, and they…

Oh wow, he doesn’t know what RELEVANCE it had that her cell phone pinged in his hotel room?!!!!!!!!!!!
He completely skips over the meeting at the gas station as if it was never said. He brings it up, and then just drops it.
**Wes tells us the purpose of the gas station meeting was to give AJ money. He says in the interview with Chelsea Hoffman that they already had a birthday party for the boyfriend:
[excerpt]..
"The reason she asked me to borrow, or um, can I get some money, in her words, today was her boyfriend’s birthday and let me tell you, it was [sighs heavy] …we had a birthday party for him and uh, let me just say it wasn’t a “party”, okay?"

Why is she asking for money for the gift AFTER the birthday party? Isn't it customary to give gifts AT the party? She was home all week for spring break, it's not like she didn't have time. He said she as talking about it with her boyfriend's mother the week before, so she already knew what she wanted to give him...why wait until after the party to ask for the money?

Wesley has lied, and continues to lie. Why lie during a time when your DAUGHTER IS MISSING?! People don’t lie unless they really feel they have need to. Just about every single thing Wesley has done is either shady, or outright lying DURING A MURDER INVESTIGATION.

I think we will see an arrest as soon as cause of death is determined. JMO.

Greg Treacy said...

Yeah that is true. Can you link me to that Chelsea Hoffman interview or whatever it was. I haven't read up on that. I've read on local news stations on how he used the past tense a lot and that the local law enforcement is now aware of that. But it is quite suspicious to me that he has been the ONLY one releasing information on the case. Honestly it has got me thinking he murdered AJ, but im not drawing it as a conclusion. It has gotten weird in all the interviews done with Wesley. So many red flags have come up and everything. But im curious on who this person he speaks of when he says "but say she had someone who liked her… loved her, obsessed about her." I did read somewhere where this person who obsessed over AJ could have been one of two people. The first person was this person who wanted to hangout with AJ but she didn't feel right about it and didn't hangout with him and later from text records showed her texting in all caps "HELP." The second person who obsessed over AJ was Zach Hoffer, the first stepdad. Going by the blog he did back in 2011 I think, he quite obsessed over being separated from Anjelica and to continue on over the years continued to obsess over her. So in my opinion, there are so many possible suspects here its hard to assume who really did kidnap and murder Anjelica Hadsell, but dont get me wrong, everyone's points and comments here on this post do prove a good point. If you want to know more on my opinion you can find me on facebook Bonnie because im not going to publicly put more of what I have to say out there (www.facebook.com/gdtreacy)

Jamie said...

Can you link me to that Chelsea Hoffman interview or whatever it was.

Isn't this interview hers above? I thought her name was in it, but I don't see it now.

Greg Treacy said...

Wait I am confused now. Is this statement analysis above based off of an interview done by someone else or was done by the author of the article above.

Anonymous said...

Greg Treacy you stated they "lived well" Do you mean the were financially well off?