Thursday, July 30, 2015

Example of Analysis: Brooks Houck in Crystal Rogers Disappearance

What does group analysis look like?  This may provide insight into a powerful practice within statement analysis where experts come together seeking answers.

The following is summary expert analysis from a group of professionals (detectives, security investigators, therapists, business experts, etc with backgrounds in both law enforcement and psychology) of the transcripts from Nancy Grace interview of Brooks Houck, fiancé of missing 35 year old Crystal Rogers, mother of five.

This blog does not publish any private statements unless expressed written permission is given.  This analysis is from the nationally televised show and the transcripts are published by HLN.

No one has been arrested and this is only the opinion of the contributors.  All are judicially innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

The group analysis sought to answer questions including but not limited to:

1.  Does Brooks Houck possess guilty knowledge of the disappearance of Crystal Rogers?
2.  Is he truthful in his answers?
3.  If in possession of guilty knowledge, does he reveal the status of Crystal Rogers?  Is she alive?
4.  Does he reveal any inadvertent information within his answers?
5.  How does he relate to Crystal Rogers, linguistically, which allows us insight into his relationship with her?
6.  Is he cooperative with law enforcement?
7.  Does he deny causing the disappearance of Crystal Rogers?

Please note that lengthy explanations of the principles of Statement Analysis are often not included.  There is also some discussion about interviewing techniques based upon "Analytical Interviewing" principles violated.

This group of experts was asked to work through the interview in order to glean out as much information as possible, with the "40% rule" in mind.

The "40% rule" says that due to the emotional "trail" that is followed during analysis, should the same analyst or other analysts re-analyze the same statement, with a 'broken emotional connection", that is, having moved on to other statements, the same statement will

a.  affirm the original analysis
b.  yield up to 40% more information

Hence, the value of not only re-analyzing one's own work, but group analysis provides the deepest level, as "emotional connections" are different for each analyst.  Too many analysts can be too time consuming, but best is using male and female analysts, with investigatory and psychology backgrounds.  All must be proficient in Statement Analysis with formal training, as well as much interview experience.  For detectives, the interview experience includes the under-rated "street" or traffic interviews, which are not formal interviews, but are marvelous training opportunities that develop intuition.  If formal training is not coupled with this 'street experience' (domestics, in particular), the officer can develop a cynical  attitude that will de-rail success in analysis since 90% of deception does not come from direct lying ("everyone lies! is not true), but from missing info. Presupposition of truth is a basic tenant of analysis.

This analysis is useful for study and instruction in Statement Analysis.

NANCY GRACE, HOST: Live, Bardstown, Kentucky, where a mother of five, Crystal Rogers, Maroon Chevy, found on the side of the road with a  flat tire. She has not been spotted alive since.   Joining us right now in addition to Crystal`s parents, her boyfriend, the father of her baby. She was at their three-bedroom home, there in a quiet subdivision, just before she went missing.  
Joining me right now, in addition to Crystal`s mom and dad, Tommy and Sherry, with me is her boyfriend, I guess I would say fiance. She is divorcing the last husband. She has a young child by Brooks Houck, who formerly ran for sheriff in that jurisdiction. He has taken a polygraph.  
He has not hired lawyers. He has allowed police to search his property and says that he is on call at any time police want to talk to him.  Mr. Houck, thank you for being with us.  

BROOKS HOUCK:   Thank you.  

GRACE: Mr. Houck, what happened the night Crystal goes missing exactly?  

“Tell us what happened.”

Principle:  Where a person begins the statement is always important and sometimes can reveal the motive.  It is ALWAYS important.  It is our job to find out why. 

Do not limit the time period.  

Do not introduce new words.  When NG used the word, “Exactly”, what did she suggest to the subject? 
Answer:  She is suspicious of him.  Do not set your subject on the defensive until either the end of the interview, or in the follow up interview, and then, only if necessary.  Do not hinder the flow of information.  

"What happened?" followed by "What happened, next?" are not only legally sound but allow the subject to 

a.  choose his own words.  This is how the polygraph testing avoids all "inconclusive results" because in the pre-screening interview, the Interviewer introduces NO WORDS of his or her own, but uses the subject's.  Why is this?

Answer:  Because the subject has no  strong "emotional reaction" to words that are not his own, that is, in his own personal, internal, subjective dictionary.  When his own words are used, there is no "interpretation" or "re-interpretation" in his head:  his body will react to his own words. 

If a child molester "tickled" his victim, he will fail if asked, "Did you tickle her?" and denies, but may pass if asked, "Did you molest her?", because he has no strong emotional, personal connection to "molest"; as he is in denial.  

HOUCK: Earlier that day, she showed rental property. She went to Wal- Mart.  

Question:  The question was about “that night” but...
Answer:    his answer went to “earlier that day” which avoids "that night" (a) and begins his account earlier (b) which, when the case is solved, will be proven as important.  


a.     The “exact” question is avoided making the question, itself, sensitive to the subject. “Boundary”:  The “boundary” of the question is “that night.”  He has gone “outside the boundary of the question”, making this very important information.  

b.     “That” day; distance.  This could be the passage of time, or it could be a psychological distancing especially since he has avoided the question regarding the “night” she went missing. 

c.     We take note of any and all references to Crystal.  Here, she is “she”; we will keep a running tab.  What do we expect to hear?  Answer:  “Crystal”, “she”, “we”, “us”, “my” along with “fiancé; and possibly a nickname or term of endearment (this is a live interview, not a written statement) 
d.     “showed rental property” and “Walmart” are two locations that are not part of “that night”, meaning that they are extra or additional information, which appear “unnecessary”, meaning:  they are only “unnecessary” to us, but are very important to him.  Question: Is this any form of alibi building?   Answer:  We will let the language guide us. 
e.     The subject is “slowing down the pace.”
The average statement in the US, police report of “what happened” is 1 to 1 ½ pages, 8.5” by 11” and covers 8-12 hours of time. 

The average “pace” of a statement is 3 lines per hour.  
When there is a major deviation from this norm, it is to be noted. 
When the pace goes very quickly; that is, on this ‘norm’, less than 1 line per hour, deception is present. 
When the pace slows down to the point where, in this average of 3lph, above 9 lines per hour, deception is coming, in the future, in the statement. 

Here, he was asked about “that night” and has not gotten to “that night” but has slowed the pace down, so much so, that he is earlier in the day.  We now are “on alert” for slowing down the pace and ‘avoiding’ that night.  If he moves ahead, it is fine, but if he slows down the pace, it is indicative of coming deception. 

Question:  how might he ‘slow down the pace’ of his answer to “what happened that night?”?

Answer:  If he gives a lot of detail he is slowing down the pace.  IF he gives a lot of detail “before” the event, only to give less detail during the event, he has slowed down the pace enough for us to say, “the event is not something he wants to tell us what happened.”

Let’s let him guide us.  

GRACE: With who?  

This tells us that NG heard “Walmart”, and likely was not expecting him to mention this so much earlier in the day.  This may have caught her off guard.  

HOUCK: We have established a timeline of all the facts and events.  

*Follow the pronouns.  Who is “we”?
Please note that he is speaking for himself, and not for others.  
“Sharing” that sometimes indicates divorce talk.  

a.     sounds like “official” language; ‘cop speak’ or ‘lawyer speak’
b.     “we” is not defined.  This may be an attempt to assimilate himself with law enforcement.  We only believe what one tells us and he has not told us that he and law enforcement are working together.  We are now on alert, due to this word, regarding the possible lack of cooperation with law enforcement, and/or family, since he introduced “we” without telling us who the others are.  We will look for the word “with” between himself and law enforcement and/or family.  This would confirm the ‘ingratiating’ use of the word “we” (or the undefined use of the word “we” in context).

c.     “all” is, in fact, “deceptive” because she is STILL missing.  If you have “all”, you need nothing else.  This is to “stop the flow of information” similar to, “I told you everything” when a person is missing.  A loved one of a missing person will not say “I told you everything” but will often wake up in the middle of the night, remembering something else, and leaving a voice mail for investigators.  They continually search their memories until the person is found, hoping to remember some small detail that may matter to the case.  There is no “all” while the case is unsolved. 

d.     facts” and “events” are separate in his personal dictionary.  We would need him to explain the difference between them and then explain how “all” the events are known. 

Question:  is it possible that the subject is telling the truth here?

Answer:  It is possible if he does know the event that caused her to disappear, therefore “all” is true, except that it is not “truth” for the plural use of “we.”

Principle:  A direct or “outright lie” is very rare.  A deceptive person, more than 90% of the time, is deceptive via what he withholds, suppresses, or leaves out from his statement. 

1.     leave out” is passive, low stress
2.     withhold” is deliberate, medium stress
3.     suppress” is to deliberately withhold, while feeling emotional pressure to reveal, high stress.  

e.     “established” means to “put together”; it was “established” by whom?  It was “established” by “we”, which is more than one person.  Pronouns are reliable and trustworthy, even when attempting to sound as if cooperative with law enforcement (deceptively) it is STILL instinctive and intuitive and still 100% reliable.  

Question:  Since pronouns cannot “lie”, was he alone when he established the timeline of facts and events?

Answer:  He worked with someone; is it possible that he worked with his brother, the police officer from the local department?  There is a connection to someone here and it sounds like "official" language, perhaps even more "lawyer speak" than "cop speak", but we will wait to see how he guides us.  

*There is suspicion that he has, perhaps, gotten assistance from his brother, the local police officer.

With the word “we” regarding “established the events and facts”, he did, indeed, work with someone.  If not his brother, perhaps his lawyer or a friend who has legalese in his own language.  It has a sound like a defense attorney would use, “all the events and facts”, as if “all” means there is no need to get more; we have them all.  This is sometimes in the language of alibi-building.  It is not “put together” or “constructed”, it is “established”, with “established” indicating that something is put together for presentation, as in a legal defense.  Is this “alibi building” with lawyer-speak?  It sounds like it, even more than “cop speak.”

Analytical Interviewing Principle:  DO NOT INTERRUPT! It may be that he was interrupted by NG, and not that he avoided the question.  She asked again:  

GRACE: Who did she go to Wal-Mart with, Brooks?  

HOUCK: I was not there at Wal-Mart with them. She had some of the children with her.  

Before he answers with, “She had some of the children with her”, he first establishes something that was not asked of him.  This speaks to priority:  he was not “there”, at that location, with them.  This is his priority.  

He has a need to establish that at that location, “there” (emphasis), he was not present.  This is very important to him.  The location is emphasized with “there” unnecessarily, making it even more important to the subject and to analysis. 

This raises questions:  

Was he at Walmart, on his own, just not “with” them?
Was something else, besides the children, with her, at Walmart?
Did she talk to someone on the phone from Walmart?
Did he talk to her, or text her, using the phone, while she was at Walmart?
In other words, was he “with her” but just not “there” with her?  
If you were not “there”, at Walmart, with them, where were you? 

*is it possible that there was a 3rd party involved?   Did she have a boyfriend who she ‘ran into’ at Walmart?  Is it possible that she spoke to another man, or her family, or someone that bothers him, while at Walmart?

Please note:  something is causing him to NOT place himself at Walmart, with them, during this time period.  Remember:  he brought this time period of instead of “that night.”  

Q.  What do you now note about his references to Crystal?
A.  He has not used her name, but only “she” still.  We continue to listen for how he references her, to learn the quality of the relationship at the time of the statement.  

Also take note that “the children” is not “the kids” or even “some of our kids”, or “some of our children”; which is to suggest distance between the subject (Brooks Houck) and the children, which may or may not include his own biological child who is not mentioned.  

GRACE: Mm-hmm. OK.  

HOUCK: Yes, ma`am.  

GRACE: That`s important, Brooks, because as you know, with your interest in law enforcement, it establishes a timeline. So that was Friday around 4:00 p.m. then what happened after Wal-Mart?  

1.     She makes a statement, and introduces new information.  MISTAKE noted. 
2.     She then asks a good question, “What happened after Walmart?”

Q.  Why is the first statement (1) a mistake?


a.     It allows him to move away from the FEP (free editing process) and parrot her.  This reduces reliability and it is how polygraphs are ruined.  Parroting reduces the body’s response to deception. 

b.   She put him on alert:  “as you know” regarding his background and/or connection to law enforcement.   She is elevating his distrust, which is the opposite of what she should be doing unless she had a reason to want to make him defensive.  Usually, we do not put a subject on the defense until the follow up interview, or at the end of the initial interview (if we suspect that he will not return and allow a follow up interview), and many times, we do not put the subject on the defensive until deception has been indicated and he has been now challenged to address his own lie.  This is a powerful technique because he WILL NOT look upon his lie, and lie about it.  It will not happen.  

Therefore, this is way too early to do this.  

HOUCK: When she left Wal-Mart on Friday, late afternoon, early evening, she showed a rental property that we have listed, in the Kentucky Standard, in a large admultiple properties. She then left that and preceded home.  

a.     He has slowed down the pace with lots of unnecessary details.  We do not care where the ad was placed, who placed the ad, what size the ad was, and so on; but he does.  this is to slow down the pace of the question, “What happened that night…” to the point where he is giving lots of details about things that seem to be unconnected to the question!  This tells us that not only is “deception coming”, but he has a need to avoid answering the question “What happened that night” by “running down the clock” on the one hour show.  By giving these seemingly ridiculous details, he is avoiding answering the question.  Yet, by this slow down, he is, in deed, leaking information. 

b.     His fiancé and mother of his child is missing and he is talking about real estate, specifically using the intuitive “we”, introducing MONEY into a missing person’s case. He wants us to know that he has a stake in the money made from real estate.  He is trying to slow down the pace but has now ‘leaked’ out that MONEY is on his mind while she is missing.  
c.     Cluster of “blues” in his statement.  The leaving of Walmart is mentioned, and then the leaving of showing “a” rental property (singular) ----there is missing information. 
70%:   rushing, time, traffic etc, but 30% more important.  Since there is nothing in the context that talks about time constraints, it likely means that he is specifically thinking of something that he is not telling.  

Did he argue with her on the phone at those times?
Did the argument include “money”, in that “we” listed them, not just Crystal, who was a real estate agent?  **He is bringing money into the equation and telling us that he is withholding information of something that happened at these times, that is important.  She is still alive at this time.  This is important. 

The missing info could be about him calling or texting her (methinks calling, because texting has too much info that does not go away) and it was argumentative, about possibly money, or a boyfriend, or a family member or someone who is against him (Brooks) –

Could it be that her ex husband (or soon to be ex) was talking to her?  Did he fear her going back with him causing him to not only lose out on her successful real estate business but also have to pay child support?   Please note the distancing language in how he referenced the children earlier in his answer.  

He has yet to use her name which is distancing language suggesting a bad relationship.  We continue to listen to him, to see if he will use her name, nickname, or term of endearment.  He has thus far shown distance to her and to the children.  

d.     late afternoon, early evening” from a subject who said he has “all” the facts and events within the time line.  He is now vague about the time period, stretching it from “late afternoon” to “early evening.”  This is inconsistent from one who has “established” the timeline with not some, but “all” the events and all of the facts.  *Why?

Is he just trying to impress us (NTP)?   Or…

Is this an admission that he did not know where she was for at least some of the time?

This could be a period of time when he did not know, thus, he was “not in control” of her activities.  This speaks to the possibility of Domestic Violence, as the perpetrator may never even assault his victim, but controls her by the threat of violence, communicated, sometimes, without words, but face expressions. 

In Statement Analysis, in D/V we do not look for “controlling” in the words:

We look for the loss of control.  Statistically, it is during the first 24 hours that the woman physically breaks free, that the most serious assaults take place.  

Question for analysis:  At any time in the statement, does he give indication that she is no longer alive?

Answer:  TBD.   

GRACE: So that was Friday evening. What time did she get home, Brooks?  

HOUCK: After 5:00.  

GRACE: After 5:00. And what, if anything, did she do at that time?  

What did she do at that time?” is a good question, but by offering “if anything” (it is impossible to do ‘nothing’), she is continuing to suggest to him that she does not trust his answers.  Avoid this. 

HOUCK: It was a normal -- normal evening. At that point, she showed the property and came home.  

a.     “normal” in Statement Analysis tells us that it was anything but normal.  
b.     When a person refers to himself as “normal”, it is a signal that he, himself, or others around him, have classified him as “abnormal” or “not normal.”  (this is found in child molestations a great deal, including, “I have a wife!” as  a defense against the allegation of molesting a child.  
c.     “normal” is also repeated.  This makes it “sensitive” to him, further telling us that not only was this “not normal” but it was “very” abnormal, and:
d.     He has a need to persuade us that it was normal, which is why he repeated it, with the repetition telling us that it was “very much” an abnormal night in his life.  This is his language; not her language.  For him, this is very abnormal and he has a very strong need to convince the audience that it was normal.  Very alarming! 

e.     We have “out of sequence” information means that it is only “out of sequence” for us, but once we learn what the missing information is, we learn why he “went back” to this point.  There is a very important event that took place “back” at “that” property (distancing language) that he does not want to share with us.  He signaled it with the word “left” earlier, and now has show us that it is so important and relevant to her disappearance, that he is revisiting it, even though it is out of chronological order.

f.      “point” is to locate a specific time period as a “point” meaning that an event took place.  Recall his use of “event” above.  To “measure” and to “compare” activities.  

GRACE: Well, what day of the week was this?  

His strange answer has not added up, so she is needing clarification.  This is not a loss of concentration on her part, but to the untrained ear, out of sequence information is confusing.  She wanted clarity.  “Well” reveals her lack of confidence in his answers (answers, plural).

HOUCK: This was on Friday, would have been July 3rd, 2015.  

GRACE: Did you have July 4th plans?  

HOUCK: Yes, we did.  

I believe this intuitive use of “we” to be true, just as I did earlier.  I believe he and Crystal did make plans before “events” at certain “points” took place.  

*He does not say that “we” includes Crystal. 

We also note that we have yet to hear him use her name.  

Context:  he gave long detailed answers about real estate, newspaper, length of ad, plurality, etc. 
Here, “Did you have plans” is only given a very short answer, forcing NG to ask what the plans were. 

What do you make of such a short answer?

The plans “we” made = short response, yet when the plans are fulfilled, there is a very long response.  

What do you think?

Crystal (if the “We” is her, and this is likely the intent of the question) is ‘present’ for the plans and he only gives a very short answer, but when the plans are fulfilled, he goes back to a more detailed answer as Crystal was NOT present for the 4th of July festivities.  

GRACE: What were they?  

This should not have been needed to be asked; “Did you have plans” expects the person to say “yes” and what the plans were, or, just the simple, “no.”  

HOUCK: My uncle, Fabian Ballard, and Loreto, about 49, had a large gathering at his home. My mother has a very large family, there`s 13 brothers and sisters,

He not only knows how to use a complete social introduction, making his distancing language from Crystal more pronounced, but he also gives others much more detailed information, as human beings, than he does for Crystal. 

Question:  Is Crystal dead at this point in his statement?

Answer:   We continue to explore.   

We are seeking an answer:

 and we -- we had planned on going there on Saturday, July 4th.  

Note that if this is he and Crystal, he stutters on a pronoun.  Indication of increase of stress. 

In the subject’s personal dictionary he DOES know how to give a complete social introduction.  We have Crystal as “she” but Fabian gets:

a.     my (possessive pronoun)
b.     “uncle” (title)
c.     “Fabian Ballard” (full name)  

IF she is dead at this point (the gathering) why slow down the pace?
Answer:  is he “running out the clock” on the show?

Please be aware of the possibility that Crystal is dead (at any time, note a change) and he could, linguistically indicate, a re-living of the crime.  

In Domestic Homicides, when the killer is speaking, there is a bizarre 'silencing' of the victim which is seen in the statement, and can point to an exact time of death.  Words are very important in domestic homicides because they often are the final trigger in a hot blooded (non premeditated) killing; the victim 'proved her point', (especially if she stood up to a controlling man with hx of DV) and he must 'silence' her, that is, take her life away (asphyxiation is often indicated, along with blunt force trauma) as the words set him in rage.  If there is a 'change' in how he relates to her, analysts should ask themselves,

"Is she no longer alive at this point?" and see if the statements following the point bear it out, weaken it, or are neutral to this assumption.  It often creates an 'eery silence' effect that can go unnoticed, but once pointed out, seems to show a demarcation in time that is very strong and she is never referenced in the same way again.  Sometimes it is 'she said that...' is used, but suddenly, there is no quotes or any reference to her speaking to him, or speaking to anyone else (including phone). 

Recall that 'phone' is a 'person' in that phones do not talk, only people do.  Will she 'talk' on the phone?

GRACE: Did you go?  

HOUCK: Yes, I did.

“Defiance”?  (discussion) 

 I went with my family.  

Not only does he use “with” to show distance, but he uses “my” which shows ownership.  There is now a difference established between him and “his” family and Crystal’s family.  There is no use of “our”, which is expected from a person engaged where he will be a step parent.  
Note the distance of “with” and then the confirmation of this distance by the pronoun “my”, which seems to exclude Crystal.  

GRACE: And what time that was?  

HOUCK: That was about 5:00 or 5:30 on Saturday --  

GRACE: OK. Let me understand the timeline, Mr. Houck.  
 So on Friday night, she shows a property in the evening, well, the evening, she gets home after 5:00.  

The subject claimed to have “all” the facts and events of the “established” time line!  He is no longer “Brooks” but has returned to the more formal, “Mr. Houck” using title and last name, creating distance between them which signals that Nancy Grace DOES NOT BELIEVE HIM.  

A Interviewing:  Choose a name and stick to it.  
Exception:  law of economy goes from longer to shorter, but if you have a need, later in the interview, to go 'informal' (close to confession), use an informal name as "friendly" conversational language; other than this, pick a name and stick to it.  People have given away much with "Mr. Smith" who became "Joe", but then later, "Smith" (anger) as emotions change.  This is more evident in what a perpetrator calls a victim, but a subject can sense, as we all do, a change in deportment or demeanor of the Interviewer, and we wish to remain neutral unless there is a specific strategic change.  Do not let your emotions dictate your interview!

HOUCK: No. Incorrect. Incorrect.  

He does not say, “no, that’s not it, it is…” with explanation.  Instead, he only says that it is “incorrect” which may be not part of his memorized timeline, you know, the one that has “all” the facts and events; the timeline that “we”, working with someone else, “established.”

GRACE: No? OK. Explain.  

HOUCK: Friday evening.  

She was last seen alive Friday night, after she left the real estate.  Therefore, Friday night (into early Saturday morning) IS the most sensitive portion of his time line.   Please note:

a.     Before he got to Friday night, he slowed down his pace
b.     When he got to Friday night, he jumped from her getting home to the next night (with NG’s assistance—she asked about their 4th of July plans.  This is why it is SO VERY FOOLISH to introduce, not only language (polygraph contamination) but it allows the subject to lie and control the flow of information.  

GRACE: Friday? Yes, that`s what I said.  

She has prickly need for respect and sometimes showmanship gets the best of her...

HOUCK: July 3rd.  

GRACE: Correct. That`s what I said.  

HOUCK: She showed the property. And then on -- you asked me if we had plans just on July 4th, which was in the following day on Saturday.  

Because he introduced other people by name, “she” is not appropriate.  Even though it may make sense due to context of showing property, the norm is to use her name.  He used other names (our reference point) but not hers.  This is unexpected distancing language. 

GRACE: Right. Right. That`s what I just said.  

HOUCK: Yes, ma`am.  

GRACE: So Friday evening, she shows the property at a multi-property spot that had been advertised in the Standard. She gets home after 5:00 and what children, if any, did she have with her at that time?  

HOUCK: Two children.  

GRACE: And --  

HOUCK: The other two children had already been dropped off at their dad`s house.  

Introduction of a person in his language.  “their dad’s house” is also new info.  When did she do this?  

2 children plus 2 children equals = 4 children, but she has FIVE.  

Conclusion is that he distances himself from these 4 children, as if this is all the children that Crystal has.  

Who is his child’s mother??

Is Crystal dead?  Does his child have a mother?

This appears to rob his child of a mother causing us to ask if he knows that his child is motherless at this point in the statement.  
GRACE: And what did you guys do for supper that night?  

She is fishing…perhaps looking to “gain access into the area of the statement that he is not allowing.”  This may be a better question than it appears to be.  It allows him to tell us what he refused to tell us:  what they did, what was it like, where is the woman who’s name he will not use?

NG  may have asked a brilliant question out of frustration!  (discussion; analysts felt strongly that this was a great question; she may have wondered if Crystal was still alive at this point (she likely was) and even if NG is off in timing, she is intuitively on the right track.  

HOUCK: We just ate here -- we ate here at the house.  

They did not eat at a different location which tells us:
He, at least, and Crystal, were at a different location sometime that night.  

No mention of food.   

Recall the pace:  He slowed down the pace earlier  with lots of details, but since he is at "that night", he is refusing to give any details, forcing Interviewer to ask.  

His pace shows deception, by itself, not Thursday or earlier, but here, at this time, chronologically.  

There should not have been an inconclusive polygraph result. 

GRACE: Did she cook?  

HOUCK: For about an hour and a half and then we left here about 7:30.  

Left” indicates missing information and the context tells us nothing about rushing, and 7:30 is not a time known for traffic, therefore, something happened at just before 7:30PM between him and Crystal that he does not want to tell the audience.  

Argument is a strong possibility.  

GRACE: Did she cook that night?  

HOUCK: You`re cutting out on me. I didn`t hear what you just said, ma`am.  

GRACE: Oh, I`m sorry. Did she cook that night, Brooks?  

HOUCK: She did not. We just ate here at the house. It wasn`t anything special or new anything like that.

This is like “normal” or “not special” signaling “be aware!  Something special is coming in this account!” 

 We knew that we had plans, wasn`t going to kill a lot of -- kill a lot of time and then we proceeded -- we proceeded out there to the family farm 

“kill” = leakage (much discussion of using the word "kill", while this is happening is not expected, but that he repeated it is sensitive but introduced by him.  

*Did he contract for someone to kill her?  *Did he kill her himself?  *Did someone assist in the planning?

This word should not be in his brain, but it is, and it is repeated (important) and likely is 'leakage'

“proceeded” is also legalese type language (or LE) but…it is repeated.  It means that a ‘series of events’ or ‘series of actions’ took place.  

We knew we had plans” instead of the simple, “We had plans…”  This tells us that he knew the plans would not be followed through.  They were arguing!  

They were “arguing” from the subject who is incapable of using her name, yet can use the phrase, “kill time” not once, but twice!

The “family farm” is going to be a very important place to him.  It is “out there” in his language, while talking about plans that produced an argument with the woman who he will not name.  

Question for group:

From this point onward, will he tell us ANYTHING, even a single word, that came from Crystal?  Will he use the word “said” at any time?

Please keep in mind that a dead person does not speak.  

“She actually hasn’t spoken through the whole statement” (AS)

Q.  Who hasn’t spoken?
A.  The person who has no name, and only 4 children.  

Dead persons in Statement Analysis have “no voice” in Domestic Homicides.  When this happens, you will likely learn that the victim “said” things to the killer that the killer did not like, nor want to hear, and he “silenced her” in reality; therefore, he “silences her” in the statement, which is his verbalized reality.  

GRACE: OK. Now. On July 4th I thought was the family farm get-together, no?  

HOUCK: Well, the Fourth, that right there is another family member.  
GRACE: Oh, I get it.  

HOUCK: That we went to.  

GRACE: I get it. So that night, you get back and what was  doing when you went to bed?  

“When you went to bed” is a HUGE MISTAKE.  
Why?  Nancy Grace is not only jumping time (huge mistake) but she is assuming they did something that you must NEVER assume in a missing persons, or potential homicide:  dead people not only do not speak, they do not go to sleep (bed).  

HOUCK: She was playing games on her phone.  

1.     “She” is no name still; not a person?  Not a fiance’?  Not a mother of his child.  Not a person. 
2.     Playing games=  is this an insult?  Remember, perpetrators often find a way to insult or blame the victim.   She is the mother of four, yea, five children, so who is watching the baby or getting the kids off to bed? Always note insult, especially if it is slight, as the guilty perpetrator feels justified, if only a little, via the insult.  We hear this in child abuse cases where “the baby would not stop crying” as if it is the baby’s fault for irritating the parent with the crying.  Perps subtly blame victims

3.     He places her on her phone.  This is now where we expect her to be “heard”; but he only has her playing on it.  What did he say to her?  If she is dead, it is likely that he did not say much.  What did she say to him?  Has she already been “silenced” by this point?

Since she is, in reality, a mother of five children, though he has reduced her to not being a mother of his child, NG asks the obvious question that he, himself, did not offer:  

GRACE: Really? OK. Where was the baby?  
HOUCK: The baby was still up.  


a.     “still up” indicates that the baby should have gone down to sleep
b.     Note the brevity of his answers.  Remember:  we are at that dark part of the account where he does not give us much detail.  He did not say what game she was playing, or if she was talking to someone, or anything else 
During this “avoidance period” in his timelines, he gives few details. 
When he is away from “that night”, he gives lots of details. 

Here, he has the need to make her ask: 

GRACE: OK. And who -- who had the baby while she was playing games?  

Do you hear a reluctance on the part of NG to insult Crystal?  

HOUCK: He was just running loose in the house.  

He is blaming the  victim here.  She is playing games on her phone, while the baby is running lose.  Like many negligent parents, while blaming her, he indicts himself!  


HOUCK: If a light`s still on in the living room, he is not going to go to bed until all the lights are out. So if there`s still activity going on in the home, he is going to stay it up with me.  

1.     He does NOT tell us that the lights were on.  He tells us what usually happens.  We believe what one tells us. 
2.     He introduces “lights” into the language.  Please consider that it is repeated in a statement given on national television while she, the woman who’s name he will not use, is missing.   Investigators should consider the possibility that he raped her.  Or, since “sexual activity” is in play, was he cheating on her, or did he discover she had sex with…the “dad” of one of the other children?  Or someone else?
Sexual activity is very closely linked to “lights” and in this case, the lights are “on”, which is often associated with sexual activity (not refusal), but could be coerced or forced.  

The reason that “lights” are found in the language of sexual activity (negative or positive) because light has to do with “energy”, or more specifically, sexual energy.  Therefore, the lights out, can be the ending of the ultimate energy, but only in the context of one of whom sexual activity could have existed.  “hand over mouth” silencing of one…may be the end of the sexual relationship (between them, or between another man and Crystal)…somewhere, the sex will end because her life is over.  

Note the change of language from “lights” to “activity”; a change of language in the FEP represents a change in reality.  “Light” is related to “sex”, and activity is something that does describe sex. 

I am very concerned that this was a sexual homicide, or a homicide that proceeded because of sex, whether it be sex with someone else, or between them.  

GRACE: Now what time did you go to bed and was she still up playing games on her phone?  

DO NOT ask compound questions; they allow the subject to pick and choose which he wants to answer.  

HOUCK: She was still up playing games on her phone. And it was really close to midnight.  

He answered both questions, but offered no commentary on her staying up, nor any other information like “who watched the baby” or “who put the baby to bed” or a single detail.  
In this time period, he says as little as possible, but when he was before this time  period he gave lots of detail.  This period is NOT something he wants to voluntarily talk about.  Why not?

“Still up” portrays the mother as a bad mother.  This is something that perpetrators do, but only subtly.  Only once did I ever come across a case in which a perp insulted the victim outright:  Heather Elvis case.  

GRACE: OK. And was the baby still awake?  

HOUCK: Yes, ma`am.  

Again, no details from a detailed orientated man.  The baby is the child of Crystal, but not according to his language.  According to him, she only has four children.  This baby does not have a mother.  

GRACE: So you go to bed. She is playing phone games and -- was she playing with another person or just by herself?  

HOUCK: I`m not aware if she was, you know, texting anybody else or talking to anybody elseI`m under the impression she was just playing one of the games on her phone.  

1.     Regarding the phone:  
2.     “you know” is only produced here, when asked about Crystal using a phone to communicate, one way or another, with someone else.  

Please note that here at this specific point in time, from a man who knows “all” the events, that he is not able to say “she was on the phone playing a game” but he can only say that this was his “impression”; here, at this specific point.  This is to say a change in status. 

3.     She has no voice.  No speech.  No communication.  
This is seen in no texting but also not speaking to anyone, which is only his “impression”:  would you have heard if she had been talking on her phone??

We have both “under” and “impression”

I am “under the impression” is passivity in language, indicating that he is concealing identity/responsibility.  He does NOT say “she was playing a game on the phone” as he did earlier.  This is to distance himself from that fact, now, here, at the hour “really close to midnight.”

At the time, “really close to midnight”, he cannot say she is playing a game on the phone.  He does not say “my impression is”, but he is “under the impression” (passivity noted) and she has no voice.  

“anybody ELSE” tells us that he is aware that at least previously, she was in communication with another person who is “somebody else”, as in comparison to him, Brooks . 

GRACE: And when did you realize --  


HOUCK: Just standard and normal for her to do that.  

To let the baby run around loose while she plays games on her phone is just “standard and normal” for her; 
He is insulting the victim--- a red flag.  

He is also hinting something:  remember that “normal” is anything but normal?  Well, is this an admission that playing games instead of taking care of the children is something he, himself, does?

GRACE: Brooks, when did you realize, Brooks Houck, that she was gone?  

HOUCK: The very next -- the very next morning.  

This repetition and self-censoring (stopping his words) causes us to ask if he knew she was “gone” at a different time period, before the “very next morning.”  
His own stumbling on his own words suggests this to us.  

GRACE: So you slept through the whole night and did not realize that she was gone?  

HOUCK: That`s true.  

Why not just say, “Yes” to this “yes or no” question?

Is he, in his mind, testifying in court??

[20:47:21] GRACE: Joining me right now in addition to her parents, Tom and Sherry Ballard, her boyfriend that she lived with there in their three-bedroom suburban home, Brooks Houck is with us.  So, Brooks, you go to bed and she is still playing games on her phone. The next morning around 8:00, you noticed that she`s missing.

 Did you report her missing?  

HOUCK: No, ma`am.  

From the man who gives lots of details to avoid getting to the time period when she no longer had a voice, he has very few words to give her. 

Therefore, NG makes him explain himself, which is going to need a lot more words!  

GRACE: Why?  

HOUCK: That is a great question and one that I definitely want the public and the media -- I was not in the least little bit alarmed in any way, shape or formWe have had a stressed relationship at times. And one of the ways that Crystal has always chose to cope or deal with that is by going to -- a young woman`s name, Sabrina, that is her cousin, her dad`s brother`s daughter, whom she is very close to, she spent the night there on several occasion.  

“Crystal” is now "alive."  She is a person.  She has a name.  She has not had a name the entire interview.  
Question:  What brought her to life?   What gave her a real name, in his language?

Answer:  Crystal is a “person” who gets a “name” only when she is not connected to the subject:  she is off, leaving him to go be with her cousin.  This is the context. 

When she is with Brooks, Crystal is only “she”
When she is at Walmart with the kids, she is not Crystal
When they have dinner, make plans, she is not Crystal
When she sells real estate that they, together, posted in the news, sharing the money, she is not Crystal.

Only here, in context, away from him, can she be a person who is alive and has a voice.  

When Crystal is with Brooks Houck, she has no name, no title, and no possessive pronoun.  She should have been “my fiance’ Crystal” making a strong connection to him.  
Even an “incomplete social introduction” which shows a bad relationship, is better than NO introduction.  To him, she is “dead” and not a person. 

I think this is why I have been re-thinking one of my conclusions about the Chief who shot his wife.   

Domestic Violence connection:  While with him, he is in control, and she has no identity, but separated (literally) from him, with the strength of her cousin, she is a person. 

Please consider this when seeing the complete or strong social introduction of the cousin!  It matches. 

Sabrina:  young woman, name, title, lineage given.  This means that he recognizes that this is a “safe topic”; that is, while with Sabrina, “she” was “Crystal” and she was her own person, with her own name, but while under him, she was no name, and not even the mother of her child.  

Expected:  We expect minimization or denial of a troubled relationship --here, the admission is alarming and the reality is likely much worse than his words, just as "glorious" was an extreme from Scott Peterson.  Given that she has left previously, he has a need to give some specific details about where she went, previously, though he will give only a few details about "that" night.  

GRACE: When you say several, do you mean one, three, 20?  

HOUCK: In the neighborhood of four to six.  


HOUCK: Something like that.  

GRACE: OK. To Tom and Sherry Ballard, were you aware of that? Do you know who Sabrina is?  

S. BALLARD: Yes, ma`am.  

T. BALLARD: That`s my niece.  

GRACE: OK. Did you know she goes and spends the night over there when she is having an issue at home?  

T. BALLARD: I`ve known probably one time.  

GRACE: Right. OK. I want to go back to Brooks Houck who was the last person to see her alive.  

Brooks, did you go on to the July 4th get-together that day?  

She is now missing.  Crystal is now missing…

HOUCK: Yes, I did.  


GRACE: Even though you didn`t know where she was?  

HOUCK: Well, I was expecting -- I had put in a phone call that morning and then around lunch and usually, the maximum period of time that she has stayed gone has only been like a day to a day and a half, at the most. And as a result of that, I thought that she would --  

a.     “well” is a pause.  We already know that not reporting her missing was sensitive to him, but now going to a party while she was missing is also very sensitive.  He must carefully think before he answers. 
b.     Self censoring:  broken sentences used.  This means he stopped himself mid sentence.  This shows that he may have been “suppressing” information, not just withholding it.  
c.     “I put in a phone call” is the language of alibi building.  We call our loved ones, we do not put in a phone call, like an obligation.  
d.     What would cause him to “put in a phone call” instead of “calling Crystal”?  PLese consider that it may be that one cannot call a dead person.  
He did not say, “I called Crystal” or even “I called her.”  He didn’t because he cannot call her if she is dead.  He can, however, “put in a phone call.”

GRACE: Did you try to call her?  

HOUCK: -- join us. I`m sorry, I didn`t hear you, ma`am.  

Statistically:  these words find their way out of the mouth of the guilty.  

GRACE: Did you try to call her during that time?  

HOUCK: Not while I was there -- there at the -- at the Fourth. I called her prior to leaving to head in that direction, yes, ma`am.  

Self censoring:  what, specifically, is he avoiding saying?  He is avoiding finishing the sentence that would have given his LOCATION.  Where he was.  “there”, “there, at the (broken), and changes it to “the Fourth” and not the family farm (location).  This location is sensitive to him. 

Nancy Grace MUST give him the opportunity to reliably deny involvement.  Here it is: 

GRACE: Some people have accused you of not being involved enough in the search efforts. What`s your response?  

HOUCK: That is a great question and one I certainly appreciate you asking me. And that is all of my effort in searching for her has been done behind the sceneWith the Nelson County Sheriff`s Office.  

He uses “with” to distance himself from searching, while he first reduces his searching efforts to only “behind the scene”; 
This is two elements of distancing language from law enforcement.  He is not searching for Crystal.  Those who do not help have a reason why they do not want success.  They often (the guilty) praise searchers who have FAILED to find their missing loved one while innocent people, early on, will INSULT law enforcement for not finding their loved one, saying, “they are not doing enough!” and “they need to put more men on!” and so on. 

The guilty often praise LE, from the 911 operator on down, to “make friends” or appear “on the side of the good guys” because they have a need to show this.  They also “name drop” to show how cooperative they are; 

revealing how uncooperative they actually are!  

 GRACE: What? What?  

HOUCK: Detective Snow who is leading the investigation and Jason Allison who is a deputy there assisting him along with the Kentucky State Police Agency Post Number 12.  

Why couldn’t he give any details about Crystal?  We get age, gender, lineage, and so on, of others, but NOTHING for the victim, further heightening our awareness of his need to distance himself from her. 
GRACE: My question was what you had been doing with them. Let me ask you this. I know that you agreed to take a polygraph. Did you pass?  

The question, “Did you pass?” gets a long answer.  Please note that innocent people will say, no matter what the results, “I told the truth.”  This is what we expect.  

“Did you pass?” is the question:  

HOUCK: Because of the way that the lines or whatever were there, they determined it to be inconclusive.

1.     He avoided the question, “did you pass?”
2.     We now expect him to say “I told the truth” and “I did not cause Crystal’s disappearance.”  

 I`m not exactly sure what that means. 

He is somewhat sure, but not exactly sure, yet it is the perfect place for him to say, “I told the truth.”  

But they did tell me it does mean that I wasn`t lying or I didn`t pass it or I didn`t fail it.

Statistically:  we look for “truth” in any form, while “lie” in any form is a bad sign. 

This is another place for him to say, “It doesn’t matter what the lines said; I told the truth.”  We wait to hear him say it. 

 They just ruled it inconclusive and that is exactly the way it stands.  

He has spoken to an attorney or has legal background.  I think the “we” is someone with legal or criminal background that he referenced when he said, “we have the timeline and all the events and facts…”  

“The way it stands” is temporary and it may “fall” or “stand differently” at a different time.  This is to admit that it is not the truth.  

This is where the innocent say, "I told the truth" in some form.  We do not like to hear the word "lie", in any form, in this affirmation.  

I have been 100 percent completely honest with everyone. I have been 100 percent cooperative in everything that has been asked of me. I have not asked for any kind of legal advice or assistance or an attorney of any nature. I`m 100 percent completely innocent in this.

In being honest, he needs to say “100% completely” honest;

In innocence, he also needs to say “100% completely innocent” but in cooperation, his need to persuade is reduced to:  

“100% cooperative”, not needing the word “completely”, which was expected since it was a pattern. 

This tells us:

he has not been honest;
he is not innocent, but…

he has actually given some limited cooperation. 

The cooperation does not need the same “strengthening” that the others need.  The more one needs to strengthen, the more it is weak and likely untrue.  

 This means that:

1.  He is not truthful about being honest
2.  He is not truthful about being innocent
3.  He is somewhat truthful about cooperation; that is to say, he has given some specific, but limited cooperation.  

Let's look at his claim about an attorney:

I have not asked for any kind of legal advice or assistance or an attorney of any nature.

"I am 100% completely innocent in this", by itself, tells us of his guilt.  This is one of those phrases that requires strengthening for the guilty.  The innocent state it plainly and may even say "I am innocent because I didn't cause her disappearance" without waiting to be asked.  This phrase, and others like it, has become somewhat famous in that big cases (OJ, Amy Fischer shooting, etc) use this phrase in some form.  Not only does the weakness need to be strengthened, it is so weak that it needs two elements of support:  "100%" and "completely" highlighting how he, himself, does not believe it.  

Also note that the guilty will claim innocence as it refers to a court finding.  Yet, it is also found in long term prisoners, who, after many years of incarceration, say it freely, as it is common "prison-speak" language.  For those who have not served time in prison, it likely refers to court finding, and not the act; that is, to deny the conclusion, but not the action.  

In the above sentence we note:

a.  it is offered in the negative; telling us what he did not do. 
b  "of any nature" is not necessary.  "I have not retained an attorney" or "I have not hired an attorney" would suffice; the extra wording is needed to persuade, rather than truthfully report.  We wonder:

*did he do some of his own legal research?
*did he get counsel from someone in law enforcement, who is technically not an attorney, yet is familiar with criminal investigations and proceedings, therefore, the necessity of "of any nature."

It is a very sensitive statement, qualified unnecessarily, which means it is likely to be "technically truthful" but overall deceptive.  "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" with "sexual relations" previously defined by the subject and Ms. Lewinsky, therefore, misleading (deceptive) but technically truthful (and could pass a polygraph unless he defines his own language!) this case, he did not, "officially" retain a defense attorney; that is, in an official capacity.  See how I am qualifying this?  This is what he did! 

 And I have exhausted 
my efforts with the law enforcement agencies to gather all the facts necessary to allow me to have a clean name again.  That`s very important to me. I have not responded to a lot of the negativity and all of this animosity because I want the emphasis to remain on Crystal`s safe return home. And that`s where I want it to stay focused in that area rather than dealing with any of the animosity between the families.  

His goal is not to find her, but to have a “clean” name, not a “cleared” name.  This is another indicator of sexual homicide.  

One who has “exhausted his efforts” has no more effort.  It is done.  Yet, she is not found.  This is to say he is not going to give out any more information than he already has. 

His "cooperation" is limited to:

a.  "gathering" and not "giving" in his mind.  Whatever he "gives" is done in order to ascertain what they (LE) knows.  Please take this "gathering" with his negative sentence about legal counsel together.  He knows what he is doing, and he knows why he is doing:  ("to clean my name")

b.  "exhausted":  it is his efforts to gather that are exhausted.  What he just said was:

"They won't tell me anything more!"

This is a frustrating statement and appears to be missed by the IR.  

c.  "With" shows the obvious distance with LE

d.  He has "not" responded is in the negative and very important to him.  The easiest thing in the world to do is say "I did not cause Crystal's disappearance" and "I will do anything L/E wants!" as responses.  He has not done this. 

As discussed, "clean" name is not "clear my name", and it comes before finding Crystal.  To "clean" is similar to "water" in statements and suggests sexual homicide, or sexual assault leading to homicide.  Rape possible before killing.  

HOUCK: Because of the way that the lines or whatever were they, they determined it to be inconclusive. I`m not exactly sure what that means. 

But they did tell me it does mean that I wasn`t lying or I didn`t pass it or I didn`t fail it. They just ruled it inconclusive and that is exactly the way it stands.  

He doesn't even affirm that he wasn't lying, only that they told him.  Note it is in the present tense, "they tell me", which reduces reliability.  This is either because he has had multiple discussions with them, or that he has fabricated "misinterpreted" someone's words.  

"The way it stands" is legalese.  He is thinking of court?

I have been 100 percent completely honest with everyone. 

I have been 100 percent cooperative in everything that has been asked of me. 

He knows there are things that they have not asked about.  He is signaling that the interview was not complete.  

I have not asked for any kind of legal advice or assistance or an attorney of any nature.

 I`m 100 percent completely innocent in this. 

And I have exhausted my efforts with the law enforcement agencies to gather all the facts necessary to allow me to have a clean name again. 

 That`s very important to me. 

So important it comes before Crystal's wellbeing.  

I have not responded to a lot of the negativity and all of this animosity because I want the emphasis to remain on Crystal`s safe return home. And that`s where I want it to stay focused in that area rather than dealing with any of the animosity between the families. 

GRACE: To Tommy and Sherry Ballard, Crystal`s mom and dad, to Miss Ballard, I want to talk about her car and her getting out of that car, and leaving the car in the ignition with her cell phone and pocketbook and a diaper bag still in the car and getting out on the side of the road. What 
do you make of that? Because there is no way I would do that.  

S. BALLARD: I don`t think Crystal would, either. I can`t see her getting out the car. I can`t see remember once her leaving her baby at home. I can`t see her getting out of the car in the dark, not with a cell phone in her hand or something anyway. She had AAA. She had no reason to get out 
of the car. I just -- it don`t make sense.  

GRACE: It doesn`t make sense to me, either, Mr. and Miss Ballard. 

Brooks Houck has been indicated for deception in this analysis.  

He has signaled that Crystal will not be found. 

He avoided using her name throughout the entire interview, until two points:  

Both when Crystal is not with him.  

She enters his language only with the ability to "clean" his name or when she was a 'refugee', that is, the need to go away from him and her children. 

 This is in stark contrast between the social introductions of others, including uncle, and even the age of another person.  

Crystal is a "non person" in Statement Analysis, signaling her death. If she is dead, in his language, how would he know?

a.  The police have told him that they suspect her to be dead?  According to his distancing language, this is not likely. 
b.  Because she has been gone for a very long time (not at the time of this interview)
c.  Because he has guilty knowledge?

Regarding perceived reality in language versus reality: 

This is why we say "he is not divorced" in the statement while the case file says, "You're wrong.  He is married", which misses the point. 

He is not married!

According to Statement analysis, he is not married!

The contradiction is very important and is why we do not want to know the case file before we analyze the statement.  This is not for "effect" (though the effect is often quite impressive) but to avoid influencing our analysis.  This is HOW we learn the quality of the relationship, so critical in domestics.  

When a statement itself shows, "he is not married" it means:

1.  The words (statement) are not reality. 
2.  The words are the subject's perception of reality. 
3.  "Crystal" was never "alive" in the statement, that is, she was never:

a.  Crystal
b.  my fiancé
c.  my girlfriend
d.  the mother of my child
e.  or any other description or attribute including nickname, term of endearment, etc

She is only a "person", that is, something other "she" when she is able to clean his name for him.  

He "brings her to life" for this purpose only. 

Did you notice that she did not "speak" on the phone "that" night?  A living person speaks; a dead person, or "non person" does not speak, that is, communicate.  

Even Crystal's cousin has a name and even a lineage; Crystal has nothing.  She is "she" throughout the entire interview except when she is no longer with him, that is:
a.  With cousin
b.  missing 

In all context associated with him, Crystal is only a pronoun, with avoidance of her name.  This is extreme distancing language, and is also alarming in when she "appears" as "Crystal", only when not connected directly to him.  

Greed may be an element in this case, as the need to connect himself to her real estate business is evident, and there may have been a third party, or at least one that he suspects, including possibly ex husband, or boyfriend (it could be that he has interest in someone else).

Houck is slightly above average intelligence and is controlling showing, especially, a need to control information; something that also suggests guilt.  

Houck has signaled that Crystal will not be found alive, and one of the major questions for investigators is not simply if he had assistance, but to carefully review the transcripts of the audio (it is worth even small budget departments to pay for transcription) to learn if the location of Crystal's remains is leaked.  This requires the understanding of how leakage works, and careful scrutiny may yield two locations, as one may have been temporary. This may be found through repetition, for example, as well as the odds of the location being in a most "unnecessary" way exposed; that is, a sentence or answer that appears utterly unnecessary.  

In the interview, the more the IR spoke, the less reliable the subject's wording is. They must note any time the subject used the IR's own language or expressions, or any time the IR "led" the subject's direction. 

Analytical Interviewing "controls the interview" by letting the subject ramble on and on, yet always going back to:

a.  the original question
b.  the leaked information that was revealed in the ramble.  The subject thinks he is controlling, often by lengthy sentences, yet it is in these lengthy sentences that we discern the difference between emotion and logic, and how every unnecessary word is analyzed.  How many readers here, for example, knew that Hailey Dunn's remains were going to be found in an "ugly field" ; just as her mother said she would never search.  Billie Jean Dunn spoke so much that she, herself, told us that Hailey was dead, and drugs were involved, in just a few sentences.  Like Houck, she took the polygraph and went on NG.  

Let's hope that Houck returns to the show to yield even more info.  Yet I believe that all the information necessary to find Crystal Rogers is likely within the transcripts of the original interview, if this is a well conducted and lengthy interview.  By "well conducted", I specifically mean "uncontaminated" interview, where Houcks not only introduced language, but was asked to clarify the meaning of any of his words.  If he is responsible for Crystal Rogers' disappearance it is all but impossible for him to speak at length and not reveal this. 

We all do.  

We are created to communicate and are the only ones possessing the earth that do so in such detailed manner. We cannot survive without communication.  As Menachim Begin said when he was a WWII prisoner of the Soviets, during painful torture, he did reveal information to them, but it was during the moments after being secluded and hearing no human voice for 30 days, that he revealed the greatest amount of information.  They took him to the point where his mental health would rapidly deteriorate should the lack of communication go any further.  

"Dulled listening" is what we all do.  

Statement Analysis teaches a process to reverse this.  It takes formal training.  

The average person has 25,000 words in his own dictionary.  When asked "What happened?", it is impossible for him to say everything that happened, therefore:

*He must decide which information to use, and which to leave out;
*Which words to use
*What verb tenses to use
*Where to place each word to make sense and to communicate his perception of what happened

This entire process takes place in less than micro-second of time.  This gives us our advantage.  A lie does not proceed from experienced memory, therefore, it 'interrupts' this speed of transmission, which is the principle cause of internal stress.  It is why the polygraph, when administered by one trained in Statement Analysis is so accurate, as the subject's own dictionary is entered during the interview, and then used in the questions.  This is why polygraphers trained in Statement Analysis have few, if any, "inconclusive" results, especially with growing experience.  

The training is not easy and most have it in some form, such as "Reid" in police academies, yet, passed, it is not retained, nor practiced, and quickly disispates.  Our training is different than others that not only do we use all the same principles, but explain why these principles work, and design specific practice and training, over time, which makes the investigator "razor sharp", for his department, or company, but especially for his career, wherever he or she goes.  

This means the innocent are cleared, the guilty are caught, and due to the non-intrusive nature of listening, unions, and other civil rights advocates agree with its methodology.  The result is better trained, more efficient officers, with better community relations and trust.  Officers who "scream" and "intimidate" their way to answers find early success, but an animosity with the public follows them their entire careers and they soon learn that the techniques fail to obtain content and failures mount up over time.  It also can become 'accepted' by others until a department and its community are at odds.  Given today's anti police sentiment from politicians and media, effective training is needed more than ever before. 

If you, your department, or your company would like training, we offer seminars, and even individual home training, along with 12 months of ongoing support, and once successfully completed, the investigator is eligible for our monthly live training sessions, which not only produce results for ongoing cases (confidentiality agreement) but gain invaluable lessons from the input of other seasoned professionals. 

Please visit HYATT ANALYSIS SERVICES for specific details to contact us for your training.  Discounts to smaller, limited budget departments.  

For companies:  

With the Department of Justice reporting that 4 out of 10 job applicants have intention of gaining money their hands have not earned, before their first day at work, we show Human Resources how to screen out the 40% with improper motives and to place the right person to the right position.  Your company will see, in its first year, a precipitous drop in shrinkage, theft, inappropriate unemployment claims, fraudulent claims (injuries, sexual harassment, hostile work environment, discrimination, etc) against you, as well as providing a wall of protection for your reputation.  

It is the deceptive applicant that will, statistically, bring harm to your company.  

In hiring and in internal investigations, you need the truth.  The money you save in the first year alone, or even the first case, alone, will prove profitable.  

For Social Service professionals:  

We provide training for child interviews, statement analysis applicable for intake screenings, as well as the ability to "get to the core" issue for your patient or client.  

The training is also used by journalists, authors, attorneys and other professionals (including top sales) who need to learn to discern deception accurately.  

This public interview of Brooks Houck highlights not only analysis, but interviewing techniques designed to get the most pure version from the subject as possible.  


Buckley said...

Very enlightening and interesting- thanks!

Anonymous said...

Re the pic at the top of this article: Crystal is leaning in towards the child, while Brooks is leaning away.

Anonymous said...

I get the distinct impression that someone else is with him during his conversation with Nancy Grace. So, whenever he claims he cannot hear her, he may be consulting with that other person (lawyer?) before answering. (I haven't seen the interview, so I don't know if his face is onscreen the entire time.)

Tania Cadogan said...

GRACE: Did she cook?

HOUCK: For about an hour and a half and then we left here about 7:30.


GRACE: Did she cook that night?

HOUCK: You`re cutting out on me. I didn`t hear what you just said, ma`am.

GRACE: Oh, I`m sorry. Did she cook that night, Brooks?

HOUCK: She did not. We just ate here at the house. It wasn`t anything special or new anything like that

Here is where i have a problem.
He is originally asked if she cooked and again if she cooked that night.
The question being asked thrice.
After the first asking Did she cook?
He responds with HOUCK: For about an hour and a half and then we left here about 7:30.

He is then asked GRACE: Did she cook that night?
To which he responds HOUCK: You`re cutting out on me. I didn`t hear what you just said, ma`am.
Note he responds and calls her ma'am indicating politeness, it crops up when NG refers to Sabrina,, the baby being awake and when she refers to Crystal being missing.
It is as if by using the term ma'am and the implied politeness, he is trying to persuade NG of the veracity of what he is smacks of sensitivity.

NG asks for he third time GRACE: Oh, I`m sorry. Did she cook that night, Brooks?
This time he gives a different answer HOUCK: She did not. We just ate here at the house. It wasn`t anything special or new anything like that

There is a lot of sensitivity around dinner time, the preparation of dinner and the meal as well.

It looks and sounds as if whatever happened, happened prior to them eating dinner, or even preparing it.

We just ate here at the house. It wasn`t anything special or new anything like that
Who is the WE he refers to since it is him, Crystal and the baby present in the house?
The assumption is it refers to him and Crystal.
What if he is instead referring to him and the baby?
It wasn`t anything special or new anything like that

The sentence would fit in with just him and baby having something quick and easy to prepare since he "had things to deal with"
Was Crystal killed before dinner?

There was crosstalk when he answered the first did she cook, however that is his clear response.

I would be checking all the knives in the kitchen to see if perhaps one is missing from the set or checking them all for traces of human blood( blood is a bugger to get out of medical instruments if you don't have the right equipment, it gets trapped in tiny nicks and crevasses in the blade and where it joins the handle)

Anonymous said...

"It wasn`t anything special or new anything like that." This, to me, suggests a dinnertime argument or fight, which was customary. Maybe he's upset that Crystal won't cook dinner, and they are eating leftovers again. (Ahhh...that pesky work "left.") I wish NG had asked them exactly what the food was. Was he drinking?

Buckley said...

It looks like he's the one holding the boy, and holding him in a way that they can both be seen in the picture so he would need to lean back a little to balance the boy's weight.

John Mc Gowan said...

"allow me to have a clean name again"

Does he have previous?

Anonymous said...

There is a (2015?) Kentucky court case, as follows: but one must pay to access it

Anonymous said...

Search For Missing Mom Crystal Rogers Eerily Similar To Aunt's 1979 Disappearance

BallBounces said...

"with “established” indicating that something is put together for presentation, as in a legal defense."

Established has the connotation of being firm, settled, verified, and, therefore, beyond question or dispute. IOW, don't challenge me/us about this. "to show to be valid or true; prove: to establish the facts of the matter."

Anonymous said...

Houck's brother is a police officer, so that may be where he is getting the lingo (deliberately or subconciously).

trustmeigetit said...

Do we know if she went to "her" families farm that Friday or his.

And so we have confirmation she was seen there?

I've seen it stated both ways

trustmeigetit said...

I do not think they ate dinner. I think they fought for an hour and a half.

Then my thoughts on time if death depend on if she was confirmed at the farm after 7:30 and which farm. Her families or his. I think his would lie and I can't find anything for sure.

I then do not think he slept that night. The baby was "running around" while he was busy cleaning up. The noise and activity is what kept the baby up.

Tania Cadogan said...

I agree Trustmeigetit

Anonymous said...

Websleuths thinks "Keith Rogers" is the legal husband of Crystal Rogers, and that Brooks Houck is a common law/not 100% legal husband. (Apologies if this is already known, but Anon who reported the court case didn't comment on the identical surnames). This doesn't help say what the case is about, but I think the PACER court system, if Kentucky is under it, gives a good dollop of free page returns without charging you for looking at them, which should be more than enough to figure out the topic of court action. (My account is my work account and is checked, or I would look. If I can figure a way around it I'll post back.)


Anonymous said...

PACER is only for Federal court cases, not state ones.

Anonymous said...

Crystal Rogers is still married to her estranged husband, Keith Rogers, who is the father of some of her children, but they are legally separated.

John Mc Gowan said...

OT Update:

EXCLUSIVE: Kidnap victim Hannah Anderson to be questioned in court over her six-day ordeal as captor's family sues FBI for gunning him down
Teenager is to be deposed in wrongful death suit brought by sister of Jim DiMaggio against the FBI

DiMaggio was named as suspect in kidnap of Anderson and murder of her mother and younger brother and manhunt was launched
He was shot and killed by FBI tactical agent ending six-day ordeal which began in San Diego County, California and ended in wilderness in Idaho
Now his sister claims he was 'stalked' and 'executed' by law enforcement and alleges he should not have been shot

Hannah Anderson is to be deposed in a wrongful death suit being brought against the FBI by the sister of the man accused of kidnapping her, Daily Mail Online can reveal.
Lora DiMaggio is suing the FBI in a suit that will see details of the manhunt, which ended with suspected kidnapper and murderer Jim DiMaggio gunned down, aired for the first time and the now 18-year-old compelled to give testimony in open court.
The suit comes almost exactly two years after DiMaggio allegedly kidnapped Anderson and brutally murdered her mother, Christina and younger brother, Ethan, 8.
Attorney C Keith Greer, representing Lora in her case told Daily Mail Online, 'This is a claim for wrongful death naming the FBI hostage rescue team as the defendant.
'We've been looking at this for over a year now and we've obtained some of the FBI's file and have looked most closely at the comments made by Hannah Anderson.

'She is the only witness that is alive that was not part of the FBI team and we're really basing the claim in large part on her comments about what happened that afternoon.'
On August 4 2013 family friend DiMaggio allegedly kidnapped Anderson after picking her up from cheerleading practice at her school in National City, California.
Unbeknown to the teenager he had already reportedly killed both her mother and brother at his home in nearby Boulevard, rigging the house with explosives that saw it burn to the ground.
Autopsies revealed that Christina had been brutally bludgeoned to death. Ethan's body was so badly burned investigators were unable to determine the cause of death. The family's dog was found shot in DiMaggio's garage.

DiMaggio, who had been a close friend of Anderson's father, Brett, took the teenager on the run evading law enforcement for six days when their camp in the Idaho wilderness was finally discovered near Frank Church River of No Return.
Two days earlier horseback riders had met Anderson and her kidnapper in Cascade, Idaho and alerted authorities when they realized the gravity of the encounter.
DiMaggio allegedly fired at least one shot at FBI officers before being gunned down by an FBI tactical agent. He was shot six times – once in the head, once in the heart and four times in the arms and upper torso.
In the aftermath of the kidnap and dramatic rescue Anderson came under fierce criticism for her lack of visible grief, apparent discrepancies in her account and the nature of her relationship with DiMaggio prior to her abduction.


John Mc Gowan said...

Cathy Griffin, spokesperson for Lora DiMaggio told Daily Mail Online: 'Lora's the only surviving relative of DiMaggio. He was her brother, her best friend and he left the military to look after her when their mother died. She just wants to know what happened and the only way to know is to bring this case.'
According to Griffin: 'Lora believes he was stalked and executed. She's saying, 'I want to know what happened. I can accept what happened but I need for it to come out in court and then I can have closure.'

Griffin said: 'This is not about money for Lora it's about justice for her brother. No amount of money can fill the hole in her heart.'
C Keith Greer added, 'There's some serious questions as to whether the shooting was really necessary. It appears there was ample opportunity to apprehend Jim without violence had they chosen to do so.
'Really Lora's looking for answers and closure. I do have confidence that through this process she will get the answers she's looking for.'

John Mc Gowan said...

OT Update:

Georgia grand jury to hear case of sheriff who shot friend

ATLANTA (Reuters) - A Georgia sheriff who said he shot a friend while "practicing police tactics" could face upgraded felony charges after prosecutors decided on Thursday to present the case to a grand jury.

Clayton County Sheriff Victor Hill, 50, was arrested in May and charged with reckless conduct, a misdemeanor, for critically injuring Gwenevere McCord, a friend and realtor, in a subdivision’s model home in Gwinnett County, outside Atlanta.

Hill refused to discuss the case with detectives, police said, but told a 911 operator that his gun accidentally discharged while he was "practicing police tactics."

Gwinnett County District Attorney Danny Porter said Thursday he would take the case to a grand jury, which could indict Hill on felony or misdemeanor charges or no charges at all, Porter said.

Under Georgia law, police officers are entitled to have criminal cases against them taken to a grand jury if they are charged with crimes while they are on duty.

"The reason we're going to the grand jury is to block any later claim that ... Hill was legally entitled to have his case presented to a grand jury rather than just having an accusation filed by a prosecutor," Porter said.

Hill did not immediately respond to a telephone call seeking comment.

In a statement posted on the Clayton Sheriff's Department's Facebook page shortly after the shooting, Hill called the incident "a tragic and heartbreaking accident" and referred to McCord as "very dear to me."

Anonymous said...

Thank you for the updates, John. Glad to see Lora DiMaggio is going forward with her suit, she deserves some answers, but whether she ever gets to the truth is another matter.

I wish her the best, very sad she lost her brother in this manner, especially since just days prior to the killings of Hannahs' mother, brother and the dog, she had been in the presence of Hannah Anderson and warned James about Hannahs' schemes, luring and using him, but he ignored his sisters warnings.

Hannah was a whackado during the aftermath, with her many discrepancies in detailing their relationship and her stories of all that happened that day and while they were on the run; it will be interesting to see how she comes across in her depositions. NOW, if only the depositions are made public in their entireties we might learn something. Course, they almost never are.

If some unethical judges (and there are many) are privy to all that is said in a deposition, they are reviewing draft copies and changing them to suit their favored attorney and resubmitting them for final copy before they are released to those needing copies. Some authentic (first copy) depositions die on the vine and are of no use to the injured parties. Depositions only seem to serve the purpose of opposing attorneys using them as a ploy to attack each other and not necessarily with the truth.

As far as I've seen in court matters, attorneys only present to the court those issues from the depositions that benefit them. I've also seen a judge strike down certain answers that were given in a deposition, not allowing them to be presented in trial. Depositions, with crucial evidence, can be used to go against the injured party. I've seen it with my own eyes.

I was in a deposition once where certain facts were stated by the party being deposed, but when I got a final (paid for) copy of the deposition some very important answers that were given under oath had been changed all around by the transcriber, with some entirely left out of the copy. God's truth!

I wouldn't count on Lora DiMaggio ever getting to the truth.

John Mc Gowan said...

Claim Filed Against FBI for Hannah Anderson Kidnapper's Death
Kidnapper and killer James DiMaggio's sister has filed a $20 million claim against the FBI


The sister of James DiMaggio, the man who kidnapped San Diego teen Hannah Anderson and killed her family, claims FBI agents used excessive and unjustified forcing in killing her brother after his actions spurred a large manhunt across six states.
Attorney C. Keith Greer filed an over $20 million wrongful death claim against the FBI Thursday on behalf of Lora DiMaggio Robinson, alleging that there was no “viable justification” for DiMaggio’s shooting death.

In the document, Greer said deadly force was not warranted given DiMaggio’s “history of nonviolence” and the number of agents there could have restrained him. According to the claim, DiMaggio had fired his gun in the air as a call for help, but he had not threatened Anderson with deadly force or “imminent harm.”
"There were just too many questions out there," Greer told NBC 7 Thursday. "Robinson knows that her brother was a very kind man, certainly not one to shoot at an FBI agent. So from the beginning she just felt like there was something that was being misportrayed about her brother."

As they investigated the case for a year, Greer said the evidence produced more questions than answers. According to the claim, FBI agent's deadly force was "unduly, excessive, prejudicial and unjustified." Read the full claim below.
The court document also alleges that FBI and Department of Justice employees conspired to keep secret information and evidence that could prove agents were responsible for DiMaggio’s death.

When it proved unsuccessful, Anderson suggested DiMaggio fire a round from his gun, which was about 20 feet away, to draw attention, Greer said. As soon as the gun went off, DiMaggio was shot six times by FBI agents.
"Why don't they say, 'Stop, freeze, put your hands in the air, you're under arrest' at that point in time?" Greer said. "Why do they let him wait to go to... till he picks up the gun and, once he has the gun in his hands, shoot him? It didn't seem like he was treated fairly, regardless of what the allegations are.

Greer said Anderson holds the key to proving or disproving their claim, since she has a firsthand account. The attorney also hopes the FBI team was wearing body cameras so they could obtain recorded footage of the incident.
"What is definitely wrong is that he didn't have the opportunity to have his day in court," said Greer of DiMaggio.

John Mc Gowan said...

OT Update:

Letter from Susan Smith: 'I am not a monster'

Dear Mr. Cahill,

I know it is very late in writing you, but I wanted to still let you know that I did not receive your request for information until November 20, 2014, a month after the 20 year anniversary. Your letter was sent to the SCDC Correspondence Review Committee and was not approved until Nov. 19, 2014. I imagine that was done on purpose.

I wanted to let you know that I would have most likely responded to your letter because I have [sic] yet been able to speak on my behalf. It has been hard to listen to lie after lie and not be able to defend myself. It’s frustrating to say the least. Mr. Cahill, I am not the monster society thinks I am. I am far from it. Something went very wrong that night. I was not myself. I was a good mother and I loved my boys. The thing that hurts me the most is that people think I hurt my children in order to be with a man. That is so far from the truth. There was no motive as it was not even a planned event. I was not in my right mind. The only reason I lied is because I didn’t know how to tell the people who loved Michael & Alex that they would never see them again. I didn’t want to hurt them. I knew the truth would come out, but I had planned to kill myself first and leave a note behind telling what had happened. I didn’t believe I could face my family when the truth was revealed.

This is only a small piece of the story, but I did want to tell you that if you’re ever interested in doing another article, please let me know.

In the meantime, take care of yourself. In order for me to receive your mail quicker, put your name only on the envelope and don’t use company stationery. If you do, it’ll probably go to the review comm. again.


Anonymous said...

trustmeigetit said...

Yes! This is awesome.

Could still end up going no where but Hannah was not truthful.

"He would have killed me" if I tried to get help


"He was signaling for help"

Still huge flag

And her Instagram post before the event that she removed as soon as she was called out "#bye#hollywood #hello#river and was at the river..

Sus said...

In the document, Greer said deadly force was not warranted given DiMaggio’s “history of nonviolence” and the number of agents there could have restrained him. According to the claim, DiMaggio had fired his gun in the air as a call for help, but he had not threatened Anderson with deadly force or “imminent harm.”

These types of comments always get to me - big time. Tell me why one single FBI agent should take a stupid chance on not going home to his or her family by rushing an assailant with a weapon. Because there was a "number" of them? Really? It takes one stray bullet to kill. Because DiMaggio had a history of nonviolence? A mother and son were found dead in his home. That's pretty violent. Because Hannah was under no "imminent threat"? He took her across several state lines. He had a gun in his hand. That's a threat. When did our society become so imbalanced toward the perpetrator and away from LE and the victim? It does not bode well for society.

Sus said...

"Why don't they say, 'Stop, freeze, put your hands in the air, you're under arrest' at that point in time?" Greer said. "Why do they let him wait to go to... till he picks up the gun and, once he has the gun in his hands, shoot him? It didn't seem like he was treated fairly, regardless of what the allegations are.

When you run from police across several state lines with an underage girl... With two dead people in your home, one a little boy...Hide out for days... Have a gun in your possession...Hey, life may not be "fair." You may get shot. This is such a ridiculous statement. Did this lawyer pass the bar exam? Is this a joke?

Anonymous said...

Re your two posts above Sus, you are absolutely correct! I have gained a whole new respect for your opinions. By golly, I had not looked at the situation the agents were in with the perspective you present prior to seeing it voiced as you did.

Just as you said, he had left a trail of two dead people in his (burned down) home and was on the run with a young girl for several days across several state lines. It would be irrelevant at this point that he had been a nonviolent person prior to this time since he certainly was considered to be violent now.

I have not seen it presented this way before and there is no denying that these agents had every right to shoot Demaggio. How could they know he wouldn't start shooting at them? He had, afterall, picked up his weapon and fired it into the air, which could have been meant as a warning to them to stand back. Why should any one of them risk their life against what appeared to be a madman with a gun? Had he left it lying on the ground he might not have been shot.

The points you make ARE absolutely correct, Sus; whether hottie Hannah led him into the trap or not, or whether she has lied consistently or not, it was HIS choice to put himself in the position he ultimately found himself in; shot dead without warning. DiMaggio is not the first middle aged weak-minded man who allowed a young hot pants sweetie to lure him to his death and he won't be the last. Yes, I do believe she did that very thing and that it was SHE who connived and set up these murders. Consider just her few words: "Goodbye Hollywood, hello River." I'm just sorry to see hard-hearted Hannah get away with it, which, she HAS...

Just as DiMaggio put himself in that position; so it is in the Sandra Bland suicide vs jail murder; she HERSELF put herself in that position. She caused herself being pulled over in the first place by making illegal turns, etc. She was horribly rude, disrespectful and uncooperative with the cop who pulled her over, who had every right to request to see her license, etc. She forced his hand at snatching her out of the car, arresting her and carting her hateful ass off to jail, where they had every right to book her. She was probably just as horrible to LE officials there too. Maybe she provoked one a little too much and found herself meeting her maker by hanging. It happens.

Anonymous said...

Peters' first question in this article: "What does group analysis look like?"

The little guy being held in the photo is not a happy child; he shows apprehension in his little face, with sad and troubled eyes. Almost like he is sadly resigned to his strife filled life. I feel sorry for this child. If only he could tell us.

Brooke said...


I think you have it right!

Brooks Houck also says "If a light`s still on in the living room, he is not going to go to bed until all the lights are out. So if there`s still activity going on in the home, he is going to stay it up with me"

If they were both up and the baby was running around wouldn't the pronoun "us" be expected rather than "me"?

Anonymous said...

TrustMeIGetIt; your post from yesterday, I think you may have hit upon the truth.

To quote Brooks; "HE is going to stay up WITH ME." He didn't say "with US." This puts Brooks Houck in a singular position. By this time, he was there alone with the baby. Crystal was not there and probably hadn't been most of the evening.

If this is the actual scene, claiming the baby stays up until the lights are off; Crystal had already either been lured or forcefully removed from the premises, most likely during that one and a half hours Brooks alludes to as their evening meal which likely never happened, but he so cleverly evaded Nancy disGrace's question a few times; that is, until she lost sight of making him stick with the question until he answered it.

He thinks he's clever doesn't he? But really he isn't.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know, has there been any updated activity in finding Crystal Rogers? Are there any active searches still occurring in the area? Is Brooks Houck actively being investigated in her disappearance? It seems strangely silent, IMO.

Bardstown is a beautiful area, a lovely, small town. It appears that the Houck family are big land owners and one of the towns' most prominent and well-known families throughout the area. They would, naturally, have their connections with local political clout and possibly higher up the chain of political influence.

One wonders, has the investigation into Crystals' disappearance been brought to a halt? Similarly, has local media been influenced to stop their coverage of Crystals' mysterious disappearance? I wonder, had it ever occurred to Crystal that she may be involved with the wrong man, that she could be in danger in being in a relationship with Brooks Houck, that although he seemed to be a handsome and fine man with local business connections that might benefit her; but that appearances are not always what they seem to be? Had she gotten herself in a trap, with seemingly no way out?

IMO, this woman has met with an untimely death at the hands of one who is easing out of any accountability for the crime. Now, any trace of Crystal is to remain forever silent? I just hope her family will be able to reach beyond the tentacles of this dastardly crime and bring those to justice who are responsible for her untimely death and the silent unsolvable coverup. Or am I on the wrong track?

trustmeigetit said...

The fact he is now keeping their baby away from the other kids concerns me.

Now the baby is 2 I think, so I am assuming too young to talk so I don't see concern there. So why would he cut that off.

It's very alarming.

An innocent person would be be u tied with her family not putting up walls.

trustmeigetit said...

Great point! He would say that or "her" if he had gone to bed and she was still awake as he would like us to believe.

But I am sure she was not alive and he did not sleep that night at all.

trustmeigetit said...

On Hannah Anderson.. They have a video from the sky that they said was the rescue. However in that video Hannah is not near Jim. They state that the images are of her running in the opposite direction with agents and then after she is safe they shoot him.

So I can't help be be extremely concerned about her statement on the last interview.

This doesn't match what FBI says was going on. She makes it sound like she was right next to him since she says she asked him if he was ok. So what's the truth.

The FBI images are just that. We don't see faces. So I can see the sisters concern. There's clearly issues as the stories do not match.

Hannah "Then a bunch of guns went off. I looked and he fell on the ground," she said. "I kind of looked over, and I was like, 'Are you OK?' And then a bunch of, like, the FBI people came out, telling me to get down."

Anonymous said...

TrustMeIGetIt; there are definitely discrepancies between Hot Hannahs' stories on more than one occasion and those limited comments by FBI and the video accounts. No, she was NOT standing anywhere near him, this according to the BFIs own video.

I have always felt that James DiMaggio was trying to give himself up when he was shot dead unmercifully. It was very unfortunate that he was never given the opportunity to give account of what REALLY happened in his home when Hannahs' mother, brother and the dog were murdered, then the house burned down in an attempt to eradicate the guilty party's crime.

It's entirely possible that he ran with little miss conniving hottie for the sole purpose of protecting HER scheming butt. Any man in his right mind would not have; but he had been lured in by her hotness over a period of time and made into a weak man for HER purposes and use. Between her and her family they had used up his last dime from pay check to pay check until he could no longer pay his bills, and had ran up his charge accounts beyond the max, when at one point he had been a very stable man.

The fact is, the Anderson family ruined this mans' life, including Hannahs' father who claimed to be his best friend, with Hannah eventually becoming the leader of the pact. He had become her personal slave; his sister saw it and knew it and warned him about Hannah. Unfortunately, he failed to heed her warnings but he had fallen in emotionally and financially too deep with his longings for Hannahs' implied promises of affection.

I suspect her mother had been trying to stop Hannah, knowing what she was doing, and put an end to the whole sorry mess of them using James for every dime he could rake and scrape together while miss hottie continued her scheming and luring him in; and that this battle is what led to her death, more than likely at Hannahs' hot hands. Bad bad timing; little brother and the dog were there and in the way. For all we know, James might have even been trying to stop her; that's just it, we don't know.

I am sorry for what happened to James DiMaggio, a good man led to his death by a slutty little tramp that he fell in love with; and sorry for his sister. I hope her lawsuit prevails and that in time she can find someone who can investigate the background of Hannah and her family, from A to Z, leaving no stone unturned. I am convinced, this little twat is as guilty as the day is long for her part in their deaths and most likely was the instigator of it all.

I realize we cannot go on gut feelings and instincts, but there has never been anything that we ever knew about James DiMaggio that did not point to him being a caring and doting person for the entire Anderson family who used him up until he had no more to give; including hard-hearted Hannah, and especially HER with her schemes to lure him in, which she DID do. I hope the sister can find a good ethical writer who can help her investigate what really went down and will publish the truth. She deserves to know at least this much.

Anonymous said...

TrustMeIGetIt; another thing that bothers me about the Anderson family, is how they got off the hook with all the money they owed to James DeMaggio. First, I want to emphasize that it is very unfortunate and tragic that Hannahs' mother, brother and the dog were brutally murdered. What a horrible way to die, just imagining their fear prior to their deaths and the pain as they died, they did not deserve such a violent death. This had to be a horror beyond description. My God, we don't know if they were even dead when the house was set on fire. I have no words for how horrible this must have been, even for the poor dog.

However, my point was going to be that with James DiMaggios' death, Mr. Anderson got away with owing him many thousands of dollars. He had loaned money to his Anderson buddy, Hannahs' father, several times in the past, continuing to loan to him, very likely having to take out loans himself to be able to loan money to the Andersons; probably with nothing more than "a thank you bud, sorry to have to ask, appreciate it, will catch up with you one of these days," having no intentions of ever paying him back. While DiMaggio out of the kindness of his heart continues to help them financially after Anderson moved out of the family home, even beyond his ability to help them. Apparently all they had to do was ask and he would find.

DeMaggio had been adding largely to their upkeep for years, strapping himself to such an extent that he could no longer make his mortgage payments or pay on his credit cards or loans. It had gotten so bad that he was using the bulk of his paychecks to help keep THEM up and take Hannah on trips and on and on and on. Her family wasn't paying for her trips, (or theirs), her needs and wants and other whims, HE was. There's no telling how much money the Andersons actually owed to James DiMaggio while he was just barely scraping by.

Scott free, they used him up. The slate wiped clean as soon as he died. It's too bad Hannah (AND her leech of a daddy) can't be sued and made to repay every dime of it, but of course they would have had no contract with DiMaggio to repay him and Hannah was a minor not liable. All the same, it's a dirty rotten shame that all this money won't be repaid into his estate; which of course, there is no proof as to how much they owed him or that they ever agreed to repay him in the first place.

Only sleazy user daddy Anderson, who would have an unenforceable unseen contract if he has one at all; knows HE/they got away with ruining this mans' credit, robbing him blind and owing this man who loved them a mini-fortune. Damned sorry shame.

Anonymous said...

it IS a sorry shame DiMaggio financed this family who did not have a stable income and relied on him rather than blood relatives when the Father left. But even more so he was relied upon way too heavily for familial structure as a father role to 2 children; one an out of control teenaged girl and the other a young boy; both abandoned or temporarily separated from their father. This sets a precedence for anything to happen but that does not necessarily mean that what this family has told is anywhere near the truth. Because they won't even talk.

Anonymous said...

What little we saw on the FBI video snips of Hannah Anderson in the woods does not necessarily illustrate her being "rescued" at all but America loved thinking that the bad guy had to be killed in order to "save" her in the nick of time. But Hannah herself has said it didn't happen that way at all. The video clip in fact showed her running away from the agents and that doesn't coincide with her story of them telling her to "get down" after "a bunch of guns went off" She certainly does need to be under oath to re-answer critical questions about her captor's death but this time they need to be the unabridged truth. Which seems to be missing by all accounts.

Anonymous said...

That girl many never have been legally determined as kidnapped; her friend told CNN she had plans with this horrible man to go camping together after their Hollywood trip which her parent gave permission. Her Ambien alibi is too weak to erase her completely from the murder timeline without validation. Until he police come clean with their choppy void of facts investigation, nothing even close to the truth has been told about this case.