My confidence in the system is such that I sometimes stake my reputation on my conclusion. I rarely give ambivalent analysis. The record of accuracy is well known, and due to the scientific nature of analysis, if analysis is wrong, we can and must learn where we went wrong.
Over the years, two cases stand out to me. One where I highlighted a father for deception while his child was missing. It is true; he was deceptive, but he was deceptive about substance abuse that caused him to fail to protect his child. This is why you sometimes hear me say that the subject is deceptive, but while he is deceptive, we must learn if the deception is related, or attendant.
The other was not about deception, but an opinion regarding guilty knowledge. After reading the viral statement made by Tammy Moorer regarding missing Heather Elvis, I did not think Tammy was involved, after all, her rage towards her victim was open, which is something that goes against the percentages of analysis: the guilty often debase and or blame their victims but only in a subtle manner; not overtly. It was a good reminder that even in the world of "90% likely", the other 10% arises. I had not seen, to that point, an open ridicule of a missing person, or victim, by one suspected, nor have I seen it since. (This status is for the 'unknown' or non adjudicated cases, where the one suspected does not wish to be seen guilty. Tammy's rage had no subtle tones). Sidney Moorer's guilty knowledge of then, missing Heather, was indicated, but looking only at Tammy's online smear of Heather: guilty people mask their hatred, or suppress it, in the least. Innocent people do not wish to speak ill of one missing, which should be noted. Tammy could not contain her rage and it remains the only case I know of where, during that critical period of time where guilt/innocence is not established, that a deceptive person, with guilty knowledge, has openly defiled the victim, while missing. Since that time, I have remained on 'alert' for the possibility, wishing to learn from my mistake. I apologized to her father, Terry, a man I admire.
For al the other cases, including all published on the blog, all of my own investigations, or of investigations for law enforcement, companies, or assisting in law enforcement, I have not concluded "deception indicated" in any case only to be proven, or even seen, as in error. Most cases I give a very strong conclusion with not only "deception indicated" but with even greater content.
Also, in private and public cases of anonymous threatening letters, I have been fortunate enough to have the profiles come to resolution with either an admission, or a closed case. This includes those done privately, or those I was involved as a team member.
Do you see why I am as confident as I am? It is not confidence in me, but it is confidence in the system, so much so, that any error must have a way of being traced and corrected.
The system is strong.
Unlike 'suggestions', when someone is going to be arrested if the analysis is correct and I am asked, "How certain are you?", and I say, "I base my career on it" is not irresponsible wagering. After working through analysis deeply, and coming to such a strong conclusion, having an innocent man arrested would destroy my career. Therefore, with much 'on the line', I take care to never leap to conclusions, nor indicate deception lightly. This is why you have read many cases (if not most) that have such strong conclusions:
"This person is accused of X and he is deceptive about X and shows guilty knowledge of X and has revealed..." and so on.
Yet, in the short interview with DeOrre's parents, I have not written a strong conclusion. Yes, in a sense, the interview was poorly conducted, but also there has not been good media coverage, in general, of this case.
What I mean by "good media coverage" is the asking of questions.
For this, I remain grateful to Nancy Grace, in spite of the theatrics associated with the show: she asks questions and...
We know, even if she misses it. Recall her pronunciation that Tiffany Hartley was truthful, and this was discerned by...
looking at her.
I'll have to repost some of the analysis.
True enough, it brought more than a few chuckles, but it was that Tiffany Hartley was repeatedly asked, "What happened?" as she went from network to network and she revealed that her husband, David, did not die as described as she took the scene from the Hollywood remake of "Titanic" and added the number 3 to it, and called it her own. She fled from Mexico prosecutors and later, while still talking, revealed a 'connection' of sorts to a drug cartel via a rented home.
With DeOrre's parents, we do not have interviewers asking, "What happened?" and the important, "What do you say to people who say you are involved?"
How difficult is it for an interviewer to say, "People on social media think you know more than you are saying..." or "some think an accident happened and you are covering it up..." or anything along these lines?
We now have a Private Investigator, 19 years experience in law enforcement, who media says is a "former family friend."
What does that mean? Is he no longer on a friendly relationship with the family? It matters little, unless there is a need to persuade the public that this is being done from a "completely neutral" stance, which, itself, is impossible, though strived for. If he is a family friend, offering to help them is a good and kind act, as long as the family understands that he is responsible to the truth, no matter where it leads him. If his goal is to clear the family, we may see it in his words, and due to other similar cases, not be surprised.
The PI said something easily analyzed about the parents which reveals his own doubts:
“I honestly believe in my heart of hearts that these are grieving parents and I want to hope that they feel like I feel, that somebody out there knows something."
This reminded me of the denial of Ryan Braun, where it sounds like a love story.
"I believe that these are grieving parents", alone, uses "belief", which is necessarily weak, as it allows him, or someone else to "believe" that they are not grieving parents. Yet, this belief is not only "in his heart", which would be a second level of weakness (in his "heart" instead of his "head") but his "heart of hearts" is the third level of weakness.
Next, he says that they are "grieving parents" which indicates a belief that the child is dead. Yet, when police said that they did not believe he was kidnapped, the PI said,
"“I feel that he was abducted. Everything points to an abduction.”
That he "feels" DeOrre was abducted is also necessary weakness. He "feels" this way, which allows him to later "feel" differently, and it allows for others to "feel" differently, yet, he only "feels" this way while claiming the all-inclusive "everything" that "points to an abduction."
This moves on to what he believes about the child's status. The parents are "grieving" is compared with:
"“I feel that there is a possibility that he is still alive. Other kids have been abducted and located months, sometimes years later,"
Next note: "I want to hope that they feel like I feel, that somebody out there knows something. "
The average person has a vocabulary of about 25,000 words. The PI's is likely higher. When he reports something he must choose which information is important to him, which he should leave out, which words to use, which not to, what verb tenses to use, where to place each word in order to sensibly communicate, and all of this takes place in less than a micro second in time. This is the speed of transmission.
In this speed, we have our accuracy.
We note that he does not say "I hope that they feel..." which would suggest to us that he has doubts that they feel the way he does, which is weak. He goes even further in weakness when he chose the additional wording with, "I want to hope..."
It is not that he hopes, but he wants to hope. This is to create even further distance from the thought, which is already reduced to a "feeling" which has emotional connotations.
This man does not strongly affirm the parents' innocence.
How is the communication between him and LE going?
“I'm not saying that the Lemhi County Sherrif's Office had tunnel vision, but they should have expanded their search and put out an amber alert," said Vilt.
There must be a reason to issue an Amber Alert and in the description of the size of the location, had someone been there, unless DeOrre was unsupervised by all, it is difficult imagining a kidnapper entering.
This, however, leaves us with what we may be considering:
Did the father leave, in his truck, for so long, that a sex offender could have snatched the little boy?
Vilt said that had the Sheriff's Office acted sooner, he believes they could have gotten surveillance footage from the gas station near Caldwell.
“I've called the department several times and they've never returned my call," said Vilt.
“I've called the department several times and they've never returned my call," said Vilt.
Plainly, should the parents sit down and write out statements, separately, about what happened that day, we would likely know if DeOrre met an unintended death, (such as an accident that came as a result of neglecting to supervise him) and the father, in particular, panicked and hid the remains.
If Mr. Vitt were to do this, the analysis of the statements would reveal if, indeed, these parents do not know what happened to their son, or are in cover-up mode. Even if they decided to write out very short, or vague statements, it would reveal the need to withhold information.
It is not unexpected that law enforcement would be unwilling to share information with him, if they feel that they may need to build a case against one or both of the parents. This does not set him at odds. Police would not share details with me if they knew the details would be released to the public, here at the blog, or through main stream media. It could jeopardize the integrity of the case.
There are several cases, per month, that readers would be thrilled to hear about, especially when the guilty party, for example, "got away with it", until Statement Analysis showed otherwise, and the investigator got a confession because he used the analysis in the interview (Analytical Interviewing). It is thrilling. There are cases, almost weekly, that the analysis changes the game: a subject who even passed his polygraph, but still got caught in the analysis, is arrested...and so on.
It is very exciting and quite rewarding, yet these cases will not be published here. Even with a conviction, I will then only publish with the specific department's permission because my work is background, support work, and they are on the front line. They deserve the credit. I love highlighting the scientific process of analysis, and love to let it receive its credit, but it is the investigators, themselves, that must take the skill, apply it, and obtain the success. They deserve the credit for their work, even while the science that Statement Analysis stands upon, is recognized.
I wish the public knew the work that these professionals do, and how committed they are to learning and growing in their craft, and how much they love obtaining justice for victims.
I do not know Mr. Vitt, and there may be some anger towards him, but what if he, too, simply wants DeOrre found, no matter where it leads, and is not just another shill for a guilty family?
The public is a bit jaded.
The "fake hate" cases are more numerous and we are all familiar with cases where Private Investigators or retired Profilers got involved more as support and public relations managers than investigators. Baby Lisa case became a "joke" as one who was hailed as the "country's leading expert on lie detection", himself, lied about Deborah Bradley. They played the network and the public did not buy it.
We will listen to what Mr. Vitt says and hope that DeOrre is found, though as time has progressed, hope has diminished.
Let's also hope that media will ask the father plain questions...