Thursday, October 29, 2015

Missing Persons and Social Introductions

The unknown frightens parents. They always express this.  

When our child takes his first steps, we squat behind, ready to pounce, to catch the inevitable fall.  As child abuse doctors say, "if he can cruise, he will bruise."

When our goes off to school on the bus for the first time, we cannot see what it is like on the bus, and we fret. 

When she is at her first sleep over, we wonder, we worry, and we fret. 

The moment we open our mouths, we express this, even when we inevitably squelch it, as a gentle form of self protecting denial. 

"How's things today?"

"Oh, everything is fine.  Johnny is at a sleep over tonight, and I have errands..."

It comes out, one way or another, because it is on the mind.  

Guilty Knowledge

When someone goes missing, there is nothing worse than the unknown.  The imagination of the loved one will torment with abandon, and this will come out in the language.  This is especially true of children, or adults with developmental disabilities where self protection is not indicated.  

Does she have her "ba ba"?
Does he have his blankie?
Does he have his meds?
He has his snack every day at 1 o'clock sharp.

When the parent claims the child is kidnapped, it is only natural that we hear, "Are they given her her dolly?  Is she warm?  Are they yelling at her? Is she crying? " and on and on. 

When a parent calls 911 to report the missing child, the unknown is so powerful, that it will break through even the robotic-like questions, even in the smallest of ways. 

In an interview?

It is all about the child.

There are more than a few cases here at the Statement Analysis blog where the reader will be confronted by that which is missing, the concern for the missing. 

This is because the guilty parent or loved one knows the victim does not need anything. 

A single slip into past tense will confirm it.  

I cite a CNN analyst who once claimed a parent "believed the child is alive" because the parent spoke in present tense language.  This is likely the result of a superficial reading of analysis about past tense, and creating a new reality.  It is not so. 

The guilty parent will attempt to keep concentration high, and the speed of processing words slow, using pauses such as "um" and "well" in order to avoid this leakage, which is why the interviewer must sense this and 'pick up the pace' of open ended questions, including, "Okay, what next?" rapidly, to cause the person to move into experiential memory. 

There is a lengthy list of guilty parents who either did not show any empathy for what the "missing" child was going through, or may have only mustered it by using the interviewer's language.  Review some of these cases. 

 Did Patsy Ramsey, while claiming Jonbent was kidnapped, express concern over what Jonbenet was going through?  
                               How about Justin DiPietro? 

Billie Jean Dunn?

Did DeOrr's parents go off on lengthy concerns over what he was going through, or was dad busy praising law enforcement and "ooh and ahhing" over the search and rescue technology?

Social Introductions:

In unintentional deaths, this can become an important strategy for the investigator.  

"My daughter, Sally..." is a complete introduction and can, at the point in the statement, indicate closeness.  

More than a few of these deaths were not intended, though arguments can be made that even shaken baby syndrome is no less criminal simply because it was not premeditated, but I refer to cases where the parent's negligence, or temper, caused an unintended death, and the guilty parent feigned kidnapping, such as Baby Lisa and Deborah Bradley. 

In a case where a good relationship likely existed (rather than chronic neglect which disqualifies Bradley from this strategy), the investigator should spend a lengthy portion of the interview allowing the parent to extoll her own virtues as a parent, and allow him or her to speak of all the examples of love and care, including provision, being there for the first steps, putting band aids on the first boo-boos, and so on. 

Let the parent establish himself or herself in the role of loving, empathetic parent.

Then present the statement and 911 call in which no evidence of such love is ever heard.

This now creates a pressure of imbalance that will require rectification. 

"How can a loving, caring parent be utterly void of concern over what the missing child is experiencing?" is the problem with a solution that is hanging in the air. 

The answer is right there, in the room, and the uncomfortableness of the incomplete problem gives a psychological pressure to be solved.  

It is like walking into a room and without any introduction, say to someone:

"Two plus Two equals?" and you are likely to find a puzzled expression with the answer, "uh, four?"

An incomplete sentence begs for a finish and since it was a technique used in schooling for at least 12 years, it is habitual. 

This is to help facilitate the admission and hopefully will come from the subject, but if not, the investigator, at this point, will say so.

"I know that you would have said much more about worrying about him, but you showed us that you knew he had already died.  You're too good a parent to not worry.  We will now put this together, and give _____ the proper burial he deserves."

When a person goes missing it is expected that the loved one will express concern about what the missing person may be experiencing, as the unknown frightens us all. 

Statement Analysis deals with the unexpected in language, not only what one says, but what one does not say. 

To host a one or two day training seminar, or to take an individual and challenging Statement Analysis course, see 


for training for Law Enforcement, Human Resources, Attorneys, Therapists, and other professionals.


JustMyThoughtsOnly said...


The parent does not worry for the child, bc the parent knows the child does not need anything anymore.

I wonder sometimes if in light of all the missing and murdered children that seem to pass endlessly through the nightly news, if the problem is all of the drugs- prescription and recreational- that people are taking now a days.
It seems that today there is a mind numbing pill for everything out there.

Also, and in no way am I blaming grandparents, it seems like the parents of today do not take as much responsibility for their children as the parents of past generations. Children are shuffled off to Grandmas or the sitters to be raised while (some) parents choose to keep living life the same way they did before their child was born.
When the parent finally takes responsibility they are so overwhelmed that they hurt their child.

And lastly, I am completely convinced that the birth process has been so carefully taken apart that mothers are not getting the natural love inducing cocktail of hormones they would get if they were able to have their children naturally. (And most women, even though doctors might say no, can give birth naturally)
The rate of cesarean sections in the US, along with epidural and inductions with synthetic drugs such as Pitocin, take the place of the natural occurring oxytocin - which has proved vital in order for mothers to form the protective and maternal bond with their child.

When a child is born naturally, the mother has the largest oxytocin rush of her life.

I wonder if there is any correlation there.

Studies have proven that other mammals that give birth this way will usually show that soon after birth they want nothing to do with their baby.

That doesn't mean that I think that all mothers that have cesareans or epidurals or inductions cannot bond with their child or won't protect them, but it is hard to not see the differences in the mothers of yesterday compared to the mothers of today.

Possibly a predisposition sort of thing, bc I know PLENTY of mothers that have given birth every single way possible who are amazing and fantastic mothers and are totally bonded and protective of their child.

In all maybe there is a little of all of it combining to create this disaster scenario for the innocent child.

I hope very much that something is done to find out why this keeps happening over and over, as I can't stand to see another missing or murdered child in the news.

Lis said...

This is an old article I came across today which I think might be interesting in view of statement analysis:


A pastor accused of secretly recording video of women changing clothes in his office at a Fleming Island church 10 years ago spoke out for the first time Wednesday, calling the allegations malicious. A law enforcement examiner also said Berean Baptist Church Rev. Greg Neal passed a polygraph test.

Neal was accused of hiding a camcorder behind a plant in his office in the spring of 2001 while female church members changed clothes. Investigators said the tape shows Neal handling the camera before and after the women used his office to change into clothes for a music program.

"I categorically state that I am innocent of the allegations of the video voyeurism," Neal said.

...Tom Neal blasted the church's accusers.

"Your goal was clear. Through your malicious slander, your harassment and through your false accusations of video voyeurism, you set out to destroy this church," Tom Neal said. "You should be ashamed."

Greg Neal added: "To my accusers: First of all, I forgive you. And despite your efforts, the church will go on."


What say ye, folks? Reliable denial or no?

The entire article is here

Lis said...

ps I think this is interesting because, to me, I do not see a reliable denial and I see several flags, but he was said by police to have passed a polygraph. (The police also said they had overwhelming evidence of his guilt but the statute of limitations had passed).

Juliet said...

It sounds as if he didn't even get to view the recording - that's all he seems to be denying? Even that's not reliable, so maybe he did watch it. Creep.

Anonymous said...

Quoting Peter:
" showed us that you knew he had already died. You're too good a parent to not worry. We will now put this together, and give _____ the proper burial he deserves."

This seems a HUGE point of no return, where timing is absolutely everything and you could wipe out hours of careful questioning and hard work getting your subject relatively comfortable and speaking in his or her own words.

Is this all training, or is instinct also required? How do you sense when to go in for the kill, so to speak, and what if you realize you did too quickly, or hesitated and missed your best chance?
Can you get that subject back; do you have a colleague take over or would even that help?

Anonymous said...

@JMTO, interesting thoughts about natural childbirth! I know many don't think a mother can bond as tightly with her child if she doesn't breastfeed.

I've often wondered how crowded would our planet be now if pregnancy was never uncomfortable and childbirth completely pain-free.

Anonymous said...

Lis, as Peter has noted in several SAs, one can easily pass a polygraph if the questions are not formed using his or her own language -- personal subjective dictionary, not nationality.

I don't see a reliable denial here either. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense, especially when one has nothing with which to defend the attack.

He needs to cite support, even more disgustingly, he uses God and the church to do so!

He uses pronouns, even extra ones, to distance himself from the allegations while only twice connecting them to himself, where he directly connects them to his accusors seven times.

Tania Cadogan said...

"I categorically state that I am innocent of the allegations of the video voyeurism," Neal said

Technically true until he is in court and a trial is held.
Everyone is innocent until found guilty.

"Your goal was clear. Through your malicious slander, your harassment and through your false accusations of video voyeurism, you set out to destroy this church," Tom Neal said. "You should be ashamed."
No reliable denial is given.
No first person singular, event specific, past tense denial

Expected is I did not set up cameras to record women changing their clothing, nor did i view any such tapes that would have resulted

Greg Neal added: "To my accusers: First of all, I forgive you. And despite your efforts, the church will go on."
Still no reliable denial.
If there is a first, there has to be a secondly.
And, at the beginning of a sentence indicates missing information.

As foodiefoodnerd correctly says.
It is easy to pass a polygraph if the wrong questions are asked.
Questions should be formed using only words used by the subject since then it is known what the words mean in the8r subjective dictionary.

An example being did you molest little Jenny, he says no and passes.
he passed because he didn't see it as molestation, he saw it has hugging or tickling.

John Mc Gowan said...

Lis's OT:

I may have this wrong, but here goes.

"I categorically state that I am innocent of the allegations of the video voyeurism," Neal said."

This is a true statement (technically) because one can truthfully say: "I am innocent" because he has not been proven guilty. It is though, a prime opportunity to issue a reliable denial.

"The recording itself proves that I did not make the recording," said Neal, noting that the camera was moved while he was seen in the room.

Again. This is technically true also. It does read (like) a reliable denial "I did not make the recording" However, it maybe, in his mind, that it was the video camera that made the recording and not him, physically.

Follow up question:

You say, "i did not make the recording". Why should i believe you?

If a person says "I didn't do it" and this is actually a lie. They have issued a reliable denial (extremely rare): when questioned about their lie, they will be unable to bring themselves to say "I told the truth" regarding the lie (statement) previously issued.

A lie against reality is to say "such and such happened" when it did not. Even the extreme rarity of "I didn't do it" reliable denial that is, in fact, a lie (perhaps 1% possibility) there is the follow up 'test' in which the subject is asked to comment upon this lie. The rule that no one can lie twice means that the subject will be unable to say "I told the truth" about the lie of "I didn't do it". We are in the realm of, perhaps, less than 1/10th of 1 percent. PH

Protesters, however, argue that the movement has to do with how the video was recorded.

"For anyone to stand there concealed would be impossible," protester Kathleen Cochran said.

As i said. I may have this wrong. I would be interested to see what others think and Peter.

Anonymous said...

The article isn't very clear; do both men deny having placed the camera and/or watched the tape(s), or just the one quoted?
(remember father and son Steven Powell and Josh Powell and their creepy shared collection of thousands of voyeuristic photos and recordings.)

From the linked article:
"Fuller said that because of members and students leaving, the church couldn't make a payment it was supposed to have made as part of the bankruptcy proceeding."

So it's the accusors who caused financial ruin by somehow delaying one single repayment of the millions of dollars of debt the Neals racked up that bankrupted the church years previously? Sure, that makes perfect sense!

Anonymous said...

Exactly, tania! My first step here would be clarifying each of the Neals' personal subjective definitions of voyeurism. Along the lines of Peter's concern about society desexualizing women's breasts, many people believe the watched/recorded activity must be sexual to be considered voyeurism.

A creeper seeking to justify and minimize the behavior to even to himself would pounce on that excuse, and it's only a half-step from there to weasel through passing a polygraph.

And after my eyes and ears bleeding through piles of DeOrr-speak, my second step here would be clarifying the Neals' personal subjective definition of "categorically," to ensure it isn't hearsay.

Anonymous said...

Quoting John McG:
"If a person says "I didn't do it" and this is actually a lie. They have issued a reliable denial..."

John, I'm nitpicking here, but not at you; as a guilty subject. Would responding just, "I didn't do it," without the "because" separate the denial from the accusation? Meaning, during the polygraph one could think of something he actually didn't do?
Where the "because" attaches it to the question you actually asked?

Another nitpick, and again not at you but as a subject with guilty knowledge:
We aren't "innocent" until proven guilty; we are PRESUMED innocent -- to say innocent until proven guilty implies we didn't actually commit the crime until it's proven in court.

My point is, would that put "I'm innocent" in the direct lie category, or does even this fall under personal definitions? ("categorically" or otherwise)

Thanks for all of your valuable insight on here!

Unknown said...

Could you analyze the Zola story in the news lately? It's fascinating, and I suspect true!

JustMyThoughtsOnly said...

My thoughts exactly foodie.

I am convinced that in taking apart something that is as natural as the day is long- we are producing large amounts of women that are not bonding correctly with their child.

Breastfeeding has become so taboo that people actually get ANGRY if a mother breastfeed a in public, most times even with a cover, but think nothing of drinking the breast milk of another large mammal.

Inducing may have its benefits, but for the most part the hospital is a revolving door for business.
They want patients in and out.

The majority of women that give birth this way are sometimes forced to have a cesarean, caused by the synthetic drugs causing the contractions that aren't productive, which causes the baby to go into distress.
Then afterwards they stand back and say "Thank God we could save your baby."

When in reality if they would just leave the woman to birth, she could do it fine (most times) by herself with just a dr or midwife present.

It costs a mere 13,000 dollars in the US for a natural vaginal childbirth.

Compared to the costs of a caesarean which are much much more.

And yes - I wonder about the population as well!!

Tania Cadogan said...

If a person says "they (i) didn't do it" it is not a reliable denial since they haven't defined what the IT is they didn't do.

It violates the principals of first person singular, event specific, past tense as it isn't event specific

Anonymous said...


I think he could have passed a polygraph if the examiner introduced language or didn't take the time to discover the subject's internal language.


Anonymous said...

Regarding my post above to Lis.

I should have refreshed my computer. Everyone said the same thing!!!


Tania Cadogan said...

Off topic

The loyal wife of disgraced former Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky arrived in court to watch him appeal his child sex-abuse conviction.

Dottie Sandusky, 72, smiled at the waiting cameras as she walked into the court house in Bellefonte, Pennsylania, on Thursday morning.

Minutes later her 71-year-old husband stepped out of a police car in red prison clothes and handcuffs, also smiling.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane was ordered to turn over evidence that she says proves that a judge had leaked secret information to a reporter about a grand jury investigating Jerry Sandusky for child sex abuse.

Sandusky is serving 30 to 60 years in state prison after being convicted in 2012 of sexually abusing 10 boys over a 15-year period during his tenure as assistant football coach at Penn State.

Sandusky lawyer Alexander Lindsay maintains that the grand jury initially heard from only two victims and the case was falling apart, but the judge's leaks generated publicity that prompted other victims to come forward and helped prosecutors shore up their case and win indictments.

The hearing was called after Sandusky asked Senior Judge John Cleland, who presided at the 2012 trial, to allow him to research whether his rights were violated so that he could appeal the conviction.

The disgraced coach's team wishes to research people connected to his case such as former state Attorney General Tom Corbett and Sara Ganim, the Harrisburg Patriot-News reporter who broke the Sandusky story in 2011 and won a Pulitzer Prize.

Sandusky's lawyers contend Ganim wrote her story with illegally leaked grand jury information and prompted more alleged victims to come forward.

The appeal is under Pennsylvania's Post Conviction Relief Act, which is narrower than a previous round of appeals that he lost.

'Mr Sandusky's due process right to a fair trial was not only infringed, it was crushed under a stampede of vitriol, rage, and prejudice that mandate a new trial in this case,' wrote his lawyer, Alexander Lindsay, in court papers before the hearing in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania.

Lindsay said Senior Judge John Cleland should have delayed the Sandusky trial to let passions cool.

Kane, who separately faces criminal charges for leaking grand jury information to the media, earlier this week released emails from now-retired judge Barry Feudale, who oversaw the Sandusky grand jury.

She said the emails show 'Judge Feudale's overriding concern was how to leak sealed Supreme Court documents without getting caught.'

Cleland ordered Kane to turn over by November 4 any evidence supporting her contention or appear in court on November 5.

'We intend to comply with Judge Cleland's order,' Kane's office said in an email.

Lindsay cheered the order, saying, 'If there was prosecutorial abuse, the remedy is to dismiss the case... I'm going to say he's a free man.'

Thursday's hearing comes just a day after a judge said it is not too late to bring further charges against Sandusky, as another alleged victim steps out of the woodwork.

Former Penn State football player Anthony Spinelli filed a private criminal complaint last year.

He claims Sandusky performed oral sex on him and fondled him during a 1988 football camp on Penn State's campus. He was 16 years old at the time and did not report it to state police until Sandusky's arrest in late 2011.

On Wednesday, Centre County Judge Thomas Kistler ordered prosecutors to take another look at a Spinelli's allegations that Jerry Sandusky molested him as a teenager in the 1980s.

It was a landmark ruling - the attorney general's office initially said too much time had elapsed to pursue the case.

However, after a brief hearing - just a day before Sandusky's appeal - Kistler ruled that the statute of limitations has not expired in the case, and ordered the attorney general to re-evaluate the charges.

Tania Cadogan said...


If prosecutors believe the minimum standard for charges has been met, they must file the paperwork with the district judge's office, Kistler wrote.

A spokesman for the attorney general's office said Kistler's decision was under review.

'Obviously, we're very excited,' said attorney Dan Kiss, who represents the Massachusetts man, now 43, who initiated a private criminal complaint against Sandusky a year ago.

Read more:

Trigger said...

Deorr Sr. , Ronald Cunnings, and Justin DiPietro send my creep meter to buzzing.

Shannon In CA said...

If you know many women who've had different kinds of births and who are bonded to their children, how can you say that the type of birth has any relationship to bonding? Wouldn't personality be a lot more important?

I'm sorry...this is a sore issue for me, because I CHOSE a c-section. I wasn't pushed into it. I brought it up and my JAPANESE Doctor, who refused to do them on several other women who asked like I did for a c-section, was visibly relieved when I asked for one. He apparently wanted me to have one, he never told me why and I never asked...because our desires matched. I had my reasons for wanting one, all of them personal and important to me. I did not want to even try a vaginal birth, and I am perfectly bonded with my daughter. She is beyond bonded to me.

I think personality is far more important. If type of birth was super important for bonding, then most c-section moms would have serious bonding issues, right?

Shannon In CA said...

Also, the Japanese c-section rate is lower than the us rate, and the fees there are standardized. He didn't do it for money, I can guarantee that. So if not for that reason, why did he refuse to do them on my friends who wanted them, but practically jumped for joy when I asked? His reason must have been a pretty good one (I think I know what it was, but in the end, I don't care that much since my reasons were different).

lynda said...

Thank you for the clarification in this article Peter. This answers my questions regarding 2 statements that little Deorr's parents made at separate times during a free editing stage.

Dad: "we know as much as we did on day 1 and when you mi..ya know, could know as a parent you believe the best route which is that is..if at least if somebody has him at least there’s always a chance I GAVE HIM BACK…we get him back."

This is marked for guilty knowledge and an almost confession? Who did he give him back too? Or dad knows where he put the boy and there is a chance he will give him back. When? When it becomes almost impossible to have any charges against him? Even if they do, he could always go Casey Anthony's route, say it was an accident and the morons sitting on the jury will say he's not guilty. Case Closed.

Mom: "the love I had for him" John pointed out that this does not necessarily mean she knows he is dead because she had something to do with it or guilty knowledge of what her fiancee did but it has been almost 4 months now and they have avoided any media interviews for that length of time. Dad even makes a point of saying they analyze my speech and body language and reverse my speech, but they are out of practice. They haven't been repeating the same thing continuously in the media and their 1st interview in almost 4 months and they BOTH have blatant statements regarding knowledge that they know what happened to him and that he is not coming back until dad makes it known where he is. If I were to guess, I would say come spring, his body will be found (because dad is going to move him to where it WILL be found), in an area that has been searched probably, there will be no evidence left of how he passed, and they will then be able to give him a proper burial. Case closed and they go on with their lives. I fear the only way this will result in any justice for baby Deorr is if one parent rolls on the other.

JustMyThoughtsOnly said...

I do know a lot of women who have had cesareans and are wonderful mothers. Epidurals and induction too.
I never had a cesarean, but I had a natural childbirth with my first, who was precipitous- he took less than 3 hours to get here from the moment of my first contraction. I also have had induction and an epidural. That labor lasted almost 48 hours, by blood pressure shot from 110 over 80 to 200 over 90- and I finally progressed after given cervadil, cyotech and then Pitocin.

I had no problem bonding with my children- the first or the second.
And I'm my judging cesareans- if you choose to have one- great.
If you don't but need one, ok, great.
However you birth, is up to you as a person you are no less than a mother based on how you chose to bring your child into this world as long.
I don't consider myself the best parent - I am hard on myself. But I love my children and I am sure you love yours too.

What I am trying to say is - I wonder if - along with other things - the changes they have made in how we can give birth has significant effects on the mother along with OTHER predispositions- drugs, lifestyle, etc.

I in no way meant that I think every woman out there that doesn't have a natural childbirth doesn't bond with her child- I tried to convey that in my post.

Statistically more women give birth with the help of inductions and epidurals and cesareans than natural births. And they are fantastic mothers.

But there are so many cases in the US now of children being abandoned, missing, murdered, etc compared to years ago that it makes you wonder if it doesn't have something to do with the bonding process for some women.

I hope that makes more sense.
I'm not trying to insult anyone.
But the fact is, the hormonal push of oxytocin is not there at the time of these deliveries and I am just wondering if it has a large effect on some women.
Not all women.

JustMyThoughtsOnly said...

*not judging

*as long as you love your child, that is all that matters

Sorry some of it got cut off.

JustMyThoughtsOnly said...

Also- I had a Japanese doctor in the United States- who was there for both of my births. I don't understand what significance this has? My Japanese dr has done out of the 10 friends of mine that were all pregnant at the same time, I and one other were the only two that didn't have c-sections. Where I live if you choose to have a cesarean- and don't need one for specific reasons (previous cesarean, etc) you are choosing to have one, you have to pay for that yourself, as insurance won't cover that unless you absolutely need it. Do you live in the United States, Shannon?

trustmeigetit said...

I say no.

And while I can't say exactly how I would respond if o was accused of something like this but my mind when I imagine it thinks I would state on no uncertain terms that
They have lied about me.

It seems in most of these cases they are "hurt" or the allegations are "hurtful" or in this case "Malicious".

If someone lied about me I am going to directly address the lie.

He did not

And stating you are innocent is not a lie as Peter always says. Legally speaking they are always innocent until proven guilty,

Anonymous said...

The inability to lie twice is my go to for the truth.

A while back I suspected my husband was talking to another woman. I asked, he denied so I asked him "why should I beleive you"

He replied "because I love you and would not do that"

Note that the question was why should I beleive him. It was not answered...

And he was in fact talking to another woman behind my back.

I wish more reporters and cops would learn that simple follow up question.

Anonymous said...

I had a random thought reading this article. I may be seeing shadows a bit but doesn't it seem like if a missing child's biological parents are heavily suspected (either formally or informally) to have played a direct role in what happened to their child, they stay together ( ie: Deborah Bradley/Jeremy Irwin, the McCann"s, the Ramsey's, the Cellis (Isabel Cellis parents, I can't remember how to spell their name) ? I know innocent parents stay together as well (the Walsh family, the Smart family, and the Klass family are the only three I can think of at the moment) but it seems like the ones who are suspected of foul play seem to beat the odds and claim that the tragedy and the search make their marriage or relationship stronger and their faith in God stronger. It just seems weird to me.
Like it was always strange (to me) that john and Patsy Ramsey always claimed that finding Jon Benet dead in their basement made their belief in God stronger but I think id think the opposite. I mean, all my kids are alive and well but I question whether there's a God every day. What God could let a child be murdered by the flesh that gave him/her life? Why would God let a little baby just die in its sleep (sids) ? What God would let a baby be born with cystic fibroses or cancer, leukemia? How could anyone not be angry if a child molester snuck into their home and violated and killed their daughter? How could you believe in God if your daughter disappeared from a motel while you were on a family vacation? I always wonder where the anger is... I would be furious.

Anonymous said...

And another thing those couples have in common is there seems to be no finger pointing, which would seem pretty normal. Like if I was an innocent Patsy Ramsey id be screeching at my husband for not double checking the doors and locking them even if we never locked the doors or if I was Jeremy Irwin id be in a rage over my baby momma getting dead ass drunk and passing out instead of being a responsible adult or if I was one of the McCann's id be blaming the one who suggested dinner away from the kids every night or for suggesting taking a vacation at all. There would be a lot if blame and yelling and id probably end up with an assault charge. I certainly wouldn't say 'oh well honey, sh!t happens. Lets go to brunch after we go jogging at least we have a couple more kids that the good lord didn't take away from us, just let me set up a go fund me donation sight real quick before all the news crews show up because you know we'll need money for the search and the burying and new TVs to keep track of our image darling and who knows maybe we'll find the baby at Denny's eating a late lunch...'
Yea. Its too late foe me to be on here commenting rationally lol

Juliet said...

For a minute, I thought I stumbled onto Mumsnet by mistake. M16 is advertising for new recruits over there, again. :)

Elf - some of us get by believing that God is not apart from, but rather with people in their suffering, because nothing happens outside of God - God shares with us in our sufferings just as we share in his. In him we live, and move and have our being. There's nothing outside of God - it's just ego and illusion which causes us to believe otherwise.

Juliet said...

Nice rant - it's good to get things off your chest. :)

Juliet said...

Lynda - DeOrr's 'I gave him back' is so bizarre, that whole sentence - I tried to think about it, but couldn't because it's just too mind-bogglingly weird, I just couldn't focus on it. What you say makes good sense - I hope his body is recoverable - it would be something, at least. I hope there is more than a boot, or a thread to be found.

John Mc Gowan said...

OT Update:

SPECIAL REPORT: Justice for Hailey

A burning question hangs in the air, not only in Colorado City, but across West Texas. When will we know what really happened to Hailey Dunn?

"I don't think I've ever asked for help, actually," Haley's father, Clint recalls. "I'm asking for help now."

A lot of people have been searching and waiting for an answer to that question, but probably none as anxiously as Hailey's father, Clint.

"Man, that was such a hectic time. I didn't know what to do. It had never crossed my mind that this would ever happen. I wasn't prepared for it, and i was running around like a chicken with his head cut off."

His daughter's disappearance sent Clint on a downward spiral into an abyss that, at the time, had no escape.

In the midst of all the darkness, Clint never lost sight of Hailey.

"I was very depressed, very depressed and feeling of guilt that i didn't protect her," says Clint. "I was her greatest protector and I felt like I failed there. It absolutely knocked me down."

Hailey was only 13 when her mother, Billie Dunn, reported her missing December 28, 2010.

Investigators say the last person to see Hailey was her mother's then live-in boyfriend, Shawn Adkins, on the afternoon of December 27. Billie and Shawn have their own versions of what happened that day.

Sworn affidavits, filed in the months after Hailey's disappearance, say nothing was missing from her room; not her money, her favorite clothes, or even her new ipod.

Hailey's brother, David, said she was playing a video game in the living room when he left the house around 9 p.m. on Sunday, December 26.

Clint recalls the last time he saw Hailey, too. "It was the day after Christmas. She spent the night with me on Christmas night, and she had slept in until around 11 that morning. I was in the living room, watching TV. She briefly came to me and told me she was going home. I gave her a hug and sent her on her way. [Billie] thought she was at Mary Beth's. Then we found out she hadn't been to Mary Beth's."

Hailey was very familiar with the area, having lived in Colorado City all of her life. It's not likely for her to have gotten lost, and it was not like her to just take off without telling anyone, especially her mother.

Even so, no one in the neighborhood reported seeing Hailey take a walk that day.

For Clint, things just weren't adding up. he says Colorado City Police were telling him Hailey had simply run away.

"Everybody told the police, 'That's not even in her vocabulary.' She's not a runaway. She did not run away with anybody. She did not run away at all. We stressed that to police, but it still took them seven days to see that this wasn't a runaway. "

As the investigation continued, police started noticing inconsistencies in Shawn Adkins' statements, especially around the day of Hailey's disappearance. Shawn soon became a person of interest.

One year went by, then two, and still no new leads in the case. Folks in Colorado City remained hopeful but that proved to be harder for some than others.


John Mc Gowan said...


"After a year had passed, I was thinking she was gone. I felt it. I was exhausted, absolutely exhausted."

Then, in March 2013, police got a possible break.

Human remains were found near Lake J.B. Thomas, near Snyder, in Scurry County. That's not far from Colorado City.

If they turned out to be Hailey, it would be the end of one nightmare and the start of another for Clint. "The first thing I did was picture my daughter dead, and that absolutely destroyed me when i found out she was gone. There was no finding her alive."

If it was not Hailey, everything would go on as it had for the two years, Clint thought. It was a double-edged sword.

"I was relieved she wasn't locked up in a cage the whole time, or still being tortured and raped. So, it somewhat relieved me in a way to know my daughter wasn't suffering."

Then, in April, everyone's worst fears were realized. The remains found were positively identified as Hailey. It was a blow that, try as he might, Clint was not ready for.

"It was a hard knock. It was a hard punch to the face. Before the body had been sent off to be examined and verified, yeah, I knew it was her."

The five year anniversary of Hailey's disappearance is coming up. Her remains were found and identified more than two years ago. One would think the case was close to being wrapped up.

It frustrates Clint to think that his daughter's disappearace and death may not be any closer to being solved today than before.

"The case has gone from law enforcement to law enforcement. Each time, they start all back over on the case and end up no where. Every time."

A lot has changed in Colorado City in the last five years. The teddy bears and memorials that once stood, in hope of finding Hailey, have been taken down and are now stored inside a shed in the back yard of Hailey's house.

The home itself is abandoned, declared unsafe and in danger of being torn down by the city.

However, one thing hasn't changed. There is still an urgent cry and an insatiable thirst to find justice for hailey.

"I'm just going to say it like this: we all know who did this," Clint said. "It's not fair that this type of person gets to go free after doing such a horrible thing to such an innocent person."

Includes Vt:

The Sheep said...

""I'm just going to say it like this: we all know who did this," Clint said. "It's not fair that this type of person gets to go free after doing such a horrible thing to such an innocent person."

I don't mean this to disparage Clint, but if it were me, they'd be prying me from Adkins' bloodied corpse. Or wondering wth he disappeared to. Something.

John Mc Gowan said...

foodiefoodnerd said...

Quoting John McG:

"If a person says "I didn't do it" and this is actually a lie. They have issued a reliable denial..."

John, I'm nitpicking here, but not at you; as a guilty subject. Would responding just, "I didn't do it," without the "because" separate the denial from the accusation? Meaning, during the polygraph one could think of something he actually didn't do?
Where the "because" attaches it to the question you actually asked?"


As Tania has pointed out "i didn't do it" violates principle number three, the event specific. What is "it"?

If asked a "why" question, and the answer begins with "because" it is acceptable. Not as an RD, but we don't highlight "because" in blue, as it is a question. It is only highlighted when there is a need to explain.

Reliable denial (RD)

Principle 1) "I" first person singular taking ownership.
Principle 2) "Didn't / did not" past tense.
Principle 3) "Kill xyz" event specific.

If it is less than two or more than three it is not accepted to be an RD

If it is said in the free editing stage and not reflective language. There is a high percentage that it is true.

This is where the principle no-one can lie twice comes into play.

See "Rule: No One Can Lie Twice"


Question: "Did you kill xyz"
Answer: "No i didn't kill xyz"

This is not to be accepted as an RD, it is reflective. It maybe true, but we don't accept it as reliable. The question itself is a closed question and warrants a yes no answer. Also, they have gone beyond the question, making the question itself sensitive. These type of questions (closed) are easier to lie to, and are less stressful. (Always ask open ended questions.)

"Another nitpick, and again not at you but as a subject with guilty knowledge:
We aren't "innocent" until proven guilty; we are PRESUMED innocent -- to say innocent until proven guilty implies we didn't actually commit the crime until it's proven in court.

My point is, would that put "I'm innocent" in the direct lie category, or does even this fall under personal definitions? ("categorically" or otherwise)"

It maybe a lie, it maybe not. As you say, "We are presumed innocent" until proven otherwise. And as you also pointed out "what is their definition of "innocent".

Re The polygraph. The person administering the polygraph should enter into the subject's own "Personal Subjective Internal Dictionary".

See: Polygraph Reliability and Mistakes

I hope i have explained properly? :/

ima.grandma said...

This is a good time to also review the analysis from Ms. Kaaryn Gough re: Miss Hailey Dunn's disappearance.

ima.grandma said...

I should add the first analysis that will appear is relevant to our discussion on analyzing anonymous letters.

Grace4Ayla said...


ima.grandma said...

Peter, may luck be with your Mets tonight!
Sus, sorry about your Cubs, they're also one of my favorites. I was pulling for them. My kids really wanted them to win to fulfill Michael J. Fox's prophecy. Back to the Future was one of their favorite movies.

Unknown said...

Would it be appropriate to confront someone on their lack of empathy towards their missing child immediately? Or wait until later on in the interview?


lynda said...

Matt said..

"Would it be appropriate to confront someone on their lack of empathy towards their missing child immediately? Or wait until later on in the interview?"

Good question Matt. My personal opinion would be to not confront immediately. They could be in shock, sleep deprived, high, etc. From what I have learned thusfar, it is important or helpful to gain as much information while the suspect is "free-editing' hence the need for open ended questioning. To confront so early, I would think would make immediate enemies of "innocent" parents, and public opinion may very well side on the parents, who may be in fact, guilty. JMO

Juliet...I know it! Dad deorr's statement is just truly bizarre. The more I think about it, the more I see it as an admission of guilt, not just guilty knowledge.

John? Peter? imagrandma? sus? Anyone have any comment about that?

JustMyThoughtsOnly said...

Sorry about that Juliet.

I tend to ramble on.
I think it's bc I am just not satisfied in finding the conclusion of the "who done it" - I need to try and wrap my head around the "why they did" as well. But those answers we may never know- I hope someday we do though.

Statement Analysis Blog said...


always at the very end of the interview, or even better: at the end of the interview, if you sense that the subject will return for a follow up interview (24-48 hours 'down time') this is risky but it helps

Save the bombshell for the very end of the follow up interview.

The risk is, of course, that the subject will consider how poorly he or she did in the interview, and refuse the follow up. If this is the strategy, the parent MUST be allowed to boast and not be challenged THE ENTIRE interview.

When the confrontation is used, to gain confession, the interviewer must "comfort" with "familiarity" the subject by using the subjects expressions and words.

This is something we cover, in depth, in training which will increase confessions (or admissions).

Interestingly enough, it is something that high powered sales professionals have a tendency to do, perhaps without overtly realizing it.


Juliet said...

JMTO - it was an interesting ramble. :)

Sus said...

Thanks for the comment about my Cubs. Next year. :-)

Elf brought up an interesting point. I think nothing tests your faith more than losing a child. And yes, you blame your spouse, the doctors, the world, anyone. Because you are angry! It is a normal stage of grief.

I think each of the couples you mentioned went through that anger. Probably not for the public's eyes. I watched the clip on Little Deorr's parents, the one where they use body language. There was an important point in there. Fathers change their anger to sadness much quicker than mothers. Mothers hold onto anger after losing a child. I'd heard that before, and find that interesting.

Anyway, my theory is that parents who have no culpability in their child's death work through their anger at each other...usually, or hopefully.

Others use it against each other. John and Patsy Ramsey are a prime example. I think they were stuck with each other. I have thought from the beginning that Jeremy Irwin holds her guilt over Deborah Bradley. Celis are the same. LE separated them hoping the wife would gain courage to talk. He must have some hold over her.

Sus said...

Along those lines...
Jessica Mitchell: "and if an animal got him.."

No mother can fathom this. She knows he is not in those woods and no animal got him. She either knows it by personal knowledge, by someone close to her telling her, or knowledge from LE.

Unknown said...

One more question, if, during an interview I (the analyst) were to pick up on the lack ofempathy, would it be prudent to ask questions that should elicit an empathetic response about their child? Or wait to see if it surfaces on its own throughout the interview when doing the post-interview analysis?

Unknown said...

Also, I was on but I couldn't find any reference to online training. Is it only available in the US?

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Sus 3:50

I totally agree with your comment- no real mother would ever allow herself to imagine for even one microsecond that an animal got her child. Having witnessed an attack on a three-yr-old (the unsupervised little visitor unintentionally provoked the neighbor's dog repeatedly), it was absolutely horrific. I saw the little guy in their side yard a little too late to prevent it.

No mother would ever willingly entertain the notion and would actively work to mentally dismiss it. Even when gently informed of that tragedy, she might accept the death but mentally reject the cause to protect herself emotionally.

I agree with you, Jessica knows that no animal got him and she also knows he's not in those woods.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Sus @ 3:40

Your post had a lot of insight and made me curious about anger in missing child cases too. It's true that some marriages seem to fall apart and some get stronger. I tend to think it can go either way with the guilty. I'd like to believe that they resent the information their partner has on them (it's the tie that binds),pressure mounts and they finally cave under the pressure and come clean. I know I live in a fantasy world. LOL

I've read Peter's Analysis of the JonBenet Ramsey case (and totally agree with him). Your comment on anger and the Ramseys really sparked my curiosity. Why do you think John and Patsy Ramsey used their anger on each other? In what way(s)? Do you think John and Patsy both had something significant on each other or did one have the upper hand, so to speak? I don't mean to put you on the spot-I'd like to know your opinion. You tend to have a lot of well-thought out comments, IMO.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

lynda @ 1:02 PM

I'm not John, Peter, ima.grandma, or Sus so I'm no help. But like you, I found DeOrr's statement way out there.

DeOrr's statement, combined with Jessica's odd statement in their first interview (see below), gave me pause.

Jessica: "Pretty...the support around us is what's, I know, keeping us together because if we didn't have all of our family - the minute I called my mom, and she was up there in a matter of hours and the same with the rest of our family, they were just up there, around us."

Going out on a serious limb here, but could there possibly be any chance DeOrr & Jessica were on the verge of splitting (financial pressure, relationship issues, drug-use issues, etc.) and one parent was threatening to take little DeOrr from the other? Did DeOrr take little DeOrr on Thursday night, hence the "I gave him back." statement? Parental abductions aren't exactly unheard of. I'm just trying to make sense of DeOrr seeming to take responsibility for choosing the campsite (and speaking like he had researched it and weighed any possible danger). Yet, Trina Clegg says camping there was Grandpa'a idea, he's camped there before and was familiar with the site. So, did DeOrr go there and the rest followed (except Trina whose language shows distance with daddy DeOrr)?

"I gave him back." means DeOrr had to have taken little DeOrr first. From where? From whom?

Anonymous said...

Quoting John McG:
"I hope i have explained properly?"

Yes, thanks, John; this is exactly what I was trying to bring out over the original response of calling it a reliable denial with only "I didn't do it," without the because attaching it to the question of "Why should we believe you?"

JenB said...

This is a fascinating theory! Breastfeeding also releases oxytocin and promotes bonding and attachment. I imagine low breastfeeding rates also contribute to the neglect we see everywhere.

JenB said...

Yes, I think for certain at-risk women, a natural birth or breastfeeding could strengthen a bond with their baby and reduce the risk of neglect. Obviously women with all different birth stories and ways of feeding their babies are successful at bonding, and plenty of women who breastfeed or deliver naturally neglect their babies. But it may be one factor, among many, which raises risk. (I had two natural deliveries and one scheduled c-section. I am in no way saying a certain birth or feeding method makes one a better mother.)

Anonymous said...

FFON, since reading that bizarre (even for this family) line I've speculated that he took and hid little DeOrr, then something awful happened.
Maybe he ran out and got hit by a car; if they were actually camping (elsewhere) an animal got him; he was too wasted to recall where he left him, etc.

If this was during a heated argument or potential custody issue, or he was trying to teach a lesson to her, that could have forced her cooperation early on before reality took hold.
Now, the longer it drags out, the more trouble he can convince her she will face.

The more I revisit this and his constant controlling her during interviews the more it feels like DeOrr took and hid him to prevent her from ending the relationship, and is now using this to hold her.

If so, the fact she would continue protecting herself and him, depriving her little boy justice and peace, puts her right down on his level.

JustMyThoughtsOnly said...

Thank you, JenB!!!

And I agree about the breastfeeding!!

Lis said...

OT Thanks to everyone who offered their insights on the OT I shared. I have to guess the polygrapher in the case was not very experienced or else not well trained.

Personally, I think that the camera moved because it had not been set down flat and it just gradually slid down, causing the picture to move a bit. I don't think anyone needed to be there moving it.

I still struggle with the concept of lying about a lie, though I understand the concept that a liar does not want to lie about a lie, I'm not clear on how it sounds when you hear it. I'm kind of dense on some things!