The Complete DeOrr Interview Analyzed

I have been displeased with my work on this interview and have reviewed my analysis after lengthy thought about the close linguistic context. Although I find no errors of commission, I find that a deeper study of the linguistic context affirms my "suggestions" however, with more strength than I originally allowed for.  Linguistic context is different from topical context (missing child, interview, both parents present, etc).  Linguistic context seeks to learn what words triggered other words that may be leakage, or inadvertent disclosures.

This is, therefore, not a revision of my analysis, but an addition to my first work.

The change in here:  What I draw as "possible", I now find should have been "probable."

Yet, are there enough "probables" in the overall interview to make a solid conclusion?

Answer:  Yes, there is.

The interviewer conducted one of the poorest interviews I have ever analyzed.  This frustrated me and it has helped to return to this again.  Please note that there is no new case information brought to this analysis.

The 40 Percent Theory 

In analysis, an emotionally and disconnected revisitation of a statement can yield up to 40% more information.  For the understanding of this principle, see:  The 40% Theory  and then see the parts 1 through 3 of "Why did I miss this?" that explain the principle further.  Reviewing analysis through dispassionate eyes is critical. 

Original Analysis Question:  Do the parents possess guilty knowledge in their son's disappearance?

Updated Analysis Question:  Does the father, who does most of the talking, possess guilty knowledge in the disappearance of his son?

Answer:  At the conclusion of the analysis.  

I:  Interviewer

D:  Father

J:   Mother 

******************************************************************************

Interviewer: Alright, DeOrre, take us back, was it Friday?
Jessica: Yes.

DeOrre Sr:.i'm not sure what day it is today!

This is to interject himself after his wife first answered.  The interviewer sought to bring them back to the day the child went missing.  Instead, the father, who's words are the focus of this analysis, wants us to know that he is not sure what day it is today, that is, the day of the interview. 

This is to seek sympathy for himself, as if he is so tired from searching, and not sleeping.  

It is not expected that the father of a missing child would speak about himself, instead of his son. 

He may be tired, but how is his son doing?  Is his son tired?  Is his son getting sleep?  Is his son being fed?  Is he in warm clothing?  Is he alone?  Is he afraid?

The interview began with the father "front and center", which is nothing we expect to hear of an innocent father.  

I : today's Monday. 

This is not expected as "the clock" and "D-Day" are often very important to the hormone-elevated parents.  The exception may be due to extreme fatigue.  Generally, the loved ones are on high alert, and know exactly how many hours, including days, that the loved one is missing.  The interviewer played into the father, and we will soon learn that this was the first mistake of a  pattern of mistakes by the Interviewer as the father controlled the interview. 

Analytical Interviewing teaches to never interrupt one talking to let them talk, but even this principle must be applied in a sane and reasonable manner, lest the subject absolutely control the interview and move it away from the missing child.  

*Although we allow some runaway tangents, in specific questions, seeking "leakage" or inadvertent release of information, we do not allow it to reach a point where the interview itself is completely hijacked.  

The father did de rail this interview and we note:

The father had a reason to bring tangents to the interview, to move the information away from what happened to his son.  

J: It was Friday.
D: Friday, about 2.26 was when I, was it 2.26?

This is to assert an exact time, while not remembering the day of the week.  This is an inconsistency.  

Please note that he self-censored which means he stopped himself from whatever he was going to say. 

What was he going to say?

"Friday, about 2:26 was when I..." which means that the exact time, precisely reported, was when he did something.  Thus, the center of this statement is the pronoun "I", which means it is also about him, and not about his son. 

Should the same parent know exactly the hours (culmalative) the child has been missing ? This is to draw attention away from what happened to his son, or what his son is experiencing and make it about himself. 

Again. 

J: It was 2.36 when I called.

She corrects him with precision.  It is likely that someone looked at the cell phone to note the precise time, perhaps in preparation for the interview, or due to the "clock" ticking, concern.  We let the words guide us towards a conclusion.  This may have been discussed but not memorized.  

D : 2.36 when she called and I was in the truck hauling down to the road trying to get service because I didn't think one bar would get it. So I, she got very very lucky. I was blessed that she was able to get service because I didn't think, I didn't want to try and risk getting half way through my talking to 911 and have it cut off. So I went down to where I knew I could get a little service, about a half mile down the road. 

The interview is with both parents seated next to each other; therefore, the use of "we" is appropriate.  With this established, when either parent moves from "we" to the pronoun "I", it becomes even more important to the subject.  (For new readers, the "subject" is the one speaking).  

We have here an extreme point of sensitivity and it is about the father's location and the father calling.  

1.  He immediately moves from her calling to himself.  This is about him. 
2.  He tells us where he was when she called.  This is unimportant information; that is, it is not necessary to reporting his missing son, yet, it is of extreme importance to him. 
3.  He was not only in his truck, but "hauling" which is to be in a hurry, as in an extreme situation. 

This is unnecessary information, which, in analysis, is deemed "doubly important" leading to a question:

Question:  Who would have a need, as a father of a missing child, to convince us that he was in a hurry?

Answer:  one who is not in a hurry. 

This is a signal that not only was the father in no hurry, but he has a need to persuade his audience that he did.  

This should lead investigators to suspect that the father may know that by calling 911, he may have been "risking" something.   Please note the inclusion of the word "risk" is taken in context; not the context of the situation, but the "linguistic context" that is, the context of the words he chose to you.  Going only by his words, and not Jessica's, I find:

The word "risk" comes with him calling, with broken pronouns, and concerns thus far only expressed about himself. 

No words expressed showing concern for what DeOrr was going through

Therefore, calling 911 was to put himself at some risk.  

***************************************************************************

We note that the father, "D", explains why he did something without being asked.  This indicates a need to explain why he drove in his truck.   This means that he thought to himself, "I better explain why I was in the truck because they are going to ask me about it."

Therefore, we assign the reason why someone did something only when not asked, to the color blue which is the highest level of sensitivity in analysis.  Should we find two colors of blue close together, the sensitivity becomes extreme to the subject.   We will get to this.  

First:  

The exact time was off and was corrected by the mother.  He did not remember the day, but used the word "about" when giving the exact time. There is nothing "about" when stating "2:26" as "about" is used to estimate.  We use estimation with round numbers, and round times. 

"It was about 2:30" is consistent.  

"About 2:26" not only shows preparation, (and failed memory or communication) but to say "about" shows the inconsistency of using estimation and exactness.  

The time when police were called is a sensitive topic, but this is not as sensitive as the truck.  

The Truck

Please note:  placing himself in his truck is very important to the father, so much so that he twice explains why he was in the truck.   Investigators should learn why it bothers him as much as it does.  

This is very sensitive to him, as is the time line.  

Why is it so important to him that we, the audience know, he was in his truck?

Even without training, the journalist should recognize his need to explain and his repetition and simply ask about the truck again.  With training, the interviewer pounces, but even without, many recognize the sensitivity intuitively.  

The interviewer should have recognized how the father is talking about himself, and not about his son.  

That he was "hauling" is not only unnecessary to say (no one would consider this a leisurely drive) but it is also 'story telling', which is to make us consider the location of the emotions within his statement.  The location of "hauling", if it expresses an emotion of urgency and fear, would be considered artificially placed in the editing process. 

The father in the truck rushing to call 911, has produced intense sensitivity in his language.  It is such that it appears he is withholding information.  

Uh, we searched for - after about twenty minutes in a dead panic, not knowing where he was in such a small area, and not knowing, never being there, I knew I was in trouble.

He began with "we searched" indicating unity, but then gives an 'editorializing', or inclusion of emotion ("dead panic").  The emotion here is not necessary since the child is missing.  This is to identify a specific emotion, in the logical part of the account, meaning that it is likely to be artificially placed here by the father.  Should an argument be made that "hauling" was a word that only denotes speed and not emotion, no such argument can be made about the words, "dead panic."

Truthful accounts have the emotions after the events, so when we find them in the "event" portion, so close to the disappearance, it is a very strong signal that it is not genuine. 

Example:  
I could not find him;
we searched everywhere in the area;
I called 911. 
I was in a panic. 

This shows that the emotions take time to process, especially since parents are on "auto pilot", that is, zoned to find their child. 

The father has a need to cause us to believe that he was in a dead panic which suggests that there was no panic about searching for his son. 

The word "dead" is used: 

"dead panic", however, is not a word ("dead") we expect a parent of a missing child to use.  

We should consider that at this time, his rushing is not genuine, nor are the emotions of "panic" expressed.  Then we should consider that he was able to use the word "dead" which is not expected from a parent of a missing child and may be leakage. 

This may be an indication that his son is not going to be found alive.  

"I knew I was in trouble" is an interesting statement and may be an embedded admission.  

Some very responsible parents will take full ownership and responsibility of the situation, making his son's disappearance his own trouble. But in this case, this is not supported by context:  the context is seen in language:  it is about him and nothing about his son. 

Therefore, if we believe the father, we may conclude:

Calling the police has caused him to be "in trouble" of some form.  

I originally  wrote, "It is also possible that this is 'leakage', that is to say, he, himself, is in trouble. "

UPDATE:  Given the context (the words surrounding this), I move to strike the word "possible" from my analysis, and replace it with "likely." 
He put himself as "risk" and he knew he was "in trouble" but only when it came to having to call police. 

He did not want to call police.  

He has thus only spoken of himself and has sought sympathy for himself.  

 Um, so we decided to call search and rescue, uh, and that's when I drove down. 

"Um" is a pause, giving one time to think.  In working from experiential memory, is this necessary?  

With a missing child, there is no need to pause, nor to "share" the responsibility of calling.  I wrote originally that this was a debate of sorts, as this shows the need to "decide" in a situation where no "decision" is made:  you just call!  

That "we decided" not only suggests a delay (during the 'debate') but likely due to fear of, first, over-reacting ("he's got to be here!), and, possibly, fear of being blamed.  Since he has:

a.  used words to gain sympathy for himself
b.  artificially placed emotions in his statement
c.  given signals of having not rushed, nor been in panic
d.  hinted or leaked that the child is "dead"
e.  spoken only of himself, and not the child
f.  added "risk" to the equation; 

it is likely that he did not want to call 911 and Jessica did.  

Original analysis:  There was a delay in calling and they initially did not "agree" about making the call.  

Fear of being blamed is also something that shows itself, in the specific sensitivity indicators, and must be categorized in context.  

Update:  calling 911 put the father in "trouble" and in "risk" and this interview is all about the father. 

"we" turns into "I" when driving; that is, likely driving without his wife.  

I do not know who "search and rescue" is:  is this the result of calling 911, or did they have another number, specific to Search and Rescue?

Next, "that's when" speaks to time.  He returns to the truck, further making this a very sensitive point to him.  

The truck, the truck, the truck...it is repeated in his language, and it is something that is of great importance to him and even includes editorializing language, which often belies the need to persuade.  

We need to wonder if something happened to the boy involving the truck.  Did he run over his son?  Did someone back over him?
Did an accident befall him and he went somewhere with his son in the truck?

Something is very wrong about the truck.  

She tried getting a signal out - um, as soon as I got a hold of the,, I kind of, they told me that she was on the other line with them and they had our location, and they were on our way. They, they were amazing, they are amazing and they still continue to be. Ah, Lhema High County Sherriff and Salmon Search and Rescue, you could not ask for a better group of people, volunteers, and search and rescue, and just everybody. You couldn't ask for better people - so sincere, so concerned, and they were - everybody was emotionally attached to this, as you, anybody would be of a two year old. 

Lots of self censoring by him as a way of stopping information.  

a.  "Tried" in the past tense,  indicates failure.  

b.  Praise of authorities. 

This is something that is not expected at this time.  

Parents want their child found.  When not found, they see authorities as having "failed" them, and it is not time for praise.  

When do we find praise of "authorities"?

1.  We find that authorities are praised by the innocent when the child is found safe.

2.  We find that authorities are praised by the innocent parent when the child is found no longer alive, after a long period of time has passed, and the parent has significantly grieved and processed the trauma, and recall, at moments of sheer terror, kind faces, or the 'small cup of water' offered in consolation.  This is similar to language in parents who outlived their child, and warm themselves with memories of the wake or funeral, and remember the kind comments of friends and relatives.  It generally takes time, however, to hear this. 

3.  We find the praise of authorities who fail to find a child by the guilty (those indicated for deception regarding the disappearance of the child):  the guilty did not want the child found, hence, the praise.  

4.  We find the praise of authorities who fail to find a child in the language of the guilty who reveal a desperate need to "make friends" with "police" (that is, "authority") and quickly align themselves.  

They sometimes even "name drop", and talk about how good "Sgt. Smith" was, and so on.  This can belie a need to be seen as 'part of the solution' rather than the cause of the problem. 

The father may have been treated well, but because at the time of this statement, his son had not been found, the praise is not expected.  

This appears as a way of attempting to ingratiate himself with law enforcement which would, psychology, make it harder for them to arrest him, (as to his thinking) and paints him as one of the "good guys."

*This is indicative of an accident more than an initial criminal act.  

"Was attached" may indicate that he is thinking of the specific time period during the search; this is evidenced in how he breaks up time period of them being "amazing" including the future.  

I wrote:  The praise of unsuccessful searching is concerning.  
Update:  I am willing to move from "concerning" to to an attempt to ingratiate himself as part of the "good guys" by someone who is withholding information about his son's disappearance.  

Next:  

How will the father relate to his son?

We will listen carefully on what names, pronouns, etc, he uses.  We will listen carefully to see if his son is described in a 

a.  positive light  (expected) 

b.  negative light (guilty parents will find a subtle way to blame the victim)

c.  deified, or "angelic" manner.  This is sometimes done, romanticizing about a child which is more associated with death, where the parent loses the reality that exists in all of us, as the imperfections are forgotten, and the deceased is now deified in language.  When a child is missing, we do not want to hear the child blamed, nor defied.  

He's pretty small for his age but he moves pretty good, and that was our concern. 

a.  That he is "pretty small" is not a negative, as it is 'rebutted' by the word "but", in describing how well he moves.  

b.  Note next that he uses the word "that", which is distancing language; and

c.  He uses the past tense "was"

Taking the distancing language of "that" and the past tense "was", it suggest that this is not his concern, any longer. 

This is a signal that investigators should consider:  does he know his son is dead?

About the "movement":  this is another indication of an accident that may have happened to the child.  

d.  Next note that this is not his concern but "our" concern.  This is to share concern and is something indicative of guilt:  the need to share a concern that no longer operates in the present tense.  

"He's pretty small for his age but he moves pretty good and this is my concern..." or even "this is our concern";

Question:   Has anything changed that has led the father to believe that he no longer left the area on his own?

If so, (kidnapping), the past tense use here is appropriately consistent.  Since he has given no indication that his son is kidnapped, the past tense is a signal that he knows his son is dead.  

Thus far, there is nothing within the language to indicate child abuse on the part of the parents.  This does not mean guilt or innocence, but of how they relate to their son indicates quality of relationship.  We have a signal of death and a focus from the father upon himself. 

He, uh, was right with us, where it's at, I mean I thought it would be perfect to go camping there because it's enclosed by walls and mountains, and there's not much space around there he could go, and our biggest concern was the creek, which was knee deep and a few feet wide, but he's a little guy.

This also speaks to an accident.  

The need to explain the location is sensitive and this may be the words that are consistent with very responsible parents.   It may be that he blames himself for choosing this location, therefore, he feels the need to explain (justify) its choosing:  enclosed by walls and mountains (positive) and not much space (negative; what there isn't).

He knew he was in trouble, but the concern is "our" and not, "my" concern. 

Note that context of the concern is the creek, and he is specific about it, its depth and its depth in relation to his son's size.  

Thus far, he has not used his son's name, only using "he", but here he is a "little guy", which is consistent with being small for his age, and the concern about the water.  Even if he was not a victim of child abuse, we may hear distancing language due to psychological weight of guilt of having allowed an accident to happen via negligence.  

 Um, they finally, yesterday, we were able to put that to rest and have HC Sheriff Dave and the rest of the sheriffs have put out that there is, they assured me, there is 100% chance that he is not anywhere in that water, around that water. They have torn that creek upside down and in and out. The divers have gone through with wetsuits, along with the helicopter - that was the world's most advanced search and rescue helicopter, volunteered out of Montana, and those guys were just amazing, the accuracy they had with the night vision ability it has and the heat range it can see,, they were - . The one guy, I can't remember his name, um, I've met so many people, so many good people, but he was - his own safety, he was, he was more or less,, he was strapped in, he was on the side of that helicopter, looking, and I - he was looking down. I remember them telling me they asked search and rescue to look over, because there was an orange insect repellant can, they think by the bank, and they were dead on, that's what it was, how accurate these guys are.

Note how many wonderful things he says about those who failed to find his son. 
Now note how no words have been used to show concern for his son.  

Follow the pronouns:  When he says "they", he immediately stops himself and says "we", connecting himself to authorities.  He has a need to be part of the good guys.  I think this supports the theory of unintended death.  

The praise of authorities in an unsuccessful search is not expected unless he knows the child is dead. 

Innocent parents who believe their son is out there and must be found, do not generally praise searchers for failure, and certainly not to this extent. 

It becomes even stranger when considering he has not talked about the needs of his son, or what his son might be going through. 

We also note the word "dead" again in his language.  

This is not something we expect a parent of a missing child to say.  He has now used it twice.  If we are listening, we should consider that this father may not be showing concern for his son because he knows his son has no more needs, and he, the father, "had" (past tense) concerns, but does not need to concern himself with things now.  

We have not heard him use his son's name.  This is not expected. 

J: They thought it was, it might have been, a part of a shoe, or something, but they said, go check that out.

The mother has said very little.  The father controls both the interviewer and the mother's language, by interrupting her and speaking lengthy sentences.  

D: These guys search miles, so the miles radius they have - it's very rocky terrain, it's very open, it's not -.the helicopter they used is used to back very deep Montana, it is designed for a lot worse situations than this, and there was not a trace of my son found - there still isn't but the search is on, that's - the hearsay of things has kind of gotten way out of hand, the search is so far as it's been put on, that it's been suspended, and that is not entirely sure or true. Sheriff Dave of Lhema HC, I just spoke with him on the phone this morning - he has got horseback riders and trackers up there right now, and very advanced professionals. I'll be going up, and I've just come down to get any resources I can get to go back, right on back up today. Um, what questions do you guys have?

Please note that here he uses a lot of words, and none of them use his son's name, and none of these words express concern for his son's daily or even hourly survival. 

He continues to rave about the efficiency and adds horseback riders to the helicopter and use of technology, further giving linguistic indication of why has was "amazed", that is, to praise authorities.  This is even more shocking when one considers that they all failed to find his son.  

Please note that guilty parents often seek to exercise control over the flow of information.  This sometimes shows itself in the strong tangent of "running with the ball" and going on and on about the searchers, their equipment and their dedication...while failing.

This is to be compared with the words used about his son:  nothing.  

Ask yourself what you would say in this precise setting.  

Would you spend your time talking about equipment that failed searchers use?  Or would you call out to your son's kidnappers, or openly wonder, "is he being fed?  does he have his blankie?  is he cold? is he crying?"

A father of a toddler who takes responsibility for his son would be all but pulling his own hair out in anxiety, wondering about every little detail of his son's moment by moment existence.  

Something got "out of hand" with DeOrr and he did something his father did not expect him to.  

Interviewer: Tell us a little bit about, first of all, how are you guys holding up? I know everybody, a lot of people, are praying for you all.

This question angered me as it played right into the  father's babbling about equipment and searchers and helicopters and so on...and it allowed him to continue to control.

The interviewer should have said:

"People are suspicious of you and that something may have happened.  What do you say to this?"

It is the 800lb gorilla in the living room and the interviewer is clueless.  

DeOrre Sr.: Friends and family, and hoping to be strong for him.

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.

What about your son?

D: Luckily, we - a few phone calls Is all it took at first, and we had, as Sheriff David said in the news, a hundred and seventy five plus people up there in the grid searches, volunteers, uh, professionals, and anybody I called. The service up there is very hearsay - here, there - it's camping, you know. Um, we're trying to hold up the best we can, but with - we have hope, is the thing. Hope is what keeps it going because the search is not over, the search is not done. We will find him, no matter what.

  He continues to be impressed with the search, and here gives the large number in the turn out.  He did not talk about himself, but name dropped.  This is concerning. 

For a father who said he was "in trouble" and who has controlled the interview, the expected is:  "I will find you, son" with "I" and his son addressed.  The "we" is very weak.  It shows his need to be part of a law abiding team.  


I: You were in the truck so you were the first to realize, ' Oh, no, DeOrr is not here.'

leading question....

D: No, we both did, I -

This is to avoid personal responsibility  which is something we expect biological parents to do; even when seated together.  

The switch from "you" to "no , we" is a rebuttal, but "no, we both..." has an even stronger need to share.  

This is more consistent with guilt than innocence.  

J: We both did.

Recall "we decided" is something that indicates a delay, a possible debate or discussion and the joint sharing of responsibility.  This is a sensitive point to them both.  

This is to now bring the mother into the guilty knowledge classification as she joins herself to him, and was part of a debate over 911.  This means that she had to know that the father had a reason to not want to call 911, and she is in agreement with him.  


D: After twenty minutes of up and down the creek and up and around the camp, and he wasn't there, that's when I got in my pick up truck and drove down the road to try and get some service.


J: - especially after screaming his name, we have nicknames for him, no sound of him, no crying.

The father goes right back to the truck again.  This is very sensitive to him. 

The nicknames are not given here, which affirms my original analysis that the chill was not a victim of chronic abuse.  When nicknames are used, as if on display, it is a bad signal.  

This further affirms that an unintended death occurred:  something happened that the father did not mean to happen, but both parents considered the consequences and conspired to not report things.  I do not know how much the mother knows, but it is enough to know:

if your son was missing and someone tried to get you to NOT call 911, you would know something was wrong.  

D:.he's a goer and a mover but he does not go away from his parents, he does not.

He has not used his son's name for himself.  This is distancing language that has been consistent throughout.    

This is a positive and actually not an insult as he both praises his ability to move, and recognizes that he doesn't drift too far from his parents.  The repetition is sensitive:  did the child move in a way that the father did not expect?  In the water?  Behind the truck?  

J: Yes, he's very attached to us.

I like this better than "we are very close" not because the closeness can be a two-way street (it is) but because the father was talking about the son's mobility in relation to not going a certain way.  Some toddlers will bolt.  If this came in a different context, it might be more concerning, but here, it may be due to physical proximity more than emotional.  Emotional attachment in an open statement is often an indication of a poor relationship.  

I: So this is unusual.

D: Very unusual, sir.


J: And we didn't hear people around us, we didn't see anybody, we have -
Off camera: social media, that needs to be addressed.

I: Yes, social media can be a good thing but it can also -

D: That's, that's one of the -

J:.We just don't want anything to twist it

I: Yes, we don't want to twist it, so clear up any rumors that you've seen or heard

J: We've-

Off camera [inaudible] - we 
need to talk about -

J: One thing that concerned me -

D: We wanna get to that. Most of the biggest rumors that are going around is - I mean, I have heard everything from the - I mean, why you would make up a rumor that has to do with a three year old is - if you're not going to help, please, don't - if it's not helpful - it's -

J: Yeah.

D: This is a two, almost three year old we're talking about, please help us. But I've heard everything from my company won't let me come home off the road to look for my son - I was there the entire time, and my employer, four hours after my son went missing, has been up there day and night, has not slowed down - um, and that, that one bothered me, and then they just came, they got worse, and they got worse, and they got worse - but that's a handful of bad with a bunch of good. The amount of support is overwhelming, and it's good.

He has not used his son's name, but has used the pronoun "son";

He has used many words to praise the failed searchers, and here he is expending energy defending his boss and company, while not saying, thus far, a single word about his son.  

Please help "us" is a good time for him to say what his son might be going through.  

He does not.  


Interviewer : is there any rumors or anything you've seen that you want to clear up, Jessica?


As in all missing child cases, it is better to ask, directly, about their own involvement, to let them issue a denial.  What is this he asks?  Is this something they discussed off camera first?  Perhaps. 

 It is difficult to imagine a worse interview.  


Jessica: I just, somebody at the store, um at Leador, said, it was one of the ladies that had worked at the store, said that they saw, um, a gentleman and a younger blonde boy matching our description of our son, really filthy, buying candy for him, and he was just bawling, in a black truck. That is the only other...

This bothers me.  Here is why:

1.  "gentleman":  do we really think a lady at a store used the word "gentleman" in this setting?  This is to make a positive point about the man in the story.  
2.  "our" description?  Why the need to share description?
3.  "our" son is not the language of biological parents --unless they are in trouble and have openly talked about splitting up and sharing custody.  

DeOrre Sr.: There's a problem, my pick-up truck is black..

This is an unexpected statement.  Is he saying this is a problem because he was seen driving his son, filthy, buying candy or is it a problem simply because it does not make sense?

If this was not him, nor his truck, where does a "problem" exist.  

Jessica: he drives a black truck.

DeOrre Sr.: as a family, we went down to get a few things. It was me, but they claim it was at six o clock...that afternoon, evening, but we..were...

What is missing here?

The allegation is a "gentleman" and a boy.  He does not mention that DeOrr was with him but it is the time period that he focuses upon.  

Jessica: Earlier, it was earlier that day

DeOrre Sr.: ..with search and rescue until what, a quarter to four..?

Jessica: yeah..

DeOrre Sr.: we didn't, we never, haven't left the camp since one o clock that afternoon, so it's just a lot of hearsay, and..

it's "a lot of hearsay" rather than "it was wrong"; 

The polygraph would have to be properly conducted and should get conclusive results if it focuses upon the father's own words.  

interviewer: was anybody camping round you?

D: that we don't know is...I come to find, I didn't know the area, and I didn't know, I ..there, it's very open but you can't see much ...there's a road that goes up and along the top - we're camped underneath the reservoir, basically right below it, and you can go up above the reservoir, and I didn't even know the road was, did that, I didn't know the road was up there, and as I travelled up there myself, I could've found out [?] I could see everything that was going on at the campsite, but you can't see out - you can't see up, you can't see round and if anyone comes to the bottom of your camp ground you can't even see they are...
interviewer: So they could've come to your...

The father's habit of speech is to speak rapidly and lots of self censoring.  We note that this does not seem to change or shift much, from topic to topic.  

This appears to refer to something unintentional occurring.  

D: they could've come in and you could never know it. The water was not very, it was not a fast running creek, but it is quite loud moving through the logs and things like that, so hearing range is not all that far either..so's you couldn't hear anyone coming up either.
Interviewer: so he was just kind of playing, you guys were doing your thing and then you noticed...

D: he was playing with grandpa

J: he, yeah, he was with my grandfather

D:.he was over, he was getting ready for a nap, uh say it was almost, by that time it was almost two, and he usually takes his nap, um...we was just, yeah, we decided we were going to go a little exploring, and he was going to be good with grandpa by the campfire, we weren't more than fifty..

I continue to expect that he would say "I" as he is the father, and this is an up close and very personal situation.  

J: ten minutes

D: fifty yards away and ten minutes, but for time, we, I, seen him to the point I figured out he was gone and I come back up to the creek and I actually seen, there were some things down by there, some little minnows that I thought he would just love, so when I come back up to get him and I yelled over to grandpa, um, where, you know, where is little DeOrr? He, immediately shock. He says, he came up to you, because it's such a small area. That's what a lot of people, they don't understand, they just assume how could you let your child out of your sight? This area is pretty well blocked in and you can see, you, there is no way you couldn't not see him, in what we thought, and just a split second your whole world is upside down and - vanished, there's not a trace found. That's the reason why they, this been called on the news a suspension, because it is not a suspension, but there's not s single trace of him. This child loses stuff. He's two, almost three, anybody who has a child that age range knows, they leave trails, they lose stuff..

Here the name is used, but not towards or about his son, but in a quote of what was said to someone else.  

Note the references to "child" again.  

The confused pronouns suggests deception.  

Note the change now:  he is missing and the father changes to present tense with "I come back up..." which is followed by "so when I come back to get him..." which then changes again, with the yelling to the grandfather.  

This is very likely to prove to be deceptive and stemming from his imagination of a scenario rather than what happened.  He has literally imagined the time frame of when his son "would have" been "gone", and what he "would do" at this time, with a pleasant story about seeing minnows.  This portrays him in a positive role, which, the need itself, tells us otherwise.  

The constant use of child shows awareness of risk.  

Even if the death was unintended, did it come from parental negligence? Is he signaling this by his repetition of "child."

J: shoes come off..anything

D: There's just nothing. There's a possibility that he may be with somebody, and that's giving us some hope. It's a bad thing that he will be not with us right now but it also means there is a good chance that he is alive and with somebody, so we're trying every aspect we can, any aspect we can..

As a biological parent, we expect him to speak of hope for himself.  He does not.  Here is someone who doesn't mind saying, while his son is missing, that he does not even know what day it is, but when it relates to his son, it is "we" and "us" and "our."  It is an unnatural refuse to pull close to his son.  

This is distancing language and is related to the "chance" that his son is still "alive." 

Interviewer: is that what your gut tells you?

D: Yes. As his father I believe and I think after being up there, and a lot of people agree with me a lot, that he is no longer up the mountain anymore. The searching advances they used, and was just very thorough for miles, there wasn't a stone left unturned, there still isn't, and we're going to continue to search, but being his father also, that's what my heart and my gut tell me but I'm not sure, so that's where I'm asking the public's help -anything - I'm, Lhima HC Sherriff are handling this but they're not designed for systems quite like this, they've got two phone lines, and please be patient, they're doing the best they can, and we all are, and we will find him.

"I believe and I think after being up there..." is weak, and shows an insecurity and need to "have others join in" with "a lot of people agree with me a lot"

This is to join himself with all of police, officials, rescue, etc...the good guys.  He and they are one.  He and they think alike.  He cannot be on the suspicious list, he is one of them.  


There is linguistic indication that the parents had some form of argument when they first discussed the child being missing and it was directly related to some delay in calling 911.  

The father does most of the talking, while the mother does less.  The mother does not give signals of deception, but in context, this is a small sample, compared to the father.

The father's use of "my son" precludes child abuse particularly because it comes during the time of the child missing.  What does this tell us?

If the father has done anything to the child, it was not intentional.  The same could be said if the grandfather or someone else did something by accident; was not watching him when he fell into water, and so on. 

The child is not likely a victim of ongoing child abuse but of an unintended death likely from negligence.   

This means an unintended event. 

The father's intense focus upon the rescue operation is in stark contrast to his silence about what his son would be experiencing.  

The self-censoring and change of pronoun is duly noted, especially for topics.  

We also have the word "dead" used twice; which in context, is most unexpected and unsettling and should be considered as possible leakage.  

The father and mother both express confidence in the search and plead for it to not end. This may be due to the professionals they encountered and not realistic hope since they have said nothing about DeOrr.  

Question:  What do you make of no reliable denial?

Answer:    There is no context for it.  This is the fault of the interviewer, but even so, the parents could have issued it when they talked of "hearsay", including the sighting of a "gentleman" in a truck that was a "problem."



The father showed how he controls the interviewer (not the interview) by turning the tables with asking if media had questions for him.  Was the interviewer unprepared?  Did he miss all the indications of sensitivity including the delay in calling for assistance?  
Did he not want to ask about calling "Search and Rescue"?

We let the subject "control the interview", but not us.  By the  we mean that we let the subject talk on and on, but not at the expense of noting his sensitivity and missing grand opportunities for information. 

We let them speak on and on (a good point) but we ask the relevant questions and do not let ourselves be 'de railed' in the way he was. (the major failure, thus far, in the interview). 

Thus far, the Interviewer has not gone to this point, which is critical and should be central for the Interviewer:  clear the parents, especially the father, and then move in the same extending circles in the interview, as law enforcement does in its investigation, and as search and rescue does in its own action.  It is the most natural and sensible manner.  

The Interviewer fails to raise suspicion nor does he ask outright: "Have you taken a polygraph?" 

"What would you say to people who suspect you might have had an accident and hidden your son?"in any form. 


Lastly, the father' extreme need to place himself in the truck:  

What caused this sensitivity?

I : do you plan to hold a vigil down here? I guess you haven't even thought about it. Do you want the community in Idaho Falls to rally? I know they don't want a lot of people up there.

D: that's what we're not real sure. I don't, yet again, as a father who's very concerned, with the whole family, we'll tell you 'yes, if we can get the whole state of Idaho up there we would love to' - but in such a small area that has been combed and combed and combed, something may have been missed but I don't know. 

The subject has done a lot of 'self-censoring' or interrupting of himself, which  indicate missing information.  It would be interesting to learn if this is his normal speech pattern, but this could only be learned in listening to him on a topic unrelated to the disappearance of his son. 

Please note that he says, "as a father who's very concerned" is a need to persuade his audience that his is concerned.  This is sensitive. 

What makes him feel a need to be perceived as a "very concerned" father, so much so, that he is repetitive with it?

Speaking for himself and for his wife, seated with him, the word "we" is appropriate.  While using "we" as a norm, based upon this standard, the use of "I" becomes very important.  

The pronoun "I" comes in "I don't know", of which context is him not knowing if his son could still be there, but missed since they searched "combed", "combed" and "combed" (3 times).  

The broken "I" earlier, where he introduces himself as a father (see above), this broken "I" is not completed.  

I've been trying,,,I'm gonna be getting with the Lhima HC Sherriff in Snake River, sorry, the Salmon - Snake and River-.Salmon Search and Rescue, to see what their thoughts on everything is, and trust me with such a small area, one hundred and seventy five people, there was nowhere to park, nowhere to walk, there was grid searches up from one end - there's ridges from one side to the other and they're not very far apart, and they was all searched, all the way down to the bottom all the way above the reservoir. The rest itself, not a lot of people know the place. The reservoir itself isn't but maybe a few feet deep. If you're up on top you can see the bottom of the centre. If you're looking at the middle you can see the bottom of it, so everything has been 100% thoroughly checked but nobody can guarantee me 100% so I'm gonna keep looking.

In Statement Analysis, we highlight the word "sorry" no matter what the context is, when we are viewing a possible suspect in a crime.  

It could be "leakage" regardless of context. 

It shows up in the language of the guilty. 
Note the volume of words dedicated to the searchers and compare it to the utter absence of words about his son. 

Jessica: I just, somebody at the store, um at Leador, said, it was one of the ladies that had worked at the store, said that they saw, um, a gentleman and a younger blonde boy matching our description of our son, really filthy, buying candy for him, and he was just bawling, in a black truck. That is the only other...

Note that the "younger blonde boy" did not match "my son", nor even "our son" but it only matched "our description of our son", which is distancing language. 

The maternal instinct, no matter how powerful a paternal instinct, is seen as stronger.  Recall a "mother bear robbed of its whelps" in history, along with Solomon's note worthy decision, and that mothers will remain in "denial" longer than fathers, in language of acceptance of the death of a missing child.  

It is not what I expected to hear at this point.  

DeOrre Sr.: There's a problem, my pick-up truck is black..

This is an unexpected statement.  Is he saying this is a problem because he was seen driving his son, filthy, buying candy or is it a problem simply because it does not make sense?

Why is it a "problem"?  

Better yet, why didn't the interviewer ask him at this point?

Also:  as my expectation is to hear a biological mother say "my" at this point and not "our", please note that "our" is more often the language of step parenting but when it is biological and not two parents speaking together as one, it is often a signal that the parents have seriously discussed divorce; hence, distancing language. 

Is it possible that even the delay in calling 911 along with the pressure of a lost child has caused this in the mother's language?  Listen to what she says next: 

Jessica: he drives a black truck.

Not, "my husband drives a black truck" or plainly, "DeOrre drives a black truck..." but "he."

It is not a 'smoking gun' of evidence, but  another element that adds up to a conclusion   

DeOrre Sr.: as a family, we went down to get a few things. It was me, but they claim it was at six o clock...that afternoon, evening, but we..were...

Note the immediate "rebuttal" of sorts:

1.  He drives a black pick up truck" answered with:

2.  Not, "yes I do" but "as a family" (plural) "we went down" and then why "we went down" giving the reason why they went down, followed by:

3.  Admission, "It was me"followed by rebuttal:

4.  "but" and to the time period. 

This is not to deny going but to classify it within time, but before time, company.  

Jessica: Earlier, it was earlier that day

DeOrre Sr.: ..with search and rescue until what, a quarter to four..?

Jessica: yeah..

DeOrre Sr.: we didn't, we never, haven't left the camp since one o clock that afternoon, so it's just a lot of hearsay, and..

This statement is very concerning.  

a.  "we didn't" is stopped. 

b.  "we never" is stopped.

c.  "haven't left" is a dropped pronoun, removing himself from this.  

d.  Note the need to dismiss as "hearsay"

This should have caused the Interviewer to ask him if he had driven with his son, alone, at any time in the day.  Sometimes time frames can be mix ups, but it is the responsibility of the Interviewer to ask.  


The poor quality of the interview leaves not only the father in control of information, but leaves the reader with more questions than answers.  It is very poorly done.  

interviewer: was anybody camping round you?

D: that we don't know is...I come to find, I didn't know the area, and I didn't know, I ..there, it's very open but you can't see much ...there's a road that goes up and along the top - we're camped underneath the reservoir, basically right below it, and you can go up above the reservoir, and I didn't even know the road was, did that, I didn't know the road was up there, and as I travelled up there myself, I could've found out [?] I could see everything that was going on at the campsite, but you can't see out - you can't see up, you can't see round and if anyone comes to the bottom of your camp ground you can't even see they are...
interviewer: So they could've come to your...

  We note the self censoring coupled with broken pronouns.  It is concerning.  

"I come to hear" is present tense. 

Note the change from "we" to "I" being very important to him:  it is about the area.  It is likely, according to the language, that he is very sensitive about having chosen this spot for his family to camp.  

D: they could've come in and you could never know it. The water was not very, it was not a fast running creek, but it is quite loud moving through the logs and things like that, so hearing range is not all that far either..so's you couldn't hear anyone coming up either.


Interviewer: so he was just kind of playing, you guys were doing your thing and then you noticed...

D: he was playing with grandpa

J: he, yeah, he was with my grandfather

The parents relate to him differently.  "Grandpa" is a word a child might use, while "my" shows the biological being more likely.  "Grandpa" often a term of endearment, suggests that the father does not have, at this point, animosity (blame) towards Grandpa.  I wonder if Jessica felt the same.  

Jessica: we'll continue to look until he is found - we don't care how long it takes, we, and we think as many people that have shared the story and continue to share his pictures and things like that, if somebody has him, they'll eventually bring him back...and they will come forward with some sort of information.


D: somebody will come forward wondering where this child has come from. That may not be the case, but it could be, so that's why we're trying to look at this aspect as well.

The use of the word child could:

a.  Be a signal that he, father, was a victim of child abuse in his life
b.  a signal of abuse of the son, which is not consistent with other language 
c.  a signal of fear that a child molester has him 

it is associated with child abuse, but it is in the follow up questions that we learn the details, should the context not tell us. 

I: and you want people to keep sharing?

The interviewer's own inexperience, or nervousness could be the reason for this.  It is difficult to learn and often helpful to have video taped sessions reviewed, something very few enjoy, but most all say helps them grow in their use of the principles of analytical interviewing.  

J: yes, please keep sharing photos.

D: yes. Keep sharing his photos, keep him in your mind, your hearts and your prayers, and just keep looking, keep your eyes open, please. Social media in general, in public just keep your eyes open and keep sharing.

I: tell me about the blanket.

Jessica: this is his blanket. He doesn't go anywhere without his blanket, his cup, or his monkey, and all three of them were left at the campground. And since he..

D: All three has to be with him.

It is not unusual for husbands and wives to finish each others' sentences.  The majority of finishing sentences comes from wives. Here, he is the dominant speaker 

J: Yes.

D: He will trip over them if he has to, but they are going with him, and this is the first time since he's been born, pretty much, that he's been without these things...and that's another reason why we were wondering.

I would have liked to hear the child's name.  If this is an accident/cover up, the guilt can cause such distancing language.  

J: Yes, because this is the blanket that we brought him home in from the hospital, this is his, this is what comforts him and at all times.

D: This is an exact replica of a security blanket, for everybody this is his actual blanket - he does not go anywhere without it, that's our other concern of why.

J: Yeah, and I..

Interviewer: should he be out there and happen to see this, what would you say?

Keep in mind that the Interviewer directed them to speak directly to their son: 

D: We're looking for you, son, and we will find y,oh, and we love you more than anything in the world. You have a lot of people who love you and who are looking for you, buddy, we'll find you - Daddy will find you.

J: We won't stop looking until we get you home.

I: [inaudible].- is there anything you want to add?

J: Just if somebody has him, please don't hurt him, just bring him home safely to us.

Mother introduces "hurt" which causes us to wonder if the unintended death (truck, water, falling, etc) caused hurt. 

D: No matter what it takes.

J: ..where he belongs. Even if you have to just leave him at a store where somebody else will see him and bring him home safely to us. I don't - just drop him off somewhere where -

D: And if that's not the case..

J: - somebody is at so they can see him and bring him home.

D: And if that may not be the case, I will, we will search for you, and search for you, and search for you, until we find you, no matter how long it takes, no matter what we gotta overcome, we will find you,son.

Analysis Conclusion:

The father referenced concern over his son relegating it to the past, meaning he no longer has concern.  This is a past tense reference of a missing child which is often a linguistic signal of knowing the child is dead.  

                           Does the rest of the analysis affirm or deny this?

*The father used distancing language regarding his son, avoiding his name.
*The father showed no concern, whatsoever, as to what his son was experiencing at the time of the interview.  Nothing is said about his son's food, shelter, health, sleep, and so on.  This is to affirm his death. 
*The father lavishes heavy praise upon searchers and recuse who failed to find his son.  This is done only after innocent parents have accepted their child's death, or by guilty parents wishing to psychologically allign themselves with those who are law keepers. 

The father also had a need to run the interview's topic away from his son. 
The father had a need to seek sympathy, not for his son, but for himself. 
The father had a need to persuade his audience that in an emergency, he acted like someone in an emergency.  This need tells us that he did not act like he was in an emergency because he knew no emergency for his son existed. 

The father used the word "dead" twice. 

The father stated that he, himself "was in trouble."

The father used the word "risk" in linguistic context of calling 911. 

The father debated the mother about calling 911.  

This child is deceased and the father knows it, which is why he does not have any present tense concerns for his son, and dedicates no wording to any possible concern a father would have for a toddler. 

There is great sensitivity about the truck, which is problematic for the father. 

At the time of this interview, the father is withholding information about what happened to his son, revealing that his son is dead, and suppressing information.  

In my first analysis, I covered all of these concerns, but only with "maybe" and "possibly" but while considering the overall written context, there are too many "maybe's" and far too many "possibly" points that come together to bring me, as analyst, to a conclusion: 

The father has guilty knowledge over his son's disappearance, signaling to us that the son is dead. 

The mother has gone along with the father's lead. 

The father controlled the interview and the interviewer allowed him to, and avoided brining the father to the point of critical information.  

The poor quality of the interview, notwithstanding, this father knows what happened to his son, and is covering up.