Tuesday, November 3, 2015

The Disappearance of David Hartley, Part Two, by Peter Hyatt

In this second part, let us listen to David Hartley's widow, Tiffany Hartley, answer questions from Greta Van Susteren and allow her own words to guide us.  

Scenario:  Tiffany and David Hartley went to Falcon Lake, Texas, for the purpose of taking a picture of a sunken church.  They discussed the trip, to be made by jet ski, with David warning her that due to Mexican drug "pirates", they would be risking be kidnapped or killed in their quest to get a photograph.  

Tiffany returned, on a jet ski, and called 911 to report that her husband, David, had been shot and killed.  Her description of their last few moments was like the remake of "Titanic" where the two stars of the movie part, with Kate Winslet's character having to "let go" and "say goodbye" to Leo Dicaprio's character.  

Texas Sheriff Ziggy, a border activist, refused to offer Tiffany a polygraph because "he knew" she was truthful. 

Mexican investigators were stalled in their investigation, by Tiffany, herself, who refused to return to be interviewed again, saying she feared arrest. 

When it was announced that an arrest had been made, Mexican officials denied that it was related to David's murder. 

What was the real reason Tiffany and David risked their lives on this trip?

What do Tiffany's own words tell us?

We let Tiffany guide us in our opinion.  

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: Tiffany, what happened?

This is the best open ended question and is the most powerful question an investigator or journalist can ever ask.  

 It allows Tiffany to:

a.  Begin where her priority is
b.  To chose her own words
c.   To include the information she deems important. 

Statement Analysis and Polygraphy Lesson: 

The average person has a vocabulary of approximately 25,000 words.  Highly intelligent and educated will have more, and others, less, but this is the average and it shows how powerful the human brain is.  

When asked to tell, "What happened?", the person can go to experiential memory immediately and begin the processing of the brain.  

1.  Go into this dictionary and choose which words to use and which words not to use.  

2.  Decide what verb tenses to use, past or present. 

3.  Decide where to place each word next to which word to communicate (syntax) effectively.  To randomly grab the words and not place them in order would be to fail to communicate. 

4.  Decide which information comes first which is to prioritize and give the most important information first, and the lesser important information after that, and so on.  

How long does it take for this to happen and come together to communicate an answer to "What happened?"

The processing time in the human brain is less than a micro-second of time.

This gives us our extremely high accuracy rate.

When someone is deceptive, this speedy process is disrupted because the person must now move away from revealing words that will implicate her, which is to cause internal stress.  This is why polygraphs, when using the subject's own words, can be so effective. 

TIFFANY HARTLEY: David and I were on the Mexico side taking pictures. And we were heading back. Just had some boats come after us and started chasing us and started shooting at us. I had several bullets going over me and hitting behind me. And I looked back and David was hit.

What is the most important thing that the brain processed?  This is why we always listen carefully with special attention to the first thing that the person says.   In written statements, the first sentence, after the introduction, sometimes even reveals the motive. 

"The Expected Versus the Unexpected" in Analysis. 

Given any scenario, we begin analysis with the presupposition that the person is truthful and the person is innocent of wrong doing.  

This is not a moral or ethical platitude, but an expectation for analysis.  

Assuming that she is innocent, what do we expect to hear in response to, "What happened?"

The expectation is, "My husband, David, was shot" to be the very first thing that the subject will say.  She might even say, "My husband, David, was shot while we were on vacation" or "while we were on a lake."  For a very detail orientated person, perhaps even "My husband was killed on Falcon Lake while we were..."

Statement Analysis thus deals with language that we did not expect or anticipate being heard.  We allow for the words to "confront" us. 

In order to conclude that one is deceptive, the subject must "talk us into" believing he or she is deceptive.  

Most people would conclude that Tiffany's priority would be her husband, instead, we are thus 'confronted' with something else:

  Jurisdictional geography. 

This is to say that location was part of the opening sentence that specifies something that is the subject's priority here.  

What could possibly rival in importance the shooting death of David?

1.  This sets priority.  

It is critical to the subject that she establishes on who's side of the lake that David was shot.  

Why would it matter to this degree, that it is part of her opening sentence, where, precise jurisdiction lies in the death of her husband. 

In analysis, we conclude that jurisdiction is of the highest priority to Tiffany Hartley. 

As much time has passed, we have since learned that Mexican authorities suspected wrong doing, and that she was lying about what happened to David.  

We learn that she was on the "Mexico side" (not the "Mexican side") which means that it is up to Mexican officials to investigate, not US officials.  She would later go on to say that she did not want to return to Mexico because she feared arrest.   The priority is her location:  she was not on the U.S. side, where they would have jurisdiction to investigate.  

2.  The word, "And" indicates that there is a continual thought connecting her first sentence to her second, but the information is missing.  Between the word "pictures" and "And", there is missing information. 

3.  Note "we were heading back" sounds like story telling, rather than reporting. 

4.  "Just" is a word which reduces or minimizes an event via the means of comparison.  "The car costs just..." means that the price of the car is attractive when compared to something else.  Why would the 'murder' of her husband cause her to use the word "just" as if to minimize it?

5.  "Just had some boats" has no pronoun.  She did not say "we had some boats...." or even "we just had some boats...", but without the pronoun, she distances herself from the event.  In only these few words, we have two issues associated with "just" that cause us to seek to learn if this is deceptive.  This is a lack of commitment to what she herself asserts.  

6.  "some boats":  Note that her story had already been reported and that pirates in boats chased them and shot him was already announced.  "Some" boats sound like just any boats out there, rather than something up close and very personal.  

Did you notice who was chasing them?  It was not people, nor pirates, nor drug cartel members:  

it was boats chasing them. 

This is to conceal identity which is a strong signal:  Tiffany knows the general identity of those who steered the boats towards her, or, in the least, the identity of those who shot her husband.  

7.  "Just had some boats come" uses the present tense verb, "come", reducing reliability.  Already in her answer, we can indicate deception.   It was a past event and it should have been reported as such.  This is also to reduce commitment and thereby reduces reliability. 

8.  Chronological order:  When someone recalls from memory,   It should be like a parade of events passing before their eyes, moving in chronological order.   Here she says:

"Just had some boats come after us" which puts the boats in motion in the present tense, but then she says, 

"started chasing us..." which she reported already;

When one is deceptive, it becomes difficult to keep track of order. 

Remember Casey Anthony had the smell of decomposition in her trunk?  She said, "dead squirrels climbed up into the engine."

Most people believe that once dead, squirrels are incapable of climbing.  It is a short, and rather comical, example of what happens when one seeks to deceive rather than report truthfully. 

9.  Activities Begun:  Take careful note when someone reports activities that are begun, but without completion:

"started chasing us" instead of "chased us" and
"started shooting at us" instead of "shot at us"

The past tense verbs show commitment to memory and the lack indicates that she is not committed to her account, which resembles story telling rather than a truthful account, in the past tense, from experiential memory. 

         This is why she refused to take a polygraph.  

10.  "several bullets"

Instead of saying she was fired on and missed "I had several bullets going over me and hitting behind me" uses additional language, which is unnecessary and sounds dramatic.  This is supposed to be a report of her husband being murdered and she has not gotten to it yet.  Someone on a jet ski, being chased by boats, would not likely think of the number of bullets ("several") and their locations.  

11. And I looked back and David was hit

She has yet to say her husband was murdered.  
"And" indicates missing information.
"I looked back" shows concern over her positioning. 

12.  Passivity  "David was hit" is unexpected.  Her husband was reported murdered.  Passivity in language indicates, often, a concealing of responsibility and or identity.  

Since her husband was murdered, we should now wonder if the passive "David was hit" indicates that she knows who shot him, yet, he was only "hit" still; and not shot.  

The passivity is most unexpected.  This is a personal intrusive crime that took away her husband, David.  We expect clear language:  "those $%^&* killed my husband!"  

It was not "boats" chasing her, or "boats" shooting her or her husband.  This is a deliberate attempt to conceal identity.  The reservation is not expected when a spouse is murdered.  Rage, fearless rage, and "no filter" like anger, is the expected.  

She was asked about the "Mexican pirates" as they were in a known drug area.  She later said that David knew it was a known drug area, but took her anyway.  She said that David even talked to her about the possibility of being kidnapped, as I touched upon in part one.  

  This part of her story did not likely sit well with David's family as she portrayed him as someone so incredibly selfish that he was willing to put his wife in harm's way just to get pictures, unless she had admitted to them the real reason for going to the Mexican side of Falcon Lake, where, she admits, drug wholesalers would be present.  

Well, after we had taken the pictures at the church, we were on our way out when we saw boat outside of this little brush area that was underwater.

Her husband was murdered, but it was just "a" boat, again, not drivers or people or even "Mexicans on a boat", or "Americans on a boat. "

 In spite of being 'prepared for possible kidnapping and murder', he got his pictures.  

Always take note when one claims to have seen, or thought, or heard, for another.  It is usually an indication that there is a 'need to share' in affirming an activity:  it is weak.  The subject does not want to say "I saw", so she reaches for the weaker, "we saw", as if to make it sound like there is another eye witness, not just her own testimony.  This is indicated as weak. 

When we were coming out, we saw them. They just waved at us, like we were -- you know, friendly, very friendly wave. We were on our way -- so we just continued, took a few more pictures, continued out. And we were, I don`t know, maybe halfway to the U.S. I can`t really give you a great idea of where exactly.

Here the subject feels the need to share everything; every thought, opinion, vision, etc.  She even stayed with the plural regarding taking pictures.  
"Friendly" is sensitive, as seen through repetition.  Note the broken sentence:

"They just waved at us like we were..."  and stops herself.  What was she going to say?  Was she going to say "like we were friends?"  This would support Pat Brown's assertion that David and Tiffany went deliberately to purchase drugs and it went bad.  

"So we just continued" tells us "why" they did something, yet it does not have anything within the text that would indicate a need to explain why.  This is a point of sensitivity as she has a need to explain, rather than report what happened. 

Note "you know" increases sensitivity as she considers the interviewer's presence at this point. 

Note her last sentence in terms of how many sensitivity indicators are there regarding location:

I can't "really" give you a "great" idea of where "exactly":  

Deception indicated.  

She knows the exact location and could not bring herself to say "I don't know where we were."  Three qualifiers in one sentence tell us of her need to persuade to the contrary. 

I believe that the struggle with the awkward language here is because she is in experiential memory, and struggling to keep out certain words which reveal the reason for the trip to Mexico. 

What appears to be so awkward to us may be completely understood when the truth in its entirety comes out. 

If, for example, she and David had gone to make a cocaine purchase for resale in the United States and wishes to report what happened without implicating herself in the drug deal, the cutting up of words from experiential memory which causes the awkwardness to the listener, may make sense. 

Please also note that some investigators, especially criminal and insurance investigators have an 'intuitive' sense of deception especially when they hear this type of description.  In training, they often excel as science is added to their intuitiveness confirming their talent.  

VAN SUSTEREN: Were you riding side by side at the time you were flag or was he behind you? What happened?

Since the subject was committed to talking about the locations of each of them, the Interviewer goes with her.  She had to "look back" to see that he was hit.  Pat Brown had said that if this was really on land, and not on water, the story works where she ran and looked back. 

TIFFANY HARTLEY: He was between me and the boats. So he was keeping himself between me and the three boats that were shooting.

Another sensitivity indicator:  "so" explains why she did something.  

Please note that it was not someone who shot her husband, but three boats were shooting.  If we take the passive reference above, "David was hit" which passivity is used to conceal responsibility; along with the sensitive "friendly, very friendly", and now that "three boats" are shooting, it is likely that she knows who shot her husband and is deceptively attempting to portray the shooter as someone unknown, even assigning responsibility to boats shooting. 

She now elevates him to role of hero in her story.  Please note who was doing the shooting:

the boats were.  

Again, this is a deceptive indication that she wants to conceal those that she and her husband dealt with. 

If, as criminal profiler Pat Brown says, this took place on land, it is possible that David did try to save her allowing for her to jump back on the jet ski and get away from them.  The deception may be simply due to the fact that this was a drug deal gone wrong.  

VAN SUSTEREN: Did they say anything to you these people? Did they ever get close enough to say anything to you?

Compound question:   did they say anything?  did they get close enough?  

Interviewers:  Avoid compound questions because they give the subject the choice of which to answer.  

TIFFANY HARTLEY: No, they didn't.

We cannot be certain which one she is answering.  

VAN SUSTEREN: Had you seen them before the encounter?

This is a "yes or no" question for the subject herself.  It is the easiest of which to lie yet it reveals that Van Susteren may have been suspicious of the awkward story line.  

TIFFANY HARTLEY: No. We haven't seen any boats from the time that we had launched to the time that we were at the church.

Deception indicated.  She answered the question, "no" but then betrayed her answer by not answering the question:

"we haven't seen any boats" which refused to answer the question about seeing "them." 

Her need to change people into boats further affirms that she is concealing the identity of those on the boat.  This also makes sense to the "Drug Purchasing Attempt" theory.  

. "we" and not "I".  The question is directed to her.  She can only conclusively answer for herself.  She cannot say that she knows all that David did not see.  David is dead.  

2.  "haven't" is present tense 

3.  "any boats" not any of the shooters or people involved.  This tripped her up later as well. 

Instead of saying "I did not see any of them" she is deceptive. 

This is why Tiffany could not take a polygraph.  

VAN SUSTEREN: So, as you are fleeing, bullets are flying, you look at your husband, is that right?

TIFFANY HARTLEY: Yes, I saw two shots hit next to meAnd I looked back at my husband, that's when I saw, that he was flying over the jet ski.

Note that while on a jet ski, at a high speed, being chased with bullets flying behind her, she "saw" "two" shots; even able to know the number. 
"And" indicates missing information here. 
Note that he is not David, but "my husband" here.  What caused the change?
Note that he "was flying" and not "he flew".
She was able to see all of this, looking backwards, while operating a jet ski at high speed.  She does not use plain language, and cannot use past tense language, establishing commitment because she is not speaking from memory. 

VAN SUSTEREN: What did you do next?

TIFFANY HARTLEY: I turned around to go help him, see if I could get him back on my jet ski and get out of there.

Here, instead of telling what she did, she has the need to tell not only what she did, but the reason why she did it.  The question is plain and open:  What did you do next?  When someone tells us why they did something, they are telling us more than what we asked for.  This is sensitive information.  

Why would a wife of a shot man need to tell us why she turned around?  Why would she feel the need to tell us she went to help him after he was hit?

This did not proceed from memory. 

VAN SUSTEREN: When you were doing that, when you were attempting to help your husband, where were those other boats?

Since they were "chasing" her and "shooting" at her, and they were going at high speed.  Now when she stops, it would be that the "three" speeding boats would catch her.  But this would not work for her heroine of the story, so their positioning changes in mid story:  

TIFFANY HARTLEY: Two were in front of me quite a ways away. One actually came up to my boat, my jet ski, and they pointed the gun at me. They were talking amongst each other and pointed it back at me. Then they decided to leave. ...

Deception indicated.  

Here she cannot keep her story straight and is caught.  They were now close enough to hear them speaking?  

Please note:  she does not tell us what language they were speaking, as this would have given us indication of identity.

Note the change of language: 

One came up to my boat.  The "boat" is changed to "jet ski".  This should cause the investigators to learn if she and David had approached drug dealers in a boat or were taken to dealers via a boat and something went wrong. 

Note that pronouns are never wrong.  When pronouns are "wrong" it is deception indicated:

"They" (more than one; not singular) pointed "the gun", (singular) at "me."

Were more than one pirate all holding the same gun?  Note that "the" gun rather than "a" gun. Oops. First comes the introduction with the word "a" gun; and then comes the article, "the" after recognition. 

The two types of speech exempt from Personal Internal Subjective Dictionary are:

Pronouns and Articles. 

They never lie. 

They are never wrong.  

Deception is indicated. 

"They were talking amongst each other" indicates that they were close enough for her to hear them, even though above she was not close enough to talk to them.  This is simply the error that liars make in being unable to keep track of their lies. Talking amongst each other is casual listening of casual conversations, yet she heard them.  This is another indication that she is withholding the identity of the shooter. 

"and pointed it back at me"  Who?  They pointed it?  Did they still have a single gun and now pointed it back "again"?  She has utterly lost track of her story because it did not happen.

"Then they decided to leave" indicates that she knows that while they were "talking among themselves" she knew what they were thinking:  she could tell they made a decision.  How could she know?

Instead of reporting what happened, such as "they left", the extra words give us additional information: she was privy to their conversations.

Regarding the change of language, please consider how powerful pronouns are, and in the power of pronouns, the possessive pronoun "my" often predates human speech in children.  Children take ownership of things, with "my", including the opening and closing of the hand as a signal. 

As humans, we are "possessive creatures" and desire to posses or own things, and this often gives us away. 

OJ Simpson and Patsy Ramsey both used the intuitive, "my guilt" in their language. 

Here, she uses "my boat" and then "my jet ski", which is a change of language...

or, perhaps, she is telling the truth, even while mixing it up. 

It should be considered that David and Tiffany Hartley both took Jet skis to Mexico, on Falcon Lake, and climbed up and entered into boats, which is why she is so intent on concealing identity, and that when they went to purchase drugs or resale, they were met with robbery instead, taken for amateurs, instead, with David being shot, and she allowed to escape.  

The language that is on the water may not be dry land, but may be what happened, at some point, on one of the Mexican drug cartel's boats.

I believe that this is what Mexican authorities know about the case:  two Americans entered Mexico to buy drugs and got what often people get in that business:  violence.  

We learned later on that although Tiffany denied all knowledge of drug cartels, she slipped out that the house she rented was previously rented by or from the drug cartel.  

We learned of their interest in money making seminars, and even as we all do, Tiffany showed her love of money in a shopping spree shortly after her husband's death saying "David would have wanted me to..."  

VAN SUSTEREN: Did you say anything to them?

TIFFANY HARTLEY: And meet up with the other two boats.

She knew their plans just as she knew their intentions and decision making process.   

Is it possible that David Hartley's family could listen to this and not know she was lying?  It may be that they now know the truth and let the story go due to the drug purchasing embarrassment.   

VAN SUSTEREN: Did you say anything to them?

TIFFANY HARTLEY: Yes, I told them please don't shoot, don't shoot.

And the ruthless, decapitating killers, who fired many shots, scoring a direct head shot on David, while in motion on a boat, in choppy waters, also just missed all of the shots on her, but then found it in their hearts to not shoot her.  Could Greta Van Sustren buy this?

VAN SUSTEREN: At that point your husband was there. Was he within reach of you?

Listen carefully and consider how much she knows about them, their conversations and their intentions, all the while, claiming this posture:  

TIFFANY HARTLEY: I had a hold of him and I had a hold of my ski. We were both in the water, at that time

It was a "jet ski" and then it was a "boat" and now it is a "ski":  a change of language should reflect a change in reality.  If it doesn't, deception is indicated.  

VAN SUSTEREN: So how did you get away? If you got in other boat, and you are hanging on to your husband, hanging on to the jet ski, what happened?

TIFFANY HARTLEY: After I told them please don't shoot, they left and went with the other two boats. I got on my boat and I was trying to pull him up on my ski. And I couldn't get him up. 

I felt like God was telling me I had to go otherwise I wasn't going to make it out. I had to go past them. So I got on my ski and I had to leave David behind.

There are many signals of deception in this answer:

1.  She "told" them "please" is inconsistency in communicative language.  "Told" is strong, authoritative.  "Please" is request.  The incongruity here is noted. 

2.  Next:   They "left"; with "left" being highly sensitive with missing information.  It means her focus is not moving ahead in the story, but she remains behind at the location, in her mind.  This is why we indicate it as missing information.  

3.  They not only left, but they "went with the other boats" would indicate knowledge of them as connected and communicating, further affirming what she said earlier.  

They were too far away to hear anything. 
They were close enough to hear them talking among themselves.
They were friendly, very friendly, waving.  
She understood they argued and came to an agreement. 

Did she watch the one boat pull away, and go to meet the other boats, and then on to another location?  

All this careful listening and understanding while "boats" are talking and "boats" are deciding" and she "told" them "please"  while holding her 200lb+ husband with one hand, while on her "boat", "ski" "jet ski" with the other hand, after being composed enough to "tell" them not to shoot, please not to shoot.

4.  Note she got on her "boat"; change of language.
5.  Note next she tried to pull him on her "ski"; change of language. 
6.  "And" has missing information (lots of it)

7.  Note inclusion of what she felt:  that is, her emotions are in the "logical" or "perfect" place in the story; something that does not happen in reality (in reality, it takes time to process emotions, which is why, in truthful statements, emotions are found after the event, but in story telling, the emotions are in the "high point" of the story, grabbing the listener's interest)
7. Note inclusion of divinity in her story:  this shows the need for Divine witness, a weakness
8.  "Otherwise" is the same as "so, since, therefore, because" as it is "because" if she did not leave, she would die:  the center hero of the story. 

9.  Not only did she have to survive, and she had God talking to her...all after she survived the hail of gunfire that got her husband in the head; now she had to drive right back into the killing boats:  "I had to go past them"

10. "So" indicates need to explain her actions, indicating sensitivity.  Now that she is leaving him, he is "David"making "leaving" highly sensitive to the subject.  

Later, she gave the description that sounded exactly like the movie, "Titanic" where "Rose" leaves Leo:

"I felt like God was telling me..."

Always note Divinity used to justify actions and is related to deception.  

We later read of religious "eye witnesses" who were also deceptive:   they repeated back what they had read in the newspaper.  

VAN SUSTEREN: You actually drove towards those boats?

God had spoke to her to let David go and now, with bullets flying everywhere, including a direct head shot on David, she bravely goes towards the shooting boats and somehow, not even a single nick on her jet ski.  

TIFFANY HARTLEY: Yes. I had to drive towards boats, go past them to get to safety.

VAN SUSTEREN: How close did you get to them when you drove past them?

TIFFANY HARTLEY: I honestly have no idea. I didn't look at them. I just drove and went as fast as my jet ski could go.

Deception indicated. 

She knew enough to discern their conversations and internal debates and even pleaded with them, but here:

a.  "I have no idea" is not reliable, and often the bane of the lazy minded.  Yet in context, we have explicit details including hearing God talk to her.  

b.  Next she adds in the word, "honestly" to have "no idea" further affirming the deception via the need to persuade.  

She will not even ascribe human beings to have done the shooting.  

VAN SUSTEREN: What did you think the motive was?

TIFFANY HARTLEY: Who knowsWe have no idea. Most likely they just wanted money, which we don't carry on our -- with us. And it could have turned to both of us dying or me getting kidnapped, I don't know. We have no idea what the motive was.

1.  Note when someone asks a question in a response, it is very sensitive.  She asks "who knows?" when she is supposed to be in "past tense mode" which would cause me to ask:

To whom is this question directed?

This is a strong verbal indication that Tiffany Hartley knows, and has concealed the motive for shooting her husband.  Then, she gives a second indication confirming the deception here.  She does not want to "come close" to admitting knowledge of who they met with and who shot her husband and the answer as to why is self preservation. 

To tell the truth about what happened would be to implicate herself.  

If enough years go by without an arrest, perhaps she will write a book once the statute of limitations means she will be safe.  Those who sell drugs know the risks but they also know the extreme profit margin where a $1,000 investment can yield astronomical returns in a very short time, especially in drug friendly "white collar" crime locales. 

I generally do not make such comments and observations in analysis: in this case, 5 years have passed and analysis concluded years ago the deceptive nature of this case.  

The refusal to "stand alone" even though she was the only other one there, besides David, shows a psychological need to be surrounded with others. 

We find this in the language of 6 year olds in school who get in trouble, as standing alone, in guilt, is stressful.  Here, the one who experienced all of this is to answer yet,

the intuitive move is to go to "we": 

Please notice "we" have no idea.  David is dead.  Who is "we"?  Since the pronouns never lie, we can safely assume that she knows exactly why he was shot.  

2.  "We" (whoever that is) has no idea.  Next, she gives us her idea:  they just wanted money. This means she was not truthful when she said "we have no idea."

Next, we find what may be an "embedded confession" in her words.  

In guessing, she did not say:  "Most likely they wanted money"

Instead, she said, "Most likely, they just wanted money."

We noted this before, as it is a comparative word.  What is compared here?  What would one compare wanting money with?

Is this possibly an embedded admission that they "just" wanted money without giving us the drugs?  They "just" wanted money but did not want to complete the transaction.  They broke the deal.  When David protested, they threatened to shoot him and so they took off, with David taking the shot long enough to let her escape, but not really:  they easily overtook her and they let her go.  

This may explain the silence of David Hartley's family: perhaps, even though he had done wrong, he did try to save Tiffany, though weeks after his death, the removal of her wedding ring and her talk of vacation trips and shopping sprees could not have felt good to David's loved ones. 

3.  Note about money:  "which we don't carry on our, with us." is a broken sentence = missing information and it is in the present tense. 

She did not say that they did not have money with them that day, instead doing what many deceptive people do, such as addicts caught:  "I don't do drugs" which avoids the accusation, "On Monday at work, you were seen using drugs while caring for our patients, and.." 

This is to avoid the internal conflict of a direct lie. 

It is likely that when they went to buy drugs, they were robbed. 

 She did not say "we did not carry money on us" committing herself to the statement, but went to the present tense to avoid lying. 

4.  She could have been kidnapped, she said, she does not know.  After giving us ideas on motive (money) she reaffirms that "we" have "no idea" indicating that she is lying, again. 

VAN SUSTEREN: Nikki, there has been a suggestion by the investigator in Mexico and the D.A. that they don't buy this story is your thought about this?

NIKKI HARTLEY, SISTER OF MISSING JET SKIER: We don't believe it for a minute. We believe everything that we have heard from Tiffany. We've never doubted that and we stand behind her 120 percent more than we can say there was never a question or thought that ever crossed our mind and it never will.

Note the sensitivity of "120 %", and "never doubted", "never a question" and "never a thought" which is in the plural:  speaking for the family, she knows they have never even had a thought of doubt:

This shows that there are those in the family who saw through this easily discernible lie.  Five years later, the pain must still continue, and the silencing of the story must further add to the pain.  It is likely that they have witnessed Tiffany's unconcealed enthusiasm at these appearances and bristled when she was interviewed shopping at the mall.  

If she possesses the personality of one so greedy of gain to risk such a venture, they would further bristle with anger.  They may even use this to blame Tiffany for manipulating their son.  

TIFFANY HARTLEY: Today I have met with the Mexican consulate.

VAN SUSTEREN: What did they ask you, Tiffany?

TIFFANY HARTLEY: Same thing everyone else is asking me, just the story, what happened. And they are sending my story (and) document to Mexico City and also to whoever it needs to go to so they can do what needs to be done.

Note that it goes from "just" "the story", separate from "what happened" but then there is a change:  it is now "my story" being sent.  Rather than what happened, or even the truth, it is her "story" with possessive pronoun.  
note that "so" indicates sensitivity about what they are going to do with her story. 

Please note that "the story" is separate from "what happened" in the personal, internal, subjective language of Tiffany Hartley.  

Tiffany Hartley refused to take a polygraph. 

 Tiffany Hartley has steadfastly refused to take a polygraph. 

VAN SUSTEREN: Tiffany, have they indicated that they have fully exhausted the search of the area? Are they actively looking for your husband?

TIFFANY HARTLEY: I don't know if they are actively looking right now. But with that documentation they can at least start doing what they need to do and connecting with the federal police and whoever they need to. I believe that they are going do what it takes as of right now.

This next section affirms the deception and is difficult for most to understand how an interviewer can miss the lie as a professional journalist.   

When Hartley appeared on the Anderson Cooper show, she was asked, “what happened?”

HARTLEY: There were three boats that were chasing us and then one boat came up to me and saw two people in that boat. But there was a third or a fourth person in that boat. I just didn't see them.

Anderson Cooper did not ask how she was able to identify those she did not see.  

In other statements, Tiffany answered "what happened?" and showed the inability to keep track of her story.  This is what children learn early and is something universally know.  

She failed to suppress her smiles while on national television, going from network to network but as the details became blurry, one thing did emerge:

Tiffany had the need to portray Tiffany in a heroic portrait.  


But we saw three boats coming towards us, and as soon as they started coming towards us, we just kind of started leaving. We passed them, and then they started chasing us. And once they started chasing us, they started shooting, and I had seen two shots next to me on my left. And that`s when I looked back to check on David, and that`s when I saw that he had been thrown off and into the water facedown.

Here, they "kind of" "started" leaving.  The "leaving" is sensitive. 
Here, they "passed" them and then they started chasing.  After the chasing came the shooting.  
Please note that even again, she does not say "they chased us" and "they shot at us" but uses the description of activities begun, but not completed.  

Note "I had seen" rather than "I saw"

Next, note that she has 4 qualifiers to the sentence:  "I went back to him"  It is rare to see more than one, but here she has 4 qualifiers attempting to persuade: 

And I, of courseno questions askednot even thinking, just went right back to him to make sure and check and see, check on him to make sure he was OK. When I flipped him over, he was shot in the head.

1.  "of course
2.  "no questions asked"
3.  "not even thinking"
4.  "right" back to him

It is child-like lying. 

"to make sure" tells us why:  attempt to persuade us that she cares for him. 
Note that he was shot "when" she turned him over. 

She cannot keep track of her lies. 

This is the strongest indicator that she turned tail and ran for her life, as anyone would, while possessing a powerful narcissistic drive to portray herself as "front and center" in the drama.

Her husband was shot dead, but she has the need to not only protect herself from prosecution, but once she became confident, she then moved to enjoy the spotlight even more, with the Titanic-like departure, but not until she was allowed to be the heroine of her story. 

The "story" and "what happened" are two different things, and in the "what happened" she ran for her life, but in her "story" she was brave, driving towards the gun fire, and needing desperately to persuade us of her heroics: 

And a boat came up to me and tried -- you know, I don’t know.

She stopped herself from telling us what the boat came up to her to do.  Not a person, but a "boat" and the story is lost here as "you know" shows acute awareness of interviewer, with "I don't know" recognizing getting lost.  

They didn’t say anything to me,

Here she reports what was not said. 

so I don’t know what they were trying to think

"So" indicates sensitivity but notice that she does not know, not what they were thinking, but what they were "trying" to think.  This indicates that she was a part of a conversation, particularly, with the shooter. 

or what they were doing, but they left. They just left me there.

Training in Statement Analysis, even "101" training, means here, on this sentence alone, "Deception Indicated."

Thankfully, they didn’t shoot at me. They had a gun pointed at me.

Not "shoot me" but "shoot at me"  
Note "they" pointed "a" gun:  are we to believe that two or more pirates held a single gun?  This is the language that Tiffany Hartley chose.  For whatever reason, here we learn:

Tiffany Hartley was not in fear that they were going to shoot her at this point.  

And I tried getting David up on that -- on my Jet Ski, and then the three boats started heading back to me, and I just had to go. I just didn`t have enough time to get him up. And I just couldn`t do it, because he`s so much bigger than I am. That`s when I -- once I started...

"I" "I" "I" "I" = narcissim.  

"just didn't have enough time".

HARTLEY: Once I started heading back -- once I started heading back towards the U.S. side, they had shot a few more times at me.

Did she lose track of when they did not shoot at her and when they did?  Did she stop counting the bullets flying by her?  

Here is another comical lie, similar to Casey Anthony having "dead squirrels" climbing into her car:

I was on the side of my Jet Ski, between them and my Jet Ski. I was on the other side, so once I started to get going, I just went as fast as I could and didn`t look back until I couldn`t see them anymore.

Analysis Conclusion:

Tiffany Hartley is deceptive about what happened in Mexico. 
Tiffany Hartley would not pass a polygraph.  

Her words reveal someone with narcissistic leanings and a strong desire to conceal the identity of those she and her husband David met with.  

Tiffany Hartley went on to appear with the Governor of Texas in a border rally and enjoyed a short period of celebrity.  Each time she was interviewed, she said something that confirmed deception, including the admission of connecting with Mexican drug dealers through her rental.  

Cover Story

The "cover story" for the trip may have been something they both came up with before the trip, to use with family who may have questions.  This was not an implausible lie until Tiffany did what we all do:

She talked. 

She was asked about it, and due to her need to portray herself and David in positive terms, (a linguistic signal that suggested doing something wrong:  this is a principle in analysis that is always applied:  when one says "I am a great mother" is it likely that she has been accused of child abuse or neglect.  It is the need to praise that is noteworthy.  

If, for example, she is aware that she and David are now in the world of drug dealers, she would have a need to portray him and her both, as "good" people. 

In doing so, she gave us linguistic indicator of the opposite.  She began with David. 

She wanted the world to see him as a good, loving, and protective husband, so what did she say?

She went into experiential memory and told the truth. 

She and David discussed the possibility of violence, kidnapping and even death, and she revealed this. 

She did not possess the emotional intelligence (self awareness) to recognize that this high risk did not fit the cover story.  People do not risk violence, kidnapping and death, for a photo that holds no financial value.  

This should stand as a good reminder to interviewers to always keep the subject talking.  

She affirms the "great mother" principle with her need to portray herself as heroic, as well.  This, too, affirms the need to be seen as the good guy, since, in fact, she was involved in a drug transaction gone wrong. 


It does not appear that she will be arrested for her role in David's death and that Mexican investigators' efforts for justice were met with a lack of cooperation on the part of U.S. officials. 

Today, her many interview transcripts give investigators good examples of deception of which to study.  

I have given much thought at to the "why" of deception.  

I listened to theories of domestic violence, and all sorts of other reasons why Tiffany Hartley lied. 

I believe that she was deceptive because she and David saw a most alluring financial temptation to get rich quick, quicker than any of those paid seminars, videos or books that had looked at.  They loved to travel and she loved to shop and they fell prey to the folly of greed and it cost him his life. 

Had investigators insisted on the polygraph early, they likely would have had enough to convict her.  She is a poor liar and one who, I believe, would have confessed.  

Her confidence grew from her appearance on Nancy Grace and she saw how far her pretty smile took her.  This would have been very difficult for her to maintain this while interviewed with a well trained female investigator who conducted a legally sound, analytical interview, using Tiffany's own words. 

If you would like formal training, and are in law enforcement, business, journalism, or the social sciences, both seminars and home study are available that will teach you not only these principles, but many more, as well as the psychology behind them, contact:

Hyatt Analysis

The home study is at your pace, and includes more than 6 hours of lectures, book, chapter tests, final and 12 months of ongoing e support which is critical in learning analysis.  This is not a "101" course, nor an introduction.  It is for those committed to learning the skill of lie detection and applying it for results you can base your own reputation on.  

This analysis is not complete, but enough to show deception and to catch the interest of professionals.  For a live case, we go much deeper for information.  

Successful completion of this course allows for enrollment in monthly, live training, with investigators from around the country. 

For getting to the truth, obtaining justice, career advancement, as well as your own personal resume building, enroll today.  


Tania Cadogan said...

Off topic

Race faker Rachel Dolezal has finally admitted she was born white… but still maintains that she identifies as black.

The former NAACP leader made headlines in June and sparked a national debate about racial identity when she was accused of lying about her own.

Nearly five months later, Dolezal has conceded that she ‘was biologically born white to white parents’.

However, she also said that she checks both black and white racial identity boxes on forms and applications.

The 37-year-old made her admission on daytime talk show The Real on Monday.

The show's hosts, Tamar Braxton, Tamera Mowry-Housley, Loni Love, Jeannie Mai and Adrienne Bailon, led a discussion on racial identity with Dolezal.
‘I acknowledge that I was biologically born white to white parents, but I identify as black,’ she said.

Later, she added: ‘I think that sometimes how we feel is more powerful than how we’re born – and blackness can be defined as philosophical, cultural, biological.

‘It’s a lot of different things to a lot of different people.’

And when first asked which race Dolezal would check on an application form, she hesitates.

'The form in particular usually defines things,' she said. 'And you know I've been a professor of African history, black studies ...'

After Braxton asked again, Dolezal, who appears to be showing a growing baby bump since announcing her pregnancy on Instagram in August, answers: 'I check white AND black.

'Because we all have human origins in the continent of Africa.'

She later added; 'Sometimes how we feel is more powerful then how we are born. Blackness can be defined as philosophical, cultural, biological, a lot of different things for a lot of different people. I do think you have to walk the walk if that’s how you are.'

But an investigation by Daily Mail Online revealed that Dolezal had no black relatives dating back as far as 1671.

Her deceptions came to light after her estranged father and mother, Larry and Ruthanne Dolezal, told a local paper that their daughter was Caucasian.

They said that she began 'disguising' herself as black around 2007.

Dolezal did marry an African-American man in 2000, Kevin Moore, but she filed for divorce soon after in 2004.

Tania Cadogan said...


She was also engaged to Maurice Turner in december 2012 but the two split shortly after.

Dolezal is currently pregnant, but not revealing the identity of the father of the child.

She has one known biological child, Franklin, and took in her adopted brother Izaiah, 21, and started raising him as her son.

After being outed as white, Dolezal was forced to resign from her position as chapter president of the NAACP in Spokane, Washington.

The former instructor of Africana studies at Eastern Washington University also did not have her contract with the school renewed following the controversy.

But the divorced civil rights activist repeatedly defended herself, insisting: 'It's not a costume.'

She said that it was the public's definition of race that was to blame for the confusion.

In July, she told Vanity Fair: 'I don't know spiritually and metaphysically how this goes, but I do know that from my earliest memories I have awareness and connection with the black experience, and that's never left me.

'It's not something that I can put on and take off anymore.'

In July, it was also reported that she had resorted to doing weaves and braiding hair three times a week to make ends meet after losing her job.

But she said: 'It's taken my entire life to negotiate how to identify.'

'You can't just say in one sentence what is blackness or what is black culture or what makes you who you are.

'I just feel like I didn't mislead anybody. I didn't deceive anybody.

'If people feel misled or deceived, then sorry that they feel that way, but I believe that's more due to their definition and construct of race in their own minds than it is to my integrity or honesty, because I wouldn't say I'm African American, but I say I'm black, and there's a difference in those terms.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3301274/I-acknowledge-born-white-white-parents-Race-faker-Rachel-Dolezal-FINALLY-admits-white-insists-identifies-black.html

Tania Cadogan said...

Off topic

A Philadelphia boxer who claimed he was drugged and forced to take part in a gay porn film has admitted to being bisexual and making up the sensational story as a cover-up.

Yusaf Mack, 35, confessed Monday that he was 'fully conscious' during the filming of the explicit video, which shows him having sex with two men.

In an extensive statement, Mack said he is bisexual and apologized for lying about how he came to be involved in the porno.

Last week the dad of ten claimed that after agreeing to take part in a porno featuring women, he was given 'a pill and vodka' upon arriving at the set and his memory blacked out.
The statement, issued to website Towleroad, said: 'This is an issued public apology from my heart. I want to address a few situations with the first being the false claims I made about being drugged during the (DawgPoundUSA.com) film.

'I have never spoke negatively about the company that produced the film although the claim to have been given a drug by someone during set was a lie.

'I was completely aware and fully conscious during the film.'

DawgPoundUSA.com, who posted the footage on their gay porn subscription website, hit back at the 'patently false and preposterous claims' that Mack was drugged during filming.

The site, which features African-American men, told Gawker Friday they were pursuing legal action against Mack.

In his statement, Mack came clear about his sexuality and why he agreed to do the film.

'The second situation, which further explain(s) the first, concerns my lifestyle,' the statement said.

'I did participate in the adult film because at the time I needed money but also because I am a bisexual man.

'Meaning I enjoy safely being intimate with whomever I choose.'

Mack went on to 'address the reason' why he lied:

'My life was completely destroyed once it had been outed that I participated in a gay film. I selfishly tried to cover the truth and remain in denial rather than accept the fact that I was leading a double life secretly.

'After reflecting on the mess I had made I realized that I hurt a lot of my loved ones - and the people I cared about the most were left disappointed and confused. It was unfair and time to come clean.

'I want to say sorry to my children and my ex fiancé, I am so sorry that I was a coward and hid a huge part of my life from you all.

'I'm not looking for sympathy or even understanding, I've kept this secret for a long time.

'It is time to move forward and this is me walking in my truth.

'There are other men and women that are set up in the similar situations and I just hope I can be inspiration to be just be you.

'The extreme taboo and harsh criticism of living a same-sex lifestyle, especially as an African- American male, makes it hard to be completely honest and comfortable within yourself.

'But I had to remember that I am a champ and I can fight and will fight through this.

'I am more than my sexual orientation. To all of my supporters I thank you dearly.'

The statement is a major turnaround from the comments made by Mack in the wake of the video surfacing. At the time he was engaged to a woman - although his latest statement, referring to his 'ex-fiance', suggests they may have now split up.

'My whole life, I've been what they call a wh**emonger. I love females,' Mack told Philly.com last week.

'The only time I touch a man is when I'm in the ring fighting.'

Tania Cadogan said...


He retired from boxing last year after losing a six-round fight to Cory Cummings.

Boxing pundits say he was a promising fighter but hit a bad losing streak before throwing in the towel.

Mack said told Philly.com he was contacted with an offer to do porn on Facebook and said he traveled from Philadelphia to New York one night in June to make the video, believing it would be heterosexual.

However, the video appears to have first been put online in December last year.

The former light heavyweight contender claimed he went to an address in the Bronx, where he said there were naked women walking around.

'I think, ''It's about to go down'',' he told Philly.com. 'I needed a drink or something. They gave me a pill and a shot of vodka.

'I took the pill down with the vodka.'

Mack claimed he had no memory from that point.

The next thing he said he remembers is someone waking him up on a train at 30th street.

He then found $4,500 cash in his pocket, he said.

Mack's face was not covered in the footage and neither are were his distinctive body tattoos, which made him easy to identify.

He also appeared to be a willing participant in the acts that were filmed.

The video was then put up on DawgPound USA, where members pay $24.95 to join the site and then a monthly fee of $19.95.

Mack said he was considering legal action against the site.

'I'm just hurt right now,' he told the website. 'I can't really sleep at night, but I'm getting by.

'Everybody thinks I'm going to hurt myself. I've got to stay strong for my children.'

Mack's children range in age from three to 21

'All my real friends who really know me, know I like females,' Mack added. 'I'm still me.

'You've got to realize that the ones that are not really talking to me are the ones that probably have skeletons in their closets.'

DawgPound USA insisted that Mack knew what he was doing in the film.

In a statement released Friday, a spokesman said: 'DawgPoundUSA.com is a reputable company which has produced high quality videos of men-of-color since 2002. At no time have we ever coerced or drugged any of our models.

'The claims made by Mr. Mack are false, slanderous, and vehemently denied on our part. We intend to take all legal steps necessary to protect our good name and reputation against these patently false and preposterous claims.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3301235/Boxer-Yusaf-Mack-comes-bisexual-confesses-consciously-taking-gay-porno-lying-drugged-blacked-out.html

Anonymous said...

Peter, I have a question about the "storytelling" effect of repeating the events to a journalist long after the initial police interview. Does the passage of time and the fact of it being repeated after an interactive interview change the dynamics and make it more like a story even to one telling the truth? I am thinking about a time I called 911 because I heard gun shots. The 911 operator asked me questions. If I were then to tell a third party what happened, it's natural to me I would add in detail specifically asked about by the operator as that signals to me that the police think those details are important. So if in her case being on the Mexican side of the border was significant to jurisdiction, then it makes sense to me she might have that on her mind. The importance of "where" possibly was hammered into her when she was first questioned. Also, if you're talking about a big case that's been in the media, I wonder if published inaccuracies and misconceptions would be in the forefront of the person's mind, innocently.

Certainly when running breathless up to a border agent, blurting out "my husband got shot" makes sense and reciting details of why you were in Mexico without getting to the point doesn't. But when speaking weeks later in a journalism context, I don't see why starting the story with background- because like it or not, she is telling a story for the public through the media and some may not have been following it- is problematic.

Unknown said...

The way I look at it, is if someone is speaking about something I have experienced, like a fond memory or funny moment, I will say "oh I've done that before! My friend and I were..."

Priorities tend to stay fresh. My dog Daisy died of Parvo years back. She didn't have her Parvo shots - my girlfriend at the time and I lived in the country where the closest neighbour was several minutes drive away. To this day, when telling anyone what happened, I lead with my dog died. Then begin with explaining how she died.

It's problematic for two reasons, in my opinion. First he was her husband. If you love someone and lose them or in this case have them taken from you, it would be a traumatic, emotionally scarring experience.

As I read the article I thought of how I would feel if I were in Tiffany's shoes. Answer: "who gives a fig about how many bullets whizzed by my head harmlessly, my wife is dead!"

Statement Analysis Blog said...



Some shocking news out of Germany including forced "Dhimmitude" of German Youth to wait upon the migrants. The property confiscation has already begun, but lead article of Drudge is "Civil War" for Germany looming. If Merkel tries to force the German youth into dhimmitude, the war outbreak will be hastened greatly.
This along with more rape news from Germany leaking out is showing insanity. One small town of 100 residents, families fro 400 years there, will have 800 islamic supremacists from N Africa placed there. 8:1 ratio. The mayor thought it was just a joke at first.

Has anyone read Bat Ye'or here that can comment on her writing?



Anonymous said...

Have authorities officially ruled out Tiffany Hartley shooting her husband? Partying and jubilant spending sprees don't add up to grieving widow.

Maybe she thought she had a single buyer lined up, but David wanted to break up the purchase for his customers lower on the food chain.

If she thought she didn't need him holding her back and keeping the business small potatoes, she sure as heck wouldn't be thrilled to share the profits from the supposed big time clients.

Shannon In CA said...


Though I stil find this case suspicious, especially after the 17 year old girlfriend went on and on about possibly facing homicide charges on social media, I may have to admit I was wrong about this case. Signs seem to be pointing to hypothermia as cause of death for Brendan Creato (although what's with the police statement that he didn't walk himself to the place he was found...?).


Juliet said...

Well, this is the most bizarre response to a question posed on the subject of Mexican authorities questioning her story - she wouldn't do what?


Anonymous said...

I'm hearing that Jessica is posting on the "Deorr Kunz Jr. Open Discussion" Facebook page. It's a closed group. I don't have a Facebook page, could someone please post her statements here?

Unknown said...

A couple of things I noticed in this article. Mark McClish always said: "everyone has an idea on almost anything. I don't know exactly how to send astronauts to the moon, but I have an idea. One that is most likely wrong but an idea nonetheless"

As you mentioned, Peter, she continuously reports that which she doesn't see. The additional third, or fourth person in the boat that she "didn't know were there" OK, which tells me that she either later confirmed exactly how many people were in the boat, or that she is deceptive about the boat in general.

Thirdly, her story us chaotic. "They didn't shoot at me" then "they had a gun pointed at me" I would expect the order to be reversed.

And lastly, she reportes that she only discovered that her husband had been shot in the head after turning him over. I assume she didn't turn him face down into the water, so she must have turned him face up. How then, if they were being chased and shot at, would he have been struck in the front. Without a body for forensics to determine the calibre of the weapon used, its almost impossible to know. However, since she had to turn him over to "face her", only then did she notice that he had been shot in the head. I noted her repetition of shot in the head as sensitive. He wasn't simply shot, but shot in a specific place. Since she was only able to determine he was shot when she pulled him over, it suggests to me an execution-style shooting.

Unknown said...

*would be impossible to determine whether there is an exit wound.

John Mc Gowan said...

Peter's OT:

German official says Merkel's open door migrant policy will lead to 'civil war' after thousands march through one city holding crucifixes during anti-Islam protest

Read more:


Statement Analysis Blog said...


this shocked me and is another step towards civil war.

It is not shocking because of content, but the speed of which this is churning.

Each day more rapes and violent crimes are reported. Each day Merkel does something else to show tyranny and a one party one media country where she is actively destroying them.

the part about pressing German Youth into Dhimmitude is the single most shocking thing, at this stage. I thought this would be two years away, but a cabinet member was the first to float it to the public, signaling that this is something well discussed from within.

Anonymous said...

This gives a German's perspective of what is really happening right now.


Unknown said...

*would be impossible to determine whether there is an exit wound.

Deejay said...

I am thinking Tiffany stayed in the lake on her jet ski. Maybe David went on shore alone. She could have seen what happened from pretty far out, and would have had a head start getting back to the US side.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Deejay, I think you may be right.

lynda said...

Matt..that jumped out to me also. She says he was face first in water and had to turn him over, that's when she found out he had been shot in the head. Right away, this should have bells ringing. If they were fleeing, how was he shot in the front of head/face? I also thought that most people would say, he was shot in the forehead, between the eyes, face, cheek, etc. I believe the "shot in the head" is almost exclusively used when people are shot execution style (or back of head area) once you get into the "face" region, "head" isn't used as often as face, or part of face that was shot. Luckily for her, no body has been returned or found to see exactly where he did get shot. Interestingly, she has posted on her blog a couple weeks ago "bring david hartley home" and wow..it really is all about her. I'm pretty disgusted by her. She hadn't posted on her blog for ALMOST 3 YEARS (so much for fighting to get David back) and when she does...read for yourself.


elf said...

I've been thinking about this and I gotta say I wonder if there were even any boats or pirates involved. Why would pirates or a drug cartel leave a witness? Why didn't they kidnap or kill tiffany? Her story makes no sense. I think she killed her husband and sank his jet ski.

JustMyThoughtsOnly said...

This is about Justice Rees

Detective Tamara Pelle’s testimony resumed on November 3 in the preliminary examination of Samantha Green, the 23-year-old who faces charges for the murder of her 19-day-old son, Justice Rees.

Pelle seemed to have difficulty in comprehending Green’s statements, as they were not only verbally obscure but also unintelligible, with seemingly fleeting and scattered thoughts. The detective indicated that it was apparent Green was panicking, out of breath and sobbing uncontrollably.

The defendant was faltering in her attempt to recount the events leading up to that morning, presenting an inconsistent recollection involving numerous gaps in her story.

Regarding the previous night, February 23, 2015, Green mentioned that she thought she was seeing a dream throughout the night, but she was not sure if it really was a dream. She claimed it might have been real. An old man with white hair and glasses appeared before her eyes in her “dream-like” state.

Although she was not sure whether this man was real or not, she revealed that there was a possibility this man sexually assaulted her.

When asked if she had done any drugs on the 23rd, Green replied, “No,” although the detective was not convinced by Green’s reply.

Det. Pelle tried even harder to urgently hone in on the possible location of baby Justice, but yet again was not receiving anything helpful from Green, who repeatedly claimed her memory was hazy.

The first thing Green recalled from the morning of February 24 was waking up feeling lightheaded and achy in the body. Then she said she immediately left her baby to go get help, swimming across the river.

Initially, it was stated that baby Justice was next to her in the morning, however, awhile later, Green contradicted her previous words, stating that she did not think Justice was next to her in the morning, which prompted her to rush for help.

After the audio recording, Public Defender Tracie Olson asked Det. Pelle in cross-examination about her observations of Green during the interview. Det. Pelle believed that Green was coming down from a methamphetamine high, since she was nodding off between statements while her body language still exhibited signs of a lingering adrenaline rush.

From the interview, Det. Pelle also postulated that Green was exercising her selective memory purposely to keep some facts undisclosed. It was odd, she said, that Green could not remember certain aspects from before the event, which she should have been able to do.

Since Samantha Green reportedly went out to the levee on February 23, Sgt. Oviedo researched the local weather conditions of Knights Landing on that day. Using “localconditions.com”, Oviedo determined that the temperature on February 23 had a high of 62 degrees Fahrenheit at 3:53pm and a low of 41 degrees Fahrenheit at 11:53pm.

The last witness of the day was Deputy Sheriff Dean Nyland of the Yolo County Sheriff’s Department.

The search for baby Justice began on the afternoon of February 24, with police heading to the 2011 red Chevy Traverse, driven by Green, in order for the police canine to obtain a scent. The police canine was then able to lead the officers along the path that Samantha Green, with Justice in her arms, had trekked on foot the night before.

While traversing the pathway, officers came across a diaper bag containing a few diapers and a bottle of formula. A few feet away lay a damp black jacket.

As officers followed the canine a little further, they located baby Justice sitting up against a tree, with fists clenched tight against the belly and body leaning over to the right. The gray onesie and diaper worn by Justice were both wet and cold. Baby Justice was unresponsive. Officers did not detect a pulse.

JustMyThoughtsOnly said...

To read the whole article the link is here:

My Sew Imperfect Life said...

Tears and Terror: The Disturbing Final Years of Mickey Rooney

"He was one of Hollywood's greatest actors, someone whose estate could have been worth hundreds of millions when he died in summer 2014. Instead, he endured beatings, humiliation and poverty at the hands of his eighth wife and one of her sons, both accused today of elder abuse and destroying a legend..."

I kept an open mind until I read the statement the allegedly abusive wife gave:
"In a long interview with THR via email, Jan is adamant that "I never physically abused Mickey, but we had some minor pushing scuffles (What is her subjective definition of minor? ), tempers flared when we were angry. Sometimes it was his fault, sometimes mine. We always made up." (As a condition of responding to an interview request, she insisted that THR publish all questions and answers in their entirety. A full transcript can be viewed here.)"

Peter, I don't recall you discussing "always" statements. We verbally flag it in our house b/c it is usually untrue. I vaguely remember a parenting/marriage seminar at our church in which the speaker said not to use always statements. It really stuck with me. From a truth-seeking perspective, what are your thoughts on "always?" Thanks Peter or anyone else for answering with your thoughts. I'm going to come back & finish reading the post after I get at least a modicum of housework finished. My poor kids, hubby, and pets who are now ALWAYS neglected while I read this blog ;-)

trustmeigetit said...

I think Tiffany wanted him killed.

Then either did it herself. Or someone was waiting for them at the church.

A lot have commented that maybe this was a drug deal gone bad.

BUT… if so, she would still have been horrified, still traumatized.

And the how and when David was killed would still be truthful. She would only need to lie about why they were there.

But how and when he was shot, could still be bad guys that had no connection to them.

And she was not sad… At least to me never showed true sadness or horror. And was out shopping and said that David would want her to move on shortly after the murder.

I think she was the one that wanted to go on this trip. I think his death was the plan.

Again, if they were shot during a crime, she could have been truthful for most of the account of when he was shot. She would only need to lie about why they were there.

She would not need to lie about that. So I don’t buy her covering up for a crime that went bad.

In any event, if her husband was murdered and she was not involved, the sadness would still be there.

She could still be truthful about when he was killed and how. So imagine a drug deal goes bad, she may lie about why they were there. But once “there” then her story would be truthful. It could still be pirates. She could tell about seeing her husband shot. The fear, etc.. It could be truthful from that point on. Her story was not.

I think she planned his murder.

I think she choose that location because it was out of US jurisdiction and she felt her chances of prosecution from Mexico were very low.

I think she had to talk him into it and those conversations did happen because he didn’t want to go but she convinced him.

NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not an intended recipient, please do not read, distribute, or take action in reliance upon this message. If you have received this in error, please notify me immediately by return email and promptly delete this message and its attachments from your computer.

JustMyThoughtsOnly said...

Also OT.....

This has probably been covered (I haven't had a chance to go read through all the old comments so forgive me here if I am covering old material)

But I know a lot of speculation has been made about "Snake River" being said by Dad Deorr a few times. And that Snake River is only a few hours away.

Has anyone thought of the possibility that the Montana border is also very close to the town of Leadore? I don't have an exact mile, but from my Maps app on my phone I'm getting around 25 miles.

With all this talk of jurisdiction in the Tiffany and David Hartley case, it could be possible that maybe after the incident with Deorr happened, they took him across the border to Montana- the police wouldn't have jurisdiction over there to look, it would have to be handled by the Montana State Police, right?
Or would the FBI becoming involved be able to cross all borders?

Thanks in advance. Just some thoughts I had last night.

Tania Cadogan said...

Off topic

The dismembered remains of a toddler found in a Chicago lagoon were identified through DNA as that of a two-year-old northern Illinois boy reported missing in September, Chicago Police said on Wednesday.

The FBI informed local investigators that remains found in September in the Garfield Park lagoon on Chicago's west side were that of Kyrian Knox of Rockford, said police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi.

The family was notified and a death investigation continues to determine why and how the boy was killed, he said. No arrests have been made at this time.

'My heart is hurting right now,' Kyrian's grandmother, Cameshia Harris, told the Chicago Tribune.

'We're processing the information as a family that we were given today. The family is together and we are trying to wrap our minds over it.'

The boy was reported missing on September 17. His mother, Lanisha Knox, said she left Kyrian with friends while she was moving to a new home and was notified of his disappearance by police

Lanisha said she made numerous attempts to pick up her son from the family that was watching him yet they always gave her an excuse as to why it was not a good time.

'At this point, I don't trust anyone and I do feel like somebody knows something and they're not saying anything,' Knox told NBC.

Authorities said at the time that they believed Kyrian went missing in mid-August, but the exact date wasn't clear.

The remains were found September 5, when a park visitor reported seeing what turned out to be a left foot floating in the lagoon.

Officers later found a decomposed right foot and a hand about 25 yards away.

Additional body parts were recovered from the park and police categorized the case as a death investigation.

Detectives began culling missing person reports as they worked to identify the victim, and investigators went to Rockford to collection DNA from Kyrian's mother.

Guglielmi said Chicago Police and the Rockford Police Department will coordinate their investigations into Kyrian's death.

'It is a high priority for Chicago Police to determine how Kyrian died and hold the people responsible accountable,' he said.

Guglielmi refused to say who investigators are questioning in the boy's death, saying they have a long way to go in determining how he was killed. He said identifying the victim was a tremendous break in the case.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3304553/FBI-use-DNA-ID-dismembered-toddler-lagoon.html

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

OT- DeOrr Kunz

http://www.examiner.com/article/police-troubled-by-speculations-missing-idaho-toddler-deorr-kunz-jr-case before?

Anyone else seen this July 17th article before? Third Paragraph down, last 2 sentences "Further, it's not helpful for anyone to go looking for the boy. It throws the dogs off the scent."

I found that disconcerting in light of DeOrr and Jessica searching every weekend, along with Trina and Tanisha. Just my opinion, but I would think that if anything of DeOrr's is found in any close proximity to that campsite, my first reaction will be "planted". Daddy DeOrr's reaction to the searcher's and their equipment reminds me Duper's Delight (I know I shouldn't say that on a statement analysis blog). I do not think Little DeOrr is there. There's too many unaccounted for time gaps, as well as conflicting statements from DeOrr and Jessica; too many unnecessary details, combined with a stark lack of detail at key points in their story. Then there's the whole "not a single trace of him" and "No evidence of an abduction" from the sheriff.

Also, in the 1st paragraph, the next to the last sentence states "So nobody was watching the boy for a four-minute period of time and he disappeared." Yet,Jessica stated they were gone 10 minutes and Deorr said 50 feet away. So which is it? Four minutes is not enough time for someone to grab the child less than 50 feet from an adult, sight unseen, and make a perfectly clean and utterly silent getaway within the remaining 6 minutes. ATV's are noisy folks and so are vehicles...that leaves bikes and canoes (walking leaves a trail, but then again, so would a bike). Canoe it is! Not.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Searching and found this from Sheriff Bowerman July 20th

"We've literally torn that country apart and found absolutely not one clue," Bowerman told FoxNews.com.

"We conducted an exhaustive search of the area, which included eight agencies, multiple dog search groups and well over 100 people," he said.

Followed by this-
"I don't look at them as suspects at this point in time," the sheriff noted. "They want to believe he's abducted because that would make him still alive."

And this-
"We don't have any evidence that somebody kidnapped this child," he said."

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/20/searches-reservoir-wolf-den-yield-no-clues-in-hunt-for-idaho-toddler/

So, if something is found close to campsite, it's going to be a hard sell that someone didn't plant it there after the fact.