Defense attorneys loathe their clients' speaking to the press. They recognize, perhaps acutely, how leakage works and just how much information the guilty reveal.
Question: When an attorney issues a statement about his or her client, is it of value to analyze?
It often reveals what the attorney believes about his client's guilt.
When the child was reported missing, the parents were indicated for deception and revealed, through slipping into past tense language, belief that DeOrr was dead.
The language also suggested that DeOrr was not an unwanted child of chronic abuse, which led me to consider that DeOrr likely died as a result of unintentional death; an accident due to some form of neglect, and the parents panicked and conspired to report him missing.
DeOrr Sr's language shows extreme sensitivity regarding his actions in his truck and while calling police.
While describing his hope that his son is alive, he slipped into past tense language several times. Sensitivity indicators within his language showed that he was surpressing information. This is more than passively withholding information; it is information that he must actively keep from coming out.
He also went into lengthy tangents and the speed of transmission suggests self confidence. This is likely why he volunteered to take polygraphs that he did not pass: he believed he would. He went on to praise the work of police who had failed to find his son. These statements were made early in the search, with no indication that DeOrr was deceased. Parents of a missing child find no reason to praise anyone early in the search: this is something that may come much later, after the death has been accepted (processed in the brain) but not early on.
He did so early and he did so in more detailed language than he gave to his son.
This, too, affirmed the past tense references and it is something to listen to in the language of missing children's parents who have guilty knowledge: they do not express concern for what the missing child is experiencing: does he have his bottle, his blankie, her medication, her dolly...and so forth. Instead, the priority comes out in the language: What they, themselves, are experiencing. They, themselves, are in need of help; not the deceased child.
That DeOrr went into great detail about the very instruments and techniques used by searchers is not only a tangent away from "what happened" (thus showing the need to suppress) but also was a predictor of sorts on who might be willing to polygraph: his wording showed confidence. Not only was it a tangent, but it was a lengthy, detailed tangent. This is the language of habitual liars. These are those who feel themselves superior, even to polygraphs, as they have had a lifetime of success in deception. This is why he dominated the interview, yet, in his own words, he, himself, was the one in trouble, not the little child who was incapable of self provision.
When an attorney is aware of his client's guilt, the attorney, himself, will leak this information out in his choice of words; conversely, those who believe in their client's innocence will even use wording similar to a reliable denial and will base their argument on this belief. We saw this in a statement by the attorney for the former college football player falsely accused of rape. The player issued a reliable denial and later his attorney wrote what amounts to the same thing: he does not fear evidence nor testimony because "he didn't do it", as a recurring and easy to follow theme. (Jamesis Winston). This is the basis of an attorney's thinking which is why we look for two things from an attorney:
1. To raise the accusation (s) against his client
2. To issue the denial which will reflect the principles of a Reliable Denial in analysis.
Therefore, in the case of missing DeOrr, we expect such things as,
'The private investigator said that the mother knows where the body is. This is not true; she does not know where the body is' or,
'The private investigator said that the father knows DeOrr died as a result of an accident. This is not true because the father has told the truth when he said...' and so on.
Quite simply: When an attorney makes a statement, verbally or in writing, analysis will show if he believes his client's innocence or not. Attorneys counsel their clients to be quiet, yet reveal much information themselves. Search Billie Jean Dunn and John Young, her attorney, to see examples of such.
When this attorney made this statement, he does so presupposing that some will read it and believe him, agreeing with his conclusion, and others will not.
What does the attorney for the family of missing DeOrr think?
It is found HERE and it gives fascinating insight into the case, the private investigator, while revealing the attorney's own thoughts.
He reported that the private investigator was paid $20,000 and was supposed to keep his findings confidential while sharing them with the family who hired him.
It is interesting that he wrote that the private investigator was "hired to find" the child and "he was unsuccessful."
Then he wrote the following about responsibilities. Is this a legal responsibility that was stated in the contract, or is it a public relations statement, to counter the "hate" that the attorney references?
"As a private investigator hired by Mr. Kunz, he has an obligation to share his findings with his client. He also has an obligation to keep his findings confidential. The week of January 25, 2016, Mr. Klein made inflammatory public statements to the effect that he has been doing an investigation and has found that there is no evidence to contradict the Lehmi County Sheriff's conclusion that the parents of Dennis Kunz' grandchild should be named as suspects in this case. Mr. Klein's statements caused many to believe that Vernon DeOrr Kunz and Jessica Mitchell were responsible for their son's disappearance, and that Mr. Klein had proof, and this caused the public to hate these people."
It is interesting to note that he does not say that a confidentiality agreement, fairly standard, was part of the contractual obligation. He was hired to find the child is what is stated.
Later, in describing DeOrr Kunz meeting with the FBI and investigators against his advice, the attorney wrote:
"He met with them anyway, because he has not done anything wrong."
This is to acknowledge that he did do something, but what he dies was not "wrong." It is not to say, "He met with them anyway because he did not cause DeOrr's disappearance."
We look for a reliable denial, issued by an attorney, on behalf of his client.
We generally find the opposite: An attorney who either knows his client is guilty, or who is in doubt and his own choice of words reflect this.
They intend to sue the private investigator.