In two parts, we will look at his wife's statement, his statement (Part II) and conclusion of the analysis of both.
His wife issued a statement, and so did he. We have both statements for analysis to get to the truth.
I. Wife Statement with Part II in the next article.
Please note that emphasis, including underlining and color is added for instructional purposes, with the actual analysis in bold type.
I would like to clarify what occurred between my husband and I on April 10, 2016 as some of the information that has been released and reported has not been accurate, and may be the result of some misinterpretations.
The couple is in a difficult situation where they both feel the need to explain to the public what happened. Some in the public are calling for Sheriff Bateman's resignation, which is likely what has prompted a public reply.
Where one chooses to begin a statement is always important and in some cases, it is the reason for the statement itself. It shows priority for the subject.
a. She "would like" to clarify begins with weakness, of what one would like to do rather than directly doing it. You might say, "I'd like to thank Mr. Jones for..." or you could say, "Mr. Jones, thank you for..." as a much more direct path, increasing the level of commitment and even emotion via the direct route in communication.
b. "clarify" means to make clearer. The subject is not saying that the report is false, but it is in need of clarification instead.
c. "what occurred" tells us that, in deed, something did occur that day.
d. "my husband" is not a complete social introduction, though it retains the pronoun "my"
e. Accuracy of what has been reported: She affirms that only "some" has not been accurate which uses the word "some", which is a 'dependent' word, meaning, it only 'works' when another reality is in play. This tells us that "some" of it is inaccurate while some of it is accurate. Remember, 90% or more people will deceive by withholding information rather than a direct fabrication of reality. Here she tells us that "some" of the information is reliably accurate.
f. She further weakens the notion of "clarification" by taking yet another step away from verbal commitment: the portion that may not be accurate "may" be due to misinterpretation.
This is to say: what happened did, in fact, happen, but how it is interpreted may be what is in need of clarification.
Since the topic of how to interpret what happened between them has come in the opening sentence, along with confirmation that other portions of the information are accurate (not in need of clarification or re-interpretation) we see if this is, in fact, her priority in the statement. She now goes back in time (out of sequence for now) to her "interpretation" of what happened. The reader should now be on alert for:
1. An accurate and reliable description
2. The subject's own interpretation of her own description.
Ron was at an event with some friends. I was out to dinner with my son.
Here he is "Ron" and she wrote the word "with" in between "Ron" and "friends." This is to create distance between Ron and the friends. She did not say "Ron and our friends..."
One might question her feelings about his friends. They are "some friends" and not "his" friends.
We see the same distance with her son, and he is introduced without a name equaling an incomplete social introduction. In context, this may be due to not wanting to use her son's name in the press. Note also that "my son" is generally a signal of biological son. The distancing language of "with" could be anything from the eating of different meals, or actual psychological distance due to relationship and/or topic of conversation issues.
Both sentences, viewed in structure, are likely to be reliably stated. We believe what one tells us unless we are confronted with structure that tells us otherwise. This is likely to be truthful and has no interpretation or 'clarification' needed by the subject.
As far as the account: please note that this is where she began her "account" of what happened. This is a priority in the context of the event that needs clarification. It is a "second priority" after the initial "clarification" priority. It is a sub-context priority for the subject.
She is addressing Domestic Violence with "what happened" and she has begun her statement, not in the home where it is alleged to have taken place, but in restaurants.
What happened between the subject and her husband is as a result of what happened at the restaurant.
I had not been drinking.
This is a very important statement.
a. It is in the negative, elevating its importance. She does not tell us what happened, but what did not happen.
b. It is reliably written, meaning that statistically, it is likely that she was not drinking.
c. Note the strong pronoun "I"
d. Note that she introduced the topic of alcohol in context of an alleged Domestic Violence incident.
e. Statement Analysis deals with what one says and what one does not say.
She does not say that her husband had not been drinking. This is vital. Another hint into what happened is her verb tense; she does not use the perfect past tense, "I did not drink."
Instead, she wrote "had not been" drinking, which stretches out time.
This is an indication for the reader/analyst to be aware that she may believe that not only was her husband drinking, but the drinking was long and spread out over time, heightening that he was likely intoxicated. This is something to consider, though not concrete at this point. Will the statement affirm this? Deny it? Or, will it not be addressed?
When I came home at about 6:30, Ron was here alone.
She now brings us to the point of her arrival and she is thinking of time, with "when" and while considering the element of time, it is important for her to tell her intended audience that Ron was "here" (at her location of the writing) and that he was "alone."
She does not say "Ron was already home" but Ron was "here" (not his "home" as her language shows. She came "home" but Ron was "here"; this suggests that the investigator should explore any relationship troubles between them. Ron was not "home alone" but "here" and he was "alone."
Was she expecting him to be somewhere else?
Was she expecting him to be with someone else?
There may be something else to consider what would produce the word "alone" in her language. She went to dinner with her son and then returned to the home.
As she returned, she did not mention her son.
The reader/analyst should consider: Did her son witness the abuse?
He was upstairs, and came downstairs.
This is the language of Domestic Violence abuse victims. His location (which slows down the pace) of where he was initially and where he went, is very important to her. This is sometimes part of the language due to the element of fear.
Remember: most D/V victims are not controlled by violence; but by the threat of violence. This is so important to her that her senses or awareness is on high alert: She is recalling the evening in question and recalls his initial location (situational awareness) and his next location: not that he "went" downstairs, but, in her language,
he "came" downstairs, suggesting that it was her entry to the home that brought him to the location where she was.
The language here also suggests heightened hormonal activity.
He appeared agitated, and told me he wanted me to leave the house.
That he "appeared agitated" is to show a sensory response. The communicative language of "told" rather than "Ron said..." shows an increase in tension, as it is authoritative language. One might consider what conversation she and her son had at dinner including the possibility of one or the other (husband or wife) moving out, or perhaps to soothe the son's concerns. It is related to what happened as it was important enough for her to mention in context of D/V.
Initially I refused.
The language suggest veracity. He "told" and she "refused" is consistent. "Initially" tells us that another thought came later.
Why did she refuse? We look for her language to guide us:
He went back upstairs, and I followed him into the master bedroom. We began to argue like alot of married couples do from time to time.
She used the word "we" regarding argument between them. This is an insight to her thinking at this time. She sees them as still together rather than separate.
Note "like a lot of married couples do from time to time" is, in Statement Analysis, "normal"; that is, when someone uses the word "normal" or words that wish to portray something as normal, routine, etc, it is a very strong indication that it was anything but normal. It is a need to persuade the audience that what took place between them was just like others. This need to persuade tells the analyst:
This was not like other couples from time to time. She has just elevated the account and has left off simply reporting what happened and is now editorializing the account.
This was not a normal argument, though she sees herself as connected to him, via the instinctive pronoun "we" in her language.
At no point in the argument did Ron punch or hit or kick me.
Here she tells us what he did not do "in the argument", which is to indicate that she leaves out:
a. what he did do to her during the argument
b. what he may have done to her after the argument (or even before it). Telling us what did not happen elevates the situation, affirming the analysis of "normal" above. He did do something to her during this argument, however, which now brings us to her point of introduction:
how she interprets what he did to her:
He did not intentionally hurt me.
He hurt her but she interprets this as not "intentional", ascribing to him a motive. This is to affirm her introduction and why she brought in the word "interpretation" to the text.
This is to say: he did assault her and he did injure her, but she wants it to be interpreted as unintentional. We must consider that "hurt" may be physical injury, or pain, as well as emotional. This is something that investigators need to explore, by specific interviewing technique: their history and her verbalized perception of it.
No one is perfect, or has a perfect marriage or relationship.
This is to revisit the term "normal" in analysis, moving to the "universal second person" distancing language. It is an unnecessary statement and it is very important. She does not wish to be 'alone' with what he did to her.
I did not obtain a Protective Order because I am not afraid of Ron, and do not need one.
Here is a very sensitive point to her: she feels the need to explain why she did not get an order of protection. Yet, even in her reasoning, she gives us additional information. The 'law of economy' tells us that the shortest statements are those most likely to be truthful and have less emotion. By adding in "and do not need one" is unnecessary to say since she already said the reason 'why' she does not need one.
This is akin to "attempt to persuade" but it appears in context to be not simply her audience, but herself.
Please consider this with the initial description of "when" she arrived home: fear triggers the hormonal response which gives heightened situational awareness and shows itself in language. She knew exactly where he was, where she was, and where he went and felt it so important (it is unnecessary for the account) that while recalling what happened, she does not go to the argument but goes to:
that she was not drinking.
She placed him also at a restaurant but does not tell us that he was not drinking.
I do not believe anything that occurred between us is criminal, and was nothing more than a heated argument between a husband and a wife.
Here is her interpretation again. It is a weak assertion. She did not write, "What happened between us was not criminal" but only that she "believes"; which allows for her to change her mind, and for others to believe something different.
She then uses another small word that is similar to what we find in Domestic Violence victims, including those who may have lived their entire marriages without a single assault, yet were controlled by the threat: "is."
This is present tense language of a past tense event. The reduction in commitment is noted, yet it suggests some ongoing trauma (post trauma) impact upon her, to the point where she is writing.
Note also the "universal" distancing again with "husband and wife."
This need to distance herself tells us how acute this event was.
I do not wish to pursue a criminal prosecution.
She does not say "I will not pursue criminal charges" only that this is her "wish" right now, also leaving herself the option later. This may be a strong message to him.
Please consider her vulnerability: if he loses his job, they all suffer...again.
This is the only public statement I intend to make regarding this incident.
Another weak assertion. "This" brings it very close to her (consider this word "this" rather than "that", when you re-read her use of the word "is", in present tense, to understand just how this may be affecting her at the time of the writing. This was no small or 'normal' argument.)
I did not appear at the press conference with Ron yesterday because I felt it was more important to be available to my children,
Hence the need to explain "why" she was not there is already answered in her own wording. Note that "I" and "Ron" is separated by the word "with", which gives the distance.
Note the children and consider the need to tell us who she was at dinner with.
Her "wish" and "intentions" are all non-conclusionary: her choices remain open. She has likely thought of, or have been spoken to about seeking protection not only from the court, but, perhaps, from the help of a Domestic Violence Shelter:
and shelter them from the media.
This word is the word she chose, not us, and indicates what is on her mind. She is concerned about her own safety but here she also signals that she has seriously mixed emotions: the word "we" regarding herself and Ron, and the need to protect the children from even witnessing D/V.
Children, including infants in the nursery are impacted by Domestic Violence, for many years to come, including adulthood. Here she is telling us that she is a conscientious mother.
It is my desire that Ron and I alone deal with this privately, and that people stop making statements and comments about things they do not fully know or understand.
She does not say that this is "our" desire. It may be that
she is telling us that she is more interested in staying married that he is. Although it is likely that he wants it to stay private, it is interesting to note that she does not ascribe this to both; only to herself. This is a form of 'assertion' and may be a signal to others. It is likely that this subject is one who, as a norm, invites people into her personal life, and now may have a need to "un-invite" them, such as common with people using social media to affirm their love, repeatedly, which shows sensitivity and, perhaps, the need to persuade. I sometimes joke that when someone goes on and on and on about their professed love of spouse, publicly, a divorce is not far away. It is in the repetition that sensitivity is seen, and it can become a need to persuade, both self and others, of that which is hoped and longed for, rather than what is. There is a difference between spontaneous devotion and a need to persuade...the public, (and self) of something.
They are hurtful to me and my family - especially my children. I would ask that everyone respect our privacy, and stop calling me and asking me questions. Thank you. The subject is familiar with the language of abuse and likely is a long term victim of Domestic Violence. Her 'recantation' is deceptive and she actually reveals that her husband was highly intoxicated and violent, and that she has lived with this before.
Analysis Conclusion will follow Part II.
Next up is the denial from the husband, Sheriff Ron Batemen. Will he be truthful?