The article is here.
You'll notice that we do not have a quote of "I didn't hurt her" as reported in the headlines. If he said this, off video, we must note that "I didn't hurt her" is minimization; she was found dead. This is a form of minimization frequently found in death by child abuse, or close relationship homicide.
The article has some quotes; none offer a Reliable Denial:
PALMYRA TOWNSHIP, PIKE COUNTY (WBRE/WYOU) - A man who is considered a "person of interest" in the disappearance of a Pike County teenager says he had nothing to do with her death.
Sky McDonough of Milford made his first court appearance Tuesday since the death of his girlfriend earlier this year.
State police say 17-year-old Leanna Walker left her home in Dingman Township with McDonough on April 18th.
She was found dead several weeks later.
While McDonough has not been charged with her death at this time, court documents indicate investigators are suspicious of him.
As he was led into a magistrate's office near Hawley Tuesday, Sky McDonough admitted he was with Leanna Walker when she disappeared in April but he says he never hurt her.
Within the article, I have added analysis and commentary in bold type.
"She ran away with me," McDonough said.
Please note that he did not say that "we" ran away, but that "she ran away with me", as he was walking by, making it a freely offered statement.
Please note:
1. He does not use Leanna's name
2. The word "with" between "she" and "me" indicates distancing language. This is Statement Analysis 101, and we look at the distancing language to determine the cause of distancing. Sometimes it is geographical, while other times it is emotional (missing/longing). The context of the statement is critical.
Here, we see the distance between them while he recounts what happened that led to her death. Regardless of guilt or innocence, this is the context for the statement.
Distancing language within innocence in death is not expected. It is only after significant time has passed that distancing language will enter in.
Here, we have the subject giving us the context of the distancing language, in the short statement itself. The context is the running away.
The use of distancing language is also affirmed with the pronoun "she" rather than Leanna's name.
This, along with the word "with" between people, suggests that Leanna, 17, had to be talked into running off with him.
"She" and "me" could not be further apart in the sentence than this.
Pronouns are instinctive and require no pause in the editing process.
Next, we see the pronoun "we" enter his statement:
When asked what happened after that, McDonough said, "We went to the llama farm and then afterwards I went to get a check and I got caught by police. I don't know what happened to her."
This is an important sentence.
1. Going to the llama farm produced the pronoun "we" in his language. This may have been something agreeable to Leanna.
2. "and then afterwards" uses three words which jump over time, making the 'temporal lacunae', that is, the 'black empty space' highly sensitive. A single skip (TL) is something we focus our analysis and interview on, but here the subject must use more effort to give additional wording.
3. The additional wording (increase of effort = importance) also has another element to be viewed: it is unnecessary.
"and then" or "afterwards" would have sufficed. In the extremely short period of time (less than a millisecond) in which the brain processes which of his 20,000 strong vocabulary to use, effort produced an "unnecessary" word.
In Statement Analysis, an unnecessary word is one in which the sentence still 'works' should it be removed. Its inclusion is to give us additional information. Where the 'black hole' or 'empty' space is, the additional information is missing.
Yet, its need for emphasis tells us that there is a strong emotional need for him to skip over this period of time, which may take "withholding information" to a level of "suppressing information" which, by itself, is indicative of what strategy should be used in the interview process.
In other words, it will take an effort for him to not reveal that which is concealed here.
The interviewer must not interrupt him and let him "hold court" as one of "high regard and importance" and let him "regale the subordinate investigators" with his knowledge.
It should produce an admission (not confession) and this admission is very likely to contain elements of minimization, some deception, as well as shifting blame (very subtly) to the victim, herself.
The skipping over time, is in a real sense, repeated and it is repeated unnecessarily, making this time period to indicate:
The suppression of critical information is at this point in time.
4. "to get a check" does not tell us what he did, but what he went to do. This is more important than meets the eye.
The subject feels the need to explain why he separated from Leanna, in a context where no one asked him why. No one asked him,
"Why did you go to the...?"
nor even
"Why didn't you two go together?"
The subject, himself, has a need to not only be 'away' and separate from Leanna, but more importantly for us, he has a need to explain to us, the audience, his need to be physically separate from Leanna.
This, too, is 'unnecessary' information, making it very important to us.
The skipping over time, is in a real sense, repeated and it is repeated unnecessarily, making this time period to indicate:
The suppression of critical information is at this point in time.
4. "to get a check" does not tell us what he did, but what he went to do. This is more important than meets the eye.
The subject feels the need to explain why he separated from Leanna, in a context where no one asked him why. No one asked him,
"Why did you go to the...?"
nor even
"Why didn't you two go together?"
The subject, himself, has a need to not only be 'away' and separate from Leanna, but more importantly for us, he has a need to explain to us, the audience, his need to be physically separate from Leanna.
This, too, is 'unnecessary' information, making it very important to us.
When asked if he hurt Leanna Walker, McDonough simply replied, "no."
I do not fault the journalist for asking a 'yes or no' question, which is reduced internal conflict to lie to, as the opportunity was brief.
As he left court, McDonough was as talkative as he was going in, speculating on who may be responsible.
"She was hanging out with bad boys, heroin," McDonough said.
This is tangent, and given the hint that it was likely McDonough himself who talked Leanna into running away with him, tells us that "bad boys" is not something he would abide or allow to happen.
Note the inclusion of "heroin" is indication of not only drugs, but of his personality.
He may actually blame the victim for the murder.
"She had some other guys she was with," McDonough told Eyewitness News.
Note the avoidance of her name is continual. This is a psychological distancing from her, rather than the mournful, sad, introspective closeness and almost romanticized viewpoint most all of us take of lost loved ones. We 'deify' our lost loved ones, almost immediately, recalling all the good.
Here, his tangent not only shows the need to move the attention away from himself, but he blames her for whom she may have been with.
This is a red flag for possible guilty knowledge of what happened to her.
The interview should be lengthy, comfortable, and one in which the subject (Sky McDonough) does 80% of the talking.
The interrogation, after a well conducted analytical interview, reverses these numbers and sometimes is not even necessary due to admission.
Confession and admission are judicially the same. By focusing on confessions (moral acceptance of responsibility) the interviewer/investigator often projects his own disgust and belief system into the interview and can hinder the admission.
An admission is simply acknowledging what he did to her. It may be that he did not "hurt" her; he killed her.
When asked if those guys could be responsible for Walker's death, McDonough said, "I believe so."
This weak assertion of only "believing" so is also a very small, but significant insight into his personality.
"I believe so" instead of "maybe", "could have been" and so on, includes the pronoun "I", making it a 'strong' weak assertion; that is, one in which the subject is not afraid to offer himself, psychologically, behind his 'opinion', while avoiding a direct lie.
This is, again, to put himself 'front and center' as one who likely convinced Leanna to run away with him initially, and who may pride himself at such control over others.
It is something important to consider for the interview.
For training in Statement Analysis, go to Hyatt Analysis Services.
We offer seminars, correspondence training, live, on going interactive training of confidential cases, as well as certification.