Thursday, January 26, 2017

Hailey Dunn Murder: Personal Sensory Descriptive Language

What follows is one of the most chilling statements you may ever read. 


Missing 13 year old girl, with mother appearing on the Nancy Grace Show. 

On the first show, we learned several things:

1.  Hailey would not be found alive
2.  The mother needed an alibi
3.  There would be a history of child abuse 

Billie Jean Dunn, Hailey's mother,  has just been caught in a series of lies that devolved into an almost absurd exchange where the former prosecutor, Nancy Grace, took her to task about her 'denial' of hosting a New Year's Eve party 72 hours after reporting her daughter 'missing.'

In the first appearance on the Nancy Grace Show, in the opening moments, Billie Jean Dunn revealed that Hailey would not be found alive, and that she, herself, needed an alibi.  

She also gave us a verbal indicator of child abuse in her need to portray herself as a good mother.  


At this point in the interview, the emotional position of the subject (mother) is strained.  She has been caught lying and publicly humiliated by a series of almost juvenile like questions.  

She is, in this sense, very much 'on the ropes.'  

When a pathological or habitual liar is caught, the liar needs to redeem herself.  

She begins with a reliable answer that is very likely to be true. 

"Let`s get back to the facts. When was the last time you absolutely are positive you saw Hailey?" asked the frustrated interviewer.  

This is a front loaded question that reveals the interviewer's frustration.  It is unwise.  

Careful training in analytical interviewing allows the investigator/interviewer to ask questions plainly, simply and without passion.  By stating the need to "get back to the facts" she is reminding the subject of her lies.  This goes even further with the additional unnecessary words of her question. 

"When was the last time you saw Hailey?" would have been the best question.  

Instead, we have the preamble of "facts", along with the wording of "absolute" and "positive."  The interviewer sounds more like a mother scolding a teenager for lying to her.  

GRACE: Well, I don`t know what to believe, either, because I`m 

getting all these different stories about you having a New Year`s 

Eve party, and you`re high when you go take the polygraph. Let me 

ask you this. Let`s get back to the facts. When was the last time you 

absolutely are positive you saw Hailey?

Here is a critical question of which the answer should appear on 

the prosecutor's desk.  

BILLIE DUNN: I saw her Sunday night.

Dunn did not address the accusations of telling different stories, 

having a party, and being high for the polygraph. The structure of 

this sentence is very likely to be reliable.  

I believe her.  

GRACE: What time, 10:00 PM?

"What time?" is a good question.  Offering her the answer is not

BILLIE DUNN: Probably around 10:00.

Please consider the elevated hormones of a mother of a missing 

child.  The last time the mother saw the child would be undeniably 

sketched into her memory.  The mother of a missing child would

cherish this memory, replaying it incessantly; holding dearly to it. 

Even Kate McCann recognized this in her statement.  It is natural

and a mother knows it with precision.  Commitment is reduced 

by not only "probably" but by the contamination of Nancy Grace's

offering of time.  

GRACE: Now, was that when you looked in her room and it is was

 dark and you thought she was lying in her bed?

Please note that when this statement is viewed in light of all the

 other statements made to this point, the analyst is confronted

 with something possibly horrific.  

What is Billie Dunn describing? 

 Use the standard principles of analysis including body posture,  

sensory description, reporting in the negative (event, thought, 

and emotion) 

 and the standard sensitivity principles.

Here we have extreme sensitivity in a shocking statement that 

proceeds from experiential memory:  

BILLIE DUNN:   "I did see her in her room, but I

 saw her watching TV. 

Monday morning, I looked in her room and it 

was dark and it looked like she was laying in 


Besides the parroting language ("dark" and "laying"), which

will reduce the level of sensitivity, we have the critical statement 

now offered by the mother of a "missing" teenager of whom the 

mother has already referenced in the past tense, and already 

insisted that she, herself, was at work, in order to alibi herself.  

Here is where we are given insight into:

What happened;

The mother's personality. 

Recall the question, "how far?" did Hailey have to go to the 

sleepover, was met with "four or five blocks" (a good answer) but

the mother's need to go further is her pattern of deception.  She 

said that Hailey wasn't "just allowed" to go out alone, etc, which

shows that the mother of a "missing" child needs to portray herself

as a 'good mother', signaling the increased chances of some form 

of accusation, including Dept of Family Services or Child 

Protective Services previous involvement.  

It is in the extra detail that the chilling statement of sensory 

language emerges: 

But I didn`t go touch her, make sure 

that was her. I just peeked in to make sure

 she was in bed to ease my mind and..."

The mother has just described seeing a 


Here, Hailey is dead.  She is not yet dumped; that would come 

later, just as described, by Shawn Adkins.  

We give "so, since, to, therefore, because" the color coding blue as 

the highest level of sensitivity that can be found in a statement of

 someone reported what happened.  It is here that the person has a 

need to tell us "why" something was done.  This is often the solving

 of a case.  A single "blue" is a strong sensitivity indicator but two 

or more "blues" is called a "cluster of blues" in which the 

information contained with the cluster is the most critical 

information of a case.  Just as we highlight "left" in blue, we 

highlight "because" in any form that seeks to explain why 

something was done.  

If a question is "what did you do?" and it is answered with an 

explanation "why", it is critical.  

Here we have three blues in one short statement and come to 

the most important part of everything she had told us.

We are at the most critical point of what happened to Hailey, as

 described by her mother.   

Note that she doesn't tell us that Hailey was laying in bed, but

 rather says it looked like she was laying in bed.   This is how 

she appeared to her mother.   

Next Billie states what she didn't do, touch her. 

 That which is reported in the negative is important.  Billie 

didn't touch what looked like it was sleeping in the bed.  Ask

 yourself in what circumstance you would touch something to 

make sure what it was.  Would you touch your child to make 

sure it was him or her in bed?

Hailey is dead and Billie Dunn cannot bring herself to enter the

 room and touch her.  She cannot do it.  

She is taking you, the listener, in with her, back to the next

 morning that, whatever happened the night before, Hailey did 

not wake up and now is there, as if she was "like" laying in bed

 but she was not asleep.  

Now note that Billie "peeked in" to make sure she was in bed to 

ease her mind.  I believe this is true. 

 Why did Billie Dunn need to ease her mind if she had seen her

watching TV the night before?


Answer:   Something had happened to Hailey that Billie needed 


and something to ease her mind.  

Generational Substance Abuse 

Drugs desensitize.  

During this process of desensitization, sexual perversion was 

added including over 100,000 deviant images of child pornography,

bestiality, and "blood lust" videos.  This is where one is sexually 

aroused over violence.  

The combination was lethal for this child.  

There had been drugs the night before, we know that.  She even

 stopped off, like a dutiful daughter, to ask her own mother if she

 needed drugs and then used the ATM to empty her account to buy 

drugs.  This is something Nancy Grace would soon learn, too. 

Hailey did not go to her bed, peacefully, the night before.  If that

 was the case, there would be no reason to "ease" her mother's

 mind.  There is nothing to soothe or calm, just a sleeping teenager.   

 What about Hailey being in bed caused Billie's mind to need to

 be put at ease? 

 This is what it means to let Billie Dunn guide you. 

She said that she needed her mind to be put at ease, even

 though she claimed to last see Hailey, in her own home, at 

10PM the night before, watching TV.   No problem reported. 

In order to have your mind eased, your mind must be at


Something must happen to put your mind at unease. 

Hailey was watching TV at 10PM the night before. 

Between 10PM that night, and 6AM the following morning, 

something upset the mind of Billie Dunn, in which she needed 

to have her mind eased.

  Her choice of words are odd if you think nothing happened, 

but are perfectly fitting if you believe she and Shawn did

 something to Hailey.

If you wish for training, please go to Hyatt Analysis Services

for law enforcement and private seminars, as well as a Complete

 Statement Analysis (deception 

detection) course taken in your home.  

Please note among law enforcement that many departments end up

 reimbursing you for the tuition 

costs as they see the impact on your work.


elf said...

Why would she have needed to make sure Hailey was in her bed? Who else would have been in Harleys bed?

elf said...

*Haileys bed.

John Mc Gowan said...

I "just peeked in to make sure she was in bed to ease my mind and"..."

The word "just" is a dependent word, it can also mean "only" (minimising) What else was she thinking? or what else did she do before, after, or as "she peeked in"

The shortest sentence is the best, additional words give us additional information.

Anonymous said...


Is it possible that this is all true, ""I did see her in her room, but I saw her watching TV. Monday morning, I looked in her room and it was dark and it looked like she was laying in bed. "

Such as if Billie went in and said her final goodbye to Hailey, who was watching TV, then went and used drugs to occupy/desensitize herself while Shawn was killing Hailey, then when he said it was all over, she peeked in the room, etc?


Statement Analysis Blog said...

KC, yes and...

that is a really good point on a possible scenario.


PS elf: great question, too!

Asking questions is what we do. We see if the statement will answer them for us, and if not, we will use them in the interview.

good work!

Anonymous said...

On Hope For Hailey facebook page, Billie Jean Dunn is very strong in her posts stating "She's MY daughter, they gave her back to ME" She has gone on to say she has fought for her baby all this time and they finally released Hailey's remains to her, her mother. What she doesn't acknowledge is that her attorney, John Young, stated on the Crime Wire Daily clip, that HE called Scurry County D.A> and asked for Hailey's remains to be released to Billie. John Young loves to take credit for everything. And so does Billie. I wonder how she feels about John taking credit?

Also, I'm wondering, Billie stated that she got the Scurry County D.A., he Scurry County D.A. investigators, the Justice of the Peace, to all sign off on releasing Hailey's remains to her. Is that usual when remains are released to require all those sign off's?

Does it mean that Billie is not a suspect or going to be arrested because they did return Hailey's remains to her?

GeekRad said...

KC, I think you are spot on. As a local. I followed every bit of the news, including contacts with local law enforcement, FBI, and Texas Rangers (all gone now). I can say this, Peter presents the most detailed and comprehensive coverage of this case. Go back and look at his analysis. It is a compelling and convincing case. In my mind, enough to arrest Shawn and Billie. I, as many on this site, feel the Casey Anthony case scared off the DA and prosecutors. Peter, thank you for not giving up on Hailey.

Anonymous said...

Peter, I wonder if the sensitivity indicated in the sentence "I didnt touch her" points to Billie having gone into the room and actually having touched her, not "to see if it was her", but rather to see if she was dead or alive, to see if she was warm (alive and still breathing), and when she did she found that Hailey was cold (dead)?

GeekRad said...

Anon at 6:34. Billie has been playing the victim all along. She is trying to con us that she knows nothing. I am confident she thinks her play is convincing. She was never named a suspect but investigators at the time felt she was involved or had knowledge. If, and it is a big if, this case moves forward she will have to at least testify. Good luck with that.

Anonymous said...

I also have a question about someone describing an event as having gone differently (better) than they had expected and saying "It's almost like it (the event) didnt happen at all!"

For example, let's say someone had to have a tooth pulled. Later that day, they describe that it was very painless and then say "it's almost like the tooth extraction didnt happen at all".

The above example is made up for discussion's sake, however what does SA say about that statement "it's almost like the (tooth extraction didnt happen at all". ??? Is that an indicator the event actually didnt happen? Anyone know how to analyze that?

Tania Cadogan said...

Off topic

The Italian student twice convicted then cleared of murdering British student Meredith Kercher with Amanda Knox said today he is a 'victim' in a 'tragedy that has destroyed my life'.

Raffaele Sollecito, 32, claims he has £440,000 of debt and is suing the Italian authorities for compensation and says their 'mistakes' mean many still think he is guilty of killing Meredith in 2007.

The 32-year-old also revealed he still talks to his former lover Amanda Knox 'very occasionally', but 'never' about the murder.

And the father of Miss Kercher told the MailOnline he doesn't know why they keep talking about it.

21-year-old Miss Kercher's half-naked body was discovered in a pool of blood in a back room of the house she shared with Knox in Perugia, central Italy.

The student's throat had been slashed and she had been stabbed 47 times.

Speaking to the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire show Sollecito said the case was 'a tragedy that has destroyed my life'.

He said Meredith was the 'first victim' but added: 'There were many victims in this case. Amanda [Knox]'s parents, my parents, all our families... there are many others made by the prosecution's mistakes'.

Knox and her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito were initially found guilty of murder and sentenced to 26 years in jail in 2009.

However, they were acquitted in 2011 after evidence used against the pair was found to be flawed.

Knox immediately returned to the United States protesting her innocence, but in January 2014, the Italian courts overturned that acquittal and reinstated the guilty verdict.

However, the case ultimately went to the Supreme Court and their conviction was definitively overturned in March 2015.

Miss Kercher's father, John, 74, said he thinks it's 'bizarre' that Sollecito is still talking about the case, despite nine years passing.

Mr Kercher, from Croydon, South London, said: 'I don't want to make further comment. It has been nine years.

'What fascinates me is why they keep going on about it. They've been let free - so why keep going on? It's bizarre.'

When asked about Sollecito mentioning he is in debt, Mr Kircher said: 'I think his father paid didn't he? And what about what we've paid out?'

Mr Kercher did not want to make further comment.

Today Sollecito said he was 'still facing a lot of trouble, as people don't understand why I've been acquitted.

'I have to face this kind of society. I have to face anybody that doesn't support me.

'I can talk with hundreds of people and they understand I'm innocent, but the problem is one stupid portrait in the media in a few minutes reaches five million people and I cannot control it. In an instant it can change.'

It came days after an Italian court blocked a reopening of the Amanda Knox murder saga by refusing to review the conviction of the man jailed for the 2007 killing of British student Meredith Kercher.

After a brief hearing, Florence's appeals court ruled inadmissible a request from Rudy Guede for an extraordinary review of his case.

Tania Cadogan said...


The Ivorian man made his application in light of the acquittal of Knox and her former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito.

Lawyers for Guede, who was convicted after a fast-track trial in 2008, had presented the court with a deposition arguing that the terms of the 2015 acquittals made their client's conviction unsafe.

But the judge in the case ruled that their was no basis for the case to be reopened and ordered Guede to pay the costs of the hearing.

The ruling means Guede's 16-year sentence for Kercher's murder, imposed after he appealed an initial 30-year jail term, stands, at least for the time being.

A lawyer for Guede was quoted as telling reporters he would consider appealing ruling to Italy's highest appeal court, the Court of Cassation.

A year after the judge in Guede's case said he could not have acted alone, Knox and Sollecito were also convicted of the murder.

But that verdict was overturned on appeal in 2011 and the pair were released after four years in prison.

Another court then ordered a retrial which reinstated the original convictions only for the Court of Cassation to throw out all charges against the pair in March 2015.

Six months later the court released a written judgment which said the ruling reflected 'major flaws' in the police's handling of the investigation, the absence of a 'body of evidence' allowing for a safe conviction and the absence of any admissible DNA evidence linking the two to the grisly murder.

Legal experts said at the time that the Knox-Sollecito acquittal was tantamount to saying Guede acted alone, in contradiction of the judge's summing up in his first trial.

Tommaso Pietrocarlo, a member of Guede's defence team, told reporters the Florence court had said there was no contradiction between the two judgments, despite this being 'rather obvious,' in his view.

In particular, Pietrocarlo said Guede's conviction partly rested on evidence that he had used Sollecito's knife to kill Kercher while the judge who acquitted Knox and her former boyfriend had ruled that it was not the murder weapon.

Anonymous said...

Guede is just as guilty as Knox & Sollecito. He's just not smart enough to realize his best move is to give a full truthful account of what happened.

lynda said...

Boo hoo to Knox and Sollecito

Again, I think we have no balls prosecutors that refuse to take the evidence they do have (even if all circumstantial) to a grand jury. The buck stops and starts with the prosecutor. People in that county have to either vote the prosecutor OUT and get someone in their that actually puts justice in front of their ego or they need to really put the pressure on the current DA. BOTH would be convicted by a jury of their peers, I have no doubt. Then let Billie spend the rest of her life in appeals while she rots in jail along with the other murdering bastard. More and more it seems that people are getting away with murder, especially of their own kids.
Jon Benet

to name a few...

lynda said...


In the following statement

"Monday morning, I looked in her room and it

was dark and it looked like she was laying in

bed. "

Would this statement alone indicate the person in bed was dead? The "looked like" being indicative of it looks like her but is not her because she's dead. A corpse can't look like anything anymore, nor can a corpse "lay" anywhere?

Anonymous said...

Trenton Duckett.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

I'm having a little issue with Billie's "I did see her in her room, but I saw her watching TV...". Why is she rebutting seeing Hailey in her room with Hailey watching TV? I thought from what I'd read of this case that the TV was in Hailey's room. So, either the last time Billie saw Hailey she was not in her room (she saw Hailey somewhere outside of her room) or Hailey was not watching TV the last time Billie "saw" her before Monday morning.

Seeing a live Hailey the last time is sensitive to Billie Dunn. The shortest (and most logical) sentence would have been, "I saw Hailey in her room, watching TV.". In answering the question, to Billie, mentally, Hailey cannot physically be both present in her room and watching TV on Sunday night. Why not?

Bobcat said...

I saw her in her room, but I saw her watching TV.
As opposed to whatever else happened in her room that night.

Anonymous said...


I noticed that too. I tend to think it means she wasn't in the bedroom...she was in another room watching TV.

However, now that I've read what you've wrote and thought about it further, I think what Billie may be "leaking" is that Hailey was not in the home at that time. I feel like she is lying when saying "I did see her in her room" and then the second part of the statement is is leakage of a truer picture of where Hailey was...somewhere else watching TV PERHAPS. Almost like Billie is imagining what Hailey was actually doing somewhere else....hmmmm maybe she was watching TV. The fact that Billie is merely "imagining" this activity of TV watching is disturbing, because who knows where Hailey actually was at that time?!? I don't know much about the case.

Anonymous said...

The rebuttal with the use of the word "but" I think cancels out the geographic location....she wasn't in the bedroom. It's like Billie's mind wants to tell what it knows.

Anonymous said...

Billie's mind is picturing Hailey in 2 different locations at once when she says that statement

" I saw her in her room, but I saw her watching TV".

Anonymous said...

What does "watching TV" represent to Billie?


Does it represent a certain time period? Like is there a time period Hailey usually would watch TV?

Anonymous said...

There are 2 realities overlapping in Billie's mind when she makes that statement.

Anonymous said...

The two realities are :

Bedroom= location
Watching TV= a certain time period when Hailey would normally watch TV

Could Hailey have been deceased at that point in time and have been in the bedroom, but because she was dead, not have turned on the TV as she normally would have at a given time?

Therefore, Billie is stating that she DID have the TV on to overcompensate to the listener? To try to convince the listener that Hailey was active doing something at that time (watching TV)?

Anonymous said...

That's what Billie's mind is leaking in that statement. What Billie means is

"She was in her bedroom, but she was not dead."

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Anonymous said...
The rebuttal with the use of the word "but" I think cancels out the geographic location....she wasn't in the bedroom. It's like Billie's mind wants to tell what it knows.
January 27, 2017 at 1:50 AM

Consider from another angle...

"she" was in the bedroom "but" with the rebuttal, could be location, yes, but it also could be directly related to "she"; who is no longer "Hailey" but a corpse.

We look and often stare at dead people and animals.

We most always do NOT touch them.

People will even poke a stick at a dead animal on the road, but are most hesitant to touch.

That she felt the need to include, in the negative, what she did not do AND that this activity is similar to the reaction to a corpse, should be taken with everything else we know about the case (deception).

She is recalling a dead body.


Statement Analysis Blog said...


do not isolate that sentence from context, nor from the other analysis. This is a source of error within analysis.


sha said...

Does anyone know if any corpse sniffing dogs were run through that house? They would have had to have gotten rid of her body pretty quickly not to have some good dogs pick up on early decomp. I can't imagine what participation a mother could have done for her not to be calling the law.

Anonymous said...

sha, police treated this as a teenaged runaway

Anonymous said...

Perhaps the TV was showing porn or beastiality videos?
Shawn could have been in the room forcing Hailey to watch - and Billie peeked in for a little viewing herself.....??

Anonymous said...

Hi Peter, I was referring to her comment regarding "but she was watching TV", not the comment "but I didnt touch her".

I wasnt very clear which is my fault.
I was just thinking maybe she said " I saw her in her bedroom, but I saw her watching TV" because maybe Hailey was dead at that time and that maybe Billie said "but I saw her watching TV" as her mind's way of trying to convince the listener Hailey was alive at that time since she was watching TV allegedly.

Re: "but I didnt touch her"....I agree w your analysis....Billie was looking at a corpse...excellent analysis.

I was just confused about the TV statement.
I am not very informed about the case.

Charlotte from denmark said...

Sollecito and Knox have been through hell. I wish them well. Being convicted of a crime they did not commit must have been terror.

Guede killed Meredith.

Anonymous said...

yeah especially when amanda lied and tried to get someone else put in prison for it

Habundia said...

"Would you touch your child to make

sure it was him or her in bed?"

Me as a mom was thinking about this question when read.
If i would be peeking into the room of my daughter , before i would go to work, and it would look like she was in her bed, i wouldnt go touch her,because who else would be in her bed? i would close the door silently and take of to work.
What i do ask myself did she saw it "looked like" she was in bed.
Did she see her hair? Her head? Or was she laying under blanket/sheet and she just saw a figure of a "body".

I also think the word "but" is a weird use of the word within the sentence, and makes it not a whole sentence but two sentences in one.

Could 'i didn't touch her, implicate she maybe walked in when sexual abuse was taken place and walked away from it ("not touch her) to go to work?

Nic said...

" I saw her in her room, but I saw her watching TV".

First BJD says "perhaps" saw Hailey at 10pm, then she says she peeked in the next morning. She would not commit.

I find it interesting that BJD has a need to persuade that Hailey was doing an activity (a living thing) when she "peeked" in on, (so as to not disturb) Hailey. BJD also qualifies what she says she saw by saying it was "dark" and it "looked" like she was sleeping and she didn't "touch her". Why not? IMO, it's unexpected to say she was watching TV Monday *morning*, early before BJD went to work. Why wouldn't BJD just go in to Hailey's room and turn off her TV? Because it was dark and she only "looked like" she was sleeping.

The TV in "on mode" has always stuck in my craw. Who else did she need to persuade that she was alive? If I recall correctly, BJD reported that David went to his friend's house at 10pm, around the same time BJD reported she "probably" saw Hailey. BJD would not let David be interviewed (probably because, IMO, their story would fall apart and he would blow their timeline).

Does anyone think David just left earlier and BJD had no idea with whom or to where, or at what time to expect him back -- and whether he would be back by himself (which he wasn't when he finally did show up the next afternoon). IMO, they had a need to stage Hailey doing a "live thing". SA aside, why? IMO, incase David sauntered in with someone before Shawn had time to quit his job and then "go to his grandmother's". i.e., If David or his friend had arrived home at any time, they could say Hailey was in her bedroom watching TV. (Alibi)

I wonder if this case ever goes to court, whether David would have to take the stand. It would be interesting to hear his account of that time.


Nic said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
The rebuttal with the use of the word "but" I think cancels out the geographic location....she wasn't in the bedroom. It's like Billie's mind wants to tell what it knows.

January 27, 2017 at 1:50 AM

Another way to look at it is what follows the word "but", is what is important.

watch-ing (action) BJD had a NTP Hailey was alive, and only live people can perform an action.


SKE said...

" I saw her in her room, but I saw her watching TV".
BUT negates everything before it. what she did see, was the tv on.

imo, she assumed Hailey was in her room because the tv was on.
if you recall when i "interrogated" one of Hailey's friend, you cannot see the bed from the hallway due to the way the door and closet wall is at the entrance to the bedroom.

katydid23 said...

INTERESTING that you all are asking the significance of a TV to Billie. From following the case, I think I have an answer to that.

For Christmas, Billie and Shawn gave Hailey a TV for her bedroom. The significance of that is that prior to that, Hailey slept on the couch in the living room every night, so she could watch tv as she fell asleep. So when they gave her a TV for her bedroom, that was the first time she began sleeping alone in her room. And I have always wondered if Shawn did that so he could sneak into her room at night, to be alone with sweet Hailey.

Mike Dammann said...

A couple of things:

Billie Dunn has made sure to include an alibi in her answer mentioning she was at work. But does that have to indicate a need for an alibi?
Could it be that she was so worried about being perceived as a bad mother that rather than looking like someone who cannot properly take care of her kid, she almost moves into the victim roam telling that she is a responsible provider who doesn't live the life she would want to?
Almost like putting blame on the child, bills, circumstances for not being able to make ends meet. And not being able to be the mother which she should and probably could be.
The police dogs took them to a hotel room. First towards the father's house, but then the friend's house. So what happened in that hotel room? Of course, it could have been a part of the disposing process of the body. But it could also mean she could have been a "wild,uncontrollable" child. Many times mothers of teen daughters they can't control are more concerned about being viewed as negligent mothers and being blamed for their kid's behavior than the actual well-being of the kid.
This of course is extremely selfish especially in a case where a child is missing.
But these types of women definitely exist. There is an emotional disconnect within them.
But just like with the Munchhausen syndrome in extreme cases, a hatred for one's own life takes over and the child expressing the messy situation at home with his or her behavior is seen by her as a constant reminder of what is wrong with her life. And rather than fixing things, a hatred towards the child's behavior develops and the desire to put up a front and somehow keep a bad reputation from going worse mix into a life of lies and fronts and the two completely keep disconnecting until she lives her life, Hailey lives hers and the parent loses complete control partially due to her feeling so frustrated with what her life has turned into, that a 13 year old girl winds up living the life of more of an adult and putting herself in dangerous situations?

This is just a thought. And what motivated me to write this was the police dogs. And if they trace the scent towards (not to) the father's house, then the friend's house and then the hotel room, it would have been that she had some secret older friends or a "boyfriend" with whom she decided to go to a place which could have been the point of abduction.

I am sure that some of you, including Peter of course, have some new insights. But if I happen to be far behind with this, I apologize. And I hope that some of what I have voiced can clear up questions I have been having and others might have regarding why some people are deceptive for less apparent reasons. She might have had to do with the disappearance of her daughter. But she might also be guilt-ridden. To the point where she believes her own selfish negligence of her child's needs (dating back years) contributed to leading to her disappearance indirectly.

So it could be that she simply feels responsible for what happened. And probably rightfully so.
And that doesn't have to mean that she necessarily knows what has happened to her daughter.

I love your work, Peter. You have opened my eyes to a lot of things. And I hope that if anything, this can lead towards examinations that can possibly improve statement analysis overall.