Wednesday, February 8, 2017

Theresa Forbes: The Murder of Karina Vetrano



When we speak, the words we choose reveal us.  They reveal:

A.  Our background

B.  Our experiences

C.  Our priority

D.  Our personality traits. 

These four elements are the profile of the subject.  This is how we identify anonymous authors.  

Statement Analysis training begins with:

1.  Deception Detection and moves on to
2.  Content Analysis.  From there, we seek to learn the four elements (above) regarding the subject:
3.  Psycho-linguistic Profiling.  

For law enforcement, given an allegation and a statement, the investigator can know:

If the subject is lying;
What really happened; and

How the subject should be interviewed.  

In a shaken baby case, a lengthy interview and interrogation produced nothing, as the investigator lost patience (overnight hours) and screamed in the face of the suspect. 

What he did not consider was the suspect's profile:

military background.  

The investigator gave up, frustrated, but convinced the suspect (boyfriend of mother) did, in fact, shake the baby, who was brain dead. 

I very quietly asked the subject to tell me what happened. 

He confessed.  

Katrina Vetrano was allegedly raped and murdered by a Chanel Lewis,  now in custody.  From the NY Post:  

The sister of Karina Vetrano’s accused killer said Monday that her sibling was framed—and that he was only arrested because he’s black.

“I think the cops framed him because he’s a black person. They couldn’t find anyone else to pin this on, so they pinned it on my brother,” Theresa Forbes, 36, told reporters.


Here, readers may say "race card!" or "she is blaming police" but to listen to her, note her language:

"I think the cops framed him because he’s a black person. They couldn’t find anyone else to pin this on, so they pinned it on my brother..."

First, notice that she reveals weakness in her own assertion.  Does she believe he didn't do it?  
She can only say she "thinks" they framed him.  This is a weak assertion, which allows for her, or others, to "think" differently; that is, to change her mind.

Yet, we have two high sensitivity indicators very close together with the need to explain "why" she "thinks" they did this.  

The need to explain why means she anticipates being asked, 

"Why do you think the cops framed him?"

What does her answer show?

a.  First, because he is black.  

Here is where we see our deception.  It is not only in the weak assertion (which, by itself, does not conclusively indicate deception), but in something else:

it is not in the need to explain why (racism), either.  

It is only natural that in making an assertion, one might anticipate the need to prove it. 

It is in the second need to explain:  "so they pinned it on him" is a different reason than race:

b.  Secondly, it is police incompetence she identifies. 

She gave us two reasons why she only "thinks" he is framed:

Racism and police incompetence. 

The order is important.  

In less than a millisecond of time, her brain went to "racism" first, and then "incompetence" in an attempt to support a contention she herself refuses to commit to.  

 Chanel Lewis, 20, was charged Sunday with murdering the Queens jogger in August based on DNA evidence and two videotaped confessions, authorities and law-enforcement sources have said.

Asked about the alleged forensic evidence against her sibling, Forbes said,“The DNA lies sometimes. They wanted to get confirmation so they framed him for murder.


Here, she feels the need to give us a third reason, this third reason is the weakest of all:  "confirmation."

Confirmation of what?

Although this part is missing from the article, we learned that he has confessed.  

Note her use of the word "lie" regarding DNA; rather than 'error' in any form.  This is the word of her choosing.  Consider it while considering her use of "coerce."  

Next, she seeks to issue a denial.  We expect her to say "he didn't kill her.
“My family, we are God-fearing people. The Bible tells us ‘Do no kill’—we do not kill,” she said.


Here we have the invocation of Deity (-) and we have present tense language (-) and we have the plural "we" rather than her brother (-).  This gives us 3 negative marks, on this alone yet, there is more. 

She needs to explain why they are God fearing:  The Bible tells us. To be "God fearing" is to suggest fear of negative external consequence for murder.  


As for his alleged confessions, “I think they coerced him into a confession. They tricked him,” Forbes added.


We have another weak assertion with "think" but we have a change of language:

a.  coerce is to use force or threats.  It changes to
b.  trickery, which is to use cleverness.  

Analysis Conclusion:

She knows her brother killed Karina Vetrano, and she likely knows his motive as well.  

We do also know a bit about her.  In spite of her status (plural) of "God fearing", we know she is not afraid to lie, and to bear false witness against innocent police.  

There is one last thing to consider regarding the subject:

Racism

We later learned that her brother refused to speak to a white investigator but confessed to a black investigator his racial motive.  

“I’m sorry for their loss, but they have the wrong person in custody,” Forbes said.

It is interesting that she calls him "person", gender neutral.  Here may be the reason:  
She added that her brother “did not have any problem with women.”


This assertion, given in the negative, is very important.  She goes from "women" to: 
“He has nieces, and he played with them,” Forbes told reporters.


This is an indication that the subject knows her brother  "problems" he has with women.  "Nieces" for the 20 year old, is not likely a reference to "women" but to female children.  

This is very concerning

Lastly, she reveals his serious history from school:  
She said his behavioral issues in high school consisted of “regular stuff. He made regular problems.”


This is, within analysis, the principle of "normal" which tells us that she is aware that he was anything but "normal" in high school. The need to minimize is computed with this theme.  When one says "I am a normal male", it is likely due to either the subject believing himself not to be normal, or that he is aware that others consider him not normal. 

We sometimes hear this from pedophiles and child molesters as a 'defense':

"I'm a happily married man!" rather than "I didn't do it."  This subject wants us to believe he did not molest a child because his sexual desires are fulfilled in marriage.  

It is also not the thinking of normal men.  Innocent men do not feel compelled to defend their sexuality.  There is no need to justify.  This is akin to a pragmatic view that says 'if I were not married' or 'if I were not happy in my marriage...'  

The Post reported:

Lewis had a history of threatening female students in high school, telling a teacher’s aide at the High School for Medical Professions in Brooklyn in 2011 that he wanted to “stab all the girls.”

Besides racism, there may be an element of humiliation as the final 'trigger' to the murder .


That same year he “cursed at a female student and threatened both her and her family,” according to law enforcement sources.
Lewis also told authorities that he had gone to Spring Creek Park to cool off after fighting with family members the day of the murder.
He became “startled” by Vetrano’s presence and took his anger out on her, Lewis told cops, according to sources

For training opportunities, go to www.hyattanalyisis.com and on to "training", including exploration of some cases covered.  
In at home training, tuition payment plans are offered for Law Enforcement only.  





12 comments:

Bobcat said...

The search function is broken.

elf said...

I thought the part about the nieces was concerning too. Also weird is 'he made regular problems' . What problems would she consider regular for her brother to make? Is threatening other students what the sister considers a 'regular problem'? Is threatening violence regular for the suspects family?
And just a general observation, but would anyone think police just want to pin a case on someone who isn't guilty? Like, out of all the black males in New York they picked this woman's brother but wouldn't it have been easier if instead the police pinned it on someone else like a homeless person if they were just wanting to close the case or whatever?

Anonymous said...

Remember that the LAPD is said to have 'framed a guilty man' by planting evidence and ruining the case against Orenthal J Simpson. Lets see the video recording of the interrogation and confession against Lewis.

Anonymous said...

And what is your point?

JoJo said...

OT- Peter, when a subject uses the word "never" in a statement in such a way that it seems to negate their claim, how is that to be analyzed? In this case, subject claims she's "never experienced racism," "never been called a ***" etc. but her claim is that she was the victim of racism by a judge the night before. Do we still assume the subject is being truthful, and if so does her use of "never" show that this incident "never" took place? I would think, personally, that for something as highly sensitive and personal as that, one wouldn't say they had never experienced it right after allegedly experiencing it!? Link below contains a screen capture of the Facebook post.

http://www.wafb.com/story/34461965/restaurant-bans-baton-rouge-judge-after-allegations-surface-he-used-racial-slurs?clienttype=generic&utm_content=bufferda6e1&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Anonymous said...

They should just leave Lance alone. He's no criminal.

Anonymous said...

I feel it was the father. First of all everyday they ran together and that day he didn't his back was hurting him. Second of all he had a premonition that something was wrong never had one before? He led the police directly to the body. Third within an hour he spoke with the police and they were on it, helicopters search, police everywhere only within an hour, he didn't seem distraught no tears, the mother either, they were in the process of a divorce and she was a breast cancer victim. He would go on cross country trips just with his daughter Karina alone. Last but not least look at his facebook page it states he lives in Miami so how does he jog with her everyday???????????????????? There also was a condom found on the trail, do you think that boy Lewis would take the time to use a condom??????????????? I think not! When you add that all up it points to the father or someone from the area.................

Anonymous said...

I agree that the father acts very strange, one thing that he had said that (paraphrased) "Karina would reveal her killer to someone 'sensitive"' who can 'pick up on those kinds of things' seemed actually concerning to me because it seemed alarmingly similar to a part of the plot of a book I read a few years ago ....I'll try to remember the name of it, but one of the characters in the book is 'sensitive' and receives all this weird supernatural info about this girl feom her high school who was killed and eventually the killer is revealed to her.....and it also seems strange that the father said he told Karina not to go into "the weeds" (a known Mafia body dumping area) but he felt she went in there to look at butterflies. She is also on camera entering "the weeds" which contradicts the info from the "confession" that Lewis allegedly confessed to "dragging her into "the weeds" ", but Lewis' mother said he had scratches on him and lied about them and he also visited an ER for an injured hand, so he obviously killed her.

Anonymous said...

The book was called "The Lovely Bones"....I read it years ago when I used to read a lot of the Oprah Book Picks designated at the book store....at one time she actually picked very good books...but anyway, a LOT of people read that book and it just seemed weird that he said that that Karina would "reveal" the killer to someone sensitive who can pick up on those things bc that is bizarrely similar to that book.

Anonymous said...

I just googled...apparently that book was made into a movie....I dunno....I just thought it was weird he said that.

Anonymous said...

It just seemed weird he said that along with weird overlap/similarity with the stories on some level....but I do believe Lewis is the killer.

Anonymous said...

Will you please consider doing an analysis on the interview video of Mike Patty, the grandfather of one of the two girls murdered Feb. 13th in Delphi, Indiana? (Abby and Liberty) You can find the interview by google searching the following words: Mike patty, Delphi, interview

I am very interested in your perspective on this interview and any other interviews of Mike Patty. The family is supposed to speak to the presss this coming Thursday as well, but Mike Patty is particularly interesting. The FBI has had a center set up in Delphi since Feb 14th.

Thank you for your time.