Wednesday, November 8, 2017

Judge Timothy Bibaud's Denial




Mug shot Alli Bibaud



Article from Boston Globe.com Andrea Estes, author.     Analysis in bold type and after quotes.  Emphasis added, including italics.  Link to full article here

Article:  

Alli Bibaud had just crashed her car on Route I-190 in Worcester on the evening of Oct. 16. She reeked of alcohol and had what state Trooper Ryan Sceviour described as a “heroin kit,” including a dozen needles and a spoon. She admitted performing sex acts on men to support her heroin addiction, according to Sceviour’s official report, and offered him sex as well in return for leniency.
And she started ranting that her father was a judge.

“He’s going to kill me,” screamed Bibaud, the trooper reported.

Two days later, Sceviour was awakened by a state trooper at the door of his home, who ordered Sceviour to drive 90 miles to the State Police barracks in Holden. There, he said he was disciplined and told to remove Bibaud’s references to sex and her father, Judge Timothy Bibaud,who is first justice of Dudley District Court and presides over its drug court.

Now, Sceviour is suing top commanders of the State Police, including Colonel Richard D. McKeon, charging that they punished him and forced him to falsify records to avoid embarrassing the judge and his daughter, who faces several charges, including driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs.

“We expect the State Police administration to enforce the law, not break it,” said Sceviour’s lawyer, Lenny Kesten. “What they did to Trooper Sceviour is shameful.”

A State Police spokesman admitted that the order to change the report came directly from McKeon, commander of the 2,200-member State Police. However, the spokesman, David Procopio, said it’s perfectly acceptable for a supervisor to edit a police report. He also said that Sceviour was wrong to include comments in his report that were not relevant to Bibaud’s arrest.

“The revision consisted of removal of what the Colonel and senior commanders felt was a sensationalistic and inflammatory directly-quoted statement that made no contribution to proving the elements of the crimes with which she was charged,” Procopio explained in a statement.

Direct quotes are not only routine, but protect both the public and law enforcement as they are the best indicator of truth or deception.  Her quotes affirmed the trooper's findings and indicate attendant crimes, including bribery and prostitution. 

Procopio declined to say how McKeon learned about the contents of Bibaud’s police report. He also said Sceviour’s punishment was not technically discipline, but “an observation report for corrective action.”

end of article. 

Always note the need to change meaning of language. An agreement may be made because of protocol:  would the commander of such a large troop normally edit a report?

Judge Bibaud gave this denial, while admitting his daughter needs treatment. 

I absolutely, vehemently deny making any contact with anybody."

What can we tell from this denial?

1.  He does not state that he did not make contact with the police.  "I did not have contact with State Police" would be a denial of contact by him. 

2.  Instead of issuing a denial, he states a denial.

A denial is a refusal to accept and is a legal term.  It is to avoid saying "I did not..." directly.  He is stating a denial rather than making one.  But what does he deny?  Before we get there, we continue with the denial itself.  

3.  He "absolutely" and "vehemently" denies.  This is to call in for reinforcements, something that we see from:

a.  those who are not truthful
b.  those who may be telling the truth, but normally do not
c.  those who know they will not be believed
d.  those who worry they will not be believed. 

Each additional word weakens a denial, as it increases sensitivity.  The need to persuade takes precedence over the truth.  This is where the weakness is processed by the reader/hearer, with more questions. 

4.  Note the vagueness:  "...with anybody."  

This is similar, psychologically, to "never" in analysis; a broad, undetermined sketch, rather than a specific.  "...with anybody" is not to be interpreted.  If he wanted to say "State Police" or even use the name of the supervisor who ordered the report changed, he could have.  The argument that, in context, "he means State Police" is to interpret; something Statement Analysis does not do. "Anybody" is to specifically avoid designating information. 

Question:  "Who is anybody?" 

5.  His unreliable denial raises the natural question, "Did you have someone make contact for you?"  

6.  "...making contact" raises the question, "Did anyone make contact with you?"

Analysis Conclusion:


I absolutely, vehemently deny making any contact with anybody."


Deception Indicated.


When one has a need to avoid issuing a reliable denial, instead using vague language, it highlights the need to confuse or cloud the issue, which only invites more questions.  The statement is as if he lives in a "black hole" of nothing in life.  

The judge issues an unreliable denial to avoid a direct lie.  It is very likely that he was instrumental in having the report changed; whether through him contacting the authorities, or someone contacting him.  It could be even be "the expected" between the commander and the judge, but the unreliable denial, itself, tells us that there is a story here, where he wishes his audience to believe there is no story.  The "quid pro quo", even if expectation that had no contact, would trigger the unreliable denial.  Even where there may be "technical truth", the need to deceive is because there is no psychological "wall of truth."

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" is an indicator of "technical truth" having a story behind it.


This is what the Judge's unreliable denial indicates. This is why "deception indicated" is found.

He is a judge over a drug court and his daughter is a drug addict according to the article.  This is embarrassing but it is not why he issued the unreliable denial.

He did so to protect himself and the one responsible for altering the report.

This is why he issued the unreliable denial.  This is an indication of his "threshold" for deception.  He would have been better of remaining silent, as lawyers tell their clients.

What does this say to both law enforcement and citizens about obtaining justice in his court?

Where there is corruption in leadership, citizens suffer.  Corruption rolls downward.  It erodes confidence and it multiplies as subordinates quickly learn to hold truth, itself, in contempt, for personal gain.


For training in deception detection, go to Hyatt Analysis Services and see our training opportunities. 


7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Could you comment on there's statements. https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2017/11/gay-talese-kevin-spacey

Peter Hyatt said...

The statement by Gay Talese tells us more about him than about Kevin Spacey.

There is an expectation within his view of homosexuality that homosexual molestation of boys is a normal thing to do. He, himself, likely had to "suck It up" as a child and has likely molested children.

It is projective.

Peter

Anonymous said...

Ot

https://www.unilad.co.uk/news/ed-westwick-responds-to-rape-allegations/

Ed Westwick Responds To Rape Allegations

Ed Westwick has responded to rape allegations made against him by LA actress Kristina Cohen.

Cohen, 27, alleged Westwick ‘held her down and raped’ her at his apartment three years ago.

Kristina said she was inspired to tell her story in the wake of the recent ‘outpouring of stories’ which ‘have been both triggering and emotionally exhausting’ for her.

Cohen alleged she was at Westwick’s house taking a nap when she awoke to find ‘his fingers entering my body’.

She attempted to get away from the situation, but he allegedly proceeded to rape her.

Since the allegations, Westwick has responded on Twitter, saying:

I do not know this woman. I have never forced myself in any manner, on any woman. I certainly have never committed rape.

She wrote:

The last month has been incredibly difficult. Like so many women I too have a story of sexual assault, and the outpouring of stories have been both triggering and emotionally exhausting. I’ve gone back and forth over and over again, unsure if I should speak up. If I could speak. And if so, will I be heard?

I was sexually assaulted three years ago. It was a dark time in my life. My mom was dying of cancer and I didn’t have the support system or time to process and deal with the aftermath of the rape. I buried my pain and guilt to make space for the onslaught that came after my mom’s death, just three months later.

Even now, I grapple with feelings of guilt. Unfounded worry that in some way I was to blame. I don’t know where these feelings come from. Social conditioning that everything is always the woman’s fault? That a man’s inability to keep himself off of our bodies is somehow because of us, not him?

ima.grandma said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ima.grandma said...

The judge is his daughter's addiction enabler. They are co-dependant upon one another. There is a much deeper familial story here. He is producing more harm than help to his daughter. This situation is closer to doom than they are aware. I hope she gets the help she needs.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, what they did to the state trooper is outrageous!

Whether or not the judge contacted any one is moot. Someone did someone a favor and expects to call it in at any given time.

ima.grandma said...

http://www.fox25boston.com/news/state-trooper-says-he-was-forced-to-change-arrest-report-for-judges-daughter-1/642676468
...
Boston 25 News obtained recordings of the voicemails left on Sceviour's phone.

“You are to immediately code 7 to the barracks, per the Colonel. It’s an order from the Col. It’s got something to do with an arrest report, umm, a judge’s daughter,” one of the messages said.
...
State police issued the following statement:
Supervisory members of the State Police, up to and including the Colonel, may review any report and have the responsibility to order any appropriate revisions. In the report in question, the revision consisted only of removal of a sensationalistic, directly-quoted statement by the defendant, which made no contribution to proving the elements of the crimes with which she was charged. Inclusion of an unnecessary sensationalistic statement does not meet the report-writing standards required by the department. The revised report – which is clearly marked as having been revised –includes all observations made by troopers, all descriptions of physical evidence found in the defendant’s possession, and summaries of statements made by the defendant relative to her possession and use of heroin, all of which constitute clear evidence against her. Furthermore, both versions of the report were submitted to the court. The removal of the inflammatory and unnecessary quotation did not change the substance of the trooper’s narrative, did not remove any elements of probable cause from the report, and, most importantly, had no impact on the charges against the defendant. The defendant remains charged -- as she was initially charged -- with operating under the influence of drugs, operating under the influence of liquor, negligent operation of a motor vehicle, and two other motor vehicle offenses, and she will be held accountable for those crimes based on the evidence collected by State Police.