Wednesday, November 8, 2017

Vegas Shooter Girlfriend Withholding Information

Withholding information 
Investigators have said:  Marilou Danley is withholding information from them. 

Thus far:   We are not given answers in the Vegas terrorist attack. The statement that "we may never know the motive" is not credible. 

That he may have left a suicide note or letter that is "not relevant" is not credible.  

This was a well planned, trained, financed  and executed terrorist act.  

Officials reported that they now believe  Marilou Danley is deliberately withholding information from them in their investigation into the terrorist killing in Vegas. 

To this, the analysis of her released statement agrees.  


The Sheriff said that the killer may have been "radicalized" and did not likely act alone.  He also said that the shooter intended to survive and continue to another killing.  It was planned, financed, trained and it was methodical. 

His girlfriend, Marilou Danley received $100,000 from Stephen Paddock just prior to the attack and was a "person of interest."

The statement is made through her attorney and must be analyzed as a statement, not of her, nor her attorney.  We analyze the statement here:  


We are analyzing the statement, not the person, as it could be her words and her words and the  words of her attorney.

What does the statement tell us?

Analysis Questions:  

Does the girlfriend show knowledge of his intention?
Does she reliably deny knowledge of motive?
Does she reliably report no suspicion of him?


Here is his girlfriend's denial of knowledge: 


“It never occurred to me in any way whatsoever that he was planning violence against anyone,” 
He never said anything to me or took any action that I was aware of that I understood in any way to be a warning that something horrible like this was going to happen.

Let's look at it again, using Statement Analysis.  In this analysis, we break down the statement into small parts examine or analyze, and then put it back together again. 
“It never occurred to me 
Instead of saying, "I did not know he was going to do this" the statement began without the pronoun "I."  A statement that begins with the pronoun "I" means the subject is putting herself, psychologically, into the statement.  This is called "linguistic commitment."
Instead, she uses a "passive voice" of what "never occurred to" her. This is to use language that reflects a general indirect obtainment of knowledge.  There is an infinite number of things that never occurred to her.  This is a deliberately vague denial, which is given in the passive voice; which is a form of distancing language. 

The attack was not something that was vaguely committed, or would be lost in memory.  It was specific and memorable, which then warrants specific, memorable language. 
It also uses the word "never" rather than "I did not know..." with the verb "never" being unreliable for the purposes of classification.  It is to avoid the strong "did not", and it comes after a passive, rather than active and directive, introduction.  
"I did not know he was going to do this" would be very strong and would not need an attorney's approval or guidance. This would begin with "I", go to "did not" and "do this", would bring the obvious (shooting) close to her, psychologically with "this."  

Preferable would be to call it specifically "attack, killing, terrorist, shooting" etc; something to identify a most unusual, memorable and specific event. 
We now see that she begins without stating with herself in the statement, uses qualification with her denial:

"It never occurred to me in any way " uses the unnecessary qualifier of "in any way."

She has not been asked, "did it occur to you in any way?", nor would this be something anyone would ask.  

Q.  Why not? 

A.   Because it is a unique specific memorable event.  It is not a passing ordinary event.  She now introduces multiple ways in which she might have known his plans.  

This is a very important point in advanced analysis;  she is anticipating being accused of specific ways in which she knew his intention and seeks to preempt the questioning. 

It is as if to introduce a defense where there is no attack or accusation.  

We would not have thought to ask, "Well, he didn't tell you about it, but did he write to you about it?" or, 

"He did not say he was going to do this, but did you understand that he was going to do this when you observed the cache of offensive weapons he was amassing?"

This expression, "in any way", seeks to cut off accusations that we would not have even thought of.  This is how we catch liars.  

But, she is not done yet.  She is more concerned about other possibilities; possibilities that we do not know of, but she does, that she fears being addressed.  

Let's note:  
*missing pronoun "I" is the first signal of weakness. 
"Occurred to me" using passivity is second signal of weakness. 
"never" is unreliable (3rd point of weakness) and now we have 
the unnecessary emphasis of "in any way" as the fourth point of sensitivity (weakness), but she is not done yet: 

It never occurred to me in any way whatsoever that he was planning violence against anyone, 
The subject adds "whatsoever" as another attempt to persuade us. This is not only a call in for reinforcements, but it is to tell us that his communication of his intentions was done in a way that she is thinking of and wishes to tell us that he didn't, without the internal instinctive repulsion from direct lying that the brain does. 

This was a planned, specific, memorable event that took place at a certain locale, at a specific time and had intended victims.  The passivity and vagueness are used for self protection.  We have better memories (linguistically) over 'the big game' from yesteryear than she shows in an horrific event of bloodshed.  

The need to be vague is a form of distancing language.  She is vague about his communication, but she is also deliberately vague about the victims. 
She states:   "violence against anyone" as unnecessary directing towards the victims.  
The victims do not need to be pointed out as "anyone":  59 dead, 500 injured of the specifically chosen victims.  
At this point, the statement is so weak that suspicion that she knew and is concealing information continues to rise. 
Yet, the statement continues: 
He never said anything to me or took any action that I was aware of that I understood in any way to be a warning that something horrible like this was going to happen.

1.  "never" is not "did not" is unreliable. Lance Armstrong "never" took PEDs.  He was incapable of saying "I did not take PEDs." In the same sense, she does not say, "he didn't tell me..."
2.  "to me" is specified.  She does not say, "he didn't tell me" but designates the preposition, "to" here instead.  This is to consider that it was not "to" her, that he "said" or "took action."  This raises the question, unnecessarily:

 Did he say something to others that she is aware of? 

If not for her statement, we would not have known to ask this.  This now brings someone else into her denial, which means collateral interviews are likely to produce results. 

Because she has raised questions by her denial, we now have more questions that need answers: 

 Did he write or type things?  Did she witness things?  Did she see his expenditures of weapons? ...and so on. 

This puts the emphasis upon self, even while being unreliable, signaling to us that others also know.  
3.  Action:  Let's look at what she said about "any action"
"Action" is a witnessing or awareness of events.  This unnecessary addition has provoked new questions for us.  She is introducing witnesses "things" (actions) that further weakens the denial while simultaneously giving us new information.  
a.  Action that she was aware of.  Would she need identify something she was not aware of?

Actions such as...

going to trainings for the weaponry. 
purchasing the weapons. 
cleaning them, practicing with them, including dry runs,
storing them, 
hiding them, 
cataloging them, 
print out receipts, 
e receipts,
book keeping
deliveries
drives to locales 
booking of the hotels
travel plans 
This is unnecessary unless because she is acknowledging the possibility of action that she was "not aware" of.  This is an unnecessary qualification.  

She has invited us to consider "actions" while being both unreliable and vague. 
He never said anything to me or took any action that I was aware of that I understood in any way to be a warning that something horrible like this was going to happen.
b. "that I understood" is now a qualification of Paddock's actions. This is to acknowledge that he did take actions that she was aware of, but she did not "understand" them to be violent. 
"That I was aware of" was first qualifier of action. 
"that I understood" is the second.  

She now wants us to believe that his actions were open to interpretation. 

This is to admit eyewitness actions, but the actions had to be "understood" a specific way to conclude murderous attack upon innocent lives. She piles weakness upon weakness: 
The subject  is not done yet: 
c.  He never said anything to me or took any action that I was aware of that I understood in any way to be a warning that something horrible like this was going to happen.

"in any way" now should cause investigators to learn of his actions' expressions in various means.  The subject is broadening the scope. The interpretation of his actions is now given by her:

"a warning."

She now is telling us that she witnessed actions, but did not "understand" them to be a "warning."  

d.  He never said anything to me or took any action that I was aware of that I understood in any way to be a warning that something horrible like this was going to happen.

Here is the center of the subject's denial:  "to be a warning."

It is unreliable and it is heavily qualified and it is about something specific:
her understanding, interpretation, or grasping of "warning."

This is to specifically avoid saying "He did not tell me he was going to kill people" and instead gives us an unreliable and heavily qualified specifically classified  denial "warning."  
This should cause suspicion that the subject did not need to be "warned" because of "agreement."

Minimization:  "something horrible like this."

Like what?

Like shooting innocent victims with sophisticated weaponry?  She has a need to distance herself to something that even strangers would not have a need to distance themselves from. 

What is the "something"?
What is "this"?
What is "horrible"?

This is how guilt operates:  it seeks out words to cover itself, and while doing so, literally leaks out information.  Some of the most sensitive and powerful information we gain is when a subject presumes an accusation is coming. 

Often, only the guilty make these very specific presumptions because investigators (and readers) would often not have even thought to ask certain questions. 

It is to show that "only the guilty" would be concerned with specifics that would not have occurred to others.  Only the guilty worry about a specific because this specific is not only unknown, but likely would have not even entered into the mind of the investigator had not the subject stated it. 

This is why in Analytical Interviewing, we do only 20% or less of the speaking:  the subject has the information; it is not within us. 

The interrogation is short and flips this around:  we do 80% to 90% of the speaking, making accusations and threats of consequence. 

Analysis Conclusion:
The statement is an  Unreliable Denial
The statement not only increases suspicion but it tells us some specific areas in which the Vegas terrorist's girlfriend knew of his plans.  

It broadens the investigation telling us:  she was not alone in her knowledge of what he was doing.  

To learn Deception Detection to the point of 100% accuracy, enroll in our "Complete Statement Analysis Course" which comes with 12 months of e-support.  

Our Advanced Course, which includes content analysis and psycho-lingustic profiling is not offered until successful completion of our Complete Course.

Certification requires minimum of 60 hours live training after completion of course.  


13 comments:

Anonymous said...

OT - Fake hate

http://www.kwch.com/content/news/Racially-motivated-incident-sparks-conversations-on-K-States-campus-454818203.html

Car's owner says he's responsible for 'racist graffiti'

FBI investigates possible hate crime in Manhattan car vandalism


FBI investigates possible hate crime in Manhattan car vandalism

rob said...

What ever his reasons for this crime were, people close to him would know what it is that bugs him. Racists rant about race, political haters rant about the other party, etc, etc. I would think most people who have an issue with whatever, gripes, makes snide remarks, frowns, they let people know they don't like it.
I think girlfriend and brother know what his beef was, or if he just wanted to do something 'BIG' to go down in history for.

Peter Hyatt said...

rob, its a good point.

We all talk about what is important to us.

Josh Powell did, and he was one of the quietest killers I've ever heard about. It is human nature.

She knows. As to his brother, you may be right.

It was not mental illness, nor was it gambling debt. We are not being told the truth and on the ground law enforcement resents the politicizing of their superiors.

Peter

John mcgowan said...

I love this

This expression, "in any way", seeks to cut off accusations that we would not have even thought of. This is how we catch liars.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

It's interesting that Marilou says "he never said anything or took any actiontrues", but she doesn't say she never saw anything (including the weapons) or heard anything (either him speaking to her directly or hearing his conversations with another person). It's like she's trying so hard to avoid saying what she knows with the oh so careful parsing and unnecessary clarifications, that she actually instead throws a bone to investigators, who are looking to unearth a dinosaur. She seems to be verbally thrashing in the deep end of the pool, in her attempt to save herself.

Anonymous said...

I don't believe one word of this dribble.

Had it been planned and he intended to survive and kill again, why rent a room and why bring so many guns?

One or two guns and several clips would have been enough. Renting the hotel room where he could be seen on camera is a suicide note in itself...considering he was a high dollar gambler known in the casino world.

He could have chosen a perch on a roof top or entered the crowd with his gear in a folding seat bag and sprayed everyone.

He had 40 guns. He only had a couple prior to the year she met him. He lived in Texas; they are known for their guns. She once lived in Arkansas; they outflank Texas 4:1 in guns. Yes, it would seem odd to many, but not to everyone that didn't know them before.

Anonymous said...

Know him

ima.grandma said...

"in any way whatsoever " is synonymous with the smart-a** remark of "whatever" or "anyhow. I'll bet she was smiling inside when she said that phrase,  I think she is pleased with herself and thinks she is clever.

Bottle Cap said...

OT:

Charlie Sheen 'categorically denies' raping 13-year-old Corey Haim on the set of the movie Lucas after claims made by a friend of the late child-actor

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5062721/Charlie-Sheen-sodomized-Corey-Haim-13-set-Lucas.html

...By the afternoon Sheen released statement through his representatives to the Hollywood Reporter saying 'Charlie Sheen categorically denies these allegations'

Anonymous said...

OT
I googled Josh Powell and found a YouTube video of his missing wife taking stock of the assets in the home and eluding to the fact her life may be cut short.I also found her father-in-law was a predatory stalker and her then husband a die-hard believer in a gloom and doom religion that requires 30 years of grain to be stored because of the upcoming disaster in which they'll spread their beliefs by supplying others with the necessities of life. (Assume they are Mormon as no others I know of store grain like that)A real-life Duck Dynasty family on the edge of reality.

It sounds like all involved escalated the demise of these people. She video tapes with a cell phone while fearing her husband-very computer literate to the point he built his own computer-at the advice of her attorney???? He has tools that could have been bought used but is evident they weren't. He also has lots of toys like remote controlled cars (his or sons?), camera, stereos, etc.

She leaves out the price of a more expensive washer/dryer set and includes she helped him build the pantry organizer (poor design)and includes the fact they bought a $3000 rocker/gliders (oops! $300 chair; $3000 is what they owe her parents) when those, too, could be had at a yard sale or thrift shop for $20-50 anywhere.

None of these things would matter when death is just around the corner.

But, even after she goes missing, the predatory father-in-law who has blamed the victim does what anyone who has been educated by the media does: He introduces her diary to blame her more for her own demise by psychoanalyzing the contents to the extent it benefits both him and his son.

If Josh is quiet, he's been trained by the best.

elf said...

Josh Powell is dead. He blew his two boys and himself up in his home.

elf said...

Josh Powell is dead. He blew his two boys and himself up in his home.

Anonymous said...

@elf

How awful! surely they knew that would happen though,eh?

I read a few more things on the subject. Here's a snipet:
Wet area and minute traces of blood on the carpet and fans blowing when called to check for carbon monoxide death.(assume wife's family made that call)
He goes camping at midnight in freezing weather.
Child draws picture that claims mommy is in trunk of van (didn't know they had trunks)

Didn't get too far to realize that NO ONE person told her to take the kids and make a break for it regardless of charges filed against her.

Even after she's gone, it sounds like the media ratcheted up the stress enough to get the children killed also.