Friday, February 9, 2018

Domestic Shooting Statement


This was posted to our Facebook and is redacted. I do not know the origins. 

 Let's take a look... 

 In Statement Analysis, we recognize that even with deceptive statements, most deception is via withheld information, not from direct fabrication when a subject is in the Free Editing Process of choosing his own words. This is why we teach to have confidence in the words.  

The speed of transmission. 

Some analysts use the phrase "in less than a microsecond" and others use "less than a millisecond" and it is not simply for effect.  

If a subject has an internal personal dictionary of 25,000 words and is asked, "What did you do today?", he cannot tell us everything he did. It is not only impossible, but it would never end.  Therefore, to answer the question, he must go into his internal dictionary and choose:

a. what information to give; what information not to give
b.  what order to present the info in
c.  what words to use
d.  where to place each word next to another 
e.  what verb tenses to use
f.  what pronouns to use

This incredible speed of transmission gives us our accuracy in analysis.  

"Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks" is this truth recognized from antiquity.  It is not simply the speed of transmission from the brain to the tongue of, for example, 25,000 words. 

  This does not accurately reflect what is happening. 

Other than wikipedia quoting, there is no tangible measurement to accurately define how quick the brain scans through not only thousands and thousands of words, but the details, experiences, attendant thoughts and hormonal responses associated,  that accompany each and every word, as well as the rapid processing of potential consequence for using each word. This goes well beyond the speeds of transmission cited. 

"Abundance" does not define simply 25,000 to 35,000 words.  That is just the beginning.  For us, there is no accurate measurement of this speed, and when or if an accurate measurement is found in science, it will amaze us.   

Where did our subject choose to begin his statement?  Would he say, "I shot my wife Susan by accident""? 

"I was messing around with the laster and I pointed it at my wife."

This is where the subject began the statement about what happened.  He begins with the pronoun "I" which means he is "psychologically in" the statement.  For analysis, this is an indicator that even if lying, we are very likely to obtain reliable information from the statement. 

We believe him.  

This is not only where he began (priority) but is also a Hina clause; an explanation as to "why" something happened, while explaining "what" happened. 

Instead of "I shot my wife accidentally" the subject began with an explanation of why, very likely to pre empt being asked why the firearm was aimed at her.  

"Messing around" is to use language associated with carelessness, or lack of intent, contextually. But we do not interpret.  Those who interpret do not maintain 100% accuracy in detecting deception but fall prey to those who are clever enough to rely upon the expectation of interpretation by recipients in order to deceive. 

"I pointed it at my wife" is, on its structure, reliably stated.  If it is not true, it is a most rare of lies. 

She is, at this point, "my wife" which is incomplete, though we do not know if he used her name just prior to this, but within his recall:  it is an incomplete social introduction.  

"She looked down." 

This is a very important statement.  This, too, is reliable, and we should believe him. 

What is missing?

What is missing is what happened from the time he pointed "it" (the laser) at his wife. 

Here we find the possibility of why her name is not in the statement.  He takes ownership of her, but without a name. 

What did he say that caused her to look down?

Stark in absence is all communication, yet we are given hints towards what may have been said. 

"She looked down" is to indicate what he, the subject, saw.  What did he see?

He saw her eyes. 

This is an indication of verbal communication withheld from the investigator at this point in the statement. 

We communicate much with our eyes.  Husbands and wives can engage in entire conversations without a word, simply by "the look."

A look from a wife can indicate:

a.  pain
b.  anger
c.  desire
d.  love
e.  shock
f.  fear
g.  warmth
h.  rage
i.  humiliation
j.  reverence
k.  and so much more. 

That he included following her eyes (down) should strongly suggest to the investigator that his words may have caused this action. 

What he says next shines more light into this:

"She looked down and I was a (expletive) idiot"

It is likely that expletives were used towards his wife.  

"and I pulled the trigger."

There is nothing in the structure of the sentence to doubt his word. 

"I was just being an idiot."

We now know more about him from this sentence. 

The word "just" is a dependent word, meaning that it needs another thought (or more thoughts) to be complete. 

He is comparing himself as being an idiot to other things he has been.  It is difficult for us to enter his personal subjective meaning but we can spot his reference point for "just" being an idiot.  

He has very done bad things, since his reference point of "idiot" is one who points a laser guided weapon and pulls the trigger upon his wife.  This is reduced, via the comparative reduction of the word "just" from other things he has done and likely said.  

Collateral interviews would likely reveal the things he has done that caused him to classify himself as "idiot" here.  

It is very likely that he had threatened this before, perhaps many times. 

It is also an interesting paradoxal  insight into his personality.  If this is idiotic behavior, we are likely seeing one who does not take personal responsibility for his own actions in spite of "I pulled the trigger."

Context and Persuasion:  In Jest?

Recall the setting:  "messing around" is often foolish, inadvertent, without intent, etc.  It is a minimizing word in the context of what happened. He does not say he "accidentally" pulled the trigger.  

This paradox is within human nature and he will highlight it further for us, as we listen to him and believe him. 

"I never wanted to harm her."

I believe him. 

To "harm" (minimizing word we often find in child murders, especially by sexual predators) her would mean she would live with the consequences of what was done to her.  In other words, she would survive harm.  

This is intent.  

This is why "I was just being an idiot" and he was "messing around" were employed. 

It is why we believe the subject's choice of words, rather than interpret them. 

"I love my wife to death."

Exactly the point. 

It is why he aimed it at her, why he caused her to look down, and why he pulled the trigger.  

It is why he did not lie outright about "accident" in any form.  

Intent and motive are evidenced by his words, and it is in the words that were spoken to her, that caused her to look down, that would bring the case into focus. 

It is interesting that he does not use her name but takes ownership, via the possessive pronoun, "my" in two places:

1.  While pointing the weapon at her
2.  While she is no longer alive. 


For training in lie detection, in Law Enforcement Seminar, or in home study, visit Hyatt Analysis Service

Trainings held in house, and online.  

42 comments:

ima.grandma said...

What does "I love my wife to death" mean?
Does it mean I will love my wife until one of us dies?
It's TO, not TILL. as in, my love will cause you to die.
__________________

 The phrase “to death” originally meant “[so as] to [cause] death”. Maybe it still does in this usage.

Another way of looking at the phrase "I love my wife to death" is that the husband loves his wife to the point that he loves her so much that 'his love' could kill her, but he is indifferent to the consequences.

tania cadogan said...

"I love my wife to death."

6 words reveal the truth.
He does not simply say i loved my wife, as she is now dead and unable to hear or respond and it would be tense appropriate.
he does not say i loved my wife till death
He speaks in the present, his love is for his wife now she is dead.

I would ask if he had been unfaithful to her.

habundia said...

His love for guns?

Mike i was thinking the same at "looking down".....if not freezed one would probably look to the laser pointed at them.

When you just "accidentally" shot your wife to me it seem very inpropriate to say "i love my wife to death"....as Peter nicely said....exactly the point......he just admitted he shot her so he did exactly that...."messing around, being an idiot, while "I love my wif to death", while pulling the trigger?
Need anything more. Very coldblooded if you ask me....just the pretendance of love....to make himself look a little less awfull (idiot)

Hes exactly that......a idiot!

ima.grandma said...

Off topic: way off topic:
Former White House aide Omarosa Manigault Newman revealed that she would "never" again vote for President Trump. 

"God no. Never. Not in a million years, never," Manigault Newman said on the season premiere of "Celebrity Big Brother" when asked if she would vote for her former boss again in the future. 

“I was haunted by tweets every day,” she said. “Like, what is he going to tweet next?”

“It’s going to not be OK, it’s not,” she said when asked if Americans should be worried about Trump. “It’s so bad.”

Manigault Newman resigned from the White House in December. 

The White House fired back at Manigault Newman's comments on Thursday in a press briefing, saying she no longer has contact with Trump. 

“Omarosa was fired three times on ‘The Apprentice,’ and this was the fourth time 'we' let her go,” deputy press secretary Raj Shah said. 

“She had limited contact with the president while 'here.' She has no contact now.”

personal observations:
I watched the three (3) eferenced episodes of ‘The Apprentice' more than once. Raj Shah was not included in the episodes as one of "we" that let her go, either in shown video presentation or in credits designated in prologues of video.  What is Shah's thought process as he states "we' let her go?" 

Anonymous said...

Felony charges filed against Grant County deputy who unintentionally shot wife

By Joe Utter Feb 8, 2018 Updated 6 hrs ago
MOSES LAKE- Charges have been filed against a Grant County sheriff’s deputy who unintentionally shot his wife in August 2017.

Franklin County prosecutors charged Jose Rivera, 29, with two counts of assault in the third degree, one involving criminal negligence and a weapon and the other criminal negligence involving substantial pain, and reckless endangerment. Franklin County was asked to review the case at the request of the Grant County Prosecutor’s Office.

Rivera is scheduled to appear in court Feb. 26 and remains on paid administrative leave from the Grant County Sheriff’s Office pending court proceedings and an internal investigation, according to Undersheriff Dave Ponozzo.
Moses Lake police responded to the Rivera’s home on Lakeside Drive Aug. 9 after Rivera called 911 to report he had just shot his wife, Sydney Rivera, according to a police report. Rivera was off-duty at the time.

Rivera reportedly told investigators he was “dry-firing” a gun he had purchased just days prior to the shooting and didn’t realize a round was in the chamber. He continued to say he was “messing around” with the laser sight on the gun and had pointed it at his wife who was across the living room.

“I was messing around with the laser and I pointed it at my wife,” Rivera told investigators. “She looked down and I was a (expletive) idiot and I pulled the trigger. I was just being an idiot. I never wanted to harm her. I love my wife to death.”

The bullet hit Sydney Rivera in the right arm and went into her chest. She was taken to Samaritan Hospital before being flown to Harborview Medical Center where she underwent open-heart surgery to remove the bullet, according to court records.

The Springfield XD pistol was recovered on the floor of the home.
Investigators on scene noted Jose Rivera was visibly upset and appeared to be in a “state of shock.”

Both Sydney and Jose told police the shooting was not intentional. Jose Rivera said he usually points his gun at the television or other items in the home when “dry-firing,” according to court records. Sydney Rivera told investigators Jose would regularly “dry-fire” his guns and pointed them at the walls as practice.

The report states Rivera agreed he failed to follow firearm safety rules, and cites a lack of sleep as a possible contributing factor. Rivera, a member of the Moses Lake Regional Tactical Response Team, was called out with the team for what ended up being a 16-hour call prior to the shooting and only had four hours of sleep.

Jose Rivera has about five years of law enforcement experience and previously worked for the Royal City Police Department before being hired with the sheriff’s office.

Anonymous said...

https://local.nixle.com/alert/6102185/ ‌

https://www.gofundme.com/BringRiveraFamilyHome

Anonymous said...

Great analysis! Someone needs to save this poor woman before he kills her. She and others are in denial. I have emailed the Grant County "crime tips" email to let them know of the evidence here along with the its very high level of accuracy and that they should charge him with attempted murder in addition to the charges already brought. Can someone else do so as well?

crimetips@grantcountywa.gov

Dave said...

Anoher off-topic-- the Olympic swimmer accusing her former coach/boyfriend.
https://www.arianajkukors.com/mystory/
I was troubled by maybe a hundred things in this statement, including "my truth" toward the top. I've never done statement analysis,so maybe someone who has done so would like to take a look.
I suppose the general public will have difficulty seeing beyond things like "monster", "age of 13" and "little girls and boys".

Anonymous said...

Would you think that he might have been just being stupid and dry fired the weapon?
I also know she is alive.
Also without knowing more of who these people are, you are assuming that there is a problem in there marriage?
If there was no prior domestic problems, which seams to be the case, otherwise it would have been posted.
You are all going on assumptions and you yourself would probably not want to be assumed wrong before knowing all the facts.
So you might hold your tongue prior to knowing anything.

Anonymous said...

10:07- Did you miss the part about 100% accuracy? You hold your tongue!

Hey Jude said...

Anon - it was posted that there were prior domestic problems- he was 'dry firing' the weapon in the home, which he did frequently. His wife and four month old baby were in the home while he was 'dry firing' his weapon - these are 'the facts'. Uou can call is being stupid or messing about but it was also a 'domestic problem', which was ongoing.

Habundia said...

Exactly.....if one thinks 'dry shooting' (for a cop) in the home (in front of their spouse and children isnt a form of domestic abuse then that one probably is a danger too........its often because surroundings are making excuses for the behaviour of 'idiots', that things like this can (and will) happen.

Only idiots use their guns in home for whatever reason.....making excuses like "lack of sleep", make their action even more dangerous and make themselves dangerous like hell. So many people are ignorant.......killers love these kind of people.......they are their best friends! With them they can become serial killers, their Friends will protect them and be their best alibi. Again so many ignorant people this world is holding!

Trigger said...

Did anyone see the interview with Ms. Willoughby about her alleged abusive and toxic relationship with husband Rob Porter?

She unintentionally leaked that she was abusive also.

"We had been fighting."
"I think that anybody who has been in an abusive or toxic...etc."
"It's so isolating."

Anonymous said...

That he included following her eyes (down) should strongly suggest to the investigator that his words may have caused this action.

What he says next shines more light into this:


Is there a percentage difference between "suggests" and "strongly suggests"?

Why are we rejecting that the laser appearing on her is why she looked down?

ima.grandma said...

Instinct tells me he was pointing the laser at her breasts, moving back and forth between them, when she looked down. She was shot in the right arm and the bullet traveled to her chest, requiring heart surgery. Where exactly was he in position to his wife? The trajectory of the bullet surely tells the investigators the answer.

Trigger said...

I agree with you, Ima.grandma!!!!

Every female who reaches puberty understands that men focus on women's breasts all the time. Was he trying to "make a point" that he could disfigure her anytime he wanted to?

Peter Hyatt said...

The words”looked down” (following eyes) is found where no communication is given. At this point he is withholding what he said to her, regardless of where he aimed laser.

Peter Hyatt said...

In domestic homicide m, we always look for the last thing said.

He uses this in replacement of what was said.

One analyst later said he thought she may have called him “idiot.@. This is a very good point.

It is rare that he does not use commmunicative language at this part of the statement.

I would not be surprised that he aimed It st sensitive points of her body


We can go on the o my word he, himself used, as the educated guess. That was the point the analyst made. I think it’s Valid

Peter

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

I posted before I saw Peter's post. I very much agree with the idiot observation. I'll give a little TMI but when lasers first came out as novelties, my husband would "mess around" and point around at me. The first thing I would say was "you're such an idiot." Extra credit points for that analyst.

Anonymous said...

In domestic homicide m, we always look for the last thing said.

His wife is not dead.

"she may have called him an idiot."

Well, sure, I agree that's a valid possibility. I told my wife and my 11-year-old the story and "idiot" is the word they used.

Anonymous said...

Why are we so certain something was said?

The sentences are simple, straightforward, and literal until he pulls the trigger. "I pointed the laser at my wife. She looked down..." Straightforward. No "then she looked down" or any typical indicators of deception.

I agree that after she looked down, she may have called him an idiot. He stalls before getting to "I pulled the trigger."

But in the analysis above, it is asserted that something is said in between "I pointed the laser..." and "She looked down." It is asked "What did he say that caused her to look down? which assumes something was said.

What principle indicates there is missing information here?

"I pointed ithe laser at my wife. She looked down"


ima.grandma said...

"She looked down" is to indicate what he, the subject, saw.  What did he see?
He saw her eyes. 

We communicate much with our eyes.  Husbands and wives can engage in entire conversations without a word, simply by "the look." (oh yes, definitely!)

Does the analysis allow for the possibility if he saw her eyes, then she was actually the last 'sender' of communication via "the look." Does he withhold the information he heard as a 'receiver,' possibly triggering the trigger finger?

Peter Hyatt said...

Swamp Things.

http://victorhanson.com/wordpress/swamp-things/

Anonymous said...

Has anyone ever heard someone scream: DON'T MOVE!!

Maybe he threatened her prior and she did move as she followed the laser light downward across her chest.

He's been called IDIOT often in his lifetime, and not from only his wife.

Funny how he only pointed the laser at her when it is common knowledge most are attached to a gun for siting purposes. did he not point the gun at her, too?

ima.grandma said...

Message received. I'm still pondering response.

Trigger said...

"She looked down" This is what prompted him to pull the trigger? Was this woman so dangerous and intimidating that only a bullet could stop her from hurting him?

Peter Hyatt said...

Your earlier post was thoughtful and interesting. I appreciated your posting.

You appear to be asking questions. It’s the path to truth.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

Usually (not always and in this case I don’t know) it is words that the victim spoke that need to be silenced by the attacker’s. It is almost always humiliation.

Peter Hyatt said...

Trigger said...
"She looked down" This is what prompted him to pull the trigger? Was this woman so dangerous and intimidating that only a bullet could stop her from hurting him?
February 11, 2018 at 8:19 AM


short answer: yes

good question

It is almost always words, far more than even a contemptuous look, that we find in domestic homicide statements.

*********

above comment: to imagrandma about interesting post.

ima.grandma said...

Luckily, over the years I have learned to keep my mouth shut more often than not. However, I am a spontaneous, open, expressive woman. I realize that quality gets me into trouble sometimes.

I doubt that any of you were as embarrassed as I was when I re-read a post I made yesterday. My words fell out naturally but seeing them in an open forum felt disrespectful to readers.

Now I'm going to write ten times, 'I will remember to choose my words carefully as there is no delete or undo button in life ...'

Alex said...

I just read the "Swamp Things" post. It reminded me of something a wealthy customer once said to me. He said he didn't like to go to Walmart because it smelled like poor people.

Alex

Dave said...

"I was messing around with the laser"
My impressions and questions about this statement changed once I saw the shooter's occupation.
I first pictured a gang member or other criminal-- likely to mess around with guns in order to intimidate people.
"I'm gonna kill you." click "Ha ha I was just messing with you."
Or a Hendrix fan-- "Caught her messing around with another man".
THEN I saw that the one messing around with the laser is not just an ordinary police officer but a SWAT team member.
He's highly trained in the use of firearms as a solution only if all negotiations have failed. This particular unit has at least 16 hours of training every month in how not to mess around. I doubt they're even allowed to put their finger on the trigger unless they intend to fire. They've got to be aware at all times as to whether or not their weapon is loaded. Oh, I also think they'll call it "the weapon" or "my Springfield" and not "the laser".
Yet the prosecutors believe this was unintentional.

Peter Hyatt said...

imagrandma,

Remember the days we would write a letter and then wait 24 hours before mailing it?


It happens.


Peter

ima.grandma said...

Yes, sir, I do. Those were the good old days, when personal communication was personal. The concentrated effort, thought, intent and follow-through was an act of courtesy and consideration. The cultural addiction to 'immediate gratification' is an unintended consequence of the E-age.

General P. Malaise said...

"I was messing around with the laser"

this is deceptive as well since he was messing around with his gun which was fitted with a laser sight. he is distancing himself from the gun.

"...and I pulled the trigger." the laser doesn't have a trigger. the gun does.

John mcgowan said...

I was messing around with the laser and I pointed it at my wife,” Rivera told investigators. “She looked down and I was a (expletive) idiot and I pulled the trigger. I was just being an idiot. I never wanted to harm her. I love my wife to death"

He doesn't mention a gun/weapon etc. Instead, he distances himself from "it"

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous said...
As you well know, this post will self-destruct. Having said that, here I go anyway....

Since it is now known via clip and paste from the article posted above, the WIFE is not dead.


yes the wife did not die. it does not change the language or the intent of the language.

Anonymous said...

Malaise: it does not change the language or the intent of the language.

This:
But we do not interpret. Those who interpret do not maintain 100% accuracy in detecting deception

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous said...
Malaise: it does not change the language or the intent of the language.

This:
But we do not interpret.

I have not interpreted. I did not say she was alive or dead.

I know she lived because of a post not from the quote. it seems she is dead in the linguistic language of the speaker (the speakers reality). the question is when was the quote made, before he knew she would survive or after?

ima.grandma said...

General, you're right on point. Effective.

Anonymous said...

Is omission of facts always an intended deception?