The following is analysis of the handwritten statement made by Ted Kennedy following the car accident on Chappaquiddick Island bridge.
The methodology is Statement Analysis. For training in deception detection please visit Hyatt Analysis Services.
I. Statement
"On July 18, 1969, at approximately 11:15 PM in Chappaquiddick, Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, I was driving my car on Main Street on my way to getthe ferry back to Edgartown. I was unfamiliar with the road and turned right onto Dike Road, instead of bearing hard left on Main Street. After proceeding for approximately one-half mile on Dike Road I descended a hill and came upon a narrow bridge.
The car went off the side of the bridge. There was one passenger with me, one Miss Mary _____ a former secretary of my brother Sen. Robert Kennedy. The car turned over and sank into the water and landed with the roof resting on the bottom. I attempted to open the door and the window of the car but have no recollection of how I got out of the car. I came to the surface and then repeatedly dove down to the car in an attempt to see if the passenger was still in the car.
I was unsuccessful in the attempt. I was exhausted and in a state of shock. I recall walking back to where my friends were eating. There was a car parked in front of the cottage and I climbed into the back seat. I then asked for someone to bring me back to Edgartown. I remember walking around for a period of time and then going back to my hotel room. When I fully realized what had happened this morning, I immediately contacted the police."
II. Statement With Analysis & Emphasis Added
"On July 18, 1969, at approximately 11:15 PM in Chappaquiddick, Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts,Iwas dr driving my car on Main Street on my way to get the ferry back to Edgartown.
1. The statement does not begin with the pronoun, “I” indicating a psychological refusal to commit to what follows.
2. Elements time and location
3. Formal intro (even the state is spelled out)
4. Note that this slows down the pace
5. “I drove”but “I was driving”
I was unfamiliar with the road and turned right onto Dike Road,instead of bearing hard left on Main Street.
The Rule of the Negative – that which is reported “in the negative” is elevated in importance (sensitivity) –it is doubled; he wrote what he did not “know” and what he did not choose to do.
Please note: “bearing hard left” uses “bearing” and “hard” demonstrating incongruence. Was the subject speeding at this point? And/or:
Was he distracted driving due to the physical presence of the victim?
Please consider the impact of alcohol in the above.
He is deceptive about ignorance of the road.
He is withholding information about where he just was, and who he was with.
Statement Analysis: Subject's verbalized perception of reality is not reality. This is the subject's perception as put into his own vocabulary:
At this point, he is “alone” in the car.
The victim is not referenced.
“unfamiliar”: consider possibility that the victim was an “unknown” to him, regarding his intentions of driving the car with her. That he leaves her out of the statement to this point is remarkable.
After proceeding for approximately one-half mile on Dike Road I descended a hill and came upon a narrow bridge.
a. “After” TL (skips something in time)
b. “proceeding” ; he is not “driving” but “proceeding” We need to explore what he was doing at this point.
c. The victim is not here. She does not exist in his verbalized perception of reality. What has caused this? It can be many things, from her death to even a refusal of sexual activity to shame to, to victim blaming, to fear of consequence….
He has not “depersonalized” the victim: he never allowed her, linguistically to reach existence at this point of the statement. In the subject’s verbalized perception of reality, the victim does not exist. Even in murder cases, we expect depersonalization; not outright avoidance.
In his mind, she is not one to be depersonalized; she doesn't exist.
After proceeding for approximately one-half mile on Dike Road I descended a hill and came upon a narrow bridge.
Question: What did the subject do?
Answer: he “descended a hill” and he “came upona narrow bridge”
He “descended” and he “came” should cause us to wonder if the subject engaged or attempted to engage in sexual activity in the car with the victim.
“story telling”
Slowing of the pace
"came upon" is passive in Statement Analysis. This means he is removing himself from the responsibility of what happened.
why?
The carwent off the side of the bridge.
The “event” (Form) begins.
We now see the engagement of the psychological Passive voice. This is where one is now detached from the burden of responsibility and reflects more than just a noted passivity; but a state of mind.
He “came upon” a “narrow bridge” and then the car went off the side of the bridge.
"Came upon" is also the language of narrative or "story telling."
“The car went off”removes responsibility of driving and who caused it. In fact, it does not state that he went off the bridge with the car.
The passenger, Mary Jo, does not exist in Ted Kennedy's verbalized perception of reality to this point.
One may interpret that the “narrow bridge” is blamed but he does not state anything like this: he may expect his audience to assume or interpret. We cannot say that the narrow bridge caused him to lose control because he has not told us that.
We wonder what else caused him to lose control, that he conceals via his psychological passive voice.
PL Profile: entitlement to due privilege, wealth status. He does not face consequences as others do.
There is, to this point, in his statement:
a. No driver
b. No personal responsibility
c. No victim
There was one passenger with me, one Miss Mary _____ a former secretary of my brother Sen. Robert Kennedy.
“Miss Mary ____”. ISI = negative relationship in the statement
“my brother Sen. Robert Kennedy” CSI = good relationship in the statement
Q. Who is “Miss Mary”?
A. “Miss Mary” is a person who was “with”him, (distance) who is “one passenger” (before name), who has a name, and who’s position is no longer related to his brother; the victim is a “former secretary” of his brother.
The victim, previously non-existent, is:
1. “one passenger” We wonder what other passengers he has had.
2. “one passenger” who was “with” him; unnecessary self reference
3. She is “one Miss Mary___”; were there other “ones” ? Consider the reputation of the Kennedys “sharing” women.
4. There is no possessive pronoun linking the subject to the victim; therefore, in the subject’s verbalized perception of what happened, the victim has no connection to him.
5. The social introduction minimizes her, indicates a problematic relationship in this statement, which suggests that there may have some struggle, resistance, disagreement, between. (tension)
6. The Linguistic Disposition, weighted by context, is stronglynegative.
7. This suggests that the subject not only blames the car, but via the Negative Linguistic Disposition, he may be blaming the victim.
The car turned over and sank into the waterand landed with the roof resting on the bottom.
“resting”is to slow down time. It is also an inanimate object being given a human condition. We are now concerned about this human connection between the author and the car that went over the bridge.
One of the accusations was that he let the victim drown, deliberately, to save face as a "future" leader or even president of the United States.
This is very soft language: “turned over” and “resting”; it not only denotes time (resting) but is not fitting for violent accident where one has lost control of his car.
"Resting" is often used in
"at rest" to describe a dead person.
Please take careful note that in Ted Kennedy's perception:
The victim was “not” in the car until “the car went off the side of the bridge” It is only here that the subject is no longer alone. This is not only deception via withholding information, but it is to classify the victim as non existent; not depersonalized, but less than de personalized.
In his verbalized perception of the event, he was alone in the car until it went over the side of the bridge. The victim, compared to the subject, is “nothing, nobody, non-entity.”
I attempted to open the door and the window of the car but have no recollectionof how I got out of the car.
In an open statement, he tells us what he does not remember. Deception Indicated.
“I attempted to open” is reliable on its form.
“I attempted to open the door and the window” is specific and reliable on its form.
He then refutes, or minimizes by comparison, his reliable statement, with the word “but.”
He then offers what he does not remember, in an open statement.
The incongruence between specific attempts and lack of memory is duly noted.
Question: Why is the subject deceptive about what happened here?
We note that the subject possesses a need to employ deception at this point of the event.
He is deceptive about the time period when he was down in the water with the non-existent and now “one passenger”, the victim.
He has a distinct negative linguistic disposition towards the victim.
His social introduction reveals a negative relationship during this car ride.
Did our subject allow the victim to remain un-rescued?
I came to the surface and then repeatedly dove down to the car in an attemptto seeif the passenger was still in the car.
“and then” is not“and” (one continual action) but a temp. lac. that exposes a passing of time.
He did not “dive down” to “Maryjo” but to “the car” (not person)
“in attempt to see” is not “to see”, but to take one step away from commitment.
"I came to the surface" is to continue his "passive voice" in which, in spite of the pronoun
"I" does not tell us that he swam to the surface or even that he does not know. This is story telling and removing himself from all responsibility. It is a priority. (note its repetition = importance)
Next: note “to see” is to explain why he dove down from the surface is unnecessary for any type of rescue. It is unnecessary to explain why, in an open statement, he went to “attempt to see” and not to rescue. This is very sensitive to him and raises the question as to “why” he went down to the car. It suggests a different motive.
The subject gave reliable information on how he dealt with the car, refuted it, and now wants the audience to interpret his words as if he did not know where she was. Deception Indicated.
Question: Who is the victim?
Answer: “the passenger”
Since the subject has identified the victim by name, this is to “depersonalize” his victim. This is found in murder statements.
Previously, she did not even exist in his statement.
When he finally identified her, it was in an incomplete social introduction, yet placed next to a complete social introduction (brother), including his brother's prominent title.
The Linguistic Disposition towards her was very negative.
Prior to this, we had
a. depersonalization; and prior to depersonalization
b. non-existence
This is unusual and may indicate some element of premeditation within him.
He is deceptive about his actions towards her, and here he has depersonalized her into “the passenger.” This is consistent with homicide; not with an accident.
I was unsuccessful in the attempt.
“the attempt” is to remove or distance himself from his actions, and to continue to depersonalize the victim.
Note the narcissistic focus upon self. The victim did not exist at first, but when she did, she was “one passenger with me” which puts the focus on self. Next note that the victim died but the concern is for self:
I was exhausted and in a state of shock.
Note the emphasis upon self and the clarity of his descriptions, yet the assertion of the “state of shock” is incongruent.
Others may argue how he knows he was in a "state of shock" but suffice for now, in Statement Analysis, this is considered "artificial editing" into an account of what happened.
He is deceptive.
Let his language guide you:
He was “unsuccessful”, not in saving the victim, but in “the attempt” and here he tells us why, without being asked, why he was unsuccessful. This is a “hina clause” and indicates an extreme level of sensitivity. This indicates the need to explain why, and continues to press upon other motive. Even in this, it takes effort (in recall) to express concern for self, where no such concern is expressed for “the passenger.” (victim).
I recall walking back to where my friends were eating.
In an open statement, he can only tell what he recalls; this is an indication that he is concealing information.
“eating”: for someone “in shock” this is an incongruent point of detail
Unnamed friends are given a personal pronoun connection; whereas the victim was depersonalized.
The subject has given verbal indicators of contempt for his victim. He is stating that he is in shock, yet tells us what “my friends” were doing. “Eating” is to sustain life. Please note that he did not dive to Mary Jo, but to “the car.” He gave no details about the victim, but has cared enough to tell us that his friends were “eating.” The act of eating (mouth) in his language should cause for exploration of possible drug use by the “friends” and subject.
There was a carparked in front of the cottage and I climbed into the back seat.
Who owned this car?
“The” cottage is not “a” cottage; showing recognition (while in “shock”).
He was in "shock" but can describe his entrance into the specific location of the car.
I then asked for someone to bring me back to Edgartown.
He has “climbed into the back seat” of a car. He did not get in the car, but “climbed” and gives the specific location of where he climbed.
“Then” is to skip over time.
We know from his statement that he had interaction with “friends” who were “eating” and he asked to bring “me” (himself) to a location. His concern is for himself. The victim did not exist in his account until she was “over the bridge”, and then she was depersonalized. This is consistent with homicide.
In an open statement, one can only tell us what they remember. When they tell us what they do not remember, in an open statement, deception is present.
I remember walking around for a period of time and then going back to my hotel room.
a. “remember” in an open statement is unnecessary; a person can only tell us what they remember.
b. “for a period of time” is made more sensitive by:
c. “and then”, the skipping over of time.
When I fully realized what had happened this morning, I immediately contacted the police."
a. “fully” makes “realized” sensitive. To “realize” is to process over time. This is consistent with his above delays of time. It indicates deliberation of waiting.
b. What would cause a subject to come to “full” realization?
c. The language of trauma (“shock”) is inconsistent with his recall of detail.
d. “Immediately” is an unnecessary word that seeks to rebut “delay”, which is not known to be accused (in an open statement).
It is as if to say "I realized" but I did not "fully realize."
This is what clever lying looks like.
Analysis Conclusion:
The subject is “deception indicated” regarding what happened during the car ride, when he drove off the bridge, when he was in the water, and in the events that took place after.
a. The subject has depersonalized the victim, consistent with both contempt and in homicide statements.
b. The subject indicated a distinctly negative relationship with the victim
c. The subject is deceptive about any rescue effort of the victim
d. The subject may have attempted to stop the victim from getting out of the vehicle.
e. The subject is deliberate in shifting blame to the vehicle, and indicates contempt for the victim.
f. The subject is concealing the activities in the car that may have caused the accident. This could include sexual activity, substance abuse and possible resistance by his victim. In his linguistic disposition, she at first did not exist. Then she was a person, female, with full name. Then she was reduced to a “former” secretary. Then she became a gender neutral passenger. This suggests possible need to “defeminize”her, which further affirms the possibility of sexual interest. His need to remove her gender is noted.
g. The subject did not attempt to free the victim from the car.
h. The subject was not truthful about the passing of time.
i. The subject was deceptive about his state of “shock”
j. The subject shows a strong priority upon “self”; concern only for self
k. The subject deliberately delayed reporting the accident
l. The subject’s language confirms his self awareness in delay of reporting
m. The subject depersonalized the victim, while giving strong favorable disposition towards his brother, who was not involved. The subject shows a stronger linguistic connection to anonymous “friends” than for the victim.
n. The subject indicates empathy only for self. There is no empathy for his victim.
o. The subject shows a dominant personality trait of self-absorption, ease with deception and low personal responsibility.
p. The subject conceals much about his victim. His language may indicate sexual abuse or assault of the victim prior to her death. The denial of her existence with several references noted.
q. The depersonalization of a victim is associated with murder, often with a very personal emotion of hatred, rage, resentment, etc, by the killer.