Tuesday, October 30, 2018

Tyler Tessier Analysis by Det. Steve Johnson

Tyler Tessier


On September 2, 2017, Tyler Tessier took his fiancée, Laura Wallen, on an outing, the destination of which was going to be a surprise for Laura.  At the time, Laura was pregnant with Tyler’s unborn child. Laura was also preparing to start a new school year, as school teacher, a job she dearly loved.  During the outing, Laura sent text messages to her sister to tell her that Tyler was taking her out for a surprise outing. A short time later, Laura sent another message to her sister stating she was in a field and didn’t know what they were doing there.  Along with the text, Laura sent her sister a photo of the field she was in. That was the last time Laura’s family had contact from Laura. On September 5th, Laura did not show up for the 1st day of school.  Her parents reported her missing that day.  When questioned, Tyler said he dropped her off at home after their date, and besides some text messages from her, he had not seen her.

From the onset of the investigation, Laura’s family and police suspected Tyler might be responsible for Laura’s disappearance.   On September 13th, while Laura was still a “missing person,” Montgomery County Police organized a press conference with the cooperation of Laura’s family.  This was a brilliant move by the investigators. The sole purpose of the press conference was to see what Tyler would say.  It was Statement Analysis in action.
The police spoke first.  Their prologue was masterful, as they set the stage and focused on their solid investigation which would surely lead to the arrest of whoever may be responsible for Laura’s disappearance.  Tyler sat next to Mrs. Tessier, holding her hand during the press conference. Mrs. Tessier, later revealed she played the part, but she was shaking so bad, she had to use two hands in order to keep her hand in Tyler’s.  

After police spoke, Laura’s father spoke.  Although he suspected Laura may be dead, he spoke in the positive, reassuring Laura that they were not giving up and they would bring her home.  

The time was then turned over to Laura’s fiancée, Tyler Tessier.  What did they have to glean from Tyler’s statement? Let’s find out… Tyler’s statement is followed by the analysis.  

The question for analysis is: Does Tyler Tessier have guilty knowledge of Laura’s disappearance?
We seek to learn what Tyler’s linguistic disposition is toward his fiancée.  Is he being completely honest, or is he withholding information? Is there other information (Latent Content) that Tyler unknowingly gives away?


T: "Thank you all for coming here, um, Laura, if your listening, it doesn't matter what’s happened, it doesn't matter what type of trouble, there’s nothing we can't fix together – myself and your family. There’s so many people, so many people that miss you, so many people who were out, who haven't slept. We haven't eaten. We are just looking or praying that you’re safe.  I’m asking to just let us know that your safe. If somebody has her, please understand that you've taken away a huge, a huge person in so many people’s lives.  Friends and family, students that she has. I know what she means to me, and I know what she means to everybody else. We just want to know she's OK. We just want her back.  Thank You."


Q: Tyler can you talk about what she’d been like the over the last couple weeks and your interaction with her?
T: Um like Mr. Wallen said, she was uh, super excited for the start of the school year. I know uh, she had talked to some, the principal and her teachers, like her co-workers about um, her being pregnant and how excited she was, and uh, it’s just a complete shock that (pause) I mean I think leading up to the, leading up to the weekend that she’s missing, I mean I don’t, I don’t believe anybody has any inclination to think anything was wrong or...  

Q: Do you remember any of your last conversations with her?
T: I don’t know where she is, that’s all, I don’t know.  I know were all trying to do everything we can to find her and, I just pray that, I pray she’s safe, she comes back. That’s all I care about right now.

Q: How long have you all been together and how long have you been dating her?
T: Laura and I have known each other probably for 10 years now.  Um, we’ve know, any normal relationship, just take one step at a time and ya take the progress that comes with ya, and been to doctor’s meetings, we’ve been sonograms, all the pre-natal care you could ask…sorry.”

Analysis:
"Thank you all for coming here,
Tyler has a need to be seen in a positive light.  It is important to note that Tyler is thanking “you all,” which includes a significant presence from the police department as well as the media.  This press conference took place days after Laura was reported missing.  Laura had not yet been found.  He was thanking the police (and the media), who had not found her.  

um, Laura, if you’re listening,
Every word is important to the analysis.  Here, “um” is important as it is a pause to think, a pause in the speedy process of the brain.     
Tyler addresses Laura personally, using her name, which we note as a positive linguistic disposition (+).  
However, Tyler then utilized extra and unnecessary wording, which is doubly important in analysis.  
We all have an internal subjective dictionary.  On average, most people have about 25,000 words in their internal subjective dictionary.  As humans, we adhere to the law of economy, meaning we are naturally efficient with our energies including our speech.  Expending more energies or using extra & unnecessary words requires deliberate effort. With deliberate effort there is a reason behind it.  This is also true when we recognize that information was deliberately skipped over. There is a reason for it and that is what we learn from a person’s words, the reason why.
When we speak, we choose which words out of those 25,000, will effectively communicate what we want to say.  We choose the verb tenses, order of each word, appropriate pronouns, etc. All this takes place instinctively in a fraction of a second.  It is that miraculously fast processing of the brain that gives Statement Analysts consistent results time after time.
In this case, Tyler utilized the words, “if you’re listening.” The sentence would still make sense and be complete without the use of those words.  The important question we must ask is why did Tyler’s brain choose to send those words to his tongue in a micro-second of time, or perhaps longer since he had the pause (“um”) preceding it. We let his words guide us to the answer.
Tyler introduced doubt into the statement with the word, “if.”  He could have continued speaking directly to Laura, which would be appropriate for a man unwilling to give up hope that the love of his life, his fiancé and the mother of his unborn child, will surely be found.  Parents and other loved ones do not give up hope. They give the police full support and a chance to find their missing loved one. If the police fail, the parents and loved ones still do not give up hope. They continue to post flyers and strive to keep the case alive and in the public’s eye.  There is no doubt heard in their language. There is determination, we will find you!”
One might suggest that Tyler used the word “if” because he really wasn’t sure if Laura would be listening or not.  We note that is a definite possibility. However, in that same context, keep in mind that Tyler’s brain formulated his statement based on all his knowledge, for better or worse.  His language will guide us as we continue on… and he does not make us wait long for the answer.
it doesn't matter what’s happened, it doesn't matter what type of trouble,
Tyler speaks in the negative, twice, furthering the sensitivity of this sentence.  We always note that which is spoken in the negative as sensitive, and what comes after it is going to be important.  Tyler lets us know that something “happened” and that it was “trouble.”  But here he self-censors, interrupting his brain process.  He cut short the thought that was in his mind, as it was a thought he probably did not want verbalized to police and the media.  But there is more… he not only introduced trouble, but “what type” of trouble, suggesting there may have been more than one type of trouble Laura dealt with.
Note: this sentence is also a subtle blaming of the victim.  He is suggesting that Laura got herself into trouble. This is common among the guilty.  They typically shift blame from themselves and onto their victims…’if they had only acted differently, all would be well.’  It is typically subtle, and missed by most, except those with training.
Tyler is suggesting that it doesn’t matter that something happened to Laura, and that it was trouble.  It was her fault. We have to ask ourselves, does this sound like he is speaking to Laura? Remember, Tyler introduced doubt that Laura could be listening to him.  His language tells us that he has already conceded the fight to find her.  The only person that would consider that whatever has happened to Laura does not matter, is Tyler himself.  This is his verbalized perception of reality.

there’s nothing we can't fix together – myself and your family.
Tyler continues to speak in the negative, which continues telegraphing that this topic is sensitive to Tyler.  This wording gives us a good understanding of Tyler’s perception of reality and his priorities. That Tyler chose to use the word “fix” tells us that there is something that needs fixed.   
“fix together”  If Tyler is speaking to Laura, we can safely assume he means that he and Laura can fix anything together, ‘you and I,’ with Laura (you) being the priority.  However, Tyler’s priority is “myself.”  Is he psychologically attached to Laura?  Is she who he has in mind when he used the words we and together?  The answer is, No. After himself, he is thinking of “your family.”  Tyler has just begun speaking, and already his words have revealed that his psychological attachment to Laura has been severed.      

There’s so many people, so many people that miss you, so many people who were out, who haven't slept.
When words are repeated, we note an increase in sensitivity.  Here we have Tyler repeating “so many people” three times. The words “so many people” are not specific to any one person, or group or gender.  What is expected from a grieving fiancé? It is expected that he would take this opportunity to tell his love, that he, himself, misses her. Yet he does not.  It is the non-specific so many people that miss her.  It is this same non-specific and unknown people that were out and haven’t slept.  What were they out doing? He does not say, and we do not interpret his intent. Is he part of this group that was out, or part of the group that haven’t slept?  His words tell us that he was not.
What comes next, is a topic that Tyler psychologically inserts himself into…
We haven't eaten.
Pronouns are powerful in analysis.  They are not subject to interpretation.  Pronouns do not lie. When the pronoun “we” is used, we know the subject is psychologically involved.  We believe him. Tyler is focused on eating. Have you ever heard an innocent, and grief-stricken person mention they haven’t eaten?  In all my 28 years in law enforcement, I haven’t. It goes without saying that the grief stricken will not think about eating and certainly will not tell others they have not eaten.  The opposite is also true…as in this case.
We must also note with the pronoun, “we,” that Tyler feels a need to associate himself with others.  He does not want to be alone in this situation. He can’t bring himself to speak one on one to Laura.  It does not stop there…

We are just looking or praying that you’re safe.  
Tyler could have said, I’m looking for you and I pray you are safe.  Tyler did not say that.  Once again, he associated himself with the crowd, “we.”  We take specific note of the dependent word, “just.” This word tells us that he has an alternate thought in mind, which lessens the commitment of what comes after it, that he and others are looking or praying…but there is more.  Tyler did not finish his thought regarding looking.  He self-censored, and then changed his thought, as if they weren’t looking, but rather, just praying she is safe.  The question to ask, is why he would self-censor regarding looking for Laura?  Does he want her to be found?

I’m asking to just let us know that you’re safe.  
Tyler does not ask for Laura to come home, or to be returned… in fact, Tyler did not say, Laura please let us know you’re safe, in the form of a question.  Rather, Tyler stated that he was asking a question.  Tyler is aware of his audience.  Although he is allegedly speaking to Laura, this sentence was made for the benefit of the audience.    
The use of the dependent word, just, tells us that Tyler has an alternate thought in his mind.

If somebody has her, please understand that you've taken away a huge, a huge person in so many people’s lives.  
Once again, Tyler introduces doubt with the word, if.   We then note that Tyler does not directly address whoever Laura may be with.  He does not say how he feels about Laura, or what she means to him personally.  Rather, he tells us that she is huge (repeated) in so many people’s lives.  He cannot say what she means to himself, so he attempts to persuade that she is “huge” in other lives.  We might ask, what does Tyler mean by “huge” and who is included in so many people?  He answers part of the question next…  

Friends and family, students that she has.  
This is Tyler’s perception of the “so many people” that Laura was huge to.  Note, that it does not include himself.

I know what she means to me, and I know what she means to everybody else.
It is important to note that Tyler has quit using Laura’s name.  His language is akin to a eulogy. Tyler did not say, Laura means everything to me, but instead he stated what he knows.  He knows what she means to him, but he did not say what that is.  
Tyler once again stated what he knows when it comes to everybody else.  He feels the need to be among the crowd.  It is a deceptive tactic…if she means a lot to everybody else, you must accept that she means a lot to me.  
Note that there is actually a distinct division between what “she means to me” and “what she means to everybody else” in Tyler’s verbalized perception of reality. They are two different things… which correlates back to Tyler not including himself among the people that Laura means so much to.

We just want to know she's OK. We just want her back.  Thank You."
Tyler continues to ‘stay in the crowd’ with the pronoun we used twice.  He cannot bring himself to say “I want you back.”  By associating himself with those that do want Laura back safe, Tyler hopes that we will assume he also wants the same.  However, he has not stated that he does and we cannot assume it or state it for him.
Again, Tyler uses the dependent word, “just,” not once, but twice, which lessens the importance of what comes after it and compares the topic to an alternative thought.  
Tyler’s priority is noted as follows:  
  1. To know that she is OK.
  2. We want her back.


At this point in the press conference, Tyler is able to sit down.  It appears that he believes he is done speaking. The detective then spoke for about six minutes, which was plenty of time to put Tyler at ease and let his guard down.  It was a brilliant tactic. The detective then opened it up for questions. A question was asked of Laura’s father, followed by questions directed to Tyler. Here are the questions asked of Tyler with his responses and analysis:  

Q: Tyler can you talk about what she’d been like the over the last couple weeks and your interaction with her?
T: Um like Mr. Wallen said, she was uh, super excited for the start of the school year. I know uh, she had talked to some, the principal and her teachers, like her co-workers about um, her being pregnant and how excited she was, and uh, it’s just a complete shock that (long pause) I mean I think leading up to the, leading up to the weekend that she’s missing, I mean I don’t, I don’t believe anybody has any inclination to think anything was wrong or...  

Note how Tyler referred to Laura’s father, “like Mr. Wallen said…”  This is a referral to a truthful and credible statement.  However, the words did not belong to Tyler, they belonged to Laura’s father.  
Tyler goes on to stumble over his words and even speaks out of order.  Then, at the end of his ramblings, Tyler’s brain cannot set aside what it knows, and Tyler cannot control it.  He did not prepare a response to this question…this is off the cuff. Remember what the question is: what she’d been like over the last couple weeks and his interaction with her?  
“I mean I don’t, I don’t believe anybody has any inclination to think anything was wrong or...   
We note the high sensitivity with the negative language repeated.  We always note negative language as sensitive. We also always note anything repeated as sensitive.
Knowing the heightened sensitivity, we now note that Tyler did NOT say, I did not think anything was wrong or Our relationship was great.  Tyler is thinking about his interactions with Laura leading up to the weekend she disappeared.  What he tells us is not what he thought, nor is it about his interaction with Laura.  Instead, he tells us what he does not believe, which is that anybody has any inclination to think, that anything was wrong.   This is important, given the context of the question: what she’d been like the over the last couple weeks and your interaction with her?  Tyler’s brain cannot withhold what he knows, that something was wrong regarding his interactions with Laura.   
Unfortunately, Tyler was interrupted with another question before he could finish his admission…  Note his answer to this next question.

Q: Do you remember any of your last conversations with her?
T: I don’t know where she is, that’s all, I don’t know.  I know we’re all trying to do everything we can to find her and, I just pray that, I pray she’s safe, she comes back. That’s all I care about right now.  
Keep in mind, the brain will formulate a statement based upon all its knowledge.  Tyler’s brain has given away what is foremost on Tyler’s mind…which is Laura’s location.   Tyler is so nervous at this point, that he cannot even comprehend the question. Instead, he gives an unreliable denial to a question that has not yet been asked.  Why does he do so? Because his brain is telling him that the question will certainly be asked, so he attempts to pre-empt it. He did not believe before, that anybody thought anything was wrong, but he obviously does now as he blurts out:  
“I don’t know where she is, that’s all, I don’t know.”  
If there was any doubt in the investigator’s minds that Tyler has guilty knowledge regarding Laura’s disappearance, there should not be now.  Tyler asserts, “That’s all,” which is extra wording and very unexpected.  Why does he add those words? He really wants us to believe that he cannot have any other information.  For analysts, it is a signal that he does know much more. It is a red flag. Tyler certainly knows more than that.  Remember, he has avoided the original question. Since that is all, there is nothing more to ask about and nothing more for the police to investigate.  It is in essence, a plea from Tyler to stop the questioning. His anxiety is high…the staged press conference has been very effective.
Tyler’s anxiety continues to manifest with, “I don’t know,” repeated twice – showing extreme sensitivity, to a question that was not asked.

Tyler never does answer the actual question asked.  He keeps himself buried in the proverbial crowd with, “I know we’re all trying to do everything we can to find her…”  
We note that it is not him doing everything he can to find her, but it is “were all trying.”  Trying does not mean it is happening.  It is a subtle way of saying it is not actually happening.  It is a lack of commitment.


Q: How long have you all been together and how long have you been dating her?
T: Laura and I have known each other probably for 10 years now.  Um, we’ve know, any normal relationship, just take one step at a time and ya take the progress that comes with ya, and been to doctor’s meetings, we’ve been sonograms, all the pre-natal care you could ask…sorry.”
The question is two pronged, which is not a good way to phrase a question. Tyler begins his answer with a truthful and reliable sentence.  “Laura and I have known each other probably for 10 years now.”   Tyler can easily say how long they have known each other.  He could have stopped there, but he did not. He added extra language, that strayed from the focus of the question.  Why did he do that? Because he has information that he does not want the rest of us to know. He feels the need to keep that information contained in his brain and to steer us in a different direction.  Unfortunately for Tyler, he (nor any of us) cannot formulate a statement without using all the information his brain possesses. That information which is most taxing on his brain at that moment, will manifest in his words.  Let’s look at how this manifested is Tyler’s words:
Um, we’ve know, any normal relationship…”  If a relationship is “normal,” one does not feel the need to express the normalcy to others.  When the word normal appears, we know that the relationship has been viewed as abnormal by either Tyler or someone else. However, in this case, Tyler only refers to a normal relationship.  The same “normal” principle applies, but with the noted sensitivity that Tyler cannot bring himself to say that their relationship was normal.  He wants us to believe it was, without him actually stating it.  
We note that Tyler easily stated a how long he and Laura knew each other.  It was a truthful statement. And as such, it flowed easily off his tongue.  There is a stark difference between Tyler’s truthful statement and what follows…which is a lot of self-censoring, and passive language.  Tyler cannot form one full sentence relating to their relationship or Laura’s pregnancy. He utilizes passive language which distances him from responsibility in the relationship.  His language is such that even the untrained may question the veracity of his statement and whether their relationship was normal or not.  

Laura’s body was found a few days after the press conference.  She was buried in a shallow grave, in the same field she took a picture of and sent to her sister.

Tyler confessed to shooting Laura in the back of her head and burying her in the field during their “surprise outing.”  He is charged with her murder.



Update:  While dressing for trial, Tyler Tessier was left alone in his cell.  He was found deceased a few hours later, after hanging himself. We refer to cases like this as: case adjudicated by a higher authority.

Detective Steve Johnson is a 28-year police veteran (retired).  During his career he obtained certifications as a Certified Voice Stress Analyst (lie detection), Certified Statement Analyst, and Certified Forensic Handwriting Analyst.  He is now a full time Instructor and Analyst for Law Enforcement, Legal and Corporate organizations. His Statement Analysis seminars, and Advanced seminars co-taught with Peter Hyatt, are consistently evaluated by veteran investigators as the most useful investigative training of their careers.  Visit www.Truth2Lies.com for available classes, or contact Steve to host a training for your organization.  

50 comments:

MsGvious said...

Full Press Conference Regarding the Continuing Search for Laura Wallen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McLNfybvrrg

Trigger said...

Great post.

There were way too many "we" statements from Tyler. I see the lack of emotional love for Laura in these statements and the subtle way he blamed her.

What a cold hearted killing. I'm sure his motive was to unburden himself of child rearing duties and responsibilities.





Anonymous said...

Great analysis.

He shows no concern for the unborn child anywhere. No emotion.

He uses the word,"sorry" which could be a red flag.

He also says, "about um, her being pregnant and how excited she WAS.." Would this be classed as referencing her in the past tense in context? Would the expected be, "how excited she IS?" Especially as sgs was only missing. Could this not only suggest leakage but also an acceptance of death which is unexpected at this stage if it is a past tense reference?

tania cadogan said...

So many red flags and completely avoiding answering one question.

I am disappointed he never faced trial so her family could learn the truth behind their relationship and why he murdered her (i suspect something to do with the pregnancy. She wanted a baby and he didn't) and also possible infidelity on his part.

The plus is money isn't wasted on his trial and when found guilty if there is a death penalty and he got it, millions saved in appeals.
The positive is he can never kill again, the negative is her family may feel judgement was not served.
His family will also likely feel guilt because he was their son, disappointment that their son did not stand trial to defend himself to whatever degree, no justice was seen to be done by either family guilty or innocent. So many unanswered questions as to why, could they have done or said something to have prevented this?
Did they see the signs but ignored them?
I hope both families get the help and support they need and that they talk to each other, they were not the ones that killed Laura and her unborn baby, that was solely down to tyler.

frommindtomatter said...

Something similar to what was in the excellent analysis which stood out to me.

“I know what she means to me, and I know what she means to everybody else.”

I want to know what she did mean to him, but he doesn’t say it. I expect something like “she means the world to me” but he didn’t say it so I cannot say it for him. If he wanted to tell us what she meant to him he would have, he chose not to. The connection is not there so we have to ask the question why.

It’s also interesting that he offers a choice of what she means to him against what she means to everybody else. That feels like a division and suggests that what he feels is different to what everybody else feels.

This type of language always brings up red flags to me. When people tell us they know something but fail to tell us what it is. If a friend tells you they know something but fail to explain it the first thing you say to them is “tell me what you know,” because now you have made me want to know what you know?

frommindtomatter said...

“We are just looking or praying that you’re safe.”

The simplest sentence would be “We are looking and praying that you’re safe.”

Using “or” instead of “and” suggests only one thing can be done at a time. Also I would say that “looking” is soft tone language. I expect “searching” it is stronger and more positive. If I cared for someone and they were missing I would do more than look for them.

“Just” could be used to minimise and mean “only.” We are only looking and praying. It adds to the soft language of “looking.” If he knew she could not be found alive then this type of language supports what he already knows.

“I’m asking to just let us know that you’re safe.”

The word “you” is missing from the above sentence. He doesn’t address her with the word “you” because he knows she is no longer alive and able to be addressed. Also he only “asks,” he does not plead, he does not say “please let us know you`re OK”

Literally he is asking nobody to let us know they`re safe.

His words tell us exactly what he is thinking.

Alex said...

OT

This linked article illustrates the hypocrisy of the left.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton-jokes-they-all-look-alike-after-interviewer-mixes-up-cory-booker-and-eric-holder

I can imagine what the lefties would be doing if President Trump had said this. It reminds me of what Roseanne said.

Alex

Lars Bak said...

"if your listening, it doesn't matter what’s happened,"

Wouldn't we expect "If you hear this..."?

Considering that "if" is also conditional, can it be that we are looking at leakage here -
if you (had) listened...?

Paul Flanagan said...

"The sole purpose of the press conference was to see what Tyler would say."

This being a fact, is it reasonable to think that some of the reporters or reporters' questions were plants?

Anonymous said...

Excellent analysis Steve, thank you!

"I don’t know where she is, that’s all, I don’t know."

I think in this particular sentence, we need to look at exactly what's being said here. I am unaware whether the comma after 'that's all' reflects an actual pause in the suspect's speech or if it was placed in there by the person who transcribed the audio to written form for grammatical clarity (the ol' Oxford comma). It means one of two things. Regardless of whether you view it as an actual pause in speech, he is literally telling us the ONLY thing he does not know. Of the universe of unknown information about this case at the time of the press conference, of all the possible things that were NOT known about the victim's status, location, etc; the ONLY thing he's placing in that category of knowledge for HIMSELF is where she is.

If he's specifying what he does not know, then there must be an entire 'universe' of specified information he "doesn't" not know"; ie, that he does know. That would include answers to EVERYTHING else relevant to the case: is she alive? Is she dead? If she's dead, how did she die? Are you responsible for her death? If so, how did you do it? If you did it, why did she have to die? etc... etc...



ima.grandma said...

Thank you Detective Johnson. Superb analysis. Nice job. Very nice.

John mcgowan said...

Great analysis, thank you.

--


so many people who were out, who haven't slept. We haven't eaten.

More subtle blaming.

Oh by the way, just to let you know., these people haven't slept, we haven't eaten because of you.

John mcgowan said...

OT Update:

Would the passage of cause him to distance himself (you're) even though this is up close and personal?

Dad of Missing Woman Kidnapped by Lover's 'Evil Queen' Wife Is 'Not Giving Up' Search to Find Her

https://people.com/crime/heather-elvis-father-speaks-missing-south-carolina-woman/

John mcgowan said...

*Time ^^

John mcgowan said...

*not cause him to distance himself, to employ distancing language

Anonymous said...

O.T.~
Good tidings Peter, hoping you,Heather and the kids are doing well.

Been popping in here on the reg hoping for a Statement Analysis about Chris Watts interview.
I have searched your site and cant find anything.....

Got this page bookmarked and will come back to check.....

Loves ya'll!

Fondly,
evrli~

tania cadogan said...

Off topic

A woman who accused Judge Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault has confessed to federal authorities that she made up the claims because she was 'angry' and she wanted to hurt his political career.

Senator Chuck Grassley referred the false accuser, Judy Munro-Leighton, to the Justice Department for investigation on Friday, after she admitted she 'just wanted to get attention' on Thursday.

Now it's in the hands of the Department of Justice to investigate her for potentially making 'materially false statements' and for 'obstruction'.

On September 19 Senator Kamala Harris received a letter signed Jane Doe, describing with graphic detail how Kavanaugh and a friend had supposedly raped her several times in the backseat of a car, but did not mention when or where.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed onto the Supreme Court on October 6 after undergoing public scrutiny as multiple women came forward to accuse him of sexual assault. Christine Blasey Ford led the forefront and testified before Senate Judiciary Committee to detail how she was raped back in the summer of 1982.

Senator Harris forwarded the Jane Doe letter to Committee investigators.

On September 26 the Committee questioned Kavanaugh and read out the letter to him. He responded saying: 'The whole thing is ridiculous. Nothing ever -- anything like that...The whole thing is just a crock, farce, wrong, didn't happen, not anything close.'

Later that day the Committee publicly released the transcript of the interview as well as the full Jane Doe letter.

Then Munro-Leighton emailed the Committee staff days later on October 3 with the subject line: 'I am Jane Doe from Oceanside CA -- Kavanaugh raped me', identifying herself as the letter's author.

'I watched in horror as Trump vilified Dr. Blasey-Ford. I will not allow this abuse to be directed toward me,' she added.

In her e-mail she referred to her earlier letter sent to Senator Harris and even included a typed version.

Senate investigators tracked her down and interviewed her. Although she signed her letter as 'Jane Doe of Oceanside, California' she was found in Kentucky.

Investigators finally got a hold of her on November 1 by phone and spoke with her about the allegations.

Under questioning however she admitted she was never sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh and said she was not the author of the original 'Jane Doe' letter.


tania cadogan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tania cadogan said...

cont.

'I refuse to allow Donald J. Trump to use me or my story as an ugly chant at one of his Republican rallies. I know that Jane Doe will get no media attention, but I am deathly afraid of revealing any information about myself of my family,' she said in the e-mail.

'I watched in horror as Trump vilified Dr. Blasey-Ford. I will not allow this abuse to be directed toward me,' she added.

In her e-mail she referred to her earlier letter sent to Senator Harris and even included a typed version.

Senate investigators tracked her down and interviewed her. Although she signed her letter as 'Jane Doe of Oceanside, California' she was found in Kentucky.

Investigators finally got a hold of her on November 1 by phone and spoke with her about the allegations.

Under questioning however she admitted she was never sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh and said she was not the author of the original 'Jane Doe' letter.

When investigators asked if she was the 'Jane Doe' from Oceanside, California who wrote to Senator Harris she said: 'No, no, no. I did that as a way to grab attention. I am not Jane Doe...but I did read Jane Doe's letter. I read the transcript of the call to your Committee...I saw it online. It was news.'

She fessed that she 'just wanted to get attention' and that it was a 'tactic' and ploy'.

When asked about the e-mail she said: 'I was angry, and I sent it out'.

Investigators asked her if she ever met Judge Kavanaugh to which she replied 'Oh Lord, no'.

In a phone conversation with the committee she said she 'just wanted attention' adding that she called the Congress multiple times to oppose Kavanaugh's nomination during his hearing process

Grassley described Munro-Leighton as a left-wing activist who was 'decades older than Judge Kavanaugh' and referred her to be investigated by the DOJ and FBI.

While there is a chance Munro-Leighton could have been the original Jane Doe author, it is also possibly she saw the letter's transcript online then took credit for it and e-mailed the Committee claiming to be the author.

'The Committee is grateful to citizens who come forward with relevant information in good faith, even if they are not one hundred percent sure about what they know. But when individuals intentionally mislead the Committee, they divert Committee resources during time-sensitive investigations and materially impede our work,' Grassley said.

'Such acts are not only unfair; they are potentially illegal. It is illegal to make materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements to Congressional investigators. It is illegal to obstruct Committee investigations,' he added.


tania cadogan said...

cont.

Judy Munro-Leighton's email to Committee staff

To all Republican Senators, 10/3/18

My name is Jane Doe, from Oceanside CA. I am sharing with you the story of the night that Brett Kavanaugh and his friend sexually assaulted and raped me in his car. Here is the letter that I sent to Sen. Kamala Harris on Sept. 19 with details of this vicious assault. The Senate Judiciary Comm had a phone interview on Sept. 26 with Kavanaugh to ask him about my letter.

I refuse to allow Donald J. Trump to use me or my story as an ugly chant at one of his Republican rallies. I know that Jane Doe will get no media attention, but I am deathly afraid of revealing any information about myself or my family.I watched in horror as Trump vilified Dr. Blasey-Ford. I will not allow this abuse to be directed toward me.


The typed version of her handwritten letter to Senator Kamala Harris:

Dear, Senator Grassley, et al.

The current situation regarding the accusations made by Dr. Ford against Brett Kavanaugh have prompted me to write you today. I have moved on with my life since he forced himself on me as well. The times were so different, and I didn’t expect to be taken seriously, embarrass my family, be believed at all. I was at a party with a friend. I had been drinking. She left with another boy, leaving me to find my own way home. Kavanaugh and a friend offered me a ride home. I don’t know the other boy’s name. I was in his car to go home. His friend was behind me in the backseat. Kavanaugh kissed me forcefully.

I told him I only wanted a ride home. Kavanaugh continued to grope me over my clothes, forcing his kisses on me and putting his hand under my sweater. ‘No,’ I yelled at him. The boy in the backseat reached around, putting his hand over my mouth and holding my arm to keep me in the car. I screamed into his hand. Kavanaugh continued his forcing himself on me. He pulled up my sweater and bra exposing my breasts, and reached into my panties, inserting his fingers into my vagina. My screams were silenced by the boy in the backseat covering my mouth and groping me as well. Kavanaugh slapped me and told me to be quiet and forced me to perform oral sex on him. He climaxed in my mouth. They forced me to go into the backseat and took turns raping me several times each.

They dropped me off two blocks from my home. ‘No one will believe if you tell. Be a good girl,’ he told me. Watching what has happened to Anita Hill and Dr. Ford has me petrified to come forward in person or even provide my name. A group of white men, powerful senators who won’t believe me, will come after me. Like Dr. Ford, I’m a teacher, I have an education, a family, a child, a home. I have credibility. Just because something happens a long time ago, because a rape victim doesn’t want to personally come forward, does not mean something can’t be true.

Jane Doe, Oceanside, California.

tania cadogan said...

cont.

oops i forgot to include the web page address for the above story.

Also it is handy for the paper to have included a copy of her handwritten statement which may be of use for the handwriting experts.

This is a great example of a teaching/learning lesson

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6348439/Kavanaugh-accuser-investigated-confessing-making-rape-claims.html

John mcgowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John mcgowan said...

"and I didn’t expect to be taken seriously, embarrass my family, be believed at all"

I believe her

Lilstr said...

"I was at a party with a friend. I had been drinking. She left with another boy, leaving me to find my own way home."

This reminds me of Peter's blog on the word "another".
"another boy" means she was with one too! Otherwise, she would have said: "She left with a boy"

The verb tense is odd. "I was at at a party. I had been drinking" That would mean drinking prior to going to the party.


Then this: "I told him I only wanted a ride home". The word "only" seems to be a dependent word. I would expect: "I asked for a ride home".
To word it this way could suggest a) already having an intuition about what's about to happen b) the intimacy already started at the party or
c) being a narrator who already knows the outcone

lie detector bots tested said...

Hungary, Latvia & Greece - all popular destinations for migrants - will start testing computerised lie detectors at their borders this month. The artificial intelligence-driven machines are funded by the EU - and it's hoped, will help boost European border controls.

November 5 2018 RT https://youtu.be/y1xp1lxLEcw

Trevor Perez said...

you may have an important blog here! would you wish to make some invite posts on my weblog? online gambling casino

Joe said...

OT - Chris Watt's has taken a plea deal. He's admitted killing Shannan, and their two daughters.

https://www.crimeonline.com/2018/11/06/breaking-chris-watts-pleads-guilty-to-murdering-pregnant-wife-daughters-in-shock-plea-deal/

Anonymous said...

I have been learning statement analysis for 6 months, yet to enroll on the course, but will at some point.

I like to test my new skills before I read an analysis of a statement. Pleased to report (to myself) I spotted most of the flags in this case.

I do wish people would not misuse "off the cuff" to mean "off the top of one's head." Off the cuff is a reference to public speakers making physical notes on the cuffs of their shirts so they would not forget what to speak about. The exact opposite of what that term is commonly used for today.

IUPG said...

Thank you John McGowan, I too Thought of Heather's father's words as I read this guys statement. So in your opinion, are the statements of Terry Elvis the "same" as Tyler's? Can we expect to see the father of Heather Elvis arrested for her death?

tania cadogan said...

Off topic

GREELEY, Colo. – A Colorado man charged with killing his pregnant wife and two daughters pleaded guilty Tuesday under a plea deal allowing him to avoid the death penalty but putting him in jail for life without a chance of parole.

Christopher Watts entered his plea Tuesday during a court hearing, replying "guilty" nine times in response to Judge Marcelo Kopcow's reading of each charge against him in the deaths of Shanann Watts, 34, and their children, Bella, 4, and Celeste, 3.

Watts' voice was shaking, and he could occasionally be heard sniffing after each time he said "guilty." Her parents, Frank Rzucek and Sandra Onorati Rzucek, and her brother, Frankie Rzucek, watched from a front row of the packed courtroom.

The agreement also required Watts to plead guilty to unlawful termination of Shanann Watts' pregnancy, a felony in Colorado. Family members have said she planned to name the boy Nico.

The deal also ensures that Watts, who is 33, will consecutively serve each sentence for that charge and the murders of his wife and daughters.

"He deserves a life sentence for each and every act," Weld County District Attorney Michael Rourke said.

Rourke said he and another prosecutor visited Shanann Watts' family in North Carolina last month to discuss the odds of a death penalty sentence being carried out.

Rourke said he described "extraordinary delays" in carrying out the death penalty in Colorado since Gov. John Hickenlooper's 2013 decision to block the execution of Nathan Dunlap. Hickenlooper also expressed doubts at the time about the use of the death penalty generally.

Shanann Watts' family members "were very strongly in favor of a resolution in this case short of the death penalty," Rourke said. He recalled her mother, Sandra, saying Christopher Watts "made the choice" to take the lives of his family members.

"I do not want to be in the position of making the choice to take his," Rourke said, quoting Sandra. "That's about as firmly as she could have said it to me."

The Rzucek family watched from a row of chairs, holding hands, as Rourke spoke to reporters but did not speak. Rourke said they may decide to testify when Christopher Watts is formally sentenced on Nov. 19.

Watts is represented by the Office of the Colorado State Public Defender, which does not comment on pending cases.

Watts, a former oil and gas worker, was charged in August with killing his pregnant wife and their daughters inside their home in Frederick, a community in the oil and gas fields north of Denver. Police have said Watts then drove their bodies to an oil site owned by his former employer.

The girls' bodies were found submerged in an oil tank, and Shanann Watts' body was found in a shallow grave.

Investigators claimed in the documents that Watts admitted to police that he killed his wife. But he told police that he strangled her in "a rage" when he discovered she had strangled their two daughters after he sought a separation.

Rourke said Tuesday that investigators never believed that Watts was being entirely truthful.

"The spotlight that he tried to shine on Shanann — falsely, incorrectly and frankly a flat-out lie — has been corrected," Rourke said. "The spotlight shines directly where it belongs: On him."

https://www.foxnews.com/us/colorado-man-pleads-guilty-to-killing-pregnant-wife-kids

tania cadogan said...

off topic

THE US midterm election results have provided one of the latest twists that could free one of the world’s most talked about convicted murderers.

Democrat Tony Evers seized control of the governorship in Wisconsin from Republican Scott Walker making Steven Avery the unlikeliest possible winner of the night.

The incarcerated star of Netflix's Making A Murderer has been given fresh hope following the incredibly narrow result in his native state.

In a nail-biting race, Tony Evers snatched control of the governorship of the state with 49.6 per cent of the vote.

He is now required to create a pardon board by the Wisconsin constitution, something his predecessor Scott Walker, failed to do.

Jerome Buting, Steven Avery's trial lawyer for the murder of Teresa Halbach, has now demanded the Governor-elect free Avery and his nephew Brendan Dassey.

Buting, who was replaced as Avery's legal team by Kathleen Zellner, now tours the US giving talks about Making A Murderer.

He tweeted that the Democratic governor should "investigate the culture of corruption in Manitowoc County".

Buting also pleaded with Evers to open files from the TH (Teresa Halbach) investigation and reverse the Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey convictions.

The lawyer had previously tweeted that Governor Walker and his Attorney General were the two top officials "determined to keep SA & BD convicted."

The elected Governor can issue pardons but Republican Scott Walker had previously vowed to not intervene in the Avery case, despite any evidence the Making a Murderer claimed to uncover.

"Just because a documentary on TV says something doesn't mean that's actually what the evidence shows,” he told WQOW television.

"The bottom line is that there was a crime that was committed a decade ago.

"There is a system...by which individuals can petition the courts to get relief like others have done in the past that shows that someone might actually be innocent.

"But I am not going to override a system that is already put in place."

Avery is currently serving life in prison at Wisconsin’s Waupun Correctional Institution.

In 1985 he was falsely convicted of sexually assaulting a young, female jogger.

It took 18 years for his conviction to be overturned and he was given a $400,000 (£305,000) payout in compensation.

Days later he was re-arrested and charged with Teresa Halbach's murder, kidnapping, sexual assault and mutilation of a corpse on November 11, 2005.

Avery’s 16-year-old nephew Brendan Dassey was then arrested in March 2006 for being party to her first-degree murder and was convicted in April 2007 after a nine-day trial.

During interrogations, the police stated he had confessed in detail to helping Avery carry out the rape, killing and dismemberment of Halbach.

His confession was used as the foundation of Dassey's trial, which lacked physical evidence linking him to the murder.

However, in June 2006 he recanted his confession and claimed he had been coerced.

In August 2016, a US federal judge overturned Dassey’s murder conviction.

He told Dassey, now 29, that he would be released within 90 days.

But this decision was thrown into jeopardy in September 2016, when prosecutors appealed the ruling which in a 4-3 ruling at a US Appeals Court, found the confession to be voluntary.

On June 25, 2018, the Supreme Court Justices agreed not to review the Appeals Court ruling - but no reason was provided for the decision.

The series has had millions gripped since it was first released on Netflix in 2015.

The creators have since revealed they could make a third season of the hit series and revealed that they think Steven Avery will be acquitted.

Meanwhile, former Wisconsin district attorney Ken Krantz claimed the hit documentary had used deceptive editing and left out key evidence to trick its viewers.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7681660/making-murderer-steven-avery-brendan-dassey-pardon-midterm-election-results/

tania cadogan said...

Off topic

A PENSIONER is battling to legally reduce his age by 20 years to help him attract more women on Tinder.

Emile Ratelband, 69, argues if transgender people are allowed to change sex, he should be allowed to change his birth date as docs say he has the body of a younger man.

The entrepreneur and self-help guru is even suing his local authority after they refused the amend his age on official documents.

Mr Ratelband's case has now gone to a court in the city of Arnhmen in the eastern Dutch provice of Gelderland.

He was born on 11th March 1949, but says he feels at least 20 years younger and wants to change his birth date to 11th March 1969.

Mr Ratelband said: "I have done a check-up and what does it show? My biological age is 45 years.

"When I'm 69, I am limited. If I'm 49, then I can buy a new house, drive a different car. I can take up more work.

"When I'm on Tinder and it say I'm 69, I don't get an answer. When I'm 49, with the face I have, I will be in a luxurious position.

"Transgenders can now have their gender changed on their birth certificate, and in the same spirit there should be room for an age change."

The Dutchman said he is discriminated against because of his age, and that he encounters problems in society on a daily basis.

He complains that companies are reluctant to hire someone the age of a pensioner as a consultant.

And he says his move would also be good news for the government as he would be renouncing his pension until he reaches retirement age again.

The judge said that he had some sympathy with Mr Ratelband as people could now change their gender which would once have been unthinkable.

But the court said there would be practical problems in allowing people to change their birth date - as it would mean legally deleting part of their lives

The judge asked Mr Ratelband about the status of his early years, from 1949 to 1969, if his official birth date was put back.

"For whom did your parents care in those years? Who was that little boy back then?," the judge asked.

The court is due to deliver a written ruling within four weeks.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7686139/tinder-lover-69-who-identifies-as-a-49-year-old-takes-legal-action-to-change-his-age-so-he-can-date-younger-users/


When will this ridiculousness end?

Katherina said...

I have a question, which I have wanted to ask, but keep forgettng.

If a man dislikes his wife, he doesn`t love her anymore, they argue now and then, and they are both fed up with each other and they now think about divorcing. One of them may or may not have a lover.

One thursday afternoon the husband comes home from work and finds his wife murdered in one of the rooms.
He is innocent, he has no knowledge of the horrific crime.

Will he sound guilty in statements? Because he wanted a divorce and is now afraid he will be accused? What if he secretly is happy that she is dead? Still innocent, but is fine with her being gone. Will he sound guilty?

I dont know of any crime which fits this scenario, but I find it fascinating. I remember one of the female victims of BTK, her husband was a suspect for some time. But they were happily married. What if they weren`t, would the husband had been convicted?

Joe said...

Katherina, I think that the husband's language would be flagged for sensitivity, and the emotional distance from his wife, noted. But without any other evidence, "sounding guilty" in statements is not enough for a conviction. The Amanda Blackburn murder might fit your scenario. Peter has analysed her husband's statements on this blog.

Peter Hyatt said...

Katherina said...
I have a question, which I have wanted to ask, but keep forgettng.

If a man dislikes his wife, he doesn`t love her anymore, they argue now and then, and they are both fed up with each other and they now think about divorcing. One of them may or may not have a lover.

One thursday afternoon the husband comes home from work and finds his wife murdered in one of the rooms.
He is innocent, he has no knowledge of the horrific crime.

Will he sound guilty in statements? Because he wanted a divorce and is now afraid he will be accused? What if he secretly is happy that she is dead? Still innocent, but is fine with her being gone. Will he sound guilty?

I dont know of any crime which fits this scenario, but I find it fascinating. I remember one of the female victims of BTK, her husband was a suspect for some time. But they were happily married. What if they weren`t, would the husband had been convicted?



Great question.

He will produce indicators of guilt. We look for the indicators regarding what happened and his own activity, specifically.

Parents of missing children show guilt; guilt, perhaps, thinking, "I should have watched her more carefully; I should not have slept..."

One man, years later, still expressed guilt: "If I had not moved to that state, to accept that job, she would be alive today..."

We look for the specific location (and triggers) of guilt. This is why we use the phrase, "guilty knowledge" regarding the event.

The one that I thought I had missed was a father who was deceptive about his missing daughter. She was later found to have been murdered by a sex offender.

But he lied about what happened...

I later learned that he did, in fact, lie about what happened.

His toddler walked out of the house because he was under the influence, on the couch, incapable of minding her.

It was an important lesson.

Peter

Habundia Awareness said...

Why wasnt this suspect held under suicide watch? It was clear he was a prime suspect, especially if the interview was set up to get him to talk. It was clear to me that he wasnt honest and truthful....why isnt it standard protocol to put this type of offender on suicide watch so the dont get a chance to kill themselves before having gone to trial?
What a brave mother to have hold his hand, I would never be able to do that I think suspecting him for being responsible for my missing (dead) child. Unfortunately he got the chance to get the easy way out!

Habundia Awareness said...

@tania cardigan
As a Dutch it's funny to read English written articles about Dutch celebrities.
It has been a long time ago since I heard about this person. But when his name shows up it's always regarding something out of the ordinairy.

I don't think many Dutch take him very serious, but I could be wrong. I at least do not take him serious, he does make me laugh (because of riddicliousness).

Habundia Awareness said...

@tania cadogan (again lol)
Thanks for sharing that post about Steven Avery. Because I've been spending all my free time in reading older SA blogpost I haven't had the time to stay updated on that particular case. It's great news to me, I have read thousands pages of documents regarding this case and I am one of many who do believe Steven and his nephew Brendan are innocent of the murder of Teresa Halbach. And there is an huge problem within the departments of Manitocow and Calumet police and the Avery family, which has caused Steven Avery to be sentenced for a crime he didn't commit a first time and now has been for a second time!
I am so pleased to read Scott Walker was defeated with an inch.......it's a sign of progressive babysteps toward a fair and unbiased leagal system in the state of Wisconsin (it's needed after all I have read)

Lettice said...

Only the most gullible, or the ones that have not read the police statements, will believe that Steven Avery was framed again, and is innocent.
He killed Teresa.

Alex said...

OT;

Order is important;



Alyssa Milano

@Alyssa_Milano

Horses are finally safe. My children are safe. My home is in jeopardy but... everything with a heartbeat is safe. Thank you all for your concern.

To those who insisted on still being hurtful because our political affiliation is different, you are what is wrong with the country.
175K
2:33 PM - Nov 9, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Alex

Mizzmarple said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mizzmarple said...

I agree, Lettice.

Avery killed Teresa.

Habundia Awareness said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hey Jude said...

OT: Alex - she had already evacuated her children two days earlier - saving the horses from the fire was uppermost in her mind.

Habundia Awareness said...

Basing your knowledge of the case only on police reports show you know nothing. So many lies have been established by so many people, including those close to Teresa......Steven never changed his story, he hasn't told a lie and has acknowledge the criminal behaviour he did comit (threatening his ex wife, ,burning the cat, threatening the wife of a police officer, because she spread lies about him (which of course is not an excuse to threatening anyone), thefts, he has always maintained his innocent in the Beernsten rape case and has been in the murder of Teresa Halbach still people are convinced of his guilt?
I still haven't seen any legit evidence that proves without a reasonable doubt Steven to be guilty of the murder of Teresa Halbach. I do see other people in the case as possible suspects.........their stories seem to be just that a story!

Lucia D said...

@Habundia Awareness As a reader of this blog I assume you are a believer in Statement Analysis. I am curious. Do you completely discount Peter's analysis of Steven Avery, where deception and guilt of murdering TH were concluded? You state Steven Avery " hasn't told a lie". You really believe that?

Anonymous said...

In the third paragraph, “Mrs. Tessier” needs to be changed to “Mrs. Waller.”

Lettice said...

My knowledge comes from studying this case for years. Not from Netflix. Avery has told us he is guilty, we shall believe him.

Alex said...

Hey Jude, thanks for the input.

I thought each statement was to be taken on its own. I did notice she dropped the pronoun where the horses were concerned, however she did take ownership of her kids and home.

Thanks,
Alex

Hey Jude said...

You're right, Alex - I shouldn't have checked out her Twitter - what she said was intriguing, though. :).