Monday, December 30, 2019

What Does It Mean to Explore for Sexual Abuse?

Statement Analysis is complicated because human nature is both complicated and it expresses itself in a complex language. 

To study deception detection or to host a training, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services

Saturday, December 28, 2019

13 Year Old Boy Attacked for MAGA

A 13 year old boy's mother reported that he had been attacked for being white and a Trump supporter. 

Police now say that this is not true. 

Here is the mother's short statement on social media:

“My 13 year old son was attacked for being white and a Donald trump supporter. Him and his older brother were called names and beat with a mallet breaking my youngest son (13) nose. Racism is real and not one sided! We should be able to support who we chose without being attacked!”

 Corning Police Department, after spending 15 hours investigating the matter, released a statement on Facebook revealing that the story the child’s mother told did not accurately describe the situation. According to the statement, the kids who participated in the altercation “were involved in an unauthorized boxing match,” at the skate park. After the fight, two groups of kids “began pushing each other.” The interaction devolved into a “heated verbal exchange in which racial slurs were used as insults.”

What do we make of the mother's statement?

My 13 year old son was attacked for being white and a Donald trump supporter. Him and his older brother were called names and beat with a mallet breaking my youngest son (13) nose. Racism is real and not one sided! We should be able to support who we chose without being attacked!”

Note the strength of the statement. 

Note the pronoun usage. 
Note the lack of qualifiers. 
Note the verbs. 
Note "breaking" rather than "broke" as impact continues to the point of making this statement

The mother's statement shows her priority of her son being attacked and does not use additional language to deceive. In fact, there appears to  be no deception in any sentence

Her son was attacked. 
He was called racial names. 
His nose was broken. 
Racism is real.
They should be able to support who they choose to. 

Corning PD: 

The statement then states that “one of the reporting juveniles brandished a folding knife with the blade closed.” The kids agreed to meet again at the park for another fight.
The two groups later met at the skate park for another bout. The report states:
“One 13-year-old boy, who previously brandished the knife, sustained a broken nose as a result of being punched by an 18-year-old boy who came to fight on behalf of his younger siblings. No further visible or treatable injuries were reported. It is our belief that no weapons were used in the fight. Although some of the involved juveniles from both sides of this dispute used racial slurs, it did not appear that race or political affiliation was the cause of this problem.”

Analysis Conclusion: Mom believes her own words. 

Statement Analysis is complex because language is complex.

Language is complex because human nature is complex. 

It is troublesome to sometimes post complex analysis because some readers want a "good guy-bad guy" demarcation that does not always exist in reality, nor in the subject's verbalized perception of reality. 

I would not be surprised to learn that the boy lied to his mother and only told half the story.  It would not surprise me if mom experienced "trickle truth" after her initial post and subsequent posts revealed weakness. "Trickle truth" is where the subject gives up a bit more truth each time he is questioned. Here, in her original post, she was not attempting to deceive.  

To study deception detection, visit Hyatt Analysis Services 

Tuesday, December 17, 2019

Missing: Heidi Broussard. Statement Analysis of Shane Carey

Notes from the analysis team on statements from fiancé, Shane Carey 

For training, please see link above. 

The quotes were scattered by media, making it challenging to come to definitive conclusions. 

“After the book fair she called me around eight something. Err, on her way home from the book fair she said she spent $25, I was like that’s ok. 

a.     Time or “timing” is important to the subject. 
b.     Timing is repeated with “…on her way home” 
c.     she said she spent $25…” which is softer, two way communication 
d.     Note the change in categorizing of communicative language:  he reports what she said, but only classifies (“I was like…”) rather than continue the pattern. It is as if he is talking to himself on how he wants it to sound. This is a weak commitment that followed a strong commitment. This is a change. 
e.     The subject introduces money while his fiancé and newborn are missing. This is what is on his mind. Is this a subtle blaming of the victim while she is missing?  Money may have been a stress trigger for the subject, as well as having a new born.  Was this combination overwhelming? 
f.      Why? Magnanimous?  Does he need to be portrayed, while they are missing, as someone generous, kind, forgiving…? Is this the need to be portrayed as “the good guy” while his fiancé and baby are missing? 

 Financial stressor
New child care stressor 

told her I have to go cause I was on my way out, 

a.     “told” firmer, one way…is this way he categorized his communication before, rather than reporting what he said?  Argument? Argument over money? 
b.     The need to explain why he had to “go”
c.     Why would one need to “go” on a cell phone? 
d.     Note “told” is past tense, but “have” to is not.  Is he recounting what he told her?
e.     Note that it is not clear if the explanation was given to her, or to the audience. 
f.      “I was on my way out”--- out of the relationship? Out of the house? Out of the burden?

and err.. I told you I love you, bye. 

a.     We note the need to include this in his public statement. “I love you” and “bye” can sometimes reveal the time of death and possible last words said to the victim.
b.     The subject uses “told”---not “said”
c.     The subject speaks, not to the audience, nor does he quote himself, but speaks directly to the victim, “I told you”
d.     Is the subject reliving what he “told” her (not “said”)? 
e.     The need to include “bye” may indicate finality.  He did not say, “see you later…” which would indicate another time in the future where he would see her. 
Consider:  The opening sentence here "after" and on her way home" could be two separate events? The first was on the phone, the second possibly face to face? More detail around the timings of events, location and what exactly was said is needed.
f.      We further consider the context---she is missing and he could include anything (or not even address their conversation). Why the need to tell her “I love you” and “bye”? Consider that this was in the stronger “told” rather than something he said or he was
g.     With timing (and location) part of this, might he have spoken to her on the phone and told him that he was on his way and met up with her? 
h.     Was “told” used due to argument? (authority) 
i.      In this quote as well as others, the money appears to be a greater priority than the baby. This may be due to a dispute. 

And pretty much I worked all day till about one something, and then I got here around two.

a.     “pretty much”---what else did he do? 
b.     What happened between 1 and 2?  Commute? 

 I seen her car, walked upstairs.

Note that he “walked” upstairs.  He did not go upstairs, nor check upstairs, but he “walked” upstairs. This is to slow down the pace of the statement alerting us to possible stress to come. 

 She wasn’t here…, and her phone was off.

 So I thought she was at her friend’s house cause the friend lives in the same complex so she might be over there with herphone off so I thought nothing of it, but she was not back yet. So then I went and picked up my son from daycare and ahh… and brought him home and she, he didn’t finish his lunch, so he told me to grill it for him.”

“phone off”-----phones do not talk; people do---was she silenced?
“was not” is past tense but “yet” is present  
Why is it important to him to link “phone off” to being at a “friend’s” house? We note that the sex of the friend is unknown in context. 

She wasn’t “here”---- but he brought his son “home.”  Where was he when he spoke these words? 

Did he go someplace around the time of picking up his son? (just after?) 

“she” and “phone” (note that phones are “people” in analysis because people speak through them) are separated by the word “with” and the phone is “off.” 

Why the need to connect the phone being “off” with the “friend”?  Was this a signal of possible D/V? Argument? 

The subject’s movements should be examined. Did he go by the “friend’s” house? Was he in the area?

The gender of the friend may be important.  Jealousy? Solace? Was the missing mom a victim of D/V seeking protection at a friend’s house? 

"She is the most awesome person in the world."

Gender neutral

"She's a great person." 

the two women” to describe missing Heidi/Margot?  Another indication that sexual abuse must be explored. 

“I woke up, hit snooze, got a glass of water…”

Possible need to cleanse from guilt, sexual abuse reference, etc. 

“If you see an awesome mom out there…”

This is his description to help public find her.  

“Margot is the sweetest. She’s only 2, 3 weeks old. She’s got the cutest little pucker lips, gorgeous little baby. She couldn’t do anything mean.”

Language consistent with pedophilia----much discussion regarding possible child sexual abuse and projective language. 

Explore possible sexual abuse of the baby – see the description of Heidi and Margo as the  “two women” and see his morning wake up reference to “water”-- 

No name, no title, and no relationship to the subject (Shane Carey) 

We have a sexualized description of the baby, while a gender neutral and non descriptive
 mother (“look for an awesome mom”) 

Did he deny involvement?

Denial:  He ignores rather than denies involvement.  

I try to ignore that, I don’t how how to handle it. But I know it’s a question.  I just ignore it. I know its not true. It’s negative.”

A refusal to say, “I didn’t cause Heidi and Margo’s disappearance…” 

Note language of physicality in several quotes including "hit", "handle" 

I love you. Just please come home. We miss you,” said Shane Carey.

“Her car, everything’s at the house, everything, the baby stuff, everything. Nothing’s gone except her and the baby,”he said.

“If you see an awesome mom with a baby walking around or in a suspicious van or car or anything that looks suspicious, just please give somebody a call,” 

not helpful in a description on how to spot Heidi --hyperbole noted of adult---this should raise concern of a bad relationship. 

Her fiancé, Shane Carey, said his last words to her were “I love you” as he asked locals to help in the hunt for the “most giving person” and their teeny, tiny, lovable baby.”

She’s a great person — she needs to be backHer son needs her, I need her — her family needs her.”

I don’t know what else to do — it’s already the third day and it’s getting scary,” he said in the interview. “Not knowing what to do is the hardest part. 
don’t know where she’s at, I don’t know if she’s suffering

Expected question is "Where is she?" but there is no expectation of the question, "Is she suffering?"

This answer, in the negative, is very sensitive: "I don't know if she's suffering." 


I’m helpless, and that’s the worst feeling in the world.”

Worst than her "suffering"? 

Analysis Conclusion:

1.    Is the subject telling all that he knows about Heidi and Margo’s disappearance? 

      Team:  No. He is concealing information that is vital to the    case. 

2.     Does the subject use language consistent with Domestic Violence?

Team: Yes. Please note intrusion (and priority) of money as possible stressor, into his statement. Note also external stressor of new child care. Note also the nature of control in the language. 

3.    Does the language raise concerns about possible sexual abuse of the baby?
Team:  Yes

4.    Does the subject’s appear to facilitate the finding of the victims?
Team:  No 

5.    What does the language reveal about their relationship?

Team: poor, negative relationship between subject and Heidi. He distances himself from her and the baby. Personality includes a fragile ego, need to control and average IQ.  Likely under pressure in the home/work/finances, etc. 

6.    Does the subject’s language indicate guilt?

Team: Yes 

7.    Is the exact source of guilt known within the statements?

Team: No 

The subject appears to show guilt. This guilt could be for various reasons, including attendant or tangent crime. It could be from Domestic Violence, marital discord, substance abuse, sexual abuse or possible homicide. 

This means that if he did not cause her disappearance, he could have guilt over her disappearance due to domestic violence, sexual abuse, a dispute that led her to run off or encounter danger, etc. 

It also could be the guilt of a domestic homicide. 

8.    Can we conclude from the interview that Heidi and Margo are deceased?

Team: No, this is still Unknown --- a cleaner interview is needed though the team remained concerned. The skipping over time, withholding of information, distancing language,  and the repetition of the phone being "off" are all alarming. 

In statement analysis, "phones" are considered "persons" as phones (in communication) need people to speak.  He told us repeatedly about the phone being "off"--- even if someone would find the phone and turn it on to see if she sent text messages or tried to call. 

Of all the things he could have said, he included details important to him. 

He appears to lack self awareness when he speaks. 

In this sense, Heidi was silenced in his statement.