Tuesday, August 20, 2019

Psychological Projection in Language

When we speak, we give ourselves away.  

Statement Analysis is the study of the words in order to discern deception from truth. 

The training begins with the simple and it moves to the complex. Early on, it can appear rigid, as the new analyst learns to adhere to principle. 

Yet, human nature is not simple. Its complexities eventually arise in training and the well disciplined analyst may now ask,

"Why is the subject choosing this word?"

The answer, if there is one, will likely be found in one of two sources:

1. Within the statement itself. 
2. In the "greater context", which includes information outside the statement itself. 

This is where the analysis of deception detection is complete and now the analyst moves on to questions to pose to the statement. 

Some will not have answers. 

The experienced analysts accept this. The answers may be posed to the statement and to the case, but some may need to be posed in an interview. 

Bob Barr - Rep Congressman from Georgia, sponsor of a "defense of marriage" act years ago spoke about his proposal. We listen to his words and we ask why some are chosen (as unique) and repeated (as increased in importance).

"The flames of hedonism, the flames of narcissism, the flames of self-centered morality are licking at the very foundation of our society, the family unit." 

Note the use of "flame" is 3 times as important (sensitive to him) and that these "flames" are associated with a "morality" that is selfish ("self-centered") in the subject's words (lesser context).

We note the order:

(1) hedonism
(2) narcissism 
(3) self-centered

These are words that come into discussion when discussing politicians.  

What are these "flames" doing? 

"The flames of hedonism, the flames of narcissism, the flames of self-centered morality are licking at the very foundation of our society, the family unit." 

Analysts are trained to ask questions and to accept incomplete puzzles or mysteries when presented with such.

The Greater Context

The "Greater Context" is the surrounding events and the subject's own experiences, which are not found within the statement.

In cases of politicians, celebrities or anyone who lives a public life, the information outside the statement may give insight to the words chosen.

Why "licking"?

Short of asking him, perhaps the external information answers the question.

Barr was married three times; paid for his second wife's abortion. He failed to pay child support to the children of his first two wives and while married to his third wife, he was photographed licking whipped cream off of strippers at his election party.

If you wish to enroll in Deception Detection Training, our "Complete Statement Analysis Course" is done in your home, at your own pace and come with 12 months of e support. Do a bit of research into the course and then email hyattanalysis@gmail.com to enroll.

Monday, August 19, 2019

Sheena Morris: Update

Sheena Morris was found dead, hanging in the bathroom of a hotel room.  Police quickly concluded that it was a suicide, and that Sheena had a history of issues.  Instead of this young, beautiful woman marrying and bringing her family grandchildren, her family is left bereft of not only the life that is not, but of answers, justice, and closure.  

Statement Analysis gets to the truth.  By principle, we listen carefully to what one says, and even to what one does not say.  

If you were falsely accused of causing Sheena's death, it is appropriate for you to think how you would answer the allegation. 

I would say, "I didn't cause Sheena's death." and in subsequent questions, I would add, "I was not there when she died.  I did not contribute to her death.  I love Sheena..." and so on. 

It is this simple. 

I recommend reading the analysis before watching the "20/20" episode.  It is persuasive about highlighting that this was not a suicide.  My preference is to let the subject, Joe Geonese, speak for himself first.  He appeared on the Dr. Phil Show, and on 20/20.  He voluntarily submitted to a polygraph. 


The question at hand is simple:  Is Geonese truthful?  

The following is Statement Analysis of Joe Geonese appearance on the news program, “20/20”, which included a short clip from the “Dr. Phil Show” in which the subject, Joe Genoese was given opportunity to speak for himself regarding the allegation that he had involvement in the death of Sheena Morris. 

The quotations are in italics, with underlining and color added for emphasis, with the Statement Analysis in bold type. 

On the 20/20 Transcripts, the subject is on pages 20-29.  No changes have been made to the subject’s words. 

Lying is stressful. 

People do not generally directly lie due to the internal stress it causes.  Mostly, people will either mislead, in order to deceive, or will deliberately leave information out of their statement for the purpose of deception. 90% or more of deception is done in this manner. 

It is in the will to deceive that we find linguistic indications. 

The Expected Versus The Unexpected

Statement Analysis presumes innocence.  This is done so that we might set up the difference between “the expected” response from someone who “did not do it”, against any response we receive that does not deny involvement.  This is the “unexpected” from the subject. 

By presupposing innocence (not merely judicial innocence but de facto innocence) Statement Analysis is confronted by words not expected to hear.  This is how truth from deception can be evidenced. 

An innocent person will not surprise us.  He will say “I didn’t do it”, early, and often if necessary, and will not show sensitivity indicators within his speech.  For example, he, the innocent person, will not allow weakness in his statement:

I don’t think I killed Sheena” would be to add weakness by the word “think” in the sentence.  To say “I don’t think I killed Sheena” allows for the subject, or someone else, to “think” differently. “I didn’t really kill Sheena” qualifies “kill” with the word “really”, something an innocent person would not say. 
"I'm not guilty" is to deny judicial guilt; not the killing of Sheena.  It is not reliable. 

Short sentences are seen as best, with no psychological need to buttress them with many words, in an attempt to persuade.  It is the need to persuade that the analyst must take account of.  


Sheena Morris is dead, found hung in a bathroom, in an apparent suicide.  The subject is being accused by Sheena’s family of murdering her.  

We presume the subject did not do it, therefore, in being interviewed by national television, or by the police, he will, on his own accord say, “I didn’t kill Sheena” freely. 

Dr Phil:   These two people think you had something to do with their daughter's death.

Please note that Dr. Phil Shows generally have an allegation presented so that the subject can speak to the allegation choosing his own words. 

When a person speaks for himself, it is call the “Free Editing Process”, that is, that the subject is freely choosing his words, what to add in and what to take out. This allows the subject the opportunity to say that he did not “do it” in a “Reliable Denial.”

A “Reliable Denial” in order to be reliable, must come from the subject’s own words.  It consists of three (3) components.  If there are less than three components, or more than three, it is no longer to be deemed reliable.  The three components are:

1.     The Pronoun “I”
2.     The Past Tense verb “Didn’t” or “did not”
3.     The Specific Allegation Addressed 

In this case, a Reliable Denial would be:  “I did not cause Sheena’s death.”  The innocent will simply make this statement, often not even waiting to be asked.  It is to be deemed reliable. 
Other denials that are not reliable include:

1.     Didn’t do it”, dropping the pronoun “I”
2.     “I would never cause her death”, with the words “would never
3.     I did not harm Sheena”, which now minimizes her death to “harm”
4.     I never caused Sheena’s death” as the word “never” is substituted for “didn’t” or “did not” and is not reliable. 

parroting or reflective language reduces reliability for the analyst: 

The denial must be his own words.  For instance, if asked,
Did you hang Sheena by a dog leash in the bathroom” to which the subject says “I did not hang Sheena by a dog leash in the bathroom” would be to enter into the Interviewer’s wording, and not freely choosing his own words.  This is why leading questions are to be avoided in an interview.  Best to say “How do you speak to the accusation?” and allow the subject to simply, without qualifiers, say, “I didn’t do it.”

In Statement Analysis we have a principle: 

If the subject is unwilling or unable to say he didn’t do it, we are not permitted to say it for him. 
By Dr. Phil’s laying out the scenario, we now have “The expected”, that is, what we expect an innocent person to say.  This is the perfect opportunity for the subject to say “I didn’t do it.  I didn’t cause Sheena’s death.”

Presuming innocence, we look for him to say so: 

Geneose:  All these things are lies.  They're just, they're not true.”

Please note that “all these things are lies.  They’re just, they’re not true” is not to say “I didn’t do it.”

He does not issue a Reliable Denial. 

We do not know what “all these things” (plural) are that he refers to. He is accused of murdering Sheena Morris and it is expected that an innocent person will tell us that he did not do it.  The subject fails to do so. 

He says that “all these things are lies” but he does not tell us what things are lies, nor who is telling the lies.  

Next, note the word “just.”  The word “just” is used when comparing two or more thoughts, with one being lesser.  For example, if I sought to sell you a car for $15,000 but knew it was very expensive for you, I might show you a car that is $20,000, knowing that it is far too expensive.  After you turn down the $20,000 car, I say, 
Wait.  Let me show you this other car.  It is just $15,000.”  The word “just” is used to compare.  
What is the subject comparing that which is “not true” towards?  He does not tell us what is “not true” nor does he tell us what “all these things” are.  This is to employ vague language, which avoids the simple, and easy Reliable Denial of “I didn’t do it…”
The next context is that the subject voluntarily agreed to take a polygraph but failed it.

 MUIR:   How do you explain those test results?
  And what it was that led to this...

 GENOESE:  Can we cut?

  DAVID MUIR:  Tonight, as some of Florida's top investigators take another look at the mysterious death of Sheena Morris found dead in that hotel shower, the man she was getting ready to marry, who failed that polygraph, has decided to sit down with "20/20."

Hello.  How are you?

DAVID MUIR:  Nearly five years after he lost his fiancée, Joe says he is a victim too...

So why sit down with me?

Topic:  Failed Polygraph

The question is designed to allow the subject to defend himself.  Regarding a failed polygraph, we expect an innocent subject to state:

“I told the truth” with three components:

1.     The pronoun “I”
2.     The past tense, “told”, since the polygraph test took place in the past
3.     The word “truth” should be in place.  We note any inclusion of the word “lie” or “lying” as not reliable. 
He is asked now to explain the result.  The expected is “I told the truth”, and it is that Statement Analysis is confronted by the “unexpected”, that is, one that will not say “I didn’t do it” and “I told the truth.”

The subject can be nervous when he takes the polygraph, but a truthful subject is expected to say “I told the truth” and allow the blame to fall upon the machine, itself.  The truth stands alone and it stands strong.  It does not need extra words to buttress it, nor does it have need of persuasion.  Better to hear, “I told the truth” than anything else. At this point, our expectation has been:

“I didn’t kill Sheena” to be said easily, and regarding the polygraph, “I told the truth.”
He has been unable or unwilling to say either. 

 GENOESE:  Because I have to tell you my side of the story.  I'm being victimized 'cause I cared about someone.  I was there for her when her family, a lot of times, wasn't.

We note that he has a "side" in this. 

Statement Analysis deals not only with what one says, but also what one does not say. 
First, note that he does not say “I told the truth” in challenge to the results of failure.  Instead of disputing the results, he says he has to tell his side of the “story.”

One might question if he considers his account a “story.”

Note that his fiancé is deceased yet he says “I’m being victimized.”  He also gives the reason for being “victimized” as caring about “someone.”  Please note that he does not say he cared for Sheena, but only “someone.”  Direct lying is internally stressful and often avoided by deceptive subjects.  Here he does not use Sheena’s name, which may suggest distancing himself from her.  
Please now note that instead of saying that he did not kill Sheena, and that he told the truth, he disparages those who accuse him:  I was there for her when her family, a lot of times, wasn’t.”
Please note that he does not say he was there for “Sheena” but only “her”, where he had previously used the word “someone.”  To call “her” from “someone” is to distance himself from Sheena.  He does not assert that he cared about Sheena, nor does he use her name while attempting to disparage Sheena’s family.

This is not expected from an innocent subject, but is the “unexpected” in analysis. 
When the victim or the victim’s family is blamed, even in a subtle manner, it should be carefully noted as guilt. 

Guilt causes stress, and a guilty subject might attempt to mitigate the guilt by:
1.     Blaming others
2.     Disparaging or blaming the victim
3.     Share or “spread around” the guilt by using the pronoun “we” when the pronoun “I” is expected.  This is something that parents of children readily recognize, especially where teens are concerned, as they like to “hide in the crowd” of “everyone doing it”, reducing their own guilt or responsibility.  
Thus far, we must note:
1.     The subject has not denied killing Sheena
2.     The subject has not asserted that he has told the truth
3.     The subject has disparaged his accuser rather than answer the accusation. 

DAVID MUIR: .put under the microscope, he says, by a mother determined to prove her daughter did not commit suicide.

BRENDAN MCLAUGHLIN (ABC ACTION NEWS):  The story we've been following for years now.

DAVID MUIR:  Joe says the portrait painted of his relationship with Sheena is not a true one.

 REPORTER (MALE)    A domestic dispute between Morris and her fiancée.

 DAVID MUIR:   We've interviewed a lot of Sheena's friends.



MUIR:  Many of her friends say that this was a tumultuous relationship.

Please note that this is the perfect place for the subject to deny domestic violence, or even simply deny that it was a tumultuous relationship.  

Interviewers should seek to avoid introducing language whenever possible.  

JOSEPH GENOESE:    I just don't understand where they're getting at, you know?

The subject does not deny that the relationship was tumultuous, but only that he does not “understand” where “they’re getting at”, or “where” the information, or the point is coming from, or “getting at.”

This is to avoid saying “it was not tumultuous” or something similar, with, perhaps, a different word than “tumultuous” if he was not comfortable with it.  

This is also the place where he can describe the relationship in positive terms.  He has just heard the accusation:  the relationship was negative, therefore, this is the perfect place to say that this claim is not true, and that the relationship was positive.  

Please note that “you know” is an habit of speech. Like any habit, we note where it appears and where it does not appear.  “You know” is an indication that the subject is acutely aware of the Interviewer’s presence at this point, with this question. 
This is the place for him to tell us that not only was the relationship not tumultuous, but that it was a good relationship. 
He does not.  
His answer appears not to be lost by the Interviewer, David Muir, who then specifically asks: 

   DAVID MUIR (ABC NEWS)  There wasn't any fighting?

The Interviewer asks this question in the negative, making it important for the Interviewer, himself.  This may signal that the Interviewer may not believe that there was no domestic violence or "fighting" in the relationship between the subject (Genoese) and Sheena. 


Well, in a relationship, there's always, there's always arguments and stuff.

The word “well” is a pause, which means that the question, itself, has caused the subject need to pause and think of his answer.  
The question about “fighting” is now sensitive to the subject.  One might wonder why a question about “fighting” would be sensitive to him, and cause him to need to pause to think longer before answering.  It is another habit of speech and like all habits, we note what questions cause it to enter his language, and what questions do not cause it.  
He says “in a relationship” and not in “my” or “our” relationship.  This is to avoid answering the question.  This is the second indication that the question is sensitive to him.  It is to distance himself by moving away from “my” or “our” relationship.  
Note “arguments and stuff” does not define what, besides “arguments” the subject is speaking of.  This is where the Interviewer can ask, “What stuff?” and learn what the subject is thinking of, regarding “fighting” besides arguing. 
It may be that in “fighting” there is “arguments” but for the subject, there is something else in addition to arguing.  
This should be taken along with the two indicators that the question on fighting, itself, is sensitive, therefore, it is a likely a signal that there was domestic violence in the relationship.  
Remember, people do not like to lie outright, and to avoid the internal stress, they will deceive by leaving out information instead. The interviewer senses that there was more than just “arguing” in his answer, and that he avoided speaking for the relationship itself, instead turning to vague terms that might apply to others instead of himself. 
He avoiding answering if there was “fighting” making “fighting” very sensitive to him.  
Principle:  When a question is avoided, the question, itself, is sensitive. 

Muir:   It was never physical?

This is a “yes or no” question, which is easier (less stressful) to lie in response.  We note every word that is added beyond  the word “no”: 


No.  You know, in a normal relationship, there, there was fights, there was, you knowback and forth.  But there was nonever any violence.  No.

Deception indicated.

The word “no”, by itself, is a good answer.  Instead, he continues, as do many deceptive individuals who are concerned that the simple “no” is not strong enough by itself.  They feel the need to emphasize the denial, which actually weakens it.  

Please note that in Statement Analysis, any word that is repeated is sensitive.  We see that in this one answer, he uses the word “no” three times, making it very sensitive. 

Please note the inclusion of the word “normal” in statement analysis is indicative that it was not normal.  Even in early grade school readers when a young student reads, “it was a normal day like any other”, they know that someone not normal, or extraordinary, is about to take place. 
This is a strong signal that this was not a “normal” relationship within the context being domestically violent.  

Note that he was said “back and forth” which appears to be a subtle blaming of the victim, that not only did the violence go in one direction, but in two.  This voids his answer of “no” that he began with.  Each word that goes beyond “no” is critical in analysis.   

Note that “You know” appears twice in this answer. This is to be acutely aware of the Interviewer’s presence while asking this question.  

The word “never” in statement analysis is not a reliable denial unless the word “ever” is in the question.  When the word “never” is added to “no”, it is to be noted. 
It is very likely that not only was this relationship domestically violent, but acutely so.  


 Nor was there ever any violence with his ex-wife, according to Joe, when we asked him about those battery charges that were dropped.

By simply stating the accusation, this allows the subject to say "there was no violence" and direct his answer to the relationship between himself 

GENOESE:  It was a push back and forth.  She pushed me, I pushed her back.  And then she looked at me and says, "Now you're going to jail."

Note that “push back and forth” is not “violent” according to the subject.  
Note the order:
1.     She pushed me
2.     I pushed her back
This puts the priority upon her, that he only pushed her “back”, which is to minimize.
Please next note that he said, “And”
Sentences that begin with the word “And” indicate that there is missing information between the sentence and the one that preceded it.  After he pushed her back, and before she “looked” at him, there is missing information that he is deliberately withholding.  This would be a good place to ask about it.  
Note that when he quotes her, he does not say “she said” but moves into the present tense “says”, reducing reliability.  Note also that he does not say “she says” but “she looked at me and says”, with “looked” in the past tense. 
One might want to know what it is that is missing between the sentences that caused him to say “she looked at me”:
When he pushed her, did she fall in such a way that in order to address him, she had to rise to her feet and turn around in order to look at him while speaking? This indicates that prior to her speaking, she was not facing him. 
This may have been a serious assault or “push” that took place.  This should be seen in light of the above conclusion of an acutely violent relationship. 

                                            DAVID MUIR (ABC NEWS)
  And he points out his ex-wife dropped it all.  And he says his fights with Sheena, including the one that New Year's night, were often caused by her jealousy of the family he already had.  And he also says that Sheena was often depressed.  Remember that Christmas morning video, where Kelly sees her daughter smiling and laughing.

At least I'm (inaudible).

                              DAVID MUIR (ABC NEWS)

  He sees something else, remembering the fiancée who couldn't get out of bed that morning, who didn't wanna spend Christmas, he says, with her family.


She wasn't out of bed for two days, hadn't eaten anything in two days.  And...

Please note that he again avoids using Sheena’s name, which suggests distancing language.  
Please note the missing pronoun, “hadn’t eaten…’, which reduces commitment to the statement. 

When a name of someone as close as a fiancé is avoided, it is a signal of emotional distance.  Why would an innocent, bereaving fiancé avoid using his love's name?  We look to see, by the language itself, if there was trouble in the relationship.  

                                      DAVID MUIR (ABC NEWS)
Was she depressed?

This is another “yes or no” question in which we expect the subject to answer with one or the other, or an explanation why "yes or no" is not an appropriate response.  "Was she depressed?" is very straightforward, especially in a suicide case. 


guess she was upset with the fact, or depressed with the fact, that I was spending time with my kids over the holidays.

Please note that he does not answer the question about depression.  This indicates that the question, “Was she depressed?” is sensitive to the subject. 

Please note that he only says “guess” which is to express uncertainty and instead of using “depressed” he uses “upset.”

Note that she is not “upset” but “upset with the fact”

Note that she was not “depressed” but only “depressed with the fact.”

Principle:  Change of language should represent a change in reality.  If there is no apparent change of reality within the statement, it may indicate deception on part of the subject. 

For example:  The officer pulled his gun and fired his weapon at the suspect.  He re holstered his gun and called for back up.”

The context shows veracity:  it was a “gun” until it was being fired, at which time it changed into a “weapon”, but after it was no longer being fired, it returned to being a “gun.”

The car sputtered. I left the vehicle on the side of the road.  After it was repaired, I picked up my car at the garage.”

It was a “car” until it no longer operated, at which time it became a “vehicle”, but once it was back running, it returned to being not only a “car” but “my” car.  This is a sign of truthfulness in a statement. 

In the subject’s response, there is no apparent change of reality from “upset at the fact” and “depressed at the fact.”

Conclusion:  deception detected.

                                            DAVID MUIR (ABC NEWS)
  And Joe says that surprise New Year's trip was out of concern for Sheena because she had been down.

This is a statement.  Best to ask questions, but the inference is, 'Did you take the trip to help her with depression?' but keep in mind that the subject (Genoese) did not assert that Sheena was either suffering from depression, or that she was depressed. 


And I said to myself, maybe we'll just go down there for New Year's Eve, since we had a crappy Christmas.

Here, it begins with "And", which may be an editing issue, as a sentence beginning with "And" is a 'connection'; that is, a signal of missing information between sentences. 

Note that he did not state that she had depression, or was depressed, and that this trip was to help with depression.

Instead, depression is avoided, and it is not that "Sheena" had a "crappy weekend" but that "we" had a crappy weekend.  

This is to avoid the depression issue and bring the focus to them, as a couple.  They had a crappy weekend, rather than Sheena being depressed.

Remember, people do not like to lie outright, but will 'skate around' the truth, to leave an impression of deception, rather than lie.

Sheen lived with him.

He is unable to bring himself to say that she was depressed.  We are not to say it, nor conclude it, for him, nor to match the police finding of "suicide."

It is not because of depression, but because of a crappy weekend.  Follow the subject.  Do not try to make his words fit any police theory, or murder theory ; just listen to him. 

                                           DAVID MUIR (ABC NEWS)

(VO)  And Joe says that Sheena was happy that New Years Eve night.  He remembers, too, as she sat there texting her friends from the dinner table.

We don't know if the Interviewer is quoting the subject or not.  When body posture enters, it may signal an increase in tension.  Is he quoting the subject?

Here is an example:

1.  "My boss told me to be at work at 8AM.

This is stronger:

2.  "My boss stood and told me to be at work at 8AM" with the body posture a signal of increase in tension for the subject. 


We went out to dinner at the place we were gonna get married at.  She was texting and talking with her family most of the night.

Please note that even though they were out to dinner at the place they were going to get married at, there is distance between the subject and Sheena:
1.     He continues to avoid using Sheena’s name
2.     He does not tell us that Sheena was talking with him, but instead, communicating with her family, which would leave him out of the communications, as he is not mentioned. 
This was not likely a good night between them, even if Sheena enjoyed communicating with her family. 
Note that she was not only “texting” with her family, but “talking” with them.
Note that this went on for “most of the night” which may make one ask if this angered the subject and gave occasion for “fights and stuff”

Next, notice the location of the dinner is important to the subject.  It is unnecessary information, therefore, it is important.  By using the location of the dinner, he is emphasizing that it was a special place for them to get married at.  

During this special time for where "we" were going to get married at, she was both "texting" and "talking" with her family, not only during the dinner, but "most"of the night. 

This is a signal of discord between them.  This is the domestic fighting that is of primary concern; more than depression, which has not been acknowledged.  Remember:  listen to his words to guide you.  If he is unable or unwilling to say it, we must not say it for him. 

                                           DAVID MUIR (ABC NEWS)
 And he remembers their kiss at midnight.

The interviewer introduces the word "kiss."  Better is, "What happened at midnight?" which allows the subject to  choose his own words.  New Year's kiss is something significant.  Will he affirm the Interviewer's statement about the kiss?


And then New Year's, you know, 12:00 came.  And we - went out on the balcony and fireworks went off, and you know, we celebrated New Year's.

1.     “And”:  when a sentence begins with “And” it is an indication of missing information between sentences.
2.     “You know” as a habit of speech showing acute awareness of the interviewer at this point.  Here, it enters his speech twice. 
3.     He does not say that they “kissed” at midnight.  They “celebrated” but not kissed?
It is likely that midnight was sensitive to the subject, as it is not something he wishes to disclose here. 

                                        DAVID MUIR: 
 A New Year's kiss?
The failure to mention “kiss” is not missed by the interviewer. 


Yeah.  Exactly, yeah.  Everything was great.

“Yeah” is to agree rather than assent.  Then it is repeated, making it sensitive, but it is also described as being “exactly”, giving us three indicators.  The need to say “Everything was great”, when he was only asked if they kissed should lead one to ask if they fought at midnight. The need to say “everything was great” may come from the fact that “nothing was great” at that point.  

                                          DAVID MUIR (ABC NEWS)

 Great, he says, until he went back inside that hotel room to call his children, to wish them a happy New Year too.

He leads the subject. 


It lasted all about 15, 20 seconds that I was on the phone.  And as I turned back around, she was right there.  She just looked at me and said, "You just (censored by network) up the whole night."

Note his need to add in the time of the call.  
Note body posture.  “And” indicates missing information. 
“And as I turned back around”  This is an indication that physical maneuvering was part of his memory.  He not only turned around, but “back” around, indicating that he may have turned from her deliberately.  This was not a pleasant exchange. 

        DAVID MUIR:
  Why did she have such a big problem with you calling your kids?

Please note that Sheena was not able to speak for herself and rebut this assertion.  This is the subject's assertion, in the words of the interviewer.  What will this topic reveal from the subject himself?


She just didn't want me involved with my children.  It was like another family to her.  And she started getting really upset, screaming and yelling.  And then she started punching the wall.

“And” indicates he is skipping over periods of time, withholding information that has to do with “really upset” and “screaming” and “yelling” and eventually, “punching” the wall. 

The word "with" when it is between people, suggests distance. 

My wife and I went shopping" is one way of saying it. 
"I went shopping with my wife" puts, "I", as far away from "wife" as possible.  This is distancing language. 

Something like the above may simply be distance due to the fact that in the first sentence we were shopping together, but in the second sentence, I did not really want to go shopping with her. 

Note that he says "she just didn't want me involved with my children" reduces the relationship to not parenting, but only being "involved" with his children.  The distancing indicator is between the word "me" and "my children."

Perhaps it is he, himself, that caused the distance, and not Sheena. 

   DAVID MUIR:  Joe says initially, it was Sheena's idea to leave the hotel but that she suddenly changed her mind, refusing to go.


 She actually at one point tried to grab the money that I had on the bureau so and - she said that I wasn't leaving.  And I told her, "I am leaving.  We're leaving."  Because at that point, I, you know, from her punching the wall and screaming and yelling the way she did, I, I was afraid that, you know, cops were gonna come.

Every person has an internal subjective personal dictionary.  When one says “boy” for example, one reader here might think of a new born baby boy, while another thinks of the fighting “boy” in the military at 21 years of age over in Afghanistan.

 It is subjective and follow up questions, or context might be needed to give clarity. 

Everyone one of us has a personal, internal, subjective dictionary.  A good interviewer will "decode" it. 

There are two exceptions:  
1.     Articles (“the, a, an”)
2.     Pronouns

Pronouns are instinctive.  They do not require thought and are reliable for analysis.  Here he described “she” (he continues to avoid using Sheena’s name) and said “I am leaving” but this changed to “we’re leaving.”  Pronouns that are confused are often indicators that the subject is not speaking from memory but is being deceptive. 

Note repeated “you know” in context. 

Stuttering I” in Statement Analysis. 

When a non-stuttering stutters on the pronoun “I”, it is an indication of an increase of anxiety at this point of the statement.  The pronoun “I” is used millions of times by us, therefore, the stuttering upon it is an indication that the topic the subject is speaking about is causing him anxiety. 

The word “actually” is used when comparing two or more items.  “Do you like chocolate?”  “No, I actually like vanilla.”  What is he comparing this response to? Sometimes it may be that the subject is comparing a deceptive statement to what actually happened. 


The subject was asked to explain what happened.  When someone who is asked to explain what happened feels the need to explain “why” something was done, it is very sensitive.  It means that the subject anticipates being asked why he did something and feels the need to explain it first, as he does not want to be asked.  This is very sensitive information.

  DAVID MUIR:   But guests were already placing that call to 911.

                                                       CALLER (MALE)
There's two people over there just screaming and yelling, a woman and a man, at each other.
 And Joe told us what police say he's always told them.


 And where did you go?


Home, straight home.  Straight to my townhouse, where there were people there, they were having a party, and at least five or six people saw me.

Deception indicated.  

Please note that when he answered, “Home” it was a very strong answer, but he did not stop with “home.”
Deceptive people say too much, and use too many words.  They feel the need to explain and add words in order to sound convincing.  It makes them sound deceptive instead of convincing, as it underlines the weakness in the assertion.
Instead of simply saying “Home”, he adds, “straight home” suggesting that he could have gone somewhere else.  But then he changes “home” into a “Townhouse” which we see what caused his “home” to change:  a party.
Note that he adds that five or six people saw him:
This is alibi establishing. 
This may cause one to ask why he feels the need to establish an alibi?
These additional words indicate that he has a need to be “seen” and that before going “home” to the “Townhouse” in order to be “seen”, there is missing information about where he was. 
Note that he does not say “we were having a party” but “they” were.  Where?  His “home” or his “Townhouse”? 
He reveals that he needed to be “seen” suggesting that he knew what he had to do in order to establish his alibi. 

On the drive home, Joe says Sheena was on the phone with him suddenly sinking into that depression.

"sinking into depression" is the words chosen by Muir, taken from the subject, pre interview.  The follow up question should be:

"If she was sinking into depression, why would you leave your fiancé alone in a hotel room?


 What was she saying to you?

If she was "sinking into depression", this is a good question.  Was she begging him to return and help her?  

 GENOESE :  There was one thing that she did say.  In a somber note, she said, "If I can't have you all to myself, don't wanna be here."

Note that additional wording often gives away the deceptive subject.  He was asked what was she saying to him and instead of simply answering it, he affirms only one particular thing with the wording, “there was one thing she did say”, giving us the word “did” as unnecessary.  
Note the editorializing: “in a somber note” is added. 
The word “did” along with the editorializing suggests:   rehearsed speech.  

Please note that he is presorting to speak for her, but even here, we have a dropped pronoun:

"...don't want to be here."

Even in repeating this, he drops a pronoun.  Was he quoting her accurately while dropping a pronoun?  

If so, it may be the first time I have ever encountered such a thing.  

I do not believe it. 

It appears that the Interviewer did not either. 

Even without training, a dropped pronoun sounds awkward.  It may be that David Muir heard that, and did not even know why it didn't sound "right", but knew enough to ask about such a strange thing. 

People drop pronouns when they are being deceptive -it shows a lack of confidence in the statement. 

DAVID MUIR :   Had she ever said that before?

This is a “yes or no” question.  It indicates a strain:



Please note that he is able to answer a “yes or no” question with a simple “no” showing what a truthful response looks like.  

This is likely a truthful answer.  

He has no need to add any emphasis. 

I believe his answer.  I don't think she ever said that to him before, and, in fact, I don't believe he ever said it...period.  


And as for that 911 call Sheena made just after 2:00 A.M...


He just made me bleed and left claw marks all over me and stuff.

The subject will now speak to the allegation, via 911, that he made her bleed and left claw marks all over her.  "And stuff" indicates that he did other things to her, that may not have left visible proof, but were done just the same.

 GENOESE:  The scrape on her, on her finger, we know that came from her punching the wall.  And the scrape on her neck, when she went to grab the money off of the bureau and I grabbed her by her - her shirt, and - and it got her necklace and it, and left a little scratch on her neck.  That's, that's it.

Deception indicated.  

Pronouns are instinctive.  Here he says “we know” instead of “I know”, since he was there personally.  Sheena had reported where the injuries came from.  He was there, alone with her.  Who is the “we” he now speaks of?  This is a very strong indication of deception. 
Note the admission of “I grabbed her by her her skirt” with the stutter. 
Note that “that’s it” is unnecessary, which gives us an indication, since he was not asked if that was all that took place, that there was much else that took place and that he has the need to stop the flow of information and end it with “that’s it”, yet stuttering on the word “that.” 
This is a strong indication that he is not truthful about this. 

 DAVID MUIR:   And he says like the mother who loves Sheena, he was devastated, too, on that New Year's Day when they all learned Sheena was dead.

The interviewer uses the name, “Sheena” but her fiancé distances himself as he is unable to bring himself to use her name.  


And I walk up, and I - and I look, and I was like, what's going on?  And he looked at me and said, "I'm sorry for your loss."  And I, I fell to my knees.  And I just looked at him.  I couldn't believe what he said to me.  Can we cut?  Can we cut?

Please note that the subject speaks in the past tense about what has happened, yet now, he slips into the present tense with, “I walk up” instead of “I walked up”, and “I look” instead of “I looked.”  Yet, when it comes to the activity of another, he appropriately says, “And he looked at me” in the past tense “and said”, which is also in the past tense. 
Speaking of himself, he slips into present tense, but speaking of another, he remains in the reliable past tense. 
This indicates that his reaction is artificial, while the reaction of the other person is real. 


  And when he was ready to continue...

She was a beautiful girl.  I - this is a tragedy in everybody's lives, you know?

Note that she is a "girl", not a "woman."  
Please also note that she is not “Sheena”, the name he has consistently avoided in the interview, which is distancing language, but the phrase “you know” reenters his language, regarding it being a “tragedy.”
The interviewer caught this fact:

 DAVID MUIR:   For you too?

This is a “yes or no” question.


Absolutely.  I was engaged to her.

Note the need for emphasis with “absolutely” while he continued to avoid using her name, distancing himself from her.  See "Joey Buttafouco"

 DAVID MUIR: Do you think everybody's forgotten that you felt this way too?

No.  I just think that they, they're on the Kelly train.  And if you go against what Kelly says, then you're not an advocate of Sheena.

Here, he finally uses Sheena’s name.  This is a very significant point of the statement.  What has caused him to finally say Sheena’s name?

Please note that it is the entrance of “Kelly”, Sheena’s mother, which causes the subject, Joseph Genoese, to finally use her name.  With Kelly present, she is “Sheena”, a person with a name and identity. She is now close, because “Kelly” and the “Kelly train” is present. 

It is the entrance of “Kelly” into his mind that gives “Sheena” a voice, life, and the respect that is rightfully hers.  “Kelly” is a very, very important person in the life of Joseph Genoese.  One may wish to learn why Kelly is far more important to the subject than his deceased fiancé. 

The name "Sheena" is not in his vocabulary as:

his fiancé,
a beautiful girl
a suicide 
a person involved in domestic dispute
the one he went to dinner with
the one who talked to and texted her family
the one who was left alone in the hotel room

She was never "Sheena" until a new atmosphere, or context arises:

She is now "Sheena" in an adversarial role.  

This is highly significant. 

His concern is the "obsessed" mother, Kelly Osborn.  It is his worry, and the language reveals why:  he is deceptive about the death of Sheena Morris, Kelly's daughter. 

Kelly is demanding justice.  Kelly has seen him fail his polygraph.  Kelly has known he is lying and that he assaulted Sheena and caused her death in a domestic homicide and staged the hanging. 

The presence of Kelly is enough to trigger closeness to Sheena.  

He is distance from Sheena in all things, except in justice.  Now, faced with accusations and guilt, Sheena is "close" and right in his mind.  

This is a striking comparison. 


 A grieving mother out for answers no matter the cost, refusing to accept the possibility that her daughter could have taken her own life, or a fiancée covering his tracks?
  We've talked to Sheena's mother, her family, her friends, and they all categorically say she never would have taken her own life.

This is issued as a challenge to Joseph Genoese, and the final place for him to say "But she did.  I did not cause Sheena's death."

He has had many opportunities to 


My personal opinion is nobody ever thinks they're gonna take their own life.  Does anybody presume that somebody's gonna take their own life?

Note that it is not only his “opinion” but his “personal opinion”, which suggests that not only do others have differing opinions, but he, himself, may think otherwise. 
Always note a rhetorical question within a statement as it may be that the subject is speaking to himself. 

 MUIR:  "Did she ever say to you that she was depressed or, or having suicidal thoughts?"

This is a fair question.  Was there a pattern of suicide?  His answer is important: 


She told me she tried to commit suicide when she was 15 years old, took a bottle of pills.

Communicative language: 
We note how one portrays communication.  “Sheena said she tried to commit suicide when she was 15 years old…” is not what he said. 

1.     He avoided her name again
2.     He used “told” and not “said.”  The word “told” is more authoritative.  For example: 
“My boss said for me to be at work at 8” is not as strong as “my boss told me to be at work at 8” 
One may wish to question why a young woman, confessing a weak moment as a teenager, would need to use authoritative language to report something embarrassing and even shameful, while confiding to her fiancé?
The language does not appear to fit well.  

Muir:  In fact, that's the same story police say Sheena's mother told them the day her body was found.

 Had there ever been suicidal thoughts before?


She had gotten in some trouble with her dad and, and she kind of, like, said to her father that she took some pills.  They checked everything out.  She really didn't take anything.  It was a false alarm.

 MUIR   Joe says he understands Kelly's need for answers but says she's looking in the wrong place.  But how does he explain the mountain of evidence?  The sand on Sheena's feet but no sand in the shower, her perfect appearance, her hair, her clothes, and that diamond bracelet on the wrong wrist.

This is another place for him to say “I didn’t kill Sheena.”  

I let that, the professionals deal with that, the investigators and everything else.

Note that he does not bring himself to say “I didn’t kill Sheena” though he has been given another opportunity to say so.  If he is unwilling or unable to say it, we are not permitted to say it for him.  Also note that he is not only leaving this to the investigators, but “everything else.”  What is “everything else”?

  He welcomes this new investigation because he insists he still has nothing to hide.

  And once and for all, did you kill Sheena?

This is a “yes or no” question, to which he should say “no” without the need for more wording.  Every word after “no” can weaken the denial.  We have already seen that he knows how to answer a "yes or no" question with the answer, "no", without the need to add words or change words for emphasis.  The best answer is "no", with nothing added: 

 GENOESE:  "Absolutely not.  What would be my motive, for God's sake?  I'm 50 years old.  I have three children."

“Absolutely not” is to avoid saying “no”

“Absolutely not” is to show the need for emphasis, weakening the denial. 

Please note that he then asks a question.  This is sensitive.  He challenges as to his motive, and this is not something that the “Kelly train” would struggle to answer, nor is it something an analyst, who knows nothing more of this case than this transcript:
Domestic violence. 

Note that having 3 children does not indicate innocence. 

Muir:  But what about the polygraph?

This same question would be asked on the polygraph, perhaps worded "Did you cause the death of Sheena?" so that he cannot say he didn't kill her, but the rope did.  The polygrapher was retired FBI and well experienced. 

 DAVID MUIR (ABC NEWS)   But why take the test?

This is another "soft ball pitch" where the Interviewer lets the subject say "Because I didn't kill her.  Because I am telling the truth."

 GENOESE: Cause I had nothing to hide.

Better is to say "I took the polygraph because I did not kill Sheena.  I told the truth."
If this was his response, the Statement Analysis would have been finished. 

  DAVID MUIR:    How do you explain those test results?

This is where an innocent person will say “I told the truth” and need nothing else to add.  Will he now, given this easy opportunity, assert that he told the truth using the three elements:
1.     The pronoun “I”
2.     The past tense verb “told”
3.     The word “truth”?
Will he now make this simple statement that honest innocent people do?


Well, I don't.  I was uneasy with a lot of the questions he asked, first of all.  Second of all, I was told by a professional the questions that he asked should never have been asked.  They were setup questions.

1.     He uses “well” as a pause, showing the need to think
2.     “I was told” is passive.  Passivity is used to conceal identity or responsibility. 
3.     The simple questions about causing the death of Sheena “should never have been asked” is something that “a professional” would not want his name attached to. 

Please note that sample questions in a homicide are like these:

1.  Is your name Joseph Genoese?
2.  Did you cause the death of Sheena Morris?
3.  Is today Thursday?

and so on. 

There would be no surprise questions and the pre screen interview would make this clear.  

DAVID MUIR:   But now for Joe, there are new questions to answer, this time from those investigators taking a fresh look at the case with the real possibility that someone could be charged with murder.
 When was the last time you talked to the investigators on the team?

 JOSEPH GENOESE: Three weeks ago.

Note the short response is very likely to be truthful.

DAVID MUIR:  Were you nervous?

GENOESE: Of course, I'm nervous.  I mean, who wouldn't be nervous?

“Of course” is when one wishes us to take an answer without questioning it.  Please note the rhetorical question as he may be speaking to himself. 

 When we come back, Joe's message tonight for Sheena's mother, what he wants her to hear.  And we ask Kelly how she will react if no one is charged with murder in her daughter's death.

MUIR:   Sheena Morris' mother gave up everything to become the lead investigator in her daughter's case when she says no else would, determined to find answers.  The boyfriend who lost his fiancée says all these years, he's been asking questions, too, of the young girlfriend found in that shower.

GENOESE: "I ask the question all the time.  I - I asked her, "Why did you do this?"  I don't understand it.  I mean, I, I, who, who understands it?  don't.

In this short response, he uses the pronoun "I" 8 times.  This is a signal of anxiety. 

Please note again that this is the perfect place for him to say “I didn’t do it” but he is unable or unwilling to issue a denial.

Note also the stuttering “I” as an increase in anxiety.  

Note that he is referring to Kelly.  It was Kelly who’s presence in a statement caused him to finally identify Sheena by name.  Kelly brings Sheena close to him.  Otherwise, he keeps her distant, in the statement.  He has a need to distance himself from his own fiancé.  This is not expected from an innocent person, but is expected from the guilty. 

DAVID MUIR:   What are you hoping to hear?


I'm hoping my phone rings and it's the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and say, "Miss Osborn, we have a suspect in custody."

DAVID MUIR:  Will this ever be over?


When there's a trial and the jury finds the suspect guilty.  That chapter will be over.


She needs some answers.  The community, Southwest Florida would like to know what happened to Sheena.

DAVID MUIR:   Do you think they'll ever know?


Yeah, I do.  I would be very surprised if they come back with a, it was a suicide, because the evidence is overwhelming that it's not.

Joe, as you sit here across from me, have you gone there?  Have you thought about possible charges?

 GENOESE:  I'm not guilty of anything, so...

This is a truthful statement.  He has not been convicted of anything. 
It is also a statement that avoids saying “I didn’t kill Sheena”

 MUIR:   You don't fear there are charges coming?


No, absolutely not.  As a matter of fact, if anything, I think I should bring civil charges against Kelly and her family.

Note that “no” is weakened by “absolutely not”. 
Note that “I think” is weak, as it allows for him, or someone else, to “think” otherwise.  Why would he only “think” he should bring civil charges against Kelly?
One might wonder if he is not sure he wishes to bring civil charges against Kelly because he would have to answer questions under oath.  

 MUIR:   Do you plan to?

GENOESE:   We'll see how it - I'm gonna wait till the investigations is over with.  You know, there's no reason why this family did what they did to me.

Note the change of pronoun from “we’ll” to “I’m.  Note the blaming of the family what “they did to me” and not what “Kelly” or the “Kelly train” did to him.  It may be that he is, here, adding Sheena into the equation, subtly blaming Sheena for the domestic violence that ‘forced ‘ him to kill her, in his mind. 

 MUIR:  If they clear you once and for all, do you think that will be enough for Sheena's mother?

Another great place for him to say he didn’t do it. 

GENOESE:  No.  I don't think she'll ever stop.


 Analysis Conclusion:

Deception Indicated.

The subject is deceptive and withholding information about what happened to Sheena Morris.  This interview reveals a domestic homicide in which Joseph Genoese is unwilling or unable to tell us that he did not cause Sheena's death. 

Therefore, if he is unwilling or incapable of saying it, we are not going to say it for him. 

He is deceptive about the nature of his relationship, and of what happened that night.  He uses distancing language throughout, until finally "Sheena" is in the place of pursuing justice via her mother, Kelly Osborn, which provokes the name, "Sheena" to enter his language. 

The Statement Analysis of this interview agrees with the result of the polygraph:  Joseph Genoese is not telling the truth about his involvement in the death of Sheena Morris.