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


Daphne said...

I'm so glad to see Peter has put up another video--I greatly enjoy learning from them and will watch it after dinner....

In the meantime, off topic, but important:

Missing 14 yr old boy who disappeared on the way to school 10 days ago about 1 hour away from Toledo, concern is that this location is very close to Detroit as well as not all that far from Delphi, Indiana...

I am very concerned

Sarah said...

Very informative video...I wonder if "window" should be added to the list of sensitive words requiring further investigation.

Willow said...

Daphne, ty for the link.

There is a short piece of writing/announcement (not a proper statement) from the family of the 14 yr old missing over 10 days.
Something in it makes me uncomfortable.

""The police department released a statement on behalf of the Dilly family on Friday.

"As you can imagine our family is terribly distraught at this time. This is not the Christmas wish we had hoped for. We pray for the safe return of our son, Harley," the family said.

"Harley if you hear/read this, please come home we missed you, your family miss you. You are not in trouble. We love you. Thank you one and all for the continued effort and work you are doing, and for all your thoughts and prayers. Pray, share, keep your eyes open.""

As you can imagine

Unnecessary. Making time longer instead of expressing grief and worry first.

...our family is terribly distraught...

Still not saying his name. Family comes before him.

This is not the Christmas wish we had hoped for.

Victim blaming subtly. The missing boy spoiled the family's Christmas. Coldly, almost humorously, the son's missing for ten days is reduced to one of the 'Christmas wishes', to a present they did not write in their list.

We pray for the safe return of our son Harley...

At last he is mentioned by name. As far from the beginning as possible, though.
Is praying enough, as an expected measure to bring the son back? Turning to the heavenly forces at this stage already? As if the family knew there's not anything more tangible, specific, to do on this earth to bring him back.

Harley if you hear/read this...

'If' allows for the possibility of him not being anywhere to hear/read the message. They could have addressed Harley without 'if'.

... please come home we missed you, your family miss you.

The family is standing throughout the message in plural form. We, our.
Why imperfect, missed, instead of miss throughout.

You are not in trouble.

This is a straight, realistic, true sentence and it makes me concerned.
The chapter begins with this short promise and the word 'you'. The speakers mean business with particularly this information compared with what else they say. Harvey, this time there will not be consequences for you.
Victim-blaming overtly. Implying that Harvey has a habit of making trouble. Is this reason to suspect child-abuse?

We love you.

No one of the family says they love you individually.

Thank you one and all for the continued effort and work you are doing, and for all your thoughts and prayers.

This is expected. However, in context this sentence weighs too much and gives the impression of ingratiating factor.

Pray, share, keep your eyes open.

'Keep your eyes open' is again something too insignificant to say considering the severe circumstance.

Penelope said...

Harley Dilly's mom:

Just I guess it's time I get on tv and talk. People say I'm a horrible mom for not speaking and showing emotion as much as my parents but they don't know I needed to be medicated because they were afraid what would happen to me and I don't want to die again
What if this next time i don't wake up and I can't see my son come home. People are so fucking cruel. They don't know back stories, They just assume to know everything. They didn't see me digging in my skin under the bow to control my emotions. I was so afraid I would lose it and need medical attention. It was so overwhelming, it's all so overwhelming. I'm sick of being judged. I just want him home. I need him, I love him so much he is my little boy. I miss his hugs and him making me feel better. Even his stinky boy smell, and farts. I have tried to protect him from all the pain in the world, but he is a teen and can't always be a momma's boy. I knew as he got older I would lose a little more of his attention but what I would give just to get that little bit now. I can't bring myself to clean up things in his room, I didn't want to wash the dirty clothes from his room, and I refuse to put the tree and any Christmas stuff away...he didn't have his Christmas with us. And now Roary is going around saying someone took my other kids. I don't know how to face some people. I was always a proud and secure person. Now I just want to stay home and wait for Harley's return. I'm so afraid he will come home and no one be here and that will NEVER happen. He just needs to be found. I pray to God someone or whoever has him will see how loved he is and let him go safe and alive. I'm scared to death. I'm under so much scrutiny and eyes I can't even express myself without someone judging. You don't see what goes on behind closed doors, you dont see my husband go search when he can't sleep at 2am. You don't see me falling asleep on the couch and jumping up because i am afraid I missed something or importance. Or how my parents are here daily to make me food to make sure I eat cuz that's NOT on my mind, but I take medicine and have to eat. Or how I'm constantly break-in into tears while doing dishes, laundry, taking care of Harley's little brother. I can't lose it or breakdown infront of him. He needs me to be strong for him. Harley if you see this...please please come home, call someone, let us know you are alive and safe. I leave my door open and stare outside looking at the road, the alley, the cars going by...are you in there, can you see us. What I all the online and tv isn't reaching you. You've been gone and NO one has seen you...where are you? Momma loves you... every night I sit on couch and try to stay awake for you... Just come home. Please.

Penelope said...

Here's Heather Dilly's initial FB post on her son being missing:

Missing in Port Clinton, Ohio. Last seen at PCHS 3pm on Friday, December 20th. 101 pds 4'9". Wearing a maroon puffer jacket. If seen please contact Port Clinton Police, myself, or Marcus Dilly

frommindtomatter said...

“Harley Dilly”

Interesting quote from the grandfather full of past tense references. It seems very early (only ten days missing) to be thinking this way.

Harley’s grandfather told WEWS-TV that the disappearance has been tearing the family up.

“My grandson [had] issues and he [wasn’t] a perfect boy, but he was a good boy,” he said. “And he [loved] his mother and he [loved] his family.”


Daphne said...

Penelope, Wow, thanks for the quotes...It is not sounding good coming from the mother...I especially think her statement about missing his stinky boy smells and his farts is outright disturbing and suggestive of emotional abuse (and possibly sexual abuse).

Also a huge amount of focus on herself & laundry list of complaints about her own emotional/physical state.

Did you notice she used the word “die” in reference to herself? “I don’t want to die again”.

The grandfather’s use of past tense is also alarming.

Im not sure what to think.

I would love to see Peter analyze the mother’s statement.

happyuk said...

Agreed. Don't we look for instances in which the victim is subtly denigrated / insulted by the perpetrator? In this case it is pretty blatant, the reader being left with the clear impression that the boy was smelly

Willow said...

In the link in Adrian's comment:

""Harley Dilly’s grandfather was among those in attendance, according to local station WTVG reports.

"If you're out there and you're hearing this or seeing this, we all want you home,” he said.

“Your mom feels, is in the deepest depression you've ever seen. She needs you to lay on her and hug her like you used to. We miss you, son. Come home, please.""

Harley is now 14 yrs old.

Daphne said...

Willow, do you think he could have ran away from home? It sounds like he was being emotionally and sexually abused.

Or do you feel someone in the family harmed/killed him?

Or could it have been an abductor?

I am confused about whether he was last seen before school or after school at 3:00pm?

frommindtomatter said...

“Your mom feels, is in the deepest depression you've ever seen. She needs you to lay on her and hug her like you used to. We miss you, son. Come home, please."

There is a self-censor -“Your mom [feels], [is in] the deepest depression you've ever seen. By saying “you've ever seen” he reveals not only does Harley`s mom suffer from depression, but this is the worst Harley would have “ever seen”. This speaks to time and an on-going situation.

It would not be enough if he had said your mum feels depressed as he would consider Harley already knows this. That is why we see him self-censor/change his language at the beginning of the statement.


Anonymous said...

It sounds like Harley was expected to mother his mother. He is likely very capable of caring for himself on his own.

Hans said...

It sounds like Harley was expected to mother his mother. He is likely very capable of caring for himself on his own.

Anon @ 12:07- Are you asserting that he used to sit on his mother's lap and hug her when she was depressed, therefore, he is capable of living independently of his parents?

Daphne said...

I think he was abducted...there is a serial killer in that area who targets young teens

Delphi, Indiana: Libby and Abby
Also Lyric and Elizabeth

It says Harley is 4 foot 9, 100 lbs...he is small and could have been targeted.

Police/FBI have not realized there is a serial killer because they cant seem to put 2 and 2 together with the Lyric/Elizabeth and Libby/Abby cases....Delphi police have refuse to release any info that could lead to catching the killer...they have been criticized by John Douglas for doing that. It was only a matter of time till he struck again & probably abducted a teen boy to throw investigators off his trail.

Anonymous said...

Anti-white, anti-Trump Reddit user bragged about allegedly letting 11 elderly supporters of President Donald Trump die under his care. 4chan uncovered his ID & reported him to care home.

His message:

Hey, I work in a retirement home and care for lots of trump supporters in their last days. I can tell you with certainty that 11 people (all verified trump supporters) could have been resuscitated/prevented from falling had I taken the appropriate measures.

I am literally letting you f***ers die off. These people vote like 100% of the time so it counts. Here’s the really sick part. Everytime I come on The Donald (r/thedonald) and see something that f***ing disgusts me (e.g. “It’s OKay to be White” postings) I note it and then take it out on a trump supporter in the home I work at (for example I have loaded food with diuretics, withheld medicine and simple [sic] provided the wrong the incorrect medicine).

Look, I know I am a sick pup… but so are each of you. I just wanted to let you know what I do cause I saw your post from today and I chose to watch a person die in response.

I hate you and hope to care for your family soon.

care home response:

frommindtomatter said...

Thanks for posting it’s a good statement. When you read the twitter response from the care home they state he does work for them but not in a clinical capacity.

“I work in a retirement home and [care for] lots of trump supporters in their last days.”

If we look at his first statement on the basic level of law of economy we note the extra information he gives. We would expect him to say “I work in a retirement home with lots of trump supporters as residents” or something similar. Instead we see he includes the words “care for” which stands out as when we look at the entire statement we see his linguistic disposition towards “trump supporters” is negative. He hates them. Why would he include the words “care for” in connection to people he despises? As it is contradictory and stands out we know it is something the speaker has a need to include for some personal reason. When you look at the twitter response from the care home saying he does work there but not in a care capacity, we can see why the speaker had a need to include the words “care for” in his language. He had a need to persuade the listener that he was in a position to do what he is saying.

SA showed by using the “law of economy” that extra unnecessary information was included by the speaker, and also that it was incongruent with the overall message given. That pointed to sensitivity shown by the speaker.

We now live in a world where people have to worry about what kind of “fanatic” will be “caring” for them.


Autumn said...

Here's an interesting statement featuring an "open door" (2nd paragraph near the end). It's from Brandon Bevers whose wife Missy Bevers died of multiple puncture wounds to the head inflicted by an unknown person (probably) using a pry bar. The unknown person was caught on video but is unrecognizable because he/she wore swat gear. On social media it is heavily speculated that the murder was committed by Brandon Bevers' father Randy because Randy has the same/a similar build and peculiar gait as the person caught on video. Brandon himself was out of town when the murder happened. According to police Brandon and Missy had financial and marital problems (Missy is said to have had an extramerital affair and exchanged "flirtatious messages" with another man via social media).

My family’s story….

Well, we all have good days, and bad. The children are not terribly fond of apprehending this person. They don’t want to revisit those emotions-they have told me this. They see/hear the daily anxiety I have in finding this person, and I think they are tired of the mentality this puts our day to day life in. They want normalcy, and happiness. I want justice, but I too fear the reality of bringing this case/person to trial and the emotional uncertainty that may go with it.So you have to ask yourself, do you bang your head on the wall everyday with this? Do you allow the unsolved aspect of this to infiltrate your thoughts- put yourself in a foul state of mind every day when you have three kids to focus on?

Starting 2018, I’m done allowing this uncertainty to control me this way. I will leave the head banging, and brain rot to the investigators . Trust me when I say they are qualified. I have spent most of this time feeling my responsibility to Missy was to find this person- That’s just not realistic. My duty to Missy is to memorialize her life, and that is exactly what I will do for her, and the children’s sake. She deserves this for all that she has contributed in our lives. I’m done talking about this investigation, theories, etc… I wish all of the whack job social media stuff would go to hell. Why do these people not realize they have left a door open for my children to peer into one day? How damaging could this be? No factual basis for all of the speculation whatsoever!

This behavior has not left Missy the real legacy she deserves- particularly in my children’s eyes.From this point forward, the only thing I will discuss is “who” Missy was. Her contributions to my life, the children, this family, and numerous other people that she loved. You bet I loved her. I know without a doubt she loved me. Don’t you see the real value in this? There is no value in discussing events that led up to her murder, or to speculate if she was targeted and why. What if the perp enjoys listening to all of this rhetoric? What this person needs to hear is “who” they took from us. The Mother, The Wife, The Daughter, Sister, Friend, etc…

These topics are more relevant and purposeful than anything else as far as logic is concerned.The activity surrounding this investigation is best left to the investigators. They have way more concrete information that isn’t up for discussion, or for sale.

Yes, you can share this. Its all I have to say right now.

Anonymous said...

Ten people from Dearborn, Dearborn Heights indicted in large-scale pharmacy fraud scheme | News |

frommindtomatter said...


Interesting case Autumn, quite a mysterious one. I was looking at some of the news articles on it. Have you any theories? Here is a quote I found –

The suspected killer also has a very distinctive gait, something that's haunted Brandon in the years since Missy's murder.

"When I see similar mannerisms with other people, I actually follow those people out to their car, get their license plates and turn them in," Brandon said.

What’s your opinion on the structure of that sentence? I find it interesting he says “When I see similar mannerisms with other people” opposed to “When I see people with similar mannerisms”. What are your thoughts on that.

Notice he introduces “other” people. That is interesting too as “other” denotes something different from what is already identified.

“I [actually] follow [those people] [out] to their car”

He follows them “out”, instead of just following them.

He also talks in present tense about his actions instead of telling us what he has done.


Autumn said...

Adrian, thanks for looking into this case.

I have many thoughts about Brandon Bevers’ statement. Below are a few.

Missy Bevers was brutally bludgeoned to death. Her head was bashed in with (probably) a crowbar. Just imagine that and then consider that Brandon in the first paragraph keeps hammering at the fact that he and his children don't want "this person" to get caught and brought to justice. Almost the first thing he says is that his children "are not very fond of apprehending this person". That is what is most prominent in his mind in this context (and it isn’t even true because one of Missy’s daughters has raised money for the investigation). He subsequently points out that he has "daily anxiety" in finding "this person". I think he means to say he is anxious for the killer to get caught. However, his choice of words (anxiety) make me wonder: is he afraid the killer will be found? He seems to confirm this is the case when he says he "fears the reality of bringing this case/person to trial”. What prompts a person to say that? Something that always moves me is how tenacious relatives are in trying to find the murderer of their loved one. Sometimes many years after the police have given up they remain totally consumed with getting justice for the victim and will travel far and wide to find even the smallest clues. That attitude seems totally absent here. Brandon also repeatedly refers to the ruthless killer as “this person”. That is too mild a description and by saying "this" he is pulling the murderer close.

Another thing I find interesting is how Brandon keeps using phrases that seem to describe Missy’s murder: “bang your head”, “head banging”, “brain rot”, “whack job”, “go to hell”. That’s what’s on his mind. One could say: of course it is, his wife’s head was bashed in with a hammer. However, he is not talking about Missy’s fate. He refers to himself considering to “bang your head” and himself deciding to leave the “head banging” and “brain rot” to someone else (“the investigators”). Is he – between the lines – pointing out a dilemma he had prior to Missy’s murder? The dilemma of “banging your head” or leaving the “head banging” to a third party? Did he bang his own head against the wall because of the “numerous other people she loved”? Was the murder a revenge “in kind”? In the third paragraph Brandon write’s: ”Don’t you see the real value in this? There is no value in discussing events that led up to her murder”. It’s a question directly posed to the reader. He seems to ask us: can’t you see what I’m telling you? Don’t you see this for what it is? “This” is – in Brandon’s own words – that Missy had “numerous other people she loved”, that he also loved her (“you bet I loved her”) and that “no doubt” she loved him back (he introduces “doubt” here making me think he doubted she loved him). I think those may have been the events that led up to her murder. He says ” I wish all of the whack job social media stuff would go to hell.” Did he wish for the whack job to take place? Did he want Missy to go to hell because she flirted via social media? Is THAT the real value in this statement? Also: “value” (the word is mentioned twice) might refer to financial value. Was there a financial motive?


Autumn said...

Twice Brandon refers to "the contribution" Missy made to him and their children. First he says: “She deserves this for all that she has contributed in our lives.” Later on he mentions: “Her contributions to my life, the children, this family…”. The word “contribution” seems too businesslike, too cold. Maybe “all that she meant to us” would have been more appropriate (?) Where does the word contribution come from? Brandon and Missy allegedly had marital problems. Let’s say one of them considered a divorce. In that case Missy may have sought spousal support (alimony) and Missy’s contribution to Brandon’s and their children’s lives (e.g. by taking care of the children) would have been a reason for a Texas court to grant her alimony. Maybe divorce proceedings and financial consequences were the “trial” and “uncertainty” he feared (see first paragraph of the statement)?

Autumn said...

"When I see similar mannerisms with other people" -> Adrian, I think Brandon Bevers no doubt knows that many people suspect his father Randy Bevers because he has the same build and gait and way of moving as the intruder caught on camera. Maybe Brandon is acknowledging that by saying "other".

Autumn said...

See here for more statements and analyses in the Missy Bevers case (see comment section):

frommindtomatter said...

Brandon Bevers

One quote from the article which dated about a month after the murder.

“I [still] think [whoever] [this] person [was] knew my wife and had a [motive],” Bevers tells PEOPLE. “There’s [no] doubt about it.”

Simplest sentence:

“I think this person knew my wife and had a motive”

Extra information –

“still” - (time on-going). A month after the murder of his wife Brandon tells us “I still think”; with “still” telling us he has held this thought for an on-going period of time.

“whoever” - (unknown person). In context we know this person is unknown or they would have been arrested. By including “whoever” Brandon shows a need to emphasise he doesn’t know the person which equals sensitivity. It equates to saying “I don’t know who they are”.

“was” – (past tense). “this person was” as opposed to “this person is”. Again this is extra information not needed in the statement. If we said he “was” wearing police clothing or “he was caught on camera” it speaks to the killer linked with an event so I could understand how “was” would be incorporated, but as we are talking about someone who is still out there (only a few weeks have passed since the murder) it seems off. The killer “is” still the killer. Could “this person” have been a killer (was), but now “is” someone else? If only at least in Brandon’s perception of reality.

Brandon is telling us what he “thinks” which is appropriately weak for someone who doesn’t know something for sure. He also finishes with “There’s no doubt about it”, which introduces “doubt” into his language which is again appropriate and in keeping with his “thinking”.

Like you said Autumn, Brandon even early on may have been aware of his Father being a suspect, if not in the laws eyes then at minimum in the general public's. Not many people will know his father as well as he does and it is possible he may have entertained in his own mind the possibility of his involvement in the crime.

“whoever this person was knew my wife and had a motive”

Even by weak assertion he still tells us his thought that the killer “knew” his wife and had “motive”. That statement will be based on all of the knowledge Brandon holds in his mind, unfortunately we are not privy to that. But, we must question what information brought him to that conclusion.


Autumn said...

Adrian, that's very interesting. I watched this video again: I believe it's the first public interview Brandon Bevers gave. At 2:50 he says:

"As far as the, eh, the perpetrator we don't, I don't know, we still don't know who he is, but I ask everybody out there to review the video ..."

This interview took place one day after the murder. "Knowing" the identity of the perpetrator seems to be a sensitive issue for him. He can't say "I don't know who he is" in a straightforward manner but has to involve other people ("we") and include the word "still". Who is "we"? His family? If so, why would it be important for him to emphasize that his family "still" doesn't know who the murderer is? Or maybe by "we" he means himself and the police? Also: the use of "but" in this sentence is interesting. "But" diminishes what came before. It detracts from "I"/"we" "still" not knowing who the perpetrator is (he says the word “but” a lot in strategic places). Interestingly, he repeatedly says "he" when talking about the perpetrator. See the above quote and (at around 10:30):

"Eh, I can't tell if the person is a man or a woman, eh, the police estimate that he's about six foot tall or this person's six foot tall"

Here, he doesn't say "I don't know" but "I can't tell". Does this mean he knows but can't say for some reason? He clearly thinks the killer is a man and then quickly realizes his “mistake” and says “this person”.

Furthermore, at around 14:20 in the interview, he says ("needless to say") the police thinks the perpetrator didn't know his wife was going to be there and his wife walked in on a robbery. He then says: "Now that's just an opinion, that's not fact." When asked if he thinks she was targeted, he answers: "And it, and it's strictly my opinion, I don't thinks she was targeted." By saying it's "strictly" his opinion, is he telling us the facts are different? That in reality she was targeted? This quote is also contradictory to what he later said in the quote you mentioned. Of course a person can change their mind.

Him saying in the later quote that “this person” had a motive is stating the obvious. Nobody goes in pseudo swat gear to a church before 5 AM wielding a crow bar and bashing in a woman’s brain out of a sheer reflex. The motive may have been for instance passion/revenge (a scorned husband/lover), greed (not wanting to pay alimony) and/or not wanting to get caught (interrupted during robbery) or yet another motive.

On the whole I think he uses his words very carefully in this interview. I don’t get the feeling he speaks freely. Is he afraid to get caught? I have strong thoughts about his body language as well (but I misread Shane Carey so will refrain from stating them).

Autumn said...

Here’s another interesting statement by Brandon Bevers (as from3:24):

ASST. POLICE CHIEF KEVIN JOHNSON: “At this point none of the family, friends or coworkers of Missy Bevers are considered suspects.”

VOICE OVER: “But Brandon Bevers said no one should take that as meaning anybody has been cleared.”

BRANDON BEVERS: ”It’s just like the officers said today when I met with them: myself and everybody else in this investigation despite the fact that they’ve come out and said they are no longer suspects doesn’t mean that they’ve been eradicated from the investigation because the door has to be left open. Once they’ve scoured the field, eh, they should never close the door, you know, eh.”

VOICE OVER: ”To you or anybody else.”

BRANDON BEVERS: ”To, to nobody.”

What I find interesting is that he says police should “never” close the door to him as a suspect (there’s that door again). Does this mean police should always keep seeing/investigating him as a suspect? Why would they if he wasn’t involved? Later on in the video it becomes clear that Brandon Bevers said to the interviewer he is “75% sure” the killer is a woman. That's not the impression I got from his first interview.

Autumn said...

OT: Jussie Smollett

Jussie Smollett judge orders Google to turn over 1 year's worth of data

An Illinois judge granted two sweeping search warrants ordering Google to turn over a year's worth of data from Jussie Smollett and his manager as a special prosecutor probes whether or not the "Empire" actor staged a racist and homophobic attack against himself.

The warrants, filed last month in Cook County Circuit Court, will give investigators access to Smollett's and his manager's texts, emails, photos, location data, drafted and deleted messages, any files in their Google Drive cloud storage services, Google Voice texts, calls and contacts, as well as their search and web browsing history, dated between November 2018 and November 2019, according to reports by the Chicago Tribune.


Anonymous said...