Tuesday, September 15, 2020

Guest Submission: The Disappearance of Suzanne Morphew by Paul Maillardet



The Disappearance of Suzanne Morphew.


Guest Submission by Paul Maillardet


Suzanne Morphew, 49, disappeared 4 months ago on Mother’s Day, Sunday May 10th 2020. 


The mother of two from Maysville, Colorado, was said to have gone on a bike ride that morning. Suzanne’s bike was discovered, but she has not been seen or heard from since.


Her husband, Barry Morphew, made a televised appeal a week later, but has chosen to avoid media interviews until recent weeks. 


The following analysis is based on a call between Barry Morphew and Lauren Scharf of Fox 21 News on the 3rd of September 2020. It should be noted that these are excepts and Lauren Scharf has commented there is other information from the interview that she has not yet shared. 


The interview we will examine with Barry Morphew is in response to an exclusive interview made by one of his employees, Jeff Puckett, to the UK newspaper the Daily Mail. In the interview Puckett alleges the room he was given by Morphew reeked of chlorine, had wet towels on the floor and had a bin with insurance papers in it, which he later turned-over to the FBI.


At the present time we do not have the interviewer’s questions with which to see if any of their language is mirrored or parroted. With this said, the answers give us valuable insight.


In Statement Analysis, we examine the words a subject uses, and we apply Principles and Specific Indicators of Sensitivity that we discern from what the subject tells us. We always start from the position that what the subject is going to tell us is truthful. Through the subject’s language, their priorities, what they say and do not say – amongst other ‘markers’ - we build a picture. This can allow us to determine whether the subject is being truthful or not, if they are deceptive or may have guilty knowledge. We do not rely on a single sensitivity indicator, but instead we build our picture using all of the indicators that may be provided by the subject.


Let’s take a look through the interview with Barry Morphew and let his words guide us….


Listen,” Barry said during a Thursday morning phone call, “Jeff Puckett was in prison for nine years.”


In Statement Analysis we always focus on a subject’s Order and Priority. Alongside their words, this provides us with valuable insight into their current mindset and what was, and is, most important to them. 


Here, Barry Morphew’s priority is not to address what Jeff Puckett has said in his interview. Instead he chooses not to address it, deflecting us away by attacking Puckett’s character.


Puckett has informed the media of a strong chlorine smell in the room rented and used by Barry Morphew. Why would the mention of chlorine be sensitive enough to Morphew that he becomes defensive? Why would Morphew need to attack Puckett’s character – and the credibility of his statement – if he has done nothing wrong?


Barry Morphew has an opportunity from the outset to confirm he has not killed or had anything to do with Suzanne’s disappearance, and to agree or disagree that there was a strong smell of chlorine in the room. He does not issue any denial, but instead attacks Puckett’s character. 

I said listen, I need to do this job, I will pay you good money to come and help me,” Barry said of Puckett. “I gave him a job and an opportunity and they all jumped on it.”

Barry Morphew does not say he called and asked Puckett to do a job. Listen to his words - he told Puckett to ‘Listen’ – this speaks of importance. He then tells Puckett of a ‘need’ to do the job, and that he will not just pay him, but will pay him ‘good money’.  Morphew appears to have an unusually urgent need to persuade Puckett.


Morphew then goes on to tell us he gave Puckett not just a job, but an “opportunity” – in Statement Analysis we call this the ‘Good Guy” (‘Person’) Principle. He has a need to convey himself as the good person by offering Puckett the job, he feels a need to tell us the audience that he is the good guy. 


Puckett felt that the room and strong chlorinated smell was unusual, and subsequently in context of Barry’s wife Suzanne’s disappearance he notified the authorities and spoke to media. He goes on to say “they all jumped on it”, not referring to Puckett specifically.


Note that Barry Morphew was happy to trust Puckett, who had been in jail, to help him on his job, but then seeks to use that against Puckett to attempt to destroy his statement’s credibility. He feels betrayed by Puckett, but his priority is again to attack his character rather than the information Puckett provided.


Here Barry Morphew shoots the messenger but not the message itself. This is often used where someone’s argument is weak, and a tactic employed by deceptive people.

“I rushed home, left all my tools at the hotel called my workers and said, ‘I have a family emergency, you’re going to have to figure this out on your own,'” he said.

We make a note of the Order here from Barry:

  1. “I rushed home”

  2. “…left all my tools…”

  3. “…called my workers”


“I rushed home…” Barry has been informed of Suzanne’s disappearance. He tells us he “rushed home” – in Statement Analysis we flag the Expected vs the Unexpected. Given the circumstances we would not expect that he would do anything but rush back. That he tells us this means that this could be important. Time is be sensitive to him, and we would examine whether there was any delay in this journey, and if so – why?


“…left all my tools at the hotel…”  In his response here we have several Principles of Statement Analysis that are flagged to us. We would expect him to tell us he 1. left his tools, 2. rushed home and called his workers. Where order is out of sequence this may be indicative that his account may be deceptive. 


Whilst leaving his tools speaks to urgency, why would Barry Morphew tell us he left all of his tools when he is recounting the point where he has been told his wife is missing? We only have his word here that he did leave all of his tools at the hotel, but he has a need to ensure we know this.


In Statement Analysis, Unimportant or Useless Information is considered doubly-important to the person or the subject saying it. Why would Morphew be concerned about his tools, or indeed mentioning them several months after Suzanne’s disappearance when he has apparently just learned his wife is missing? His wife is missing – he is recounting his experience – but instead of expressing any emotion, fear or worry, we are told he left his tools at the hotel.


The word ‘Left’, in Statement Analysis, in 70 percent of occasions can point to rushing or being delayed. However, in 30 percent of times this can also suggest that the subject is still psychologically present back where they were – in this case, the hotel. Often this can signify that an event may have occurred that keeps the subject’s mind back at that place or event. 


Could there be a psychological significance to Barry leaving his tools? This could be what we term as “Leakage”, where a subject may inadvertently provide information that could be important. 


“I did not go to the pool and I did not get chlorine,” he said. “I’m sure that they washed the rooms with that for the covid. I don’t know, but I [smelled] it too when I was in there.”


Barry offers what we would consider as a Reliable Denial here – ‘I’ (ownership) ‘did not” past tense “go to the pool” / “get chlorine”. We always look at what is said, and what is not said. Here, he does not say that he already had chlorine – and should the chlorinated room become significant in the investigation then this would underpin what we are not told here.


“I’m sure they washed the rooms with that for the covid” – How could Barry be so sure? He mentions ‘rooms’ in plural. Did he go to another room and smelled it there too. He does not tell us this, therefore we cannot say this for him. He then goes on to minimise his assertion with ‘I don’t know….”. We also note that in Analysis the use of ‘this’ is considered as being close, whereas ‘that’ is seen to distance from. He appears to distance himself from the chlorine here.


He therefore lacks certainty about the use of chlorine by the hotel, however he has a need to persuade us that rooms were washed with it. We have to ask ourselves why this may be.

“I did nothing wrong in the hotel,” Barry said. “There’s cameras all over the hotel, I did nothing wrong.”

Unfortunately, we do not know what was asked by the interviewer here, it would be interesting to know the context of the question. We always hope for questions to be open so the subject is able to choose their own words and start at where they feel comfortable.

“I did nothing wrong at the hotel” – the Law of Economy tells us that the shortest answer is likely to be the truthful one. Here, Barry could have told us “I did nothing wrong”. He does not. We follow what Barry tells us, he did nothing wrong ‘in the hotel’. If the interviewer’s question was open, we must consider something wrong may have happened outside of the hotel.

We also note in Statement Analysis that where there is repetition, there is sensitivity – Barry repeats he did nothing wrong. He has still not told us he did not kill Suzanne or had anything to do with her disappearance at this point.

“There’s cameras all over the hotel” – This statement is unnecessary and unusual. Morphew has a need to convey his innocence, however his mentioning of the cameras speaks of his awareness of them at the hotel. If we were to go to a hotel, would we make mental notes of all the cameras there? He tells us here he was aware the cameras were there – this could speak of concern that there may be footage of him, or that he knew where cameras were located, or that the cameras would place him at the hotel when he said he was.

If Barry was involved in his wife’s disappearance, he will have been aware of the locations of security cameras, and that security cameras are mentioned suggests that there may have been premeditation involved.  If he has knowledge or involvement in Suzanne’s disappearance, the site of any murder or disposal is unlikely to be covered by security cameras. His mentioning of cameras could be Leakage, and therefore significant.

“I’ve heard the FBI lie and I know that they can legally do that in their investigations,” Barry said. “But it just pains me to know that they are doing this to me and my family.”

Here Morphew tells us tells us the FBI are lying to him. Why would this be sensitive to him if he has nothing to do with Suzanne’s disappearance? Why does he not say that he does not care about this, and they should be focusing on finding Suzanne.

But it just pains me to know that they are doing this to me and my family – Barry’s places his pain before the pain of his family with the use of “me and my family”. He could have used ‘doing this to my family – he does not. He could have also used ‘our family’ which could be seen to be more inclusive of Suzanne.


We also note his choice of the word “pains”, given the context of what may be a murder enquiry. 

“Absolutely not,” he answered. “I love my wife. I would never hurt my wife. She is the light of my and my daughters’ lives. This whole thing is killing us and that is why I want our privacy.”

Again, we do not have the question for context, however this is insightful.

If he has been asked if he has had anything to do with his wife’s disappearance, a reliable denial would be “I did not kill my wife or have anything to do with her disappearance”. Instead he has a Need to Persuade, “Absolutely not”.

The public would take it as a given that he loves his wife, that he mentions this can be a sign that, again, he has a need to persuade us of this.

“I would never hurt my wife” – This could be true if Barry knows that Suzanne is deceased. He cannot hurt her if she is dead. He also does not say “I did not kill Suzanne”. We cannot say this for him.

“She is the light of my and my daughters’ lives” – It is encouraging that Barry uses present-tense language here when referring to Suzanne. However, his use of “light” could also reference her spirit shining down on them. We know that Barry is a member of a church, so the biblical use of light here is noted.  We cannot exclude the possibility that he is referencing Suzanne in the present-tense knowing or believing she is dead.  

“This whole thing is killing us…” – What is Morphew referencing? In the context of his previous answers and language this does not appear to be Suzanne’s disappearance that is ‘killing ‘them, but rather the focus on him.

His reference to ‘killing us’ is unfortunate given his wife may be dead. In choosing his words he may be inadvertently telling us he thinks Suzanne may be dead. His choice of words speak again to Self, not Suzanne, and place his ‘thing’ on potentially the same level as Suzanne’s, if she has been killed.

Suzanne’s disappearance in Barry’s language here is a ‘thing’, not a tragedy. His words speak of annoyance, and of a situation he does not want to participate in. Let’s see what he tells us….

“…and that is why I want our privacy

Morphew wants privacy – Pronouns do not lie – “I want our privacy”, not ‘we want’.

Priority: Morphew wants privacy, not “and that is why we want Suzanne back”

There is no call for his wife Suzanne.

Conclusion: Deception Indicated


Suzanne Morphew remains missing, we hope that she will be found soon ~ our thoughts and prayers go out to her Family.


Team Analysis Training Announcement

 Team Analysis Training 

Tuesday, September 22, 2020 9am

Thursday, September 24, 2020 12noon. 

Thursday, September 3, 2020

Portland Shooter Speaks

 


Michael Forest Reinoeh gave a bizarre interview which is heavily edited. 

You know, lots of lawyers suggest that I shouldn’t even be saying anything, but I feel it’s important that the world at least gets a little bit of what’s really going on.

“I had no choice. I mean, I, I had a choice. I could have sat there and watched them kill a friend of mine of color. I wasn’t going to do that.”

Note halting on the pronoun, “I” here  shows his stress levels rising. 

He contradicts himself revealing his intention. He selects to portray himself as a savior of a black friend while giving no commitment to a threat. 

No friend is identified. 

He is deceptive. 

He likely is seeing himself as the tragic hero. This could indicate "suicide by cop" intention to go down, in his mind, as the hero before being revealed as a murderer. 

Reinoehl in his interview lamented the direction the country was heading, saying his fatal shot “felt like the start of a war.” This portrays himself as an important historical figure in his own mind. Since he gave the deceptive "a friend" and no threat to his own life (or others) committed to, he has enough self awareness to be stressed by his own guilt. 

Here he not only portrays himself as important in history, but is putting his murder in a context of war--- this is a type of crowd sourcing guilt--spreading it around as if he was only a small part of something greater:

Honestly, I hate to say it but I see a civil war right around the corner. That shot felt like the beginning of a war,” puts him in the very beginning of the perceived historical moment. He is attempting to portray the murder in the light of duty, but cannot commit to it. 

 “Well honestly, those are…details that I probably don’t want to get into other than just simply saying I realized what happened,” 

He will not say his life was in danger. He did not say another's life was in danger.  

He knows. 

Reinoehl said when asked about the immediate aftermath of the shooting.  “I was confident that I did not hit anyone innocent and I made my exit.”

Deliberate act of murder  -- He asserts in the negative, what he did not do.  

Next:  Suicide by cop intended?

I used to really love this country and I respected the flag and everything that it represented but because of all this, every time I see a big truck, especially with the flag on it, I immediately think they’re out to get me.

As he sees them out to get him, along with his fatalistic mentality, concern over the self viewed historical end of his life-- they're out to get me...suicide by cop?

“They’re out hunting me. There’s nightly posts of the hunt and where they’re going to be hunting. They made a post saying the deer are going to feel lucky this year because it’s open season on Michael right now.”

He slightly dissociates and portrays himself as the victim. That he repeatedly used "hunt" is likely insight into the murder he committed: he hunted an American the patriot prayer supporter  


He knew where his actions would lead:

“Every Revolution needs people that are willing and ready to fight,” he allegedly wrote, according to The Oregonian. “There are so many of us protesters that are just protesting without a clue of where that will lead. That’s just the beginning that’s that where the fight starts. If that’s as far as you can take it thank you for your participation but please stand aside and support the ones that are willing to fight. I am 100 % ANTIFA all the way! I am willing to fight for my brothers and sisters! ... We do not want violence but we will not run from it either! ... Today’s protesters and antifa are my brothers in arms.”

He identifies for whom he fights and where his actions, in comparison to others, would lead.  

Saturday, August 29, 2020

Breonna Taylor Boyfriend Statement



The police are trying to make it out to be my fault, making it look like I brought this to Breonna's door."   Jarmarcus Glover 


Note “I brought this to Breonna’s door” are his  own words. He’s not quoting, paraphrasing or even saying what police are thinking. 


The words originate with him. He is psychologically committed to his own words via his use of the pronoun "I" in the statement. 

He does not say, "the police said that I..." which would ascribe the words "brought this to Breonna's door" to police.  He does not ascribe the words to what he believes the police are thinking, or what the public or press is saying.  


These are his own words. 


This is an embedded admission.

Sunday, August 23, 2020

Grandmother of Missing 2 Year Old


Grandmother of missing 2-year-old Houston girl begs for her safe return

transcript by John 

Help us find Maliyah Bass, 2, who was last seen playing at 10600 Beechnut at 9:30 a.m. today. She had on a multi-colored tank top, multi-colored shorts & had a pink & white pillow case with letter blocks inside.

Call HPD Missing Persons at 832-394-1840 if you see her. #hounews

Transcript of the interview with the grandmother-

Grandmother: "I was at home because I stay right up the street with my daughter in law and my son and he say 'Mama, Maliyah is missing' and I said  _____ 'What are you talking about?' and he say 'Maliyah's missing' so I tried to get down here. I was able to get down here. I was aggitated because I felt like the police was not doing anything. They did not care. Then I found out that they brought a dog out here 2 to 3 hours later to scent to find my baby. You know, she's a little girl. She's sweet, she's loving and didn't do nothing to nobody. I don't understand why they would take her, you know? I'm just mad because I feel like they're not doing everything to find my little baby girl."

Reporter: "Tell me about Maliyah. For people who are going to see this who are going to be looking for her what was she wearing? How did she look?"

Grandmother: "She had some blue shoes. I think her dad said polka dot shirt. Her hair is kind of in an afro puff, you know and she probably had one of her toys if whoever took her didnt try to throw the toy away because I think they said they found a toy under the stairwell so she's ... This is just too much, you know."

Reporter: "She was playing in this park right here, right?"

Grandmother: "Yes she was playing in the park. You know what they say, she's a happy baby. She's always smiling, she's kind, she's loving and she was just being a little girl, you know. Somebody just came and took her. Just took her."

Reporter: "Is there anything, birthmark, or anything that people should look for? Does she answer by a nickname that people would know?"

Grandmother: "No. If you say, 'Maliyah?' she'll say, 'Yes?', you know, she answers my Maliyah."

Reporter: "But no birthmarks or anything like that on her that you know of?"

Grandmother: "No not that I know of."

Reporter: "But the biggest thing is you just want your granddaughter back."

Grandmother: "I just want my baby back, you know, she didnt do anything wrong. I dont want no hard feelings or nothing. I just want them to bring her back you know? Just bring her back, you know. Oh lord this is just-"

The grandmother gives us a bit of insight, though she is reporting what she heard from her son:



Grandmother: "I was at home because I stay right up the street with my daughter in law and my son and he say 'Mama, Maliyah is missing' and I said  _____ 'What are you talking about?' and he say 'Maliyah's missing' so I tried to get down here. I was able to get down here. 


Sensitivity regarding the relationship with her son. He is listed after the daughter-in-law and she has the need to explain why which appears unnecessary.  Perhaps she has mobility issues or other reasons why.  It is not known here. 

"Mama" could be cultural, or it could be an emphasis upon relationship.  This could indicate concern as well. 


I was aggitated because I felt like the police was not doing anything. They did not care. Then I found out that they brought a dog out here 2 to 3 hours later to scent to find my baby. 


Blaming police is not unexpected in this context--- it can be (contextually dependent) a natural frustration and fear. 

This early in the disappearance, the grandmother has not need to ingratiate (make peace with, be unified to, etc) herself with the police. 


In this sense, it is the opposite of praising the police (ingratiation) for not finding the child--- see Deore Kuntz for example. 


You know, she's a little girl. She's sweet, she's loving and didn't do nothing to nobody. 


This language regarding a 2 year old may indicate a possible culture of violence, retribution and justification.  In this possibility, we listen for any form of desensitization and will ask many questions about her son. If the child went missing while her daughter-in-law was supervising, the grandmother's words indicate that exploration of associations, including those of her son, is warranted. 


I don't understand why they would take her, you know? I'm just mad because I feel like they're not doing everything to find my little baby girl."

Blaming the police, for example, if her son was arrested, is very different than what we have here. It is an indication that she is anxious over her granddaughter, and does not care what the police think at this time. 


"they" is acceptable due to the unknown -- not knowing male or female, single or multiple 

Reporter: "Tell me about Maliyah. For people who are going to see this who are going to be looking for her what was she wearing? How did she look?"

Grandmother: "She had some blue shoes. I think her dad said polka dot shirt. Her hair is kind of in an afro puff, you know and she probably had one of her toys if whoever took her didnt try to throw the toy away because I think they said they found a toy under the stairwell so she's ... This is just too much, you know."

Reporter: "She was playing in this park right here, right?"

Grandmother: "Yes she was playing in the park. You know what they say, she's a happy baby. She's always smiling, she's kind, she's loving and she was just being a little girl, you know. Somebody just came and took her. Just took her."

Question:  Does the grandmother have concern about her son?  This could be concern over neglect, illicit associations or worse. 

Reporter: "Is there anything, birthmark, or anything that people should look for? Does she answer by a nickname that people would know?"

Grandmother: "No. If you say, 'Maliyah?' she'll say, 'Yes?', you know, she answers my Maliyah."

Reporter: "But no birthmarks or anything like that on her that you know of?"

Grandmother: "No not that I know of."

Reporter: "But the biggest thing is you just want your granddaughter back."

Grandmother: "I just want my baby back, you know, she didnt do anything wrong. I dont want no hard feelings or nothing. I just want them to bring her back you know? Just bring her back, you know. Oh Lord this is just-"

The word "just" is a dependent word---it indicates at least one other thought. 

In context, "I just want ____ home" types of statements could be that the subject is making an effort to eliminate all other thoughts; particularly, frightening thoughts. 

Both pessimistic and optimistic subjects have thoughts of "what if..." and both may seek to deny or quell them. 

The articulation often changes as more time passes.  

We note that the reporter used the word "just" which may then lead to its use in parroting. 


Analysis Conclusion


Grandmother does not show guilty knowledge of what happened to the child. 

Grandmother may have concerns about her son and/or daughter in law--whether neglect at the park, dangerous associations or more. 

This does not preclude neglect on the part of the mother of the child, as it is only the grandmother's perspective. 


When a two year old goes missing, concerns of kidnapping & child trafficking as well as neglect or false reporting abound. 


www.hyattanalysis.com 

Hyatt Analysis Services Training