Sunday, February 16, 2020

Gannon Stauch: Change of Language: "Gannon" and "G"

The following was submitted by a law enforcement analyst. 

A brief introduction first--

the analyst is doing a single "snap shot" of the step mother's statement: Change of language. 

Language does not change on its own, but signifies a change of reality for the subject. 

For example: "My car broke down on I 95.  I got the vehicle towed to a service station."

You'll notice that the "car" turned into a "vehicle"--- context is key. 

We look for a justifiable or observable change in reality.  When it was being towed, it became a "vehicle"-- the driver (subject, speaker) will not pick up his "vehicle" but once it is working again, it will revert to being his "car." 

When we view social introductions and names, it is also context specific. 

The step mother of a boy she cared for should use the possessive pronoun "my"--- just as the Solomonic instinct is viewed in other cases. 

"We have a kidnapping" Patsy Ramsey ---this is contrary to the natural instinct of a mother to take personal possession of her young daughter while missing. Instead, Patsy used "we", sharing not ownership of the victim, but what she is dealing with. This can be further reviewed here at the blog or at the You Tube video.  

Tecia Stauch did not use the possessive pronoun "my" in the statements I have thus far reviewed.  

Here is the analyst's observations on the name change from "Gannon" to "G"--- 

We expect (natural) that "Gannon" could revert to a nickname, term of endearment, or shorter abbreviation.  It is when it is reversed that we find an increase in importance. "My son, Robert..." becomes "Bob" or "Bobby" naturally.  This is shorter and informal.  Should the writer return to "Robert", we must take notice.  

The name to nickname may also reveal the parent:

"Bobby loves to play and is in Little League.  Robert's grades are excellent."

Here, we find the reverse, from nickname to formal which the context reveals which activity is more important to the parent---school. 

Kids have long understood what it means when their parent uses their first name and middle name...attention needed.  

This professional is not associated with the case. 


"Saturday Night, G was helping me unload in the garage and cut his foot because there are a lot of tools because Albert does woodworking."
A couple of points: 

1.  Gannon vs. G

'Gannon' is used when he is being held up as the example we should strive for or when Gannon is safe and loved: 

1. praying endlessly to bring Gannon home safe.  Loved and cherished

2. To Gannon, please come home soon because your daddy is waiting to watch the new Sonic movie that comes out this week and the cool shirt I got you to wear to the theatre is in your closet. 

Loved and cherished

3. Let’s Do what Gannon would do. Be Kind to one another! an example to us all

4. Gannon would want everyone to get along and to focus on finding him. loved and cherished, an example of cooperation, etc

It changes to 'G' --- is this the common law of economy or has  Tecia's reality has changed in a manner not yet explained contextually: 

1. I would like to think that overall most people are genuine and want to do everything in their power to find G. 
followed by 

2. With that being sad, Please take a step back for a moment and let me explain to you a few details that were not released. 

Here's the change in reality: with that being said, there are other details pertaining to "G" that are by Tecia's own language not related to the loved and cherished Gannon, or the fine example set by Gannon; but pertain to this other person (in her verbalized perception of reality) of  whom we now know as 'G'

She wants to think that people would like to find "G"--- not that she thinks it, but "would like to..." 

'sad' vice 'said' - typo or leakage?

If the change to G occurred after the second sentence, that would be a suitable explanation; first we're talking about 'Gannon' the loved, cherished, and admirable then we're moving to what might be called the 'rest of the story' where the 'details that were not released' might alter Tecia's reality where Gannon, now 'G', is concerned.  

In a off-handed way, this is out of order information; not from a narrative perspective but from word choice as reflects reality.  This may suggest  that Tecia's perception of 'G' as shown in the perceived reality of her language has been 'G' from the start of this statement, which suggests a level of subterfuge as she presents us with 'Gannon', only to turn the corner to introduce us to 'G'

The first use of 'G' comes in the context of everyone's 'power' being directed towards finding him, which causes me to conclude matters related to his return or discovery (wherebouts, condition, who he's with, what he might tell authorities. etc) are sensitive to Tecia.  I don't have an opinion on whether Tecia caused his disappearance or harmed him in the context of the disappearance, only that this is sensitive territory for her.  It may be that his return would highlight her neglect or poor parenting, whether by his condition or by his actual words when interviewed. It also could signal that her treatment of him (as seen/heard in the video) caused him to leave the home. 

Use of the word 'power' might indicate her perception of the relationship she had with Gannon. 

 Perhaps he was difficult and a constant challenge to her power as a step-parent or adult. The power to impress your will on another?  

I'd need to see more information from her concerning her verbalized reality of their relationship. That she would characterize the efforts of those looking for Gannon in terms of 'power' warrants further exploration.  

Then we get to the next sentence: 

"Saturday Night, G was helping me unload in the garage and cut his foot because there are a lot of tools because Albert does woodworking."

1.  She doesn't state he cut his foot on a tool;   we are meant to infer this as the cause of the injury. This may speaks of self-preservation; she needs to provide context for an injury that absolves her of bad parenting or abuse or neglect; it was an accident because of the tools, which subtly also blames Albert. 

2.  Her level of sensitivity here is extreme; "because' appears twice in the same sentence.  She twice articulates the presence of tools; they are there on the floor, and they are there on the floor because Albert does woodworking.  She does not state the tools caused his injury. 

This is important to note. 

3.  Here he's not the angelic idealized 'Gannon'; he's the 'G' involved in the few details that were not released; the one who's connected with the concept of  'power'
An injury sustained by 'Gannon' would be accidental and unintentional; with an injury to 'G' we must understand contextually, per her own personal dictionary, it connotes impatience, frustration, etc.  all the normal things that come with dealing with an 11 year old boy from time to time.  

If Gannon bled in the garage, the police would likely find it and want an explanation. Tecia is anticipating the possibility of having to account for an injury on Gannon that would explain the shedding of blood.  This would suggest she anticipates him being found at some point, whether dead or alive.

Could this be why she stated online that an "accident" had taken place? 

Note it is my assumption that at this point in the investigation, police would have already searched her home and if there was blood found, would have already questioned her about it.  

As she doesn't explicitly state 'G' was injured by a tool or that he actually bled in the first place, Tecia may be preparing to account for an injury on Gannon's body, whether on his foot or somewhere else.  She hoping it will have been plausibly explained in her statement and as such, authorities will just move on past it.  

According to Tecia, we have a house with two adults and an 11 year old boy living in it.  The house is surrounded by a fence, the fence has a gate; the gate is lockable and the lock is actuated by a key.  The only key to the gate is maintained by the minor child in the house who, least more than twice, has gone to the gate in the context of being 'injured' in some way in the presence Tecia, after being bandaged up and deemed 'good to go'.  Very alerting. 

At the end we have a return to "Gannon"

That can be scanned for actual time verification. Last, from day one the Sheriff's office has known a description of the person/friend whom Gannon left with. 

Here we have Tecia actually characterizing the individual who potentially has her missing and unaccounted for stepson as a 'friend'. 

Friend of hers or friend of Gannon?

Gender Neutral noted. 

'a' description, not 'the' description of the person/friend. 

 Is she minimizing her knowledge, or her personal opinion, of who this person/friend is or might be?

If she is able to qualify this individual as a 'friend', then she has to have some idea who it is.  

Why is she holding back? 

Why the gender neutral? 

This language shows a neutral to positive linguistic disposition (protection of identity) towards the purportedly unknown person who has her stepson, who himself is in God-knows what condition, if he's alive at all.  

Per her own personal dictionary, her use of 'Gannon' vice 'G' indicates in her perception, 'Gannon' is presently safe with this person/friend and is actually better off that when he was 'G' with her. 

If you wish to study deception detection, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services.

Individual study as well as seminars for law enforcement, business, social services, etc.  

Saturday, February 15, 2020

Faye Swetlik 911 Call

Analysis of the emergency call to report missing 6 year old Faye Swetlik. 


The 911 (or 999) call is the first interview of an investigation. 

We hold to the expectation that the subject (caller) will:

1. Show priority of the victim; not self. 
2. Work with the operator (police) to facilitate the flow of information.  

It is, in a sense, an 'excited utterance' of an interview.  

3. Context Appropriate:  the caller is the biological mother. See Solomon for maternal instinct engaged. 

This should be compared to Patsy Ramsey's 911 call. 

 Lexington county 911 what's the address of your emergency? 

Mom: 16 Londberry Square,  I need to report a missing child. 

a. She answers the question
b. She uses the pronoun "I"
c. Her priority is to report a "missing child" -- She does not wait for another question, "What is the emergency?" but goes to her priority. 

Lexington PD: Repeat that address for clarification 

Mom: 16 Londonberry Square Cayce

SC Lexington PD: Okay, tell me exactly what's happening. 

Mom: We can't find my daughter. She was playing outside and now I can't find her. 

Here the mother begins with "we" which cause us to ask, "Who is also looking for her daughter?"

Note next "my" daughter uses possessive pronoun "my" which is expected.  

After introducing "my", not "our" daughter, the subject continues on this vein with:

"I can't find her", which is very strong. 

Lexington PD: How old is she? 

Mom: She is 6, she will be 7 in June. 

Lexington PD: I'm gonna stay on the line with you so you, so I'm gonna get Cayce PD on the line too, so don't hang up, okay? 

Cayce PD: Cayce 911 is your emergency police, fire, or medical? 

Hey Cayce, this is Lexington. I've got a lady at 16 Londonberry Square. Her 6-year-old was in the front yard and she can't find her now. 

Cayce PD: Alright, hold on. What's the number? Lexington PD: 16 Londonberry Square. I have her phone number and I'm going to stay on the line so it doesn't get disconnected. 

Cayce PD: you're on the line with Cayce, go ahead. What's your son's name? 

Mom: My daughter's name is Faye Swetlik

here we do not flag the pronoun "my" as above, because the PD used the pronoun "your" in the question. It does not negate its use, but it is influenced by the question.  

Cayce PD: What was she wearing? 

Mom: She was wearing polka-dotted rain boots, a flowered skirt (pink rose skirt), a black t-shirt that has a neon design on it. 

note the willingness to give details. This is expected in a helpful caller. 

Cayce PD: How long has she been gone? 

Mom: Last I saw her probably about an hour ago. 

Caller is taking this very personally.  This is expected from a biological mother. 

Cayce PD: How tall is she? 

Mom: She is 3 ft 10 

Cayce PD: How much does she weigh? 

Mom: 65 pounds

Cayce PD: Stay on the phone with me do not hang up. What's your name? 

Mom: My name is [redacted] 

Cayce PD: You last saw her in the front yard, you didn't see which way she went or anything like that? 

Mom: No, she was right in front of my front porch. 

Compare this language to the released statement by the family which was analyzed.  

Cayce PD: Okay, does she have a cell phone? 

Mom: No 

Cayce PD: Have you walked around and tried to locate her? 

Mom: Yes ma'am

Cayce PD: Okay, here's what I want you to do. I want you to stay in your yard, Okay? We have a unit out that has a dog just in case we need to track her, okay? We don't need you walking if you can stay close to the last place she was. 

Cayce PD: Do you have any idea where she would go? Have you looked in the back yard? 

Mom: Yes ma'am. I checked all the houses in my neighborhood and anybody that's actually answered is out looking for her too. 

Strong response, beyond the word, "yes"-- this indicates priority. 

Note also the additional info:  "and" with the information that followed it.  

She facilitated a search party.  

Cayce PD: Did she have a dog or anything with her? 

Mom: No. 

Cayce PD: Okay, my officer will be there in just a few minutes. 

Analysis Conclusion:

Veracity Indicated

The mother's priority is finding her daughter. 

She is truthful and she is helpful, going beyond the boundary of some questions in order to support her priority.  

The point of sensitivity is the emphasis of location.  

It is unknown who wrote the family statement, but the author's  sensitivity of location is consistent with the released family statement.  

Thursday, February 13, 2020

Missing: Faye Swetlik

Faye Swetlik, 6, missing.  
Family statement

I. “Faye is a bubbly and happy little girl. She always wants to play and have fun. She’s not the type of kid that will up and walk away.
Her mom was very attentive in watching Faye. Faye pays attention to her surroundings.
Her grandmother is very distraught about what has happened because they are very close. We just want to find Faye and bring her home.”

“Faye is a bubbly and happy little girl. 

Note that present tense language is expected. The natural resistance, particularly at the time of the statement, should be evidenced from the family.  

Resistance weakens in an external circle

Friends will often begin to accept a despairing ending, 

then family members 

then care takers, including step parents, grandparents, etc. 

then the father

lastly the mother. 

This is always context bound---including the living condition the victim, the vulnerable nature of the child, weather conditions, passage of time and any information the police have shared with the family.  

She always wants to play and have fun. 

She is a "little girl" when playing, having fun and being "bubbly."  

Question: Did wanting to have fun have something to do with her disappearance?  

Was she outside unsupervised because she wanted to play and have fun?  Could this have caused the 6 year old to wander off?

Why is it included? 

We look for the statement to answer our questions. 

She goes through a linguistic change here: 

She’s not the type of kid that will up and walk away.

She is no longer a "little girl" but a "kid" in the context of what that will "up and walk away."  It is to be noted that a "kid" could get up and walk away, more than a "little girl."

What concern is raised here? 

Consider that the statement is in "the negative"---telling us what Faye is not like. This elevates importance to the subject (author of this statement) 

We are not made long to wait for an answer. 

Her mom was very attentive in watching Faye.

There is no reason to include this line in a statement about a missing child unless...

there is a reason to include it and it is part of the case. 


Her "mom was very attentive" uses the past tense "was"---this should not lead to a definitive opinion that the mother, in this statement, knows the child is dead.

The mother's neglect is seen in the sentence following the negative and the change of language from "little girl" to a "kid" who can make a decision to "up and walk away" or not to "up and walk away."

The past tense reference could be a signal that the family has discussed neglect and future plans for Faye that would prevent the mother from sole custody. 

It could speak to status (death) or loss of home of being found safe, but death should not be concluded outside the context of this small statement. 

Understanding Neglect 

Neglect is the easiest form of child abuse---it takes little to no effort on the part of the parent.  This is why we view "passive" responsibility rather than "active" responsibility on the part of a parent. 

No conclusion should be drawn from this point of neglect in the statement.  The author has a need to assert this where no need should exist. 

However, guilt of neglect could be from many sources, including now the regret of taking her eyes off of the "little girl" who, in the language, was "not" the type of kid to up and walk away. 

Does the family (statement) believe that this is what she did?

Did neglect leave Faye open to a kidnapper/child predator?

A moment of lapse could haunt an innocent parent for life. 

 Faye pays attention to her surroundings.

"little girl" to "kid" back to "Faye"---

"Faye", here, is one who "pays attention" to her surroundings.  

Notice here that another person enters the language of the statement unnecessarily: 

Her grandmother is very distraught about what has happened because they are very close. 

Here the need to explain why the grandmother is "very distraught" is expressed. This is unnecessary information is necessary within the family dynamic. 

I believe this affirms the neglect concluded above. It may also seek to preempt a very upset grandmother from blaming the child's mother in public.  

We just want to find Faye and bring her home.”

We may note here that the consequence of a "kid" who would not "up and walk away" is kidnapping.  

There is no call given here to the kidnapper. It may be in other statements, however, or media appearances. 

III. Analysis Conclusion:

There is insufficient data to which a conclusion of guilt or innocence can be reached in the above statement. 

It is not known who wrote this statement, though I doubt it was an attorney. 

the statement does not show belief or knowledge that the child is deceased. 

The statement indicates neglect on the part of the mother, which is unknown as to any potential greater scope. 

Neglect: it is not known if there is passive guilt ("I wasn't watching her when she went missing") or if it is active guilt where willful knowledge of any form of danger was ignored. 

It also could indicate tension between the mother and the grandmother within the family dynamic as it is natural to wish to assign blame in a traumatic event.  

Objection:  "neglect" may be indicated but there is not enough information here for you to conclude it. 


Faye is 6 years old.  

Did you notice, beyond the unnecessary information, upon whom the responsibility or "onus" falls?

Twice, Faye, the victim, is burdened with it. 

First, she was not a kid who up and walked away, and secondly, she was one who was aware of her surroundings...

at age 6.  

Both statements place the onus upon the child.  

This is likely something that Faye experienced with her mother; chronic neglect. 

It does not mean the mother actively caused Faye's  disappearance, nor even passively, though the latter may be something the family has talked about. 

The statement is too short  to make a strong conclusion.  

It does mean that the mother wishes to be viewed as responsible (indicator of neglect) and that emphasis upon the child as responsible is placed. 

Of all the things the family could have said, they have limited their statement to be very short.  

In such brevity, it is magnified that the mother attentiveness is raised, as well as the grandmother's bond. 

It may be that grandmother blames mother for not watching Faye. 

Kobe Bryant Sexual Assault Statement Analyzed

Questions  for Analysis: 

Did Kobe Bryant rape a teenaged girl who accused him?

Did the alleged victim reliably report a sexual assault?

The impact of rape is life long. The language often reflects this and the victims may experience a renewal of the trauma at any reminder.  Victims may also experience a crisis when they age and experience a natural declination of hormonal strength.  This is when depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, etc, may be evidenced, even by victims who appeared to have coped well for many years prior. 

We hold special training in Statement Analysis for investigators as well as treatment providers in the language of sexual abuse victims. 

With rape, we can see a "back and forth" in language; both reliable and unreliable. 

The reasons for this are many, including embarrassment, shame, trauma, disassociation, as well as self loathing and even portions of the statement where the subject was engaging in a consensual act.  

Disassociation, in particular, can mimic deception in language. Sex Crimes Units and other professionals benefit from both the instructions and the volume of statements analyzed.  This can affirm for those with much experiencing interviewing victims what their instincts led them to believe. 

The following is portions of an article on Kobe Bryant alleged rape statement. The article includes statements about what happened. 

We begin by believing the subject, both the accused and the accuser, and allowing their words to guide us. 

Rape is an allegation that is such that we expect a strong, reliable denial once the subject understands what it is that has been alleged against him. 

"I didn't force her.  It was consensual."
"I didn't rape her."

These are expected denials, yet it can be influenced by the interviewer's wording. 

The expectation is very strong---it is the natural response to the allegation. 

It represents the subject's verbalized perception of what happened and we expect the subject to establish this psychological "wall of truth" and remain safely behind it in an open statement or response to the open ended question of what happened. 

The following are notes from the team analysis: 

Charged with sexual assault and false imprisonment Bryant’s case did not go to trial. 

On Sept. 1, 2004, a week before the trial, the case was dismissed when  the accuser, who had been smeared as promiscuous for months by the media and Bryant’s defense team, refused to testify. 

She filed a separate civil suit against Bryant, and had agreed to dismissal of the sexual-assault charge against him provided the athlete issued the following apology to his accuser, which was read in court by Bryant’s attorney. 

Last night I was at work and I was sexually assaulted.”
a.     Time 
b.    Location
c.     Event 
d.    Who assaulted her?
e.     Is “sexual assault” different from rape?
f.      “I was sexually assaulted” --- on its form, this is reliable. It was about her, not the alleged rapist. She, herself, was sexually assaulted. This is her focus. 

clips from article: 

The accuser said she arrived late to work at the Lodge & Spa at Cordillera, a resort in Edwards, Colorado—between Eagle and Vail—at around 2 p.m. on June 30. At around 4 p.m., she said she received a call from a travel agent checking in on a reservation for
 “Javier Rodriguez,” and the agent “divulged the information to me that it was actually Mr. Bryant. And that it was very important that we got him and his two companions a room. So, there were three rooms all together.” 

The use of "we" here is to unite the subject with co workers. 

The other rooms were being held under the names “Joe Carlson” and “Mike Ortiz,” who were in Bryant’s entourage. The accuser, who worked at the front desk, was scheduled to be off at 7 p.m., but told officers she stayed later because “I was excited to meet Kobe Bryant,” and that she “was trying to make up the extra hours” that she missed by not getting to work on time (her work day was supposed to begin at 11 a.m.).

They showed up around 9:45, 10:00. I met Mr. Ortiz um, met Mr. Bryant and they asked me to escort him to his room,” she told police. When they got to the room, she says, Bryant made a request: “Mr. Bryant asked me, kinda in private if I would come back in 15 minutes and give him a tour of the hotel. And I said that I would.”

"Mr. Bryant" is respectful from the teen regarding a celebrity. This is appropriate in context (no assault is alleged yet) 

"Mr. Bryant asked me"--- appropriate soft language of request. 

The accuser says she returned to his room around 10:30 p.m., and then showed Bryant the resort’s on-site facilities, including the spa, exercise, room, outdoor pool, and outdoor jacuzzi. She claims the tour portion was witnessed by Bob Pietrack, the bellman and a high-school friend of the accuser. Then, the two allegedly returned to Bryant’s room, sat down, and talked.

We were talking and (he)  asked me to open the jacuzzi for him,” she told police.
 “told him that my shift was over and I was gonna go home.

 "we" unity in "talking" (this conversation is important)
"asked" is appropriate (request) soft language. 
"told" is firm, one way, strengthening the rebuff. 

 He proceeded to try and convince me to come back in 15 minutes, which I told him I would just so I could get out of there and then I was just gonna leave and not come back. 

Subject needs to explain why she agreed. 

"proceeded" ---time has passed.  This may be related to the "talking" -- 

Um, I stood up to leave, he stood up,   asked me to give him a hug.

"I stood up": Tension (body posture)
Need to explain why she stood up ("to leave") sensitive 
"he stood up" shows more tension.
"asked" is soft. 

 I gave him a hug 

reliable on its form 

and he started kissing me 

"started" ---could be ongoing, including in her mind as she recalls what happened for police. 

and I let him kiss me. 

"I let him" is language found in many sexual assault victims who experience shame and by some who experienced sophistication disparity in the assault. It is a passivity that should cause investigators to explore her background--- it is something in the language that is consistent with childhood trauma, mental health issues. This can be anything from a struggle to say "no" up to early childhood sexual abuse where the natural development of boundaries has been hindered or slowed.  

She dropped the pronoun reducing commitment. This could be deception, or it could be shame. The next sentence may indicate the answer: 

And the kissing continued then he took off his pants. 

"the kissing continued" is not "we kissed" or he kept kissing me. It is very likely that the kissing here was consensual and/or that she did not, at this point, tell him to stop. 

"...he took off his pants" is reliable on its form. 

Did you notice she began here with the element of time?  

"And the kissing continued then he took off his pants."

The passage of time affirms her need to explain why she got up from the bed ("stood") in her intention to leave. 

Notice how this theme of time passing continues: 

And that’s when I tried to back up and leave.

We look for the word "we" to show unity.  It is not present here in the alleged attack. 

 And that’s when he started to choke me.”

Silencing of victim 
Humiliation of victim 
Restraint: Perpetrator unwilling to let her go, or let her speak.  
Entitled perp -celebrity, wealth, and perhaps:  experience. 

Asked by police what she was thinking at the time, she responded,
 “I was thinking that his actions were getting physical, and that I wanted to get out of the room.”

This indicates how the time was 'ticking away' in her mind, finding its way into the language. 

She estimates the kissing lasted for five minutes, and that that part was consensual. What happened after, she says, was not. 

He started, um, groping me, I guess I’d say. ( )  Putting his hands on me, grabbing my butt, my chest. ( ) Trying to lift up my skirt. Proceeded to take off his own pants. ( )  Trying to grab my hand and make me touch him.” 

weak commitment to the language of "groping" -- note context of age 

"proceeded" is time passing 

Note dropped pronouns with ( )
Now ownership of possessive pronouns indicates a grasp of boundaries 

I told him once that I needed to leave,” she added. “He didn’t say anything. 

Did he depersonalize the victim by ignoring her? 

If he did he didn’t make any gestures or anything that would let me know that he did.” 

At this point, the accuser told police that Bryant began to get rough with her:

 When he took off his pants that’s when I started to kinda back up, and try to push his hands off me and that’s when he started to choke me. He wasn’t choking me enough that I couldn’t breathe, just choking me to the point that I was scared.”

She told police, he began “grabbing and rubbing” her vagina over her panties. That lasted “two to three minutes, and during that time I was trying to uh, pull away.” 

Then, she says, he grabbed her neck with both arms. She claims that she didn’t say anything to him at this time, but he knew she was trying to leave “because I kept trying to back away and move towards the door.”  

According to the accuser, Bryant put his body between her and the door. 

“I try and walk to the side, and he would walk to the side with me. And that’s when he started to put his hands on my neck. He was groping me, I tried to leave, tried to break away, that’s when he grabbed my neck. And at that point I was just looking at him, didn’t know what to do, didn’t know what to say.”

The commitment strengthens here: 

Then he held me by my neck and physically forced me over to the side of the couch. That’s when he continually had one hand around my neck and with his other hand pushed me over to the side of the two chairs um, turned me around and bent me over and lifted up my skirt.”

She told police that “at that point I was just kinda scared and I said no a few times,” adding she said no “when he lifted up my skirt” and again “when he took off my underwear.” 

"told" is firmer, while "said" is softer.  This may be due to the emotion cited --fear and the location of his hands, including upon her throat: 

When asked by police how she knew Bryant had heard her, she replied, “Because every time I said no he tightened his hold around me.”

This is control.  It justifies the word "said" 

The accuser said that, with one arm still around her neck, Bryant “would lean his face real close to me and ask me questions.” 

note sensory recall and likely intimidation of proximity and size differential 

The question: “You’re not gonna tell anybody right.” 
“I said no. And he didn’t hear me or asked me to say it louder.

 (.  )  Wanted me to turn around and look at him while I said it,”

Power control rapist: 
Depersonalization of assault changes to personalization of obtaining her silence. 
Soft response (coercive nature) 

 She said that Bryant asked her the question “three or four” times, and her response every time was “no” because “I was scared that if I told him yes, I’m gonna tell somebody, I’m gonna get out of here now, that he would become more physical with me. Or try harder to keep me in there.” 

And then,” she said, “he lifted up my skirt, took off my underwear and, and came inside me.” 

reliable on its form 

She continued: “That’s when he kept coming inside me and then he leaned his face toward mine and asked me if I liked it when a guy came on my face, I said no. Then he was like what did you say. 
( )Grabbed and like tightened his hold on my neck, I said no. He said he was gonna do it anyway. 

humiliation of victim 

And then at that point I got a little bit more aggressive with him and tried to release his hands from my neck. And he was still behind me and at that point he’s still choking me, I was not trying as hard as I could of to get away, but I was still trying.”

The penetration, she told police, lasted about “five minutes,” during which time she was crying, saying that the crying began “when he was coming inside, or started having sex with me.”

note the consistency of distancing language.  
Note dropped pronoun (shame?) 

 During the sex, Bryant reportedly said, “I like Vail, Colorado.”
Prior—was he trying to humiliate her? (“do you like it when…”) and is he now boasting/taunting? 

Interesting and apparent non important (unnecessary) detail given--likely reliable and something that may have left an imprint upon her.  

To this point, her resistance has been seen in softer language ("said" rather than "told") as his grip tightened. This is congruent with physical coercion and/or threat of. 

When I started to get a little bit more aggressive, tried harder to get away, that’s when he stopped,” she said. “I stood up and turned around and he forced me to stay in the room until I had calmed down a little bit. Made me fix my hair and wash my face.”

Afterward, she told officers that Bryant issued her a warning. “It is just between the two, the two of us nobody is gonna know about this, you’re not going to tell anybody. Not asking me just telling me.”

interesting in the recall of what he said, the word "we" does not come from her. 

Bryant’s version of the events differed from the accuser’s. He was questioned by police at around 11:30 p.m. the day after the alleged sexual assault at the Lodge & Spa at Cordillera.

“Um, she showed me around the pool, showing me around, um, we went to my room, she showed me the back view where the bears come up to the window, and that’s about fucking it, we shot the shit and that was it,”

that was it so there is no need to ask further questions. 

Bryant  then denied three times that anything had happened with the woman to police.  Initial lying about sex is expected---the repetition shows resistance to any admission.  Investigators should consider, at this point, if the subject has harmed previous victims. 

When informed that the accuser had made an allegation of sexual assault against him, it is the perfect time to deny it. 

Let's examine what he said: 

Is there any way I can settle this whatever it is, I mean? If my wife, if my wife found out that anybody made any type of allegations against me, she would be infuriated.”

He began with a question, rather than. denial .

He asked the police to let him "settle this" ---indiction of celebrity/wealth entitlement. 

When police informed him that the accuser had submitted to a physical exam and they’d taken semen and blood evidence from her person, Bryant admitted that the two had sex. 

Note his focus is not upon the act, but upon a need he has: 

“Uh, this is what I need to know because uh, I did have sexual intercourse with her,” It was totally consensual.”

He has the need to explain why he needed this information prior to making a denial.  

"totally" is to add emphasis. 

Bryant told the officers that when he and the accuser got back to the room, she showed him her back tattoo and then kissed him, and they began to kiss. 

"she showed him her back tattoo" is reliable on its form as reported. This may be part of the important conversation that the accuser references but does not elaborate upon. 

The officers asked Bryant whether she said no or resisted: 

This is where he could also simply deny assaulting her.  


OK. I’m thinking, I’m thinking, I’m thinking. (Pause.) I’m trying to think of the conversation we had.”

OK is a pause and possible ingratiation with police (congruent with his asking them if he could "settle this") 

"I'm thinking" 3 times 

4th time referring to the "conversation" that "we" (his perception of the conversation) had. 

The subject needed time to think of how to counter the allegation, which is consistent with his "need to know" before responding. 

Does the subject have experience in sexual assault? 

He admitted that he “held her from the back” and that the sex lasted about five minutes.

The officers then likely surprised the subject with a specific detail: 

“Did you ever ask her if you wanted, if you could cum in her face?” 

Yes,” Bryant replied, adding, “That’s when she said no. That’s when she said no. That’s when she said no.”

He was "thinking, thinking, thinking, thinking" and now he has his answer.  That's "when" ---timing.  

Bryant contended that the woman gave him oral sex for approximately “five seconds” prior to the sex, and that everything was “consensual.”

At one point, when police described the accuser as “attractive,” 

Bryant corrected them. “She wasn’t that attractive,” said Bryant. 

The subject returns to the victim of whom he depersonalized.  She is now beneath him aesthetically.  

His hostility towards her is now distinctly sexual: 

Then, when officers asked him about “finishing,” he replied, “I didn’t finish a fucking thing,” adding, “I jerked off when she left.

missing information

When asked by officers if he’d ever cheated on his wife before, Bryant replied, “Um, yes, with one other person. And she could actually testify I do that um, I do the same thing, I hold her from the back, I put my hands (inaudible).” 

Her name is Michelle,” continued Bryant, adding she’s a “frequent” partner of his.

He offered about "hold her from the back" as it is on his mind. This allows the police to them inform him of physical evidence:

 “She has a bruise on her neck,” 

to which he replied,

 YeahI mean that’s you know me and Michelle, that’s what we, we do the same thing." 

It could not be an assault of the teenager because his girlfriend will admit to it. 

When officers ask Bryant how often he has sex with “Michelle,” he replies, “A lot. She’ll tell you the same shit.”

In a supplemental police report, Det. Winters described a strange encounter with Bryant in which he hurled a T-shirt containing semen into the officer’s face. 

And in another supplemental report in Bryant’s case file, he chose to invoke Shaquille O’Neal’s name during the investigation—for reasons unclear.

According to the police report, while he was being questioned by the officers about the alleged sexual assault, Bryant said, “I should have done what Shaq does,” adding, “Shaq gives them money or buys them cars, he has already spent one million dollars.” 

note the need for "others" is a form of concealing guilt via psychologically diluting guilt.  

Bryant later  issued his first statement about the case to the Los Angeles Times, saying,

 “When everything comes clean, it will all be fine, you’ll see. But you guys know me, I shouldn’t have to say anything. You know I would never do something like that.” 

In the unreliable denial, he relies upon this relationship with the media to affirm his words.  

Four days later, he made his first public appearance since the allegations emerged, walking the red carpet with his wife Vanessa at the ESPY Awards at Hollywood’s Kodak Theatre. And on July 18, after he was formally charged with sexual assault and false imprisonment, Bryant held a news conference where, with his wife by his side, he contested the charges against him.

“I didn’t force her to do anything against her will. I’m innocent,” 

The Reliable Denial must have 3 components:

1. The pronoun "I"
2.  The past tense verb 
3. The allegation specifically answered. 

Here he violates component 3 

he said. “I sit here in front of you guys furious at myself, disgusted at myself for making a mistake of adultery.”

During the preliminary hearing, Det. Winters testified that the accuser had been examined the day after the alleged assault by Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners (SANE) at the Valley View Hospital in Glenwood Springs, Colorado.

The testimony follows: 

“[The nurse] stated that there were several lacerations to the victim’s posterior fourchette or vaginal area, and two of those lacerations were approximately one centimeter in length,” testified Det. Winters. “And there were many, I believe, 2 millimeter lacerations. Too many to count… [The nurse] stated that the injuries were consistent with penetrating genital trauma. That it’s not consistent with consensual sex.”

Det. Winters further stated that the nurse told him the vaginal injuries had most likely occurred within “24 hours,” and that the accuser had “a small bruise on her left jaw line.” Also, that examiners had found “blood excretions” on Bryant’s T-shirt “to about the waistline.” The blood, testified Det. Winters, had “the same DNA profile as the victim in this case.” 

Bryant’s defense team, on the other hand, brought up the accuser’s past sexual history. Bryant’s defense team claimed that the vaginal trauma suffered by the accuser could have been from having “multiple partners” in a short time span, though Det. Winters had testified that a nurse told him the injuries had likely occurred in the past 24 hours.

Furthermore, Bryant’s defense team focused on how the accuser admitted she was “excited” to meet Bryant—allegedly requesting an autograph of him prior to the alleged sexual assault—and called the accuser’s mental state into question.

Analysis Conclusion 

Kobe Bryant is indicated for deception

We began by believing that he did not assault her, but was consensual. 

His own words indicate otherwise. 

We also begin by believing her unless she talks us out of this position. 

She makes several statements that are reliable on their form about the assault.  

Question: Did the subject commit sexual assault on the accuser?   

Answer:  Yes 

The victim gave a reliable report on what he did, though she withheld what was said prior to the assault. It is likely that initial physical contact (kissing) was consensual and that both shame and trauma appear in her language.  

This next question was one of an opinion to the team: 

Do you believe the victim has had prior sexual assault?  

Yes -- the mental health issues can enter the language, reduce the commitment to resist (as can the coercion of violence) and indicate post trauma (ongoing) impact. 

The sophistication disparity between the teenager and the celebrity is noted, along with the physical disparity and the injuries she suffered. 

It is particularly note worthy that he targeted her throat, which seeks to control, silence and humiliate victims.  

Bryant read the following apology in court when the victim reported that she would not testify. 

Since the victim was reported to have come from a wealthy home, was reported to have mental health issues prior to the rape (including a reported suicide attempt), and was said to have had multiple partners by Bryant's attorneys, readers consider for themselves the decision to not testify:

First, I want to apologize directly to the young woman involved in this incident. I want to apologize to her for my behavior that night and for the consequences she has suffered in the past year.
 Although this year has been incredibly difficult for me personally, I can only imagine the pain she has had to endure. I also want to apologize to her parents and family members, and to my family and friends and supporters, and to the citizens of Eagle, Colo
I also want to make it clear that I do not question the motives of this young woman.

 No money has been paid to this woman. 

She has agreed that this statement will not be used against me in the civil case. 

Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did. After months of reviewing discovery, listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter. I issue this statement today fully aware that while one part of this case ends today, another remains. I understand that the civil case against me will go forward. That part of this case will be decided by and between the parties directly involved in the incident and will no longer be a financial or emotional drain on the citizens of the state of Colorado.

If you wish to study deception detection, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services