Guest Submission: Jason Henrikson "Murder in the Outback

 

 

 

Table of Contents

Introduction

Statement Analysis of “Murder in The Outback”

Police Interview Joanne Lees 7^th August 2001

Section 1 [Time: 19m.27sec]

Section 2 [Time: 25m.41sec]

Section 3 [Time: 27m.14sec]

Section 4 [Time: 28m.46sec]

Section 5 [Time: 29m.40sec]

SCAN Report 17^th July 2001

Section 1 [Time: 20min.17sec]

Conclusion

 

 

 

Introduction

 

Statement Analysis uses a number of principles that show sensitivity or otherwise of part or all of what a subject says and or writes. This report uses all Statement Analysis techniques to identify any and all areas of sensitivity, explains what and why the principle is used and poses one or more questions which this analysis will look to answer. The details will vary depending on the topic of analysis (emergency calls, employment analysis, company announcements and so on).

 

All analysis is based on the presupposition of veracity, that the subject is reliable and that there is no deception in what the subject says. Through this analysis the subject will either “talk us” into or out of this presupposition. A key point of Statement Analysis is that deception is via the “withholding of information” rather than an individual fabricating the nature of their reality, in other words outright lying. The body of evidence states that approximately ~90% of people are deceptive via withholding of information while the rarer fabricators of reality are ~10%.

 

Another important point of note with Statement Analysis and why the science of it works is that the average person has between 25,000 and 30,000 words in their personal, internal and subjective “dictionaries”. With their speech and their written word, the person must dig into their own personal, internal and subjective “dictionary” and choose which words, in which order, the grammatical tenses as well as the syntax to use – all within less than 1 second. It is in this “Free Editing Process” where a person speaks freely without external prompting that Statement Analysis seeks the truth. The analyst will seek what Statement Analysis refers to as Sensitivity Indicators throughout which do not conclude deception in and of themselves but form the greatest part of the analysis.

 

This report is a complete Statement Analysis of a UK TV documentary series called “Murder in The Outback” that was broadcast in early June 2020. This analysis will be limited to what documents were visible on screen as well as what police interviews were shown including the time sequences of the interviews. Joanne Lees second interview will be analyzed in a second report. At this point it must be noted that this analysis will be based on “contaminated” data --- purely because full documents and police interviews were not shown and the interviews are likely shown out of time sequence for TV production and other reasons. For this reason of “contamination” all Statement Analysis principles and meanings will still be valid but the values must be downgraded proportionally. However enough data was available to make a preliminary analytical conclusion.

 

What follows are a number of sections of on-screen documents and police interviews that were transcribed as best as possible with what was visible and what was heard. All of these were taken from Episode 2 of the documentary series. As previously explained as these are not full documents and full interviews this must be remembered. At the start of each section will be the transcription with details from the TV documentary series and the analysis will be at the bottom of each section. The contents page of this document will allow ease of navigation.        

 

There will be a variety of markings, emphasis and colourings on the transcript which is for the benefit of analysis and can be explained at a later point. However, any markings in red will indicate deception and/or what Statement Analysis refers to as an Embedded Admission. Embedded Admissions are when an individual while being deceptive tries to continue their deception but the mind knows what it knows and the language accidently follows and “let’s slip” information.

 

 

Statement Analysis of “Murder in The Outback”

 

To begin the analysis the Statement Analysis principle of the Greater Context needs to be set. There are two context types within Statement Analysis; the Greater Context and the Lesser Context. When analysis is performed it needs to be referenced back to the Greater Context which is the overarching context. What is the investigation about? The Lesser Context will be necessary when we analyze the details of the sentences and paragraphs however the Greater Context will inform us of another Statement Analysis principle of Expected vs Unexpected, where depending on what the investigation is about different expectations are held, in a missing child case we do not expect to hear the parents not showing empathy for their missing child and showing more concern about themselves. With this in mind we are setting out a group of points that will make up the Greater Context for which all the following analysis will be based on. All these points have been taken from all the episodes of the TV show and not legal documentation so there may be some issues but as long as the majority of the points are correct the analysis will still be valid. 

 

The Greater Context is;

·       JL and PF were pulled over by an unknown male perpetrator

·       JL has been involved in an attempted kidnap, rape(?) and was assaulted by the same perpetrator

·       JL and PF were intoxicated by marijuana.

·       PF is missing and she reported she heard 1 gunshot

·       PF has not been found (3 weeks later at the time of the police interview)

·       JL had provided multiple perpetrator sketches

·       JL provided 1 sketch of the gun

·       JL had 70cm of thin electrical tape found on her body

·       JL had a number of zip ties joined together binding her wrists

·       JL had cuts and abrasions on both knees

·       JL had an affair with a male during the Australia trip

 

Police Interview Joanne Lees 7^th August 2001

 

Section 1 [Time: 19m.27sec]

 

Transcript

 

P: Your statement, we had it, we sent it away to some experts to do linguistic content analysis of statements. They look at the content …

JL: Yeah

P: … and they look at the language 

JL: Yeah

P: Practitioners from Victoria, Queensland, Northern Territory and South Australia have had a look at that, a number of them.

JL: Yeah

P: And that’s done to assist investigators as an investigative tool.

JL: Come on this is gonna be bad news, what do they say?

P: The consensus without exception is that there is vital information missing from this statement, from your account.

JL: Right

P: What information is missing?

JL: [Laugh] I don’t know, I don’t know … [sighs]… I don’t know.

 

Analysis

 

·       JL’s standard confirmation response is the casual “yeah”. We see that as in 3 out of 4 places she has confirmed with “yeah”. On the basis this is her baseline we look to see if and when this changes, and if so, what causes the change.

o   There is 1 change where she changes from “yeah” and uses “right”. What caused this change? This is when JL hears the answer to her question about what the SCAN analysts had concluded. There is sensitivity to her about this answer. Is she “confirming” that their findings are correct and that “right” there is missing information?  The same would be if she had continued saying ”yeah” but when considered with the principle of Expected vs Unexpected when taking the Greater Context into account it would be expected that she would offer a denial with a confirmation response equivalent to “no” or if her baseline is casual then “nah”.

·       “Come on” – there is a need for JL to speed up the investigator to get to the point of the SCAN analyst findings about her. Why the need to expedite this? She also owns the results by referring to “this” (the SA principle of “this vs that” the individual will use “this” with ownership and “that” with distancing). Of note she refers to the SCAN analyst results as “bad news”. Why? Bad news for who? The investigator makes it clear that the “bad news” is in regards to her statement so she is aware but what specifically could it be that makes her immediately say it’s going to be “bad news”.

o    The SA Principle of Expected vs Unexpected based on the SA Principle of the Greater Context is that;

§  she will enable the flow of as much information to find her boyfriend and also the perpetrator.

§  Bad news is any news that stops/diverts the investigation into finding her boyfriend and the perpetrator

o   JL owns the “bad news” that  analysts have detected “missing information” in her statements. Is the bad news for the investigation or for her? For her being believed, her boyfriend being found dead or something more?

·       The SA principle of Repetition appears where she repeats 3 times “I don’t know”. This follows a slight laugh and around a sigh. Both are forms of thinking time.

o   “I don’t know” stops any and all information flows. This is unexpected based on the previous point about the information flow.

o   The additional SA principle of the Rule of the Negative appears where the sensitivity level is raised. The principle of the Rule of the Negative means that when a subject tells us what they did not see, did not hear, did not say shows more sensitivity than telling us what they did see, did hear and did say.

·       The expected priority is the finding of her boyfriend and the perpetrator. This would mean that all her experiential memory would be engaged and the information flow for the police would come. JL stops with the “I don’t know”.

 

 

Section 2 [Time: 25m.41sec]

 

Transcript

 

JL: Look, I’m starting to feel like, I’m um … under interrogation here, not as a witness, but, just, being as a um ….

P: We need to clarify these things. If we don’t find out what is inconsistent and we can’t explain ….

JL:  hmmm

P: Do you realise you may have to give evidence in court?

JL: Yeah

P: Joanne, we’ve done a complete firearms record check, we’ve had ballistics experts look at your drawings and your descriptions and we have not been able to identify this gun or this firearm, or a revolver of similar description to what you describe. Can you give me an explanation? Why we have no gun?

JL: I don’t know! I’ve never seen a gun before in my life! I’m just … 

P2: And why do you think it would be that you can remember an extreme amount of detail about the gun?

JL: Because I was looking at it. Because it was pointing at me. I see the scrolling on the gun … hmmm … when I’msat in the passenger seat.

P2: So on the doors of your kombi there’s some markings on the doors.

JL: I’m not sure.

P2: You’re not sure?

JL: I don’t know its white stripes … That go across the whole van and then go like … like a tick.

P2: Yeah. There’s also like an “X” type scroll. On the door.

JL: Is there?

P2: Yeah

JL: Right

P2: Yeah. Is that where you’ve seen this scrolling, when you see this …

JL: No, I’ve seen the scrolling on the gun. On the side of the gun.

 

Analysis

 

·       “Look” – JL uses authoritative imperatives to gain command. We do not know what has come before this part of the police interview so we need to be cognizant of that. It should be noted that “listen” would also have served the same purpose but JL chose “look”. This could show that she typically uses visual type of language and as a person type is more visual (or visual and kinaesthetic) in comparison to an auditory person type/auditory type language. This will be confirmed in her language.

·       “I’m starting to feel” – she uses the personal pronoun “I”. We have not seen that yet (but likely statement contamination as previously written) but this is important as this means she is psychologically present in this point of the statement/interview. Here we have the kinaesthetic type of language of “feel”. In the case of assault and/or perseveration of childhood abuse we can expect to have such emotive language. We also look out for artificial placement of emotions in deceptive language.

o   JL self-censors what she was going to say she felt like. She uses “umm” to gain time to think in which to continue.

o   “interrogation” …. “witness” --- these are both unexpected words in context. JL is a purported victim of crime (not just as a witness) and is being questioned (not interrogated) to allow the investigation to bring justice for her and all involved. What has made her feel that she is not being questioned but “interrogated”? Is she frustrated that the perpetrator hasn’t been found and is showing her frustration to the investigators?

o   “but” …. “just” --- in SA principles but minimizes and refutes all that precedes it and just is a dependant word on another thought. It is unfortunate that the investigator stops JL from finishing this sentence to help the analysis. We were about to see the possible dependant thought to be spoken to see what she is comparing a witness to. JL uses “umm” as more thinking time with what her dependant thought was about. We do know that whatever she was going to compare “witness” to was to begin with a consonant as she used the article “a”.

o   “starting” --- this is for SA principle is an Incomplete Action. When did it finish? As the statement is contaminated it’s not known what triggered this sentence.

·       “I don’t know” --- a common theme is starting to occur with JL not aiding the investigation with aiding the flow of information. What has caused her to repeat the phrase “I don’t know”? It was questioning about “the gun”. Does she use this phrase as a way of stopping a specific line of questioning? She is asked why the investigation cannot find the gun. As well as potentially stopping this line of questioning she continues with; 

o   “I’ve never seen a gun before in my life”. This is incongruent. The SA principle of the Lesser Context as she has proved a sketch of the gun, she reported to the investigators which was in the question prompting her response. We also see her response about “the gun” later in the questioning.

§  This is also one of two of the most important SA principles; Hina Clause. A Hina Clause is when a subject has a need to explain something when not being asked. In this case JL has a need to explain that she’s never seen a gun before instead of answering “I don’t know”.

§  This is also an Embedded Admission that there was no gun --- as she’s “never seen a gun in my life”.

o   With the SA principle of the Greater Context JL had already provided a sketch of the gun in question and had already performed a reconstruction where she took the investigators through her events.

o   Weapon Name/Type --- It is worth noting that the investigator mentions three weapon names/types; gun, firearm, revolver. JL has the choice as to which of these she uses and she uses “gun”. The following should be considered 

§  She may have “never seen” a gun before (but has seen a firearm and/or revolver)

§  She may have “never seen” a real gun before

§  She may have “never seen” a replica gun before 

§  Investigators were never able to find the gun because JL has “never seen” (never actually saw) a gun at the assault and so can only provide a sketch of a gun?

o   “I’m just” --- another SA dependant word combined with the personal pronoun “I”. Again, it’s a shame the other investigator interrupted what JL was about to say.

·       Further questioning around the gun prompts a Hina Clause. Being this is one of the two most sensitive indictors in SA it needs to be highlighted as such, even though these police interviews are contaminated we must analyze this further. This is also combined with the SA principles of Name Change and Passive Voice.

o   “Because it was pointing at me.” --- when JL is challenged how she can give so much detail about the gun after just saying she’s never seen one in her life, she changes the investigator’s use of “the gun” to “it”. It could be that she would have parroted back the investigator’s own words but she chooses to change the words to “it”. She had also used the word “gun” earlier but with the article “a”. A NameChange points to a change of reality for the subject. When we analyze forward we see that “it was pointing at me”. This is what in SA is called the Passive Voice (not passive in the grammatical sense but in Statement Analysis is when the subject hides ownership and responsibility). JL does not say who was holding the gun but the gun itself was “pointing at me”. She has given an action to the gun. Passivity is used to conceal identity. A gun cannot by itself point, it needs someone to hold and point it. This is also unexpected. JL has identified a man as the perpetrator so it is expected to read and hear what he did.

·       Present tense/past tense --- In SA a truthful sentence is considered the simplest one with a pronoun and a past tense word. When present tense language enters with past events in can be an indicator of 3 possibilities;

1.     Deception

2.     Poor memory (anything impacting the memory, dementia etc)

3.     Trauma (PTSD like language --- by reliving the traumatic event)

o   So far in the police interviews there isn’t enough data to categorically conclude. It would be expected to see from JL when challenged how she can be so detailed about the gun for her to say “because he was pointing it as me.” Even though this is present continuing this could be PTSD like language as JL would have had extreme hormonal increases through fear of a potential assault and/or death. However, she did not.

o   JL uses present tense with the “I see scrolling on the gun” – as mentioned previously this could be PTSD like language. She however also says “I’ve seen the scrolling on the gun” instead of I saw the scrolling.

o   We will need to analyze her baseline of present/past tense language with the above in mind but specifically JL’s commitment to the tenses.

·       SA’s principle of Body Posture --- JL states she is “I’m sat in the passenger seat”. Body Posture indicates sensitivity as the mind recalls a physical event. JL recalls she sat but interestingly “in” the seat instead of “on” the seat. This could also be a regionalism/localized speech from her childhood so we will make a note of this.

·       “No, I’ve seen the scrolling on the gun. On the side of the gun.” --- this is an example of a strong and true statement. JL does not follow the investigators leading question and corrects him. She did see scrolling on the gun. The question is which gun is she referring to; the real gun or the sketch of a gun that she gave?

·       “I’ve never seen a gun before in my life” based on all of the above is a deceptive statement and marked in red.

 

 

Section 3 [Time: 27m.14sec]

 

Transcript

 

P: The dog is medium size, and it’s a Blue Heeler

JL: I didn’t know that. Well, yeah, I knew that afterwards.

P: How’d you know that?

JL: Because, hmm … there was a dog just like it at the roadhouse at Barrow Creek.

P: And it was a brown & white, short-haired dog?

JL: Yeah

P: And the vehicle you’ve described to us is identical, almost, to the vehicle you observed at Barrow Creek.

JL: Very similar.

P: And the description of the sack is almost the same as a mailbag at the back door at Barrow Creek.

JL: I didn’t see a mailbag at the back door of Barrow Creek. Sorry, I’m just getting this feeling that you think that I’mmaking all this up, but I’m not.

P: You have no injuries to your face.

JL: Ahuh

P: No injuries to the front of your body.

JL: Ahuh

P: And you’ve come from sitting up in the van, face first onto sharp gravel.

JL: I don’t know how I come from up there, I never said I come from sitting up there. All I remember is one minute I’m sat there, or I’m in the kombi in the passenger’s side ^TL  the next I’m on the ground, face down.

P: You also had no dirt on the front of you.

JL: Right

P: If you can’t remember how you got out of the vehicle …

JL: Maybe I can’t remember anything.

P: If you can’t remember really the way most things have happened. How much weight can we place on anything else you’ve told us?

JL: (Shrugs shoulders)

 

Analysis

 

·       Colours/smells/sensory descriptors --- Trauma and the associated hormonal responses will lead the individual to perseverate and remember minute details such as smells, tastes, colours etc which may confuse onlookers. This is a by-product of traumatic events if not psychologically processed. These typically accompany present tense as previously mentioned. We look for such details.

o   The investigator doesn’t offer JL the chance to give such detail and instead gives her the details allowing JL to either agree or disagree.

o   The details of the dog gets JL to agree with her baseline “yeah”.

o   The next set of details about the vehicle trigger JL with a change to her baseline of “very similar”. This adds extra sensitivity to her usual “yeah”. 

o   The final set of details about the mailbag triggers a larger disagreement instead of her baseline “no”. When 

o   All these three elements have been put to JL her sensitivity increases with the common theme being the “roadhouse at Barrow Creek”. Either it is these three elements and/or the roadhouse at Barrow Creek that have made JL sensitive. We analyze further to confirm or correct this.

·       “Sorry, I’m just getting this feeling that you think that I’m making all this up, but I’m not.” --- this is what immediately follows the increased sensitivity with JL. This is a very important sentence.

o   “Sorry” --- to apologize is not expected by a victim of crime (especially in this case based on the Greater Context unless there is a need for them to apologize). According to SA this is a deceptive indicator and so it’s marked as red.

o   “just” --- the dependant word based on a dependant thought again reappears. JL is thinking of something else in relation to “…getting this feeling …I’m making all this up”. We have noted earlier the visual and/or kinesiological type language JL uses and it continues here. Her “feelings” are important to her. What is she thinking while saying she is “…getting this feeling…I’m making all this up”? 

§  Does she not just feel but she suspects/knows what the investigators are thinking?

§  Is she thinking about what she is not making up vs what she is making up? Is she not being completely truthful and she is thinking about that?

o   “…I’m making all this up…” --- in SA the concept of Embedded Admissions is when an individual while being deceptive tries to continue their deception but the mind knows what it knows and the language accidently follows and “let’s slip” information. Here we have a possible Embedded Admission where JL maybe admitting she is making all this up. 

§  At this stage we must be open to the Embedded Admission being only about the three elements; dog, vehicle, mailbag or 

§  ---- that it is “…I’m making all this up”

§  “…but I’m not.” Even though in SA but minimized and refutes everything that precedes it the priority of the SA principle of Embedded Admission will likely negate that principle.

·       JL’s location in the kombi --- the next set of sensitivity is around the investigator asking JL to explain how she went from a sitting position in the kombi to face down in the gravel without any injuries. 

o   I don’t know how I come from up there, I never said I come from sitting up there. All I remember is one minute I’m sat there, or I’m in the kombi in the passenger’s side  the next I’m on the ground, face down.

o   JL’s baseline of shutting down a line of inquiry continues with “I don’t know”. We can now conclude this is likely the case going forward. She does not want to discuss her movements from inside to outside the kombi. However, there is a subtle change in her language. She parrots the investigators present tense of “sitting” as she refutes saying that. The language progression is;

§  “I come from up there” --- JL shutting down line of inquiry

§  “I come from sitting up there” --- JL parroting back present tense

§  “I’m sat there or I’m in the kombi in the passenger’s side” --- JL is possibly trying to parrot back with the body posture of sit and position of “there” but she reverts back to the previous position of “I’m in the kombi in the passenger’s side”.

§  It is expected that JL would recall as much detail as she could, the trauma would typically force the individual to recall regardless especially given the Greater Context. Yet it has taken JL 46 words to answer that she “doesn’t know”. Why?

·       Is she increasingly frustrated that the investigators haven’t made progress in finding the perpetrator? 

·       Is her trauma impacting her memory recall?

·       Another SA principle of Need to Persuade where the individual has a need to convince rather than convey information around an area of deception. Is JL trying to convince rather than convey?

§  Temporal Lacunae/TL --- the SA principle of Temporal Lacunae is shown here. TL is where there is a “jump in time” and where missing information is contained. “… the next I’m…”. Here we have missing time between when JL was in the kombi to when she was outside.

·       “Maybe I can’t remember anything.” --- This is another important sentence and is also marked in red for deception. Why? Even though there is a weak commitment with “maybe” and the SA Rule of the Negative it is not possible for JL to not remember anything. We have established the points in the Greater Context. She has provided a lot of information already in this police interview. Even with PTSD like language the individual will have a traumatic photo memory of some or all of the trauma event. This sentence is inconsistent and incongruent. It is likely she remembers something if not everything. It also shows contempt for the investigators and obstruction of the flow of information which is again not expected.

 

 

 

 

Section 4 [Time: 28m.46sec]

 

Transcript

 

P: Okay. So the way you described it you’ll agree that it’s impossible for you to grab him by 

JL: SURE!

P: the nuts

JL: But I did, so work it.

P: Because if your hands are …

JL: Behind me.

P: Wrists together. You can’t reach high behind you.

JL: I can reach pretty high.

P: Can you show me?

JL: Okay, I’m kind of like.

P: No, no, with your hands the way they were on the ground.

JL: Kind of there, I don’t know.

P: You’re keeping them. Yeah. Do you see the problem I have?

JL: Sure

 

Analysis

 

·       JL’s obstructing the flow of information and increasing contempt for the investigators continues. 

o   “But I did, so work it” --- JL’s authoritarian language continues with the command of “so work it”. The investigator has stated a physical impossibility and JL’s response is “so work it”. There possibly is a missing word here with JL possibly meaning “so work it out” but she did not so we must analyze what she did say. 

§  Was JL’s frustration increasing so her contempt was more profound?

§  Was her language becoming shorter due to her frustration?

§  Was her frustration out of not being believed?

§  She proceeded to try and physically disprove the investigator but couldn’t. 

·       “Sure” --- JL is accepting that the investigator doesn’t believe. She makes no attempt to correct and contradict. Her priority is she is becoming more a victim of the police than of the perpetrator. JL should be facilitating the flow of information for the Greater Context.

·       It should be noted that we are now some time into the edited police interviews and JL has not expressed any concern for her missing/presumed dead boyfriend. The SA principle of Linguistic Disposition is missing and according to the principle it is considered negative. Linguistic Disposition is the principle where we analyze how a subject talks about another person and can be a positive, negative or neutral Linguistic Disposition. For contrast her Linguistic Disposition is actually positive towards the perpetrator as per the Statement Analysis principle due to her not showing any negative Linguistic Disposition towards him.

·       This leads into the Expected vs Unexpected and the Greater Context as in this case as JL’s boyfriend PF is missing presumed dead and analysis expects that JL will talk about him in positive ways due to their love and care of one another. Even with the affair and a change of their love for one another the expectation is that of humanity and JL would be positive of PF in light of his disappearance presumed death.

 

 

 

Section 5 [Time: 29m.40sec]

 

Transcript

 

JL: There’s a small gap I think between the seats .. two seats… and you just go straight in. 

P: And you’re pushed through backwards?

JL: Hmm, I’m not sure.

P: So you said originally that you were pushed through backwards. Because obviously a huge difficulty we’re having is not being able to locate a single vehicle that fits this description.

JL: Ahm. Well, somewhere out there there is one because that’s what I was in. Okay?

P: He’s holding your ankles….somehow and wrapping tape around them. You’ve described it … It was like some kind of black electrical tape, quite thin and lots of it. But when you were located there was only a small amount of tape there.

JL: Is there?

P: It was that long, 70cm.

JL: Okay

P: Which would not bind your ankles

JL: No, no, ^(x) agree. Can I have a go of the thing?

P: Sure

JL: Like… if you wrap that …(wrapping 1 ankle)

P: Two ankles … because they were bound together.

JL: I never said they were bound together…. I thought they were bound together. I’m telling you what I’m thinking, what I’m feeling and what I’m thinking and what I think I know. I mean it may well not be the facts but these…youknow, like I’m thinking my feet are bound together.

P: I guess the problem is what you feel might have happened is not something we can work with.

JL: Sure

P: We need to know what you actually know. We need to know the facts.

JL: But I …. Now I don’t think I know anything.

 

Analysis

 

·       “Small gap I think” – there is qualifying language around the gap. JL explains it is small but she weakly qualifies both the gap and its size with “think” and she finishes the sentence with not what happened to her but that “you just go straight in”. 

o   The Lesser Context is that she says she was “pushed through backwards”, the experiential memory along with the hormonal increase due to the ongoing assault would mean she would be able to recall certain details and with PTSD like language there would be likely to be present tense language along with the linguistic commitment of the events. Even though there is the present tense “there’s” JL is unable to commit to it by the weak assertion “I think”. How “small” is her personal, internal and subjective dictionary definition of “small”?

o   JL needs to explain further with the seats becoming “two seats”. Why? Is she clarifying any previous statements of how many seats the kombi/ute had? The Expected vs Unexpected is “I was pushed backwards through the seats” or even in the present tense “I’m pushed backwards through the seats”. It is unexpected that she needs to qualify the number of seats, and its unexpected that she does not explain what happened directly to her. With the analysis we do not know what triggered her response to this as the televised police interview is contaminated with TV editing, but the Statement Analysis principles will still hold.

·       There is a compound statement from the investigator in regards to JL being “pushed through backwards” and then “locate a single vehicle” (after contradicting JL when she said she’s “not sure”), but JL chooses to ignore any further discussion about being “pushed through” and engages about the vehicle. Her “pushed backwards” is also Passive Voice which hides ownership and responsibility – who pushed her backwards?

·       The incongruence continues in this section. Of note is JL separates out what she thinks and what she knows. Why is that of interest to analysts? We are looking for experiential recall and so what people know/remember. When a subject is thinking it points to a lack of recall and leads to potential incongruence which is what is present in the limited data we have here. A subject in recall will always remain congruent and maintain their linguistic commitment.

·       Vehicle --- JL gives a Hina Clause in regards to the investigators inability to find a vehicle that matches her description. As a reminder the principle is one of two of the highest sensitivity indicators;

o   “because that’s what I was in.” --- we do not know where in the police interview this was taken, beginning, middle or end. However, if this comes after the investigators challenges to JL about evidence and her Embedded Admissions with deceptions then this additional incongruent evidential item could have forced JL to use a Hina Clause.

§  Could it be that JL actually was in such a vehicle and this increases her frustration?

§  She gives a weak assertion about a small gap between the seats (“I think”) and about being pushed backwards between these (“I’m not sure”), but she offers no qualifying language about being in a vehicle of whatever description she gave --- so was she?

·       “agree” – there is a Statement Analysis principle of a Dropped Pronoun. Pronouns are of extreme importance in Statement Analysis. Particularly the personal pronoun “I”. Whenever a subject uses the personal pronoun in a verbal or written context they are “psychologically in” the part they are expressing. Conversely where a pronoun particularly the personal is missing its considered “dropped” and therefore “who” is saying or doing what? Here we see “no, no, agree.” Who agrees? We see the Repetition of “no” increasing its sensitivity and then a dropped pronoun as to agreement with the investigator. Why? The answer comes in what triggered this response and what JL says after “agree”. The investigator explains and demonstrates another impossibility in regards to the leg bindings. Instead of explaining there was more tape on her and to facilitate the flow of information to the investigator, JL asks for “a go with the thing”. Her language therefore shows she actually does not agree with the investigator. This is confirmed further with her attempting to physically bind herself which she is unable to physically do. This then leads into this next part.

·       The key sentence with deception involves the leg binding:

o   I never said they were bound together…. I thought they were bound together. I’m telling you what I’mthinking, what I’m feeling and what I’m thinking and what I think I know. I mean it may well not be the facts but these…you know, like I’m thinking my feet are bound together.

§  Here is an example of a subject who is applying a Need to Persuade and is unable to convey what happened. While JL is being authoritative “telling” the investigator;

·       “what I’m thinking”

·       “what I’m feeling” 

·       “what I’m thinking”

·       “what I think I know”

·       However, JL is not “telling” the investigator what happened only what she is thinking, feeling and what she thinks she knows.

§  The investigator has proven another impossibility and JL spends 53 words to convince and not convey what happened.

§  We have another Embedded Admission with “it may well not be the facts” which leads into the present tense “I’m thinking my feet are bound together” which is a deceptive indicator and not PTSD like language as it incongruent and weakly commitment to.

§  Everything before “I mean it may well not be the facts” was her thinking and feeling however now, at this point there is clarity, JL explains; “I mean”. So “not be the facts” is not true – she is explaining what she is saying is not true.

·       The ending of this part of the interview finalizes on JL’s baseline of when she wants to stop a line of inquiry. Except now its increased in sensitivity with additional qualifying language.

o   “But I …. Now I don’t think I know anything.” --- is she looking now to stop the entire interview? Is this drawing a full stop and she wants to leave?

o   What is her boyfriend going through at this point? She hasn’t expressed any concerns, fears, worries for his wellbeing? If she believes he is dead why does she not express grief, sorrow? What about empathy for his family? Her main focus is on being believed without any question.

 

 

SCAN Report 17^th July 2001

Section 1 [Time: 20min.17sec]

 

Transcript

 

P2: May four inches long um, barrel it seemed to be, there was engraving in like scrolls or something of that similar ^(?)  and that was in like  a rectangular border, um when he put the gun to my head, I thought, I’m going, you know anything I can do, so I had to let him put um bands round my wrists which  ^(?)  at the back, behind, which were behind my back, I don’t know how but the ^(TL) next thing I remember was like being pushed out of the door or just be, well I don’t remember being pushed out  ^(?)  the door the ^(TL)  next thing I remember being on the gravel on the floor and feeling my knees all cut, I was screaming. And okay this account of ^(?) is a little bit hazy but I thinkthis is how it goes, then I was screaming and he hit me once ^(?) clenched fist to the like kind of my…

 

Analysis

 

·       Gun description --- There is uncertainty and a lack of commitment about the gun even though JL uses the Statement Analysis principle of the Articles. In this case the definite article of “the gun”. In Statement Analysis articles indicate pre-knowledge and/or contact with people and things. A rough example is shown below; 

§  a man with a gun attacked me --- this shows no prior knowledge or contact

§  a man with the gun attacked me --- this shows prior knowledge or contact of the “gun”

§  the man with a gun attacked me --- this shows prior knowledge or contact of the “man”

§  the man with the gun attacked me --- this shows prior knowledge or contact of both the “man” and the “gun”

o   JL begins with “may”. Does she mean “maybe” or “may”. This is uncertain but could also be a regionalism/local dialect expression. However, the uncertainty continues as JL pauses via “um” in describing the gun. She expresses doubt and uncertainty with “seemed to be” which is in the past tense. She reduces her commitment further via “like” and “or something.” This could be expected. 

o   JL describes the engravings as “in like scrolls” --- here she misses out any article so “there was (x)engraving” which when coupled with “in like scrolls or something of that similar”. Is she explaining that there was an engraving of something that was inside a scroll like design? JL doesn’t complete the sentence so according to Statement Analysis we cannot complete it for her.

o    The Expected vs Unexpected is JL can linguistically commit to her experiential memory. It is unexpected that she cannot commit and also cannot finish her description;

§  “there was engraving” vs “there was an engraving”

§  “or something of that similar and” vs “or something like that” 

§  “in like a rectangular border” vs “inside a rectangular/square border/shape”

o   The use of “like” twice in a short space adds to the uncertainty and vagueness of JL’s description of the gun. 

o   It should be noted JL is currently not linguistically present at this point.

·       Assault Description --- JL puts herself linguistically and psychologically into the statement at this point. The “um” is a pause which allows JL to change the direction of her narrative (away from the gun description to the assault). 

o   Here we see the Article of the gun so at this point it is known to her. Again, we need to be aware that this is an edited TV documentary series so there is contamination so we do not know what came before this in the statement.

o   JL tells us what she thought. As this is the assault, she could be reliving the event. This is self-talk. 

o   “I thought, I’m going” --- “I thought” is reliable on its Form. A Statement Analysis principle is that of Form. A reliable Form is when the subject uses a personal pronoun along with a past tense verb without any qualifying language. In this case “I thought” is strong and so reliable on its Form. What is she is going to do what or where?

o   “you know anything I can do” --- Within Statement Analysis “you know” shows that the subject is aware of those in the room with them. In this case it shows that JL is aware of the investigators. This is Unexpected. The Expected is that she continues the flow of information and continue telling the investigators what she was thinking and what happened to her. She doesn’t say what “she is going” means, she leaves a possible assumption, before self-editing to “anything I can do.” What does she mean by “I’m going” and “anything I can do?” she doesn’t tell us. This is Passive Voice. She is yet to voice a struggle or any emotion.

o   “…so I had to let him put um bands round my wrists…” --- Here is another Hina Clause. Here we must analyze closer as to what is so sensitive to JL. It is the part of the wrist binding that has caused this. We see the Unexpected of “to let”. JL owns the action of the binding and doesn’t give the perpetrator the ownership of the action. She didn’t finish her previous comment of “anything I can do” and she allows him to bind her. 

§  The Expected is “tied or bound my wrists” but she along with an “um”, which allows her time to think, says “put um bands round my wrists”.

§  The language is soft when considered with the Greater Context. This is a traumatic event JL is describing yet she “let him”. This is incongruent language.

·       For additional confirmation of the softness is use of the word “band”. The Expected is a word like “restraint”, “strapped” or equivalent. 

o   “…which at the back, behind, which were behind my back…” --- we have Repetition doubled, so repetition of back and of behind shows increased sensitivity. In context it follows after the Hina Clauseso the analysis must weigh these areas up together. There is a Need to Persuade the location of her wrists, she makes us aware where the location of her wrists are. There possibly is another missing word with “…which (x) at…” which could point to JL having contradicting thoughts as she proceeds to explain the event. 

§  JL gives no details of what else the perpetrator was doing or saying. Was he completely silent? Was his only action when JL “let him put um hands round my wrists”? Why is the location of her wrists repeated yet she gives no more detail of the perpetrator? 

§  How did JL know to put her wrists behind her? Did the perpetrator tell her or pull her arms back or what happened? She gives no explanation. She has not verbalised any emotion or action in response to this or any description of his movements. He has been practically omitted from this part of the statement. We don’t know what was said, where he was, what he did, nothing is ascribed to him.

§  Who is in control at this moment? The perpetrator “put the gun to my head” and yet she “let him put um bands around my wrists”. 

 

·       Pushed out of the kombi --- there are a number of sensitivity indicators around how JL got from inside the kombi to outside on the ground.

o   “…I don’t know how but the next thing I remember was like being pushed out of the door or just be…”

§  JL explains immediately that she is unable (or unwilling) to explain how she got from inside to outside the kombi (“…I don’t know how…”). The Rule of the Negative is in play. Why tell investigators what she doesn’t know when she should be telling investigators what she does know? This could be for many reasons; the traumatic event, intoxication (the Greater Contexthad them influenced by marijuana) or other such occurrences. Yet she continues to explain what happened. This is incongruent

§  “but” --- as mentioned before in Statement Analysis but minimizes and refutes all that preceded it. JL is refuting her previous comment of not knowing how.

§  Temporal Lacunae --- there is a jump in time when JL explains “the next thing”. Here she is withholding information during this missing time and is technically being deceptive but as always, we must remain open minded as to why she has skipped over time.

§  “…like being pushed out of the door…” --- JL explains what she “remembers” but it is as a feeling of “like being pushed”. We have identified that JL is a visual and kinaesthetic character so her language reflects this. The Expected is that she says “I was pushed out of the kombi”, “he pushed me out” or equivalent. She however weakly asserts with “like”.

§  “being pushed out” --- this is the Passive Voice and is hiding who did what. Who did the pushing? 

§  “just” --- the Dependant word reappears as she continued to explain what happens after she is outside the kombi. The Dependant word means she has another thought in her mind as she explains what she remembers. What was this other thought?

·       That she was pushed and not “like being pushed”?

·       That she was not pushed but pulled out?

·       That she was not pushed but voluntarily got out due to the gun in her head?

·       That she was not pushed but voluntarily got out?

·       We keep these thoughts in mind as she continues to explain her assault.

§  To repeat an earlier point there are no linguistic emotions given; anger or fear. She offers no linguistic emotions for herself, for PF or for both of them.

o   “well I don’t remember being pushed out (x) the door the next thing I remember being on the gravel on the floor and feeling my knees all cut”

§  We have continued incongruence in her language and the events. JL tells the investigators what she doesn’t remember and then tells them what she does remember. Again, the Rule of the Negative occurs, she should be telling the investigators what she remembers not what she doesn’t.

§  Again there appears to be a missing word. More sensitivity to this event. Why has JL gone from;

·       “…pushed out of the door…” to “…pushed out the door…”

§  More Temporal Lacunae from being pushed out to being outside. As this is the second jumping over of time, we need to be aware that there is increasingly more information JL is skipping over then she is explaining.

§  “…on the gravel on the floor…” --- this is unnecessary to explain why she needs to double down as to her location was outside on the ground. In Statement Analysis anything that is unnecessary becomes necessary for us.

·       Expected --- “I was pushed out of the kombi onto the ground”. Anything more than this or its equivalent needs more analysis.

·       JL is not just pushed out onto the ground. She is pushed out “on the gravel”. Not only this but where is the gravel found --- “on the floor”. Her kinaesthetic personality means that she feels a lot. We see a new Statement Analysis principle of Order Speaks to Priority. In other words, the order a “list” is given shows the priority to the subject. Here we see that “gravel” appears before “floor”, gravel is more important to her. It is likely that JL felt the gravel scraping her knees.

·       “floor” vs “ground” --- even though these terms are synonymous in Statement Analysis we must be aware of any changes of language which will reflect a change of reality. It should be noted in the police interviews JL used the term “ground” when referencing this incident. In this statement she uses “floor”. Technically the police interview and this statement were taken at different times and in Statement Analysis we look for a change of language within the same interview/statement. It could be considered that “floor” is predominantly used for indoors and “ground” for outdoors. At this point it will be noted there is a change of language with the caveat as described.

§  “feeling my knees all cut” --- JL’s kinaesthetic language appears and in the present tense as has sporadically occurred (there has been occasional mention of present tense being PTSD like language as the individual relives events). As “gravel” was just mentioned, in priority order and as pointed out it is likely that it was the gravel that made her “knees all cut”. As per Statement Analysis there is more Passive Voice as she does not attribute her cut knees to the gravel likewise, she does not attribute her cut knees to the perpetrator. Consider the following;

·       Her knees were cut on the gravel --- likely based on her language

·       The perpetrator did not directly cause JL to cut her knees --- based on her language.

·       Her knees may have been cut by spinifex in the bush

o   “I was screaming. And okay this account of (x) is a little bit hazy but I think this is how it goes, then Iwas screaming and he hit me once (x) clenched fist to the like kind of my…”

§  This is the first time we read of any form of emotion from JL. Was she screaming because of hearing the gunshot? Was she screaming when the “gun was put to my head”? Was she screaming when she “let him put um bands around my wrists”? No. None of these caused her to scream. What caused her to scream?

·       “feeling my knees all cut”

§  There is likely another Embedded Admission with “this account of is a little but hazy”. 

·       JL refers to her explanation as “account”. A subject that explains true events will not refer to the truth as an “account”. The question would then be how many “accounts” does JL have? What triggers her to introduce “account” now in the statement? Is it due to the increased sensitivity around being inside then outside the kombi?

·       There also appears another missing word in regards to the “account”. The account of what? JL does not tell us.

·       “little bit hazy” --- hazy is a word often associated with drug use when it comes to memory recall. We know from the Greater Context that JL and PF were both intoxicated with marijuana. She also minimizes this recall with “little bit”.

·       It is by her own words that yes her “account” is a “little bit hazy”.

§  “this is how it goes” --- the Expected is “this is what happened”. Yet with scripting and pre-meditation the subject may have a set version of events to fit a given narrative. The truth has no “account” of version of events. Is JL scripting this part of the events?

§  There is Repetition of “I was screaming” --- this increased sensitivity of the one and only emotion we have seen, even with a “contaminated” statement, shows JL may be conscious she has not shown any emotion so far? There is no new event that she has explained as to her screaming so the event of her seeing her “knees all cut” is what triggered her screaming which is now repeated. This begins to fall into the Need to Persuade principle.

§  “he hit me once clenched fist to the like kind of my” --- The perpetrator has now reappeared in her linguistic perception of reality with the fifth potential missing word. Where was he before all of this? What was he doing? What was he saying? A statement of “he hit me” or “he punched my face” is a strong and reliable, however JL doesn’t say this but continues with “once clenched fist”.

·       “Hit” vs “slap” vs “punched” --- there is an expectation of “punch” when someone is hit with a closed fist. JL chooses to avoid the use of the word punch for “hit” but qualifies that with “clenched fist”. 

·       The potential missing word is she was “hit once” then what? She continued with clenched fist. This does not make grammatical sense but JL chose to explain it this way. If there is a missing word does it follow the same reason as for the other possible missing words?

·       “clenched” --- This falls into Body Posture showing stress and sensitivity. However, this incongruent when considering her next part

·       “to the like kind of my” --- there is increased minimization “like kind” and due to the data contamination, it’s not possible to see what JL was going to say however there is enough to question her truthfulness. Expected is to explain what body part was hit for example “hit my head, face” etc. It is not possible to “he hit to like kind of”, if she was trying to distance herself in her verbalized perception of reality typical examples would be “he punched the cheek” or “the head” --- she says “…of my…” which means she psychological owns whatever body part she was to mention. This all means that there is incongruence with the one hit.

 

Conclusion

 

In reference to the “contaminated” data from the TV documentary series, it is in despite of this that the conclusion of the analysts involved in this analysis and its peer reviews that Joanne Lees has shown deception in multiple areas; her written statements and in her police interviews. 

 

The main summary points highlighting her deception are;

 

·       She has provided Embedded Admissions as to her deception. 

·       She has shown no linguistic care or consideration as to where her boyfriend was, what he was going through and if she believed in his murder, she showed no linguistic signs of grief or sorrow. 

·       Based on Linguistic Disposition hers is positive towards the alleged perpetrator due to her not showing any negative Linguistic Disposition towards him.

·       Her priority is expected to be facilitating the flow of information to the investigators in order to find her boyfriend and the alleged perpetrator but her priority is herself. She actively hinders the flow of information. “I don’t know” is her linguistic hard stop.

·       She has shown deception about her assault specifically in regards to her leg bindings and the gun. 

·       She also displays sensitivity around The Roadhouse at Barrow Creek.

 

As noted within the analysis she does show signs of PTSD like language. However typically an individual suffering from PTSD would linguistically “commit” to the PTSD like language but in this case Joanne Lees does not linguistically commit to the PTSD like language so with this “contaminated” data the analysis cannot satisfactorily conclude this.

 

Within the police interviews her personality traits were shown via her linguistic engagement with the investigators. If any further interviews are to be performed these personality traits need to be taken into consideration. The key personality traits are;

 

·       Flippant

·       Indifferent 

·       Petulant

·       Unempathetic

 

There is not sufficient data that was shown on the TV documentary series to conclude that Joanne Lees is involved with the disappearance or murder of Peter Falconio. There is sufficient evidence to conclude that Joanne Lees does have guilty knowledge of the true events of that night and what has happened to Peter Falconio.

 

The analysts believe that with more data from the full statements and the full videos of the police interviews more guidance will be given. It should also be considered that all the following individual’s original statements should be analyzed and where they are missing new statements should be taken;

 

·       Joanne Lees

·       Vince Millar

·       Rodney {Vince Millar’s Driver Partner)

·       Bradley Murdoch

·       Witnesses from The Roadhouse

·       Witnesses at Ti-Tree/Barrow Creek before they left and when Joanne Lees/Vince Millar returned.

 

In conclusion, the involved analysts believe there is reasonable doubt even with after analyzing this “contaminated” data as to the prosecution of Bradley Murdoch and the need to re-open the case for re-investigation.