My home town. It's unclear if he is responding to a question(s), explaining after a question(s) and or editing etc..
Liverpool mum missing after night out in Manchester as family issue urgent appeal.
One of her close friends say she hasn't been seen for four days and the family is out of their minds with worry.
The family of a Liverpool mum have shared an urgent appeal after saying she did not return home from a night out in Manchester. Danielle Hill was reportedly last spotted at around 6am Monday, May 2 near Piccadilly station.
She was wearing a green Karrimor puffer jacket when last seen, Manchester Evening News reports. She had attended an event called 'Back By Dope Demand' at the Mint Lounge, in Oldham Street.
Her close friend, Pablo, was with her at festival in Blackburn on Sunday but she is said to have headed to Manchester with two other friends. Pablo, who described Danielle as having a 'thick scouse accent', told the M.E.N.: "The club closed at 4am because and it was a bank holiday, the train wasn't until about 7.50am, so they had time to kill.
"The thing with Ellie (Danielle) is that she often befriends homeless people and I think that's what's happened. My friends were still with her at this point and they walked to Piccadilly, [ ] sat near Sainsbury's but then she wandered off with this homeless man.
"All her family in Liverpool are out of their mind with worry. I'm meeting her brother and sister in Manchester to put up posters and search.
"She goes on wild ones sometimes but she always communicates with her family. All it would take would be to log on Facebook to let her family know she's okay or even let police know but it's been four days now so I think something's wrong."
Manchester Evening News contacted Greater Manchester Police and Merseyside Police for comment.
Press Conference November 18th, 2021 Brandi Neal, mother of missing Micheal Vaughan, five:
Hello, everyone - I want to thank you for all being here today. My name is Brandi Neal and I am Michael Joseph Vaughan’s Momma. I am here before all of you today on behalf of my family - to speak about Michael. As much, and everyone in our family wants to be up here in front of all of you today, I am here to speak on all of our behalf.
I am here to ask you all, I am here to ask you please - please for your help. I am here to ask you to please keep Michael’s face, his name, and his story in every one of your hearts, your eyes, and your minds. It has been - a hundred and fifteen days - a hundred and fifteen days he has not been home, and we need every one of you - I need you - I need your help to bring my baby home.
I need you to see his beautiful smile. I need you to see how happy he is. That smile was one of our most — favourite camping trips. He - he got to see his first beaver dam. And he got to catch so many frogs that day - and he was so excited - his beautiful blue eyes - he was so happy that day because I promised we would go get ice-cream cones - and - he - laughed so hard because his baby sister got to have her first ice-cream cone, and it was everywhere. We got to play at the park that whole day - it was warm, it was sunny, and we played catch, we played football, until it got dark. I need you - I need your help, please.
I need you to know how much Michael is loved. I need you to know how much he is missed. Our family is broken without him. We miss his laughs, his smiles. We miss his hugs. I need you to know - - he is such a sweet, fun, exciting little boy. He brings such joy and love to our family and everyone that he knows and that knows him. Michael has a laugh that is beyond contagious - you can’t help but smile and laugh when you hear his laugh.
We need him home. I - I am asking - for your help. I am asking for everyone’s help - please - please if you know anything, if you know anything at all - if you know something - please, I am begging, this is my baby, this is my son. I need him home - I want him home - please, I need your help to bring him home.
I want to thank all of the community - and the extended communities, and everyone who continues to keep Michael - - in your thoughts, in your prayers, and in your eyes. Please - keep sharing his picture - please, any information to help bring my son home. I want to thank the Fruitland Police Department, [ ? ], the FBI, I want to thank all of them for their continued support. They have become family - and they are his son, too. So please, please, please help me - please help me bring my baby home. Please - keep us in our - please keep us all in your prayers - anything, please help - please help us bring our baby home.
Like you said John it`s probably heavily edited by the press leaving huge blanks in the statement. If he wasn’t there then his statement will be based off what information he has received from his friends who were with her and how he has interpreted it.
“My friends were still [with] her at [this point] and [they] walked to Piccadilly, [ ] sat near Sainsbury's but [then] she wandered off with this homeless man.
The word “with” signals distance between Danielle and the friends. A strong statement would be “Danielle and my friends walked to Piccadilly” but he doesn’t say that. It is likely the information he has received from the friends has steered him to put distance between them in his words. The question is what is the reason for the distance? The sentence can be formed two ways –
“My friends were still with her at this point”
Or
“She was still with my friends at this point”
The order makes a difference. We can go with friends or friends can go with us. His language speaks to the friends accompanying Danielle. Again this would be the speakers perception based on what he knows from the friends.
“[they] [walked] to Piccadilly, [ ] sat near Sainsbury's”
As you marked John, there is either a dropped pronoun signalling failure to commit or a failure to use the word “and” to add what happened next to the prior action in the statement.
“[ ] sat near Sainsbury's” – becomes unreliable and is also vague through the use of “near”. “but [then] she [wandered] off with [this] homeless man.”
There is no build up to her wandering off, no mention of she started talking to a homeless man etc… It jumps from arriving to her wandering off in one step. There is missing time “but [then] she wandered off” which allows for other things to have happened prior to her leaving. Note she didn’t walk off but “wandered off”. This suggests there was no specific motive to her leaving, with wandering meaning to move without a specific direction or goal.
I am sure there will be plenty of cctv available and hopefully police can glean useful information from it leading to her being found. Unfortunately if Pablo wasn’t there then his words will be his interpretation of the others statements.
I have a general question. What do you think about people who can give a reliable denial even though they committed the crime. Eg a man who says "I did not kill Helen" even though he did kill Helen. Are these types of people psychopaths or people with no feelings or just clever people who have beaten statement analysis. Can you tell if you are dealing with a person like this or if it is a truly innocent person. If you find a person like this do you then use a different type of analysis.
OT: Anyone wanna take a stab at analyzing the testimony of Johnny Depp and/or Amber Heard? I know it's not a criminal matter and could seen inconsequential to many but as a DV survivor, I have a vested interest in this case. My gut says AH is lying lying lying but but I'm not skilled enough to analyze her words.
“Are these types of people psychopaths or people with no feelings or just clever people who have beaten statement analysis”
Statement analysis draws conclusions from the whole not just one part of a statement. A suspect saying “I didn’t kill Helen” will need the rest of his statements to support that assertion. Think of someone taking an exam and answering 3 out of 10 questions correctly, if we are limited to seeing the three correct answers we may conclude they have surely passed based on the available information. If later we gained access to their full results we would see in the greater scheme of things they failed miserably.
To a psychopath or clever person stringing a denial together is easy, but they will not be able to hide what their mind knows in an open statement or interrogation. There they will have to edit everything they say on the fly and the brain isn’t capable of hiding everything at that speed. The brain is selecting the words it knows to be correct and the criminal is trying to alter them in milliseconds as they travel to their mouth. It can’t be done without leaving traces.
I am a builder and on a job today the client asked if I was working at their brother in laws tomorrow. I had received a text from the brother in law a few hours earlier cancelling the job saying they had to get someone else as they needed the work doing due to other tradesmen being booked in to do other work. I had lost 2 days due to being ill and it put my work schedule behind so I understood their decision. I text back saying no problem thanks for letting me know. I told the client that they had cancelled and she said “have they?” I then explained the text I had received to which she replied – “It will take them twice as long as they are a one man band”. (I have a work mate so there are two of us). She didn’t realise she had given away that she already knew about the other builder. Being polite I didn’t say anything about it.
If you think about it when I said they had cancelled the expected question from her if she knew nothing about it would be “Why?” She couldn’t ask that question because she already knew the reason which led her to say “have they” which is a pointless question as I had already told her they had. Next she said -
“It will take them twice as long as they are a one man band”
Not only did she reveal someone else was doing the job but also that it was one person, and that timing is important as she chose to include it in her statement. Anyway the point I am making is that the brain knows what it knows and no matter who it is it will come out one way or another.
Thanks for that Adrian. That explains it very well. We have to look at the statement as a whole. People slip up when talking freely at normal speed. Analysts must get suspicious when people are talking slowly to ensure that they keep their story straight and not make mistakes.
Peter often uses the example of the guy who said "there are a lot of rumours floating around", which led police to search in rivers and, sure enough, the body was found in the river. Kate McCann said "we have obviously hidden her body really well", which many have concluded that this indicates the body was put down a well.
There must be some criminals who, knowing that police will go through their statements for signs of leakage, will deliberately leak wrong information to send police in the wrong direction. EG A man murders his wife and buries the body in the woods. Then he says "there are a lot of rumours floating around". He says this deliberately to make it look like he slipped up, sending the police off in the wrong direction searching in the rivers when he knows she is in the woods. I suppose statement analysis will still catch him out when we look at everything he said as a whole.
14 comments:
Happy to see a new post!
OT:
My home town. It's unclear if he is responding to a question(s), explaining after a question(s) and or editing etc..
Liverpool mum missing after night out in Manchester as family issue urgent appeal.
One of her close friends say she hasn't been seen for four days and the family is out of their minds with worry.
The family of a Liverpool mum have shared an urgent appeal after saying she did not return home from a night out in Manchester. Danielle Hill was reportedly last spotted at around 6am Monday, May 2 near Piccadilly station.
She was wearing a green Karrimor puffer jacket when last seen, Manchester Evening News reports. She had attended an event called 'Back By Dope Demand' at the Mint Lounge, in Oldham Street.
Her close friend, Pablo, was with her at festival in Blackburn on Sunday but she is said to have headed to Manchester with two other friends. Pablo, who described Danielle as having a 'thick scouse accent', told the M.E.N.: "The club closed at 4am because and it was a bank holiday, the train wasn't until about 7.50am, so they had time to kill.
"The thing with Ellie (Danielle) is that she often befriends homeless people and I think that's what's happened. My friends were still with her at this point and they walked to Piccadilly, [ ] sat near Sainsbury's but then she wandered off with this homeless man.
"All her family in Liverpool are out of their mind with worry. I'm meeting her brother and sister in Manchester to put up posters and search.
"She goes on wild ones sometimes but she always communicates with her family. All it would take would be to log on Facebook to let her family know she's okay or even let police know but it's been four days now so I think something's wrong."
Manchester Evening News contacted Greater Manchester Police and Merseyside Police for comment.
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/liverpool-mum-missing-after-night-23869217?fbclid=IwAR1fOiZJ9Katvx93Y7sYK2nlGC9GBaUDOd6taKdX1IIuBYORDUayEN9yf1U
I am happy for a new video, too.
Press Conference November 18th, 2021
Brandi Neal, mother of missing Micheal Vaughan, five:
Hello, everyone - I want to thank you for all being here today. My name is Brandi Neal and I am Michael Joseph Vaughan’s Momma. I am here before all of you today on behalf of my family - to speak about Michael. As much, and everyone in our family wants to be up here in front of all of you today, I am here to speak on all of our behalf.
I am here to ask you all, I am here to ask you please - please for your help. I am here to ask you to please keep Michael’s face, his name, and his story in every one of your hearts, your eyes, and your minds. It has been - a hundred and fifteen days - a hundred and fifteen days he has not been home, and we need every one of you - I need you - I need your help to bring my baby home.
I need you to see his beautiful smile. I need you to see how happy he is. That smile was one of our most — favourite camping trips. He - he got to see his first beaver dam. And he got to catch so many frogs that day - and he was so excited - his beautiful blue eyes - he was so happy that day because I promised we would go get ice-cream cones - and - he - laughed so hard because his baby sister got to have her first ice-cream cone, and it was everywhere. We got to play at the park that whole day - it was warm, it was sunny, and we played catch, we played football, until it got dark. I need you - I need your help, please.
I need you to know how much Michael is loved. I need you to know how much he is missed. Our family is broken without him. We miss his laughs, his smiles. We miss his hugs. I need you to know - - he is such a sweet, fun, exciting little boy. He brings such joy and love to our family and everyone that he knows and that knows him. Michael has a laugh that is beyond contagious - you can’t help but smile and laugh when you hear his laugh.
We need him home. I - I am asking - for your help. I am asking for everyone’s help - please - please if you know anything, if you know anything at all - if you know something - please, I am begging, this is my baby, this is my son. I need him home - I want him home - please, I need your help to bring him home.
I want to thank all of the community - and the extended communities, and everyone who continues to keep Michael - - in your thoughts, in your prayers, and in your eyes. Please - keep sharing his picture - please, any information to help bring my son home. I want to thank the Fruitland Police Department, [ ? ], the FBI, I want to thank all of them for their continued support. They have become family - and they are his son, too. So please, please, please help me - please help me bring my baby home. Please - keep us in our - please keep us all in your prayers - anything, please help - please help us bring our baby home.
Forgot to use OT, sorry - here’s the link to the video - Brandi speaks around the 6.55 mark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPHc4HyBo2c
——-
OT - John Mc Gowan said... May 5, 2022 at 2:09 PM
Like you said John it`s probably heavily edited by the press leaving huge blanks in the statement. If he wasn’t there then his statement will be based off what information he has received from his friends who were with her and how he has interpreted it.
“My friends were still [with] her at [this point] and [they] walked to Piccadilly, [ ] sat near Sainsbury's but [then] she wandered off with this homeless man.
The word “with” signals distance between Danielle and the friends. A strong statement would be “Danielle and my friends walked to Piccadilly” but he doesn’t say that. It is likely the information he has received from the friends has steered him to put distance between them in his words. The question is what is the reason for the distance? The sentence can be formed two ways –
“My friends were still with her at this point”
Or
“She was still with my friends at this point”
The order makes a difference. We can go with friends or friends can go with us. His language speaks to the friends accompanying Danielle. Again this would be the speakers perception based on what he knows from the friends.
“[they] [walked] to Piccadilly, [ ] sat near Sainsbury's”
As you marked John, there is either a dropped pronoun signalling failure to commit or a failure to use the word “and” to add what happened next to the prior action in the statement.
“[ ] sat near Sainsbury's” – becomes unreliable and is also vague through the use of “near”.
“but [then] she [wandered] off with [this] homeless man.”
There is no build up to her wandering off, no mention of she started talking to a homeless man etc… It jumps from arriving to her wandering off in one step. There is missing time “but [then] she wandered off” which allows for other things to have happened prior to her leaving. Note she didn’t walk off but “wandered off”. This suggests there was no specific motive to her leaving, with wandering meaning to move without a specific direction or goal.
I am sure there will be plenty of cctv available and hopefully police can glean useful information from it leading to her being found. Unfortunately if Pablo wasn’t there then his words will be his interpretation of the others statements.
Adrian.
I have a general question. What do you think about people who can give a reliable denial even though they committed the crime. Eg a man who says "I did not kill Helen" even though he did kill Helen. Are these types of people psychopaths or people with no feelings or just clever people who have beaten statement analysis. Can you tell if you are dealing with a person like this or if it is a truly innocent person. If you find a person like this do you then use a different type of analysis.
It happens in about 10% of the time.
The person is a danger to society.
We look for other indicators of deception in the statement; especially missing time.
Good question.
Peter
OT: Anyone wanna take a stab at analyzing the testimony of Johnny Depp and/or Amber Heard? I know it's not a criminal matter and could seen inconsequential to many but as a DV survivor, I have a vested interest in this case. My gut says AH is lying lying lying but but I'm not skilled enough to analyze her words.
Oliver said:
“Are these types of people psychopaths or people with no feelings or just clever people who have beaten statement analysis”
Statement analysis draws conclusions from the whole not just one part of a statement. A suspect saying “I didn’t kill Helen” will need the rest of his statements to support that assertion. Think of someone taking an exam and answering 3 out of 10 questions correctly, if we are limited to seeing the three correct answers we may conclude they have surely passed based on the available information. If later we gained access to their full results we would see in the greater scheme of things they failed miserably.
To a psychopath or clever person stringing a denial together is easy, but they will not be able to hide what their mind knows in an open statement or interrogation. There they will have to edit everything they say on the fly and the brain isn’t capable of hiding everything at that speed. The brain is selecting the words it knows to be correct and the criminal is trying to alter them in milliseconds as they travel to their mouth. It can’t be done without leaving traces.
I am a builder and on a job today the client asked if I was working at their brother in laws tomorrow. I had received a text from the brother in law a few hours earlier cancelling the job saying they had to get someone else as they needed the work doing due to other tradesmen being booked in to do other work. I had lost 2 days due to being ill and it put my work schedule behind so I understood their decision. I text back saying no problem thanks for letting me know. I told the client that they had cancelled and she said “have they?” I then explained the text I had received to which she replied – “It will take them twice as long as they are a one man band”. (I have a work mate so there are two of us). She didn’t realise she had given away that she already knew about the other builder. Being polite I didn’t say anything about it.
If you think about it when I said they had cancelled the expected question from her if she knew nothing about it would be “Why?” She couldn’t ask that question because she already knew the reason which led her to say “have they” which is a pointless question as I had already told her they had. Next she said -
“It will take them twice as long as they are a one man band”
Not only did she reveal someone else was doing the job but also that it was one person, and that timing is important as she chose to include it in her statement. Anyway the point I am making is that the brain knows what it knows and no matter who it is it will come out one way or another.
Adrian.
Thanks for that Adrian. That explains it very well. We have to look at the statement as a whole. People slip up when talking freely at normal speed. Analysts must get suspicious when people are talking slowly to ensure that they keep their story straight and not make mistakes.
Peter often uses the example of the guy who said "there are a lot of rumours floating around", which led police to search in rivers and, sure enough, the body was found in the river. Kate McCann said "we have obviously hidden her body really well", which many have concluded that this indicates the body was put down a well.
There must be some criminals who, knowing that police will go through their statements for signs of leakage, will deliberately leak wrong information to send police in the wrong direction. EG A man murders his wife and buries the body in the woods. Then he says "there are a lot of rumours floating around". He says this deliberately to make it look like he slipped up, sending the police off in the wrong direction searching in the rivers when he knows she is in the woods. I suppose statement analysis will still catch him out when we look at everything he said as a whole.
Jessica Rae,
I think most people want to know which is lying as a definitive answer.
Both are professional actors. This means both have an elevated ability to dissociate.
This means sections of testimony may be false while other portions (by both) may be true.
The quest for simplification is likely to lead to error.
Peter
Post a Comment