Randall Emett: The Good Guy, by Colin Ector

 The “Good Guy” principle

 

The L.A Times on January 5^th 2023 reported that Ambyr Childers had secured a temporary restraining order against her husband Randall Emmett. She had been seeking protection from Emmett since October and her initial request for a restraining order was turned down by a judge who cited lack of proof.

 

In late December however she filed again including a supporting declaration in which she stated she was contacted by a FBI Special agent, who asked her about Emmett’s “Suspected activities with child exploitation and pedophilia”.

The L.A Times continued “Childers claimed in the declaration that the FBI call caused her “extreme destruction and disturbance of [her] emotional calm and peace of mind” because the former couple’s daughters, ages 12 and 9, “are often alone” with their father. 

Further, Childers added in the declaration, she does not want to “run the risk” of the children being with Emmett if federal law enforcement serve either an arrest or search warrant on him.

A spokeswoman for the FBI told The Times that she was “unable to confirm or deny the existence of an investigation” per the department’s policy.”

What is important for us as analysts is that Emmett responded on social media AFTER Childers included the special declaration. Whether the declaration made the difference we do not know but what is important for context is that Emmett was aware of the accusation of the FBI’s interest in him and the reason for this interest was stated as, “Suspected activities with child exploitation and pedophilia”. 

We always begin an analysis believing that the subject is telling the truth. We must be talked out of this position by the subject, in order for us to conclude otherwise. What will we learn from his words? The following is a brief surface analysis. 

Randall  Emmett Instagram Post

 

“Yo. Happy Friday, everybody. I am at a place where I felt I had to come on here and say something that actually was true versus, you know, little lies, that the things have been said about me. Everything under the sun, you know, narcissist, cheater. But at the end of the day, you know, I took the high road because I have three beautiful girls that I didn't want to be out there.

 

I didn't want to have to do this. But at this point, the lies have been stretched so far. We spent today getting confirmation because we knew there was no truthfulness to any of this, that the FBI has never been investigating me and isn't investigating me because there's nothing to investigate. But unfortunately, in this culture, you can just say whatever you want, then it gets written about, and then that's considered true in this cancel culture.

 

I've been a dad for a long time. I have custody of all my children, and I have custody of all my children because I'm a good person. The end of the day, that is what's the most important thing. At the end of my life, no matter what happens, I'm going to look my three daughters in the face. They're going to know their dad is a great father.”

 

Analysis of Randall Emmett

 

Randall  (00:00)

 

“Yo. Happy Friday, everybody.”

 

1.     The subject begins with the word “Yo”. We ask how old is the subject? 50 years old approx.? Why would he begin with such a greeting? Is this his norm? Is he trying to appear casual? Does he have a need to appear casual? He has been indirectly accused of being under investigation of child exploitation and pedophilia. This is a serious accusation. The need to appear casual from the start is concerning. Is he attempting to downplay what has happened?

 

2.     He continues the friendly and casual theme by stating “happy Friday everybody”. People are likely to be distancing themselves from him quickly with accusations like this against him. This could be a way of him attempting to ingratiate himself to his audience. We don’t conclude anything from this casual start to his statement. The words only open up questions.

 

“ I am at a place where I felt I had to come on here and say something that actually was true versus, you know, little lies, that the things have been said about me. Everything under the sun, you know, narcissist, cheater.”

 

1.     The subject does not tell us what pushed him to the “place” where he felt he needed to say something.

2.     What is it he needs to say? What does he need to address? He tells us he needs to “say something that actually was true you know versus little lies”. From his words we do not know who has been telling little lies. 

3.     What are “little lies” to the subject? If innocent, would you describe being accused of being under investigation by the FBI for child exploitation and pedophilia as “little lies”? 

4.     What are the things that have been said about him? What is he concerned about? What will he deny? We must listen to his words.

5.     “Everything under the sun”, “Narcissist, cheater”. This is minimisation of the allegations against him.  If a person is accused of child exploitation and pedophilia, and they did not do it, they will very likely tell us early and often. Sometimes lawyers will tell innocent subject’s not to speak and yet they will still do so wanting to get this horrible accusation away from them. The subject here is not directing any denial to the child exploitation or pedophilia, which would be expected. He prefers his audience concerned about the non-criminal narcissism and cheating. Both of these are minimal to the point of being inconsequential in comparison. The reference to “everything under the sun” implies unfair and exaggerated allegations whilst putting himself in the position of victim and ignoring the much greater criminal and serious allegations. 

 

 

 

“But at the end of the day, you know, I took the high road because I have three beautiful girls that I didn't want to be out there.”

 

1.     Why would not addressing allegations of child exploitation and pedophilia be “taking the high road”? What does “taking the high road” mean to the subject? Does the subject want us to interpret that it means he did not address the allegations out of some moral position not wanting to smear his accuser?

 

2.     This is not a natural response to such allegations. The context is key. This is not an anonymous allegation from a crazed fan. This is an allegation from his ex-wife. The mother of his children, and it involves being under investigation by the FBI. People will be taking this seriously. 

 

3.     One of the main principles of statement analysis is the “Good guy principle”. When a deceptive subject is under accusation, they will often tell us what a good guy they are. It is usually an indication of guilt. It is used to convince that they couldn’t have done whatever the crime due to their strong moral standing rather than to convey reliably that they did not do the crime itself. 

 

4.     “I took the high road” is an interesting choice of words. It is not something we hang our hat on at this stage, but we have within analysis something we call leakage. People will often spill words from within that tell us what is on their mind. “I’m at a place” and “I took the high road” are heavy in the element of location. There may be within the analysts mind now, the beginning of the question of whether the subject has considered or is considering running. Again, this is not something we hang our hat on, but it is astonishing how often this leakage proves itself later on in an investigation.

 

5.     The subject tells us the reason for his high moral position. It is because of his “three beautiful girls” that he didn’t want to be out there. It is unnecessary to tell us this. When a subject has a need to explain why something happened, or in this instance why he “took the high road”, it is often an indication of high sensitivity and that there may be another reason, the subject wishes to conceal.

 

 

 

Randall (00:27)

“I didn't want to have to do this. But at this point, the lies have been stretched so far.”

 

1.     This is passive language. Who’s lies have been stretched so far? We do not know as the subject does not tell us. We cannot say it for him. He acknowledges the existence of lies without allocating responsibility for them.

 

 

“ We spent today getting conformation because we knew there was no truthfulness to any of this, that the FBI has never been investigating me and isn't investigating me because there's nothing to investigate.”

 

1.     Who is we and what were they getting conformation of? The subject wishes us to interpret that they (whoever they are) gained conformation from the FBI that they were not under investigation. If this were true would the FBI tell them? Do the FBI have to inform people they under investigation if asked? Doubtful.

2.     What is it they (whoever they are) knew? There was no truthfulness to any of this. We cannot interpret the subject’s words. What is “any of this” to the subject? He does not say. This is distancing language. The subject is unwilling or unable to tell us he is not involved in child exploitation or pedophilia. Why? We still wait for the subject to address the accusations against him, even though at this point they are not official charges.

3.     Where is the weight of the subject’s statement in this area? What is he concerned about? Is he concerned with the terrible accusations or is he concerned with whether he is being investigated? What would you be more concerned about? It is likely you would want to address the allegations themselves. Being investigated is inconsequential in comparison.

4.     Note again the subject has a need to tell us unnecessary reasons why. Firstly, why they are getting conformation and secondly why he isn’t being investigated.  He is not psychologically present in his words. There is no personal pronoun connection, linking him with the “nothing to investigate”. This is unreliable language.

 

 

 “But unfortunately, in this culture, you can just say whatever you want, then it gets written about, and then that's considered true in this cancel culture.”

 

1.     Here the subject aligns himself with victims of cancel culture. It may be to avoid again denying the allegations against him. The “believe all women” narrative has allowed for this new type of defence. The notion that there are no women who lie is ridiculous. Men and women lie. All cases regardless of sex, have to be taken on their own merit. This sort of blanket belief only serves to weaken the case of the women who are genuine victims.

2.     Those who are deceptive will often demonstrate language that allows them to hide within a crowd. It is similar to a teenager saying, “everyone was doing it”. It is crowd sourcing of guilt.

3.     The subject does not say it is not true. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Randall (01:11)

“I've been a dad for a long time. I have custody of all my children, and I have custody of all my children because I'm a good person.”

 

1.     Unfortunately, there are many men who have been Dad’s for a long time that still are abusers.

2.     Unfortunately, there are many men who have custody of their children who are abusers.

3.     When a subject does not reliably deny an accusation and instead has the need to tell us that they are a “good guy”, “a good person”, “a good mother” or anything similar it is often an indication that they are likely the opposite. It is to avoid denying the accusation. They wish us to believe that they could not have done what they are being accused of because they are good.  This is very concerning language from the subject.

 

 

 “The end of the day, that is what's the most important thing. At the end of my life, no matter what happens, I'm going to look my three daughters in the face. They're going to know their dad is a great father.”

1.     This may be an indication of suicidal ideation. If prosecuted and found guilty the subject may be a risk to himself.

2.     The subject’s words demonstrate concern for his image to his daughters.

 

Conclusion

1.     At no point did the subject address or deny the accusations of child exploitation and pedophilia.  If he is unwilling or unable to deny these, we cannot say it for him.

 

2.     The subject has a need to portray himself as the “Good Guy”. This is often an indication of the opposite and is used by deceptive subjects to avoid denying the accusations. It is to convince that they couldn’t have done what they are accused of because of their moral standing rather than convey that they did not do whatever they are accused of. It is unreliable and often an indicator of guilt. We see this often in the deceptive. In cases involving child protective services any words from the parents where they imply that they are good parents, a good mother etc it should lead investigators to check for a history of neglect or abuse.

 

Consider  “I took the high road”, “I’m a good person” and “They’re going to know their Dad is a great father”, rather than a direct denial of the accusations..

 

 

 

3.     The need to hide with others is another indicator of possible guilt seen within the words of the deceptive.

 

 

4.     Investigators should be aware of the possibility that the subject may be entertaining suicidal ideation. That the subject is using language around “the end of my life” and “no matter what happens” whilst accused and not denying is concerning. Consider where he began “Yo, Happy Friday everybody” and where his statement ended “The end of my life, no matter what happens”.

 

5.     There is nothing in the language of the subject that would clear him of the accusations that have been levelled against him.