Monday, March 4, 2013

Naomi Omi: Acid Attack Analysis

A 20 year old woman received major injuries when acid was thrown in her face.
UK police arrested a 21 year old woman and a 28 year old male in the attack.

Here is how it unraveled:

I. The Attack

Naomi Omi was left scarred and partially blinded in an acid attack in which she said a Muslim woman threw acid in her face. She said, "No words were spoken. There was no dialogue.
I looked back and remember the person just staring at me. The eyes were cold.
It was a cold stare."

What do we see in her statement?

1. "No words were spoken" is passive.

Passivity is often used to conceal identity or responsibility.

2. Passivity: "There was no dialogue."

This is also passive, and it has a language change from no "words" to "no dialogue." Dialogue is something that is considered 'back and forth' or between people. We do not expect "dialogue" between a stranger attacking a subject. The use of the word "dialogue" should cause investigators to seek to learn if Omi knows the attacker.

3. Change in wording.

Words have the tendency to remain the same unless there is a change in reality. When there is no change in reality, we must ask if the change of words is an indication that the subject is not speaking from experiential memory.

4. "I looked back and remember..."

Within an open statement, one can only tell us what they remember. She said that she looked back. Why the need to tell us that she looked back? Note that in a prior statement, she said "I didn't look back" contradicting this statement. "Looking" is sensitive and is associated with recognition, the sensitive point to her words.

5. "the person"

The "person" is gender neutral. Why not the "woman" since her gender has been identified? Since she identified the attacker as a Muslim woman, we see a need to conceal identity.

6. "The eyes were cold" and "It was a cold stare" has the repetition of "cold", making it sensitive, but "it was a cold stare" is passive as well. This appears to be an emotional recall, placed at the time of the alleged assault. If "cold eyes" is to gauge an emotion, it would make the emotion appear to be artificially placed here in the alleged assault.

7. She went from the "eyes" being cold to the "stare", which appears to be a change in language without anything appearing to change, in context (reality).

There is enough information in the statement to question if the subject knows the attacker and is concealing information.

II. Suspicion

Police then searched her computer and learned that she had previously researched a similar attack. The odds of this then happening to her are astronomical.

Police said that they were looking into whether or not she did this to herself.

She responded to the accusation with what the media called a "denial":

“I’ve only just come out of hospital after having surgery on my eye. To see this story saying that I’d done it made me so angry and really hurts. There’s no way I would have done this to myself. I want the person who did this to be caught.”

She does not deny involvement and describes the Muslim female attacker as a "person", which is gender neutral.

III. Behavioral Analysis

Naomi Omi, herself, released photos of her face so that police could catch the attacker. How is it that a photo of her face could catch an unidentified attacker? This does not appear to make sense in terms of the investigation.

“I look in the mirror and it just isn’t me. I’ll never look the same again. I’ve always been outgoing and confident in my job and in my personal life, used to getting attention for the way I dress or my hair, but now I don’t want anyone looking at me.

“I don’t want people to see me in public. I don’t want to get the Tube or the bus. If I have to go to the hospital I take a taxi. I don’t know if I’ll ever be able to go back to my job. I was planning to go to college in September to study media and fashion, but I don’t even know if I’ll be able to do that."

Here, she introduces the topic of getting "attention"; something she was used to getting. By being attacked with acid, and sending her picture out, she is getting "attention" again.

IV. What Happened?

When asked "What happened?" early on in the investigation, she said this:

"I'd been working a late shift and was talking to my boyfriend about what we were going to do for New Year when I saw this Muslim woman wearing a niqab covering her face. I thought it was a bit strange at that time of night, but she didn’t say anything and I kept on walking.

Then I felt a splash on my face. It burned and I screamed out. I started running and screaming, holding my face, all the way home. I didn’t look back.

“I got home and I was screaming and banging on the door. I was hysterical. Luckily my godmother, who is a pharmacist, was at home with my mum and she helped me and kept dipping my face in water and trying to calm me down until the police and ambulance got there. I was in shock. Saying: ‘Who would do that? Who would do that?’ How could anyone do this?”

The statement contradicts her later statement. Here, she reports what she did not do: "I didn't look back" but in another statement, she talked about looking back.
A truthful person should tell us what happened, and not report, in an open statement, what did not happen.

Here is the same statement with analysis in bold type.

“I’d been working a late shift and was talking to my boyfriend about what we were going to do for New Year when I saw this Muslim woman wearing a niqab covering her face. I thought it was a bit strange at that time of night, but she didn’t say anything and I kept on walking.

note "this" Muslim woman instead of "a Muslim woman"; with the word "this" indicating closeness.

Note the inclusion of "strange" as her thought, at the perfect or logical part of her story. We may wonder if this has been placed here artificially.

“Then I felt a splash on my face. It burned and I screamed out. I started running and screaming, holding my face, all the way home. I didn’t look back.

Here she tells us what she did not do. This is in the negative and significant (sensitive). What is the purpose of telling us that she did not look back? It appears that by not looking back, she could not identify the attacker.

This should cause the investigators to question if she knew the attacker.

Here she asks questions within her own statement. Note that in her questions, she changes language:

1. Who would do that?

2. Who would do that?

3. How "could" anyone to "this"?

"Would" is repeated and changed to "could"

"That" is distancing language and it is changed to "this"

The question of "who" did it, is sensitive to the subject, furthering the analysis of passivity earlier, where she seeks to conceal the identity of the attacker.

V. Conclusions

Naomi Omi likes attention, according to her own words. She read up about a woman who was attacked with acid only later to be attacked with acid, defying all odds. Her statements reveal an attempt to conceal the identity of the attacker. This is sometimes done with the attacker is the subject, herself, or when the subject knows the attacker. As we later learned, she knows the two people arrested for the attack. She even referenced the earlier acid attack to media, speaking of it as an inspiration.

Naomi Omi likes attention and this attack is fulfilling that desire. It may be that she has sought, in the strangest of ways, attention, even through mutilation and pain.

For some, even negative attention is better than no attention at all. For Naomi Omi, being sentenced to obscurity is more than she can bear.

Sunday, March 3, 2013

Acid Attack on Woman: Update

This young woman was said to be a victim of a random acid attack. Naomi Omi spoke to media on February 1, 2013. Statement Analysis of her initial statements is at the end of this

article.

Statement Analysis of the victim's words indicated passivity about the attacker's identity.

Passive language is used to conceal identity and/or responsibility.

The analysis posted from last week is below. Why would someone use passive language in a random attack?

Police revealed that Naomi Omi, the victim, had searched "acid attack" on her computer recently, before the attack and questioned if she had done this herself. Later, we learned that two people were arrested.

Some comments posted said that the arrest of two people refuted Statement Analysis, showing it to be incorrect. One asked if the analysis would be changed given the news of the arrest.

I wrote that the arrests do not change the analysis. Passive language was employed about the attacker. To us, the subject is dead; the statement is alive. We may not know why, but we don't change the rules of analysis.

Passivity is used when someone does not want to reveal the identity of the person. This is a principle we follow, along with the possibility that passivity may be used to conceal responsibility. "The gun went off" is passivity. Guns don't just go off; triggers are pulled.

Update: We now learn that the victim knows the two people arrested in the attack as friends of hers.

A 20 year old woman said that she was attacked by a woman in a burqua,
who threw acid in her face, leaving her temporarily
blinded and with severe burns.

Here is her statement made on TV: "No words were spoken. There was no dialogue.
I looked back and remember the person
just staring at me. The eyes were cold.
It was a cold stare."

What do we see in her statement?

1. "No words were spoken" is passive.

Passivity is often used to conceal identity or responsibility.

2. Passivity: "There was no dialogue."

This is also passive, and it has a language change from no "words" to "no dialogue."

3. Change in wording.

Words have the tendency to remain the same unless there is a change in reality. When there is no change in reality, we must ask if the change of words is an indication that the subject is not speaking from experiential memory.

4. "I looked back and remember..."

Within an open statement, one can only tell us what they remember.

5. "the person"

The "person" is gender neutral. Why not the "woman" since her gender has been identified?

6. "The eyes were cold" and "It was a cold stare" has the repetition of "cold", making it sensitive, but "it was a cold stare" is passive as well. This appears to be an emotional recall, placed at the time of the alleged assault. If "cold eyes" is to gauge an emotion, it would make the emotion appear to be artificially placed here in the alleged assault.

7. She went from the "eyes" being cold to the "stare", which appears to be a change in language without anything appearing to change, in context (reality).

There is enough information in the statement to question if the subject knows the attacker and is concealing information.

When she learned that police were considering that she may have done this to herself:
“I’ve only just come out of hospital after having surgery on my eye. To see this story saying that I’d done it made me so angry and really hurts. There’s no way I would have done this to myself. I want the person who did this to be caught.”

note the word "would" rather than "did" and note the word "person" is gender neutral; and not "the woman" who did this (she reported a Muslim woman did it)

*******Here is the original report from February 1, 2013. Note that Statement Analysis is in bold type. This is where it was a random attack by an unknown assailant.

Naomi Oni, 20, was on her way home from work when an unknown attacker dressed in a niqab threw a chemical substance at her leaving the retail assistant with severe burns on her head, neck, arms, legs and body.

These shocking images have now been released by Ms Oni in an appeal for help to catch the attacker whose identity was concealed behind the Muslim women’s dress which completely covers the face apart from the eyes.

Note that Naomi Oni, herself, released the pictures, not the police. It is reported that she did so to help catch the attacker.

Why would a picture of her help identify the attacker? If it would help, why wouldn't the police release it? Why did she release a picture of herself?

Why did she search on a prior acid attack?

Ms Oni, who is employed by Victoria’s Secret at the Westfield Stratford shopping centre, was five minutes from home in Dagenham, east London when she was attacked on December 30.

The 20-year-old was only released from Broomfield Hospital in Chelmsford last weekend after spending almost a month receiving skin grafts and specialist treatment in the hospital’s burns unit.

Doctors initially warned Ms Oni that she may not be able to see again and although she can now see out of her left eye she still only has partial vision in her right eye.

Ms Oni, who is sole carer for her disabled mother Marian Yalekhue, 52, has decided to speak out after police failed to establish any motive behind the attack or identify a suspect.

She told the Standard the attack had “destroyed” her life and left her too afraid to venture out or even show her face in public.

Note that she says she was "used to getting attention", which is not an expected thing to say after a horrific attack by a stranger.

The store assistant had just got off the bus and was talking to her boyfriend Ato Owede, 23, on her phone when she felt someone walking behind her in Lodge Avenue in Dagenham at around 12.40am.

She said:“I’d been working a late shift and was talking to my boyfriend about what we were going to do for New Year when I saw this Muslim woman wearing a niqab covering her face. I thought it was a bit strange at that time of night, but she didn’t say anything and I kept on walking.

note "this" Muslim woman instead of "a Muslim woman"; with the word "this" indicating closeness.

Note the inclusion of "strange" as her thought, at the perfect or logical part of her story. We may wonder if this has been placed here artificially.

“Then I felt a splash on my face. It burned and I screamed out. I started running and screaming, holding my face, all the way home. I didn’t look back.

This should cause the investigators to question if she knew the attacker.

Here she asks questions within her own statement. Note that in her questions, she changes language:

1. Who would do that?

2. Who would do that?

3. How "could" anyone to "this"?

"Would" is repeated and changed to "could"

"That" is distancing language and it is changed to "this"

Ms Oni has been told she faces months if not years of skin grafts and further plastic surgery and even then is likely to be left with severe facial scarring.

The retail assistant and her mother say they are too afraid to go back to their council flat in Dagenham. They are currently sleeping on a friend’s sofa-bed after turning down the offer to be rehoused in Tottenham on safety grounds.

Ms Oni said she had been inspired by the story of Katie Piper, the model who launched a charity and spoke out publicly after falling victim to an acid attack orchestrated by her boyfriend, but that she would never feel safe with her attacker still at large.

Note that we do not have a quote on the story of Katie Piper, but suffice it to say the information would have had to come from Oni, herself, in the manner portrayed.

“Even with the support of my family and friends and boyfriend I feel very alone. Nothing is going to be same anymore,” said Ms Oni.

A Scotland Yard spokesman said acid attacks were “extremely rare” and that detectives were keeping an “open mind as to the motive.”

Officers from Barking and Dagenham are investigating. No arrests have been made and inquiries are ongoing.

Anyone with information should contact police on 0203 276 1058 or Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111

Killers On National Television

Why are people surprised when a killer seeks out publicity?

Perhaps it is because the expectation is that the killer would not want to go near the scene of the crime, even figuratively, on television.

It isn't so.

Remember the old, "the killer returns to the scene of the crime" from Sherlock Holmes? We read the same from John Douglas and others where law enforcement set up cameras at vigils to catch the killer, or put a hidden camera at the gravesite of the victim.

The killer often shows a need to control, which extends not only to the god-like desire to control the life and death over the victim, but to even control media.

The sociopath's world centers around the sociopath. This person is the most important person in the world, to himself or herself. Selfishness abounds with abusers, who often use the threat of violence to control the victim, and can later claim, "I never hit her with a closed fist" (Mark Redwine), as if this was something worthy of praise.

The sociopath loves attention and control.

The sociopath that loves the spotlight, often does so to her own demise.

Billie Jean loved the spotlight and was hard pressed to give it up

This is sometimes evident when the killer wants to be the center of attention. We saw this with Billie Jean Dunn. Shawn Adkins was happy enough to refuse the polygraph, and not speak much on television, but not so the leader, Dunn, who not only loved the spotlight, but felt the need to control information. It was this need to control, a signal of childhood sexual abuse, that caused her to answer questions well beyond the boundary of the expected answers, giving us valuable information. On her first appearance on The Nancy Grace Show, she was asked how far Hailey, 13, had to go. "Four or five blocks" was a good answer, but in the need to control information, she went further in her answer, and referenced Hailey in the past tense, indicating that Hailey was dead. When she was asked "what" happened, she answered, instead with "when" it happened: while she was at work. This need to control information indicated her need for an alibi, as her priority.

It was hard for her to give up the attention, even after being humiliated on national television, first by Hailey's grandmother, and then by Nancy Grace. Later, the betrayal was complete when Marc Klaas, the empty-headed advisor that coached Billie to look genuinely concerned by telling her to not forget Hailey when she was in front of the camera, who called on "shame" on her for lying about what Klaas thought was the number one suspect, Shawn Adkins, failing to see that Billie Dunn, herself, was the brains of the operation, no matter how handicapped.

Scott Peterson was in love with Scott Peterson

Scott Peterson's videos now are universally shown as "deceptive" by body language experts who did not all, universally, feel that way before he was caught. Statement Analysis showed deception by using the same principles used in all cases across the board.

Peterson loved the camera and loved the thrill of manipulation. He felt that his skill at lying along with his perceived good looks would serve him well. One might wonder how his looks are serving him today in prison. He is on death row, with 68 other killers (as of December 2012) and has several hours a day outside the safety of his cell. The other killers, also sentenced to death, have little incentive to behave like gentlemen. I don't imagine Scott Peterson has had success running for Death Row Male of the Year.

His video is useful in teaching Statement Analysis while noting his body language, even without a strong reference point. http://www.findlaci2003.us/interviews-4-videos.html

We will do some analysis of his statements in future articles, as it will be useful in those learning from new cases, regarding the consistency of application of principle. You will learn why this is a "scientific" process; that is, one that is repeated with expected results.

Justin DiPietro was "emotionally incapable" of speaking to the "kidnapper" of Baby Ayla, in the critical early days, but eventually was publicly pushed into giving an interview, where he was indicated for deception. He has had the sense to stay away from the spotlight, as each and every word he has spoken has gone under the microscope of public scrutiny. He hid behind women, which, ironically, is the same thing that Mark Redwine is doing.

Raised with 7 sisters, it was the height of unmanliness for a male to strike a female. Although this dates me in speaking of honoring the weaker sex, those who hold to Scripture know that truth transcends culture, language, time and reality TV. Even the prohibition of military uniforms was given, not for culture, but for the reality of who was to lay down his life for whom. My father laid down the law in spite of the Doctor Spock generation; before America's prisons were so full that prison building was a "growth industry." The sting on a 3 year old's behind reminded him to never raise a hand to his sisters. Lesson learned early, which needed no reminders later.

"Women and children first", from the original, non-fiction accounts of the Titanic, gave birth to societies where young boys were taught that sacrifice was the key to masculinity; not exploitation of weakness. Some cultures believe the Darwinian survival of the fittest and in a sinking boat, throw women and children overboard in order to save their own lives. Metaphorically, we will see how men do this today.

Today, if a little boy has a mother sufficiently dysfunctional and desirous of attention, to put panties on her little boy, there is sure to be a lawsuit and publicity, demanding the local school spend a quarter of a million dollars in building the little boy his own bathroom. Mom makes her point, gets her attention, fulfilling her real goal, gender be damned, and certainly the boy's mental health be damned, there are still those who believe in woman and children first, even if they are cultural dinosaurs on the verge of extinction in America.

DiPietro hides behind women and has put two women at risk of losing their children once he is arrested. Both Elisha DiPietro and Courtney Roberts are in risk of losing custody of their children as the lies become unwound and revealed. Those who participated in the death of a child would likely not only lose custody, but could face a future where neither woman would be permitted, by the State, to keep any future children born. This is called an "Aggravating Factor" in the process which could lead the State to make this allegation, which, if upheld by a judge, would relieve the State of reunification services to both women, allowing for the children to be adopted out.

If Elisha DiPietro and Courtney Roberts are not involved beyond the lies they may lose custody of their children, but if they are in deeper, guilt wise, they will lose custody, along with their freedom, and upon conviction, lose all rights to any future children.

If Elisha DiPietro and Courtney Roberts are not involved in the disappearance of Baby Ayla beyond the lies told for Ayla's father, Justin DiPietro has literally sacrificed the lives of their children, just to cover his own guilty behavior. This is something that both women have had plenty of time to ponder, with Justin reminding them, regularly, that the police "have nothing" on him, with the passage of time only emboldening the lies.

This isn't, however, how life works. In due time, their feet will slide.

Justin DiPietro's statement of being "emotionally incapable" showed an unmanly side of him, but it is in the ability to get his sister and his girlfriend to lie for him, putting their freedoms at risk, and the stability of their children, that highlights how "women and children" are not first, but are sacrificed for him, just as Ayla was sacrificed to provide money for him.

Mark Redwine's assaults against the women in his life are signals of his lack of masculinity, just as Justin DiPietro's refusal to speak out was as well. Both men refuse to accept responsibility and face natural consequences, like men should, while both call upon women to defend them. Justin has his mother, sister and girlfriend lying for him, while his friend's mother (who sold him the death policy against Ayla) is his public spokesman.

Is he 'emotionally capable' yet?

Mark Redwine is a control abuser, like so many others who cowardly prey upon women. He has the need to control even down to simple conversation, which then shows his method of deception:

avoidance.

When he is asked a question, he does not answer the question if he is uncomfortable (meaning that the question is sensitive to him) but will answer a question not asked. This is a skill learned in childhood which is infuriating to anyone seeking knowledge or truth. This is similar to the Statement Analysis principle: If a question is not answered, the question, itself, should be considered "sensitive" to the subject.

Redwine actually attempted to take a nationally televised program about his missing 13 year old son and turn it into a forum on children respecting their parents. This is what Dr. Phil was warned about, from the beginning:

Don't let it turn into a dispute between parents, as this would play right into Mark Redwine's strategy. Like the trouble-making kid in class who loves to get everyone around him in trouble, this was Redwine's plan. It appears to me that Mark Redwine was expecting Dr. Phil to chide the parents into getting along "for the sake of Dylan" but Dr. Phil made it clear from the beginning that he would not be played by Mark Redwine, instead, Dr. Phil exposed Mark Redwine as one with guilty knowledge of what happened to Dylan, including saying to Redwine, "God forbid, if something happened and you lost your temper..."

Redwine rebuffed attempts to broker a deal as Dr. Phil added that he would "go get the young man" as part of the deal.

An imperfect interview by Dr. Phil (no such thing as a perfect one), Three Cheers for Dr. Phil in handling Mark Redwine. The one major point I would have done differently? I would have pushed him into the polygraph by poking his ego.

Mark Redwine may not know precisely where Dylan is right now, especially if his small body has been taken by moving water but he can tell police where he dumped him. This is the type of question that some guilty parties can pass. I believe that Billie Jean Dunn gave specific instructions to Shawn Adkins about Hailey's body: DO NOT tell me where you dumped her, even though she likely knows the general area. Dunn is smart enough to know that she would run the risk of slipping out the information, as well as knowing that if she passed this question on the polygraph, she could use it as a bragging point.

Don't bet on Mark Redwine doing this without some form of self-serving motive. This is the kind of admission that comes after arrest and after the thought the spending the rest of his life in prison as a child killer.

Statement Analysis: Mark Redwine on Polygraph

Please note that the analysis is in bold type.

MR:
Well… I didn’t have a lot of Jim Beam. I mean, I wanna make that… When I say ½ bottle I’m not talking about a big bottle, I’m talking about a small bottle, like a pint size…

Mark Redwine did not take the polygraph test. He was not feeling "well"; was one of his reasons. Please note that he did not say the small bottle was a "pint" but avoided telling the polygrapher what size bottle, instead used "like" to qualify it.

He cannot commit to saying that he drank a half of a pint of Jim Bean. We cannot say it for him.

JT:
So what was it that affected you to the point where we couldn’t go forward?

The polygrapher attempts to get the subject to commit to canceling the polygraph and taking responsibility for it. The subject's son has been missing for 3 months and for 3 months, he has been accused and now has the opportunity to take it.

MR:
Well…and I guess when you were asking me these questions and you asked that question and I responded to it and I gave you my answer, I guess I was… I was expecting another question to follow that one, and… and…and at that point when it stopped

"I guess" is reduced commitment. He doesn't even believe his own lies.
"These questions" is plural and the word "these" indicates closeness; yet:
"and you asked that question", with the word "that" distancing himself.
Note that "I was expecting another question to follow" is additional and irrelevant information making it "doubly" important for us. Here we find him blaming the polygrapher for not asking follow up questions.

He won't take the polygraph because he drank, and because he was expecting more questions.

JT:
Well, actually, it wasn’t a question though, Mark. It was a statement by me and I said, well that’s a disqualifier. If you don’t feel well enough to take this test, then we’re not gonna’ do it.

47:08
MR:
Right…but the question was, do I feel well enough to take it? My response was, No, and…. and… instead of having another question followed behind that, when you reacted to that, and … and… said what you said, I was a bit taken by that.

The word "right" is to agree to "we're not gonna do it": he wasn't going to take the polygraph.
Please note that, again, he does not believe his own excuses. He was "a bit" taken back by not having another question asked. He does not say he was "taken back" by it; only a "bit." This is a tiny amount. Note that his son is missing and he does not report being taken back by his son's disappearance. The anger and frustration on the part of the polygrapher is evident.

Dr. Phil:
Do you wanna’ take it?

This is a 'yes or no' question which indicates that Dr. Phil wants a straight answer, something the polygrapher later said the subject refused to do.

MR:
Well I don’t know that… that…. That… At the point we are right now with that question I don’t think that my answer is any different now that it was two hours ago.

Note how far the subject will go to avoid the word "no"; he is acutely aware of how he now looks on national television and does not want to plainly say "no"; instead, he refers to his previous answer. He avoids answering the question, making the question "sensitive" to him.

Question: What would make a polygraph "sensitive" to a parent of a missing child?
Dr. Phil:
So you don’t want to take it.

Dr. Phil wants him to have to make a plain answer, therefore, he repeats the question.

MR:
Pause…Not if… if it means that my answer to that question is, no, then it’s no now. You know, maybe now isn’t the time to be taking the polygraph test, and I believe that that’s where we’re at with that

"not if" qualifies his answer, and he refuses the plain response. The question of the polygraph should be considered "highly sensitive" to Mark Redwine.
Note that he uses the word "if" twice, allowing for possibilities.
Note the word "now" is also sensitive, via repetition.
Note the word "that" distances himself from the polygraph. Note "believe" is a weak assertion, coupled with the change of pronoun from "I" to "we"

These indicate that like Casey Anthony walking down the hallway to her "office" in Universal Studio, Mark Redwine walked the hallway of the polygraph intending to rely on his own wits to get him out of it.

"We're going to take it" used the pronoun "we", plural.

Mark Redwine did not intend to take the polygraph, but sought ways to sabotage the plan. He blamed the polygrapher, the test itself, the timing, the alcohol, his son and ex, all in his refusals. He went from being "upset" that he was not respected on television to "well, you asked me if I was feeling well enough..." pointing to the polygrapher.

Mark Redwine, like Casey Anthony, took steps to the process, but sought opportunities to use the intellect in an attempt to deceive.

This is an indication of confidence in his own ability to spin words and avoid direct answers: an accomplished liar since childhood.

Saturday, March 2, 2013

Mark Redwine's Pronouns

Statement Analysis rivals the best of polygraphy, as we rely upon the words one uses to discern truth versus deception.

Close to Thanksgiving, 2012, Dylan Redwine, 13, went on a court-ordered visit to his father's home, against his wishes and his mother's wishes. Elaine Redwine did not want to send her son, but attempted to make the best of things in not violating a court order.

Her worst fears were realized when Dylan went "missing."

Statement Analysis of Mark Redwine's words revealed:

1. Dylan Redwine is dead.
2. Mark Redwine is deceptive specifically about Dylan going missing.

Statement Analysis of Elaine Redwine shows no guilty knowledge, nor deception, regarding the disappearance of her son.

Body language is often helpful, but a baseline of 'norm' is something critical to the analysis. Nothing can get to the truth like the principles of Statement Analysis. Words do not come from a vacuum, and changes in language come from somewhere, with emotion having the greatest impact upon language.

Personal, internal, subjective dictionary.
Instinctive Language

Everyone of us has a personal, internal, subjective dictionary. For example, when one uses the word "boy", we may need either context to know its meaning, or follow up questions. For one, a "boy" may be a newborn, yet for another, it was the "fighting boys" in the Gulf War, aged 18 to 21.

Instinctive Language is exempt from the personal, internal dictionary that is subjective. These exemptions:

1. Time. Objective time on the clock. 6PM is 6PM is 6PM.
2. Articles. "The, a, an"...are articles and are instinctive. "A man approached me to demand money. The man took my wallet." This shows "a" man, indicating, instinctively, that the man was not known, but once known, he became "the" man.
3. Pronouns

Pronouns are the single greatest reliability to detecting deception and have a "life all their own" (see "The Secret Life of Pronouns" for further understanding) and best guide us.

When someone is alone, and says "we", the person is attempting to deceive us. When someone claims to be alone, and slips out the instinctive word "we", the subject is calling us to attention.

Every parent of a 13 year old knows how quickly the plural pronoun "we" is employed when a child feels guilty, just as every Junior High teacher knows. Humans like to say "but everyone was doing it" as if the plurality of trouble-making causes it to be acceptable.

"We're going to take the polygraph" said Mark Redwine, while alone, to the Dr. Phil polygrapher.

He had no intention of going through with it.

Search Dylan's case here in the blog for the specific words of Mark Redwine and see how the same principles used in his case have been used in every other case, including Casey Anthony, someone everyone accepts as a liar. There is no change in principle.

Once it has been established that a subject is lying, people often dismiss the subject as irrelevant. Nothing could be further from the truth. On the Nancy Grace Show, guests routinely dismissed Casey Anthony's statements as useless. Mike Brooks said, "I know that Casey Anthony is lying because her lips are moving" in a chuckle, making investigators' skin crawl. This is the opposite of what an investigator does. A trained investigator listens to the very words of a liar because the words come from a memory and it may be that the lying subject may give out valuable information, even within lies. Two examples from the Casey Anthony case:

"George and I don't believe that Caylee's in the woods or anything..." shortly before she was found in the woods.

"In my heart, I know she's close" Casey said.

Caylee was close and she was in the woods. Even in lies, truth is sometimes found.

Mark Redwine's statements are vital.

I did not see the original airing of part 2 of Mark Redwine, part 2.

As I am now watching the recording, here are some observations

First:

ex girlfriend: only dated for 6 months and has 1 week experience with Dylan. How dare she say anything to Elaine Redwine.

Dr Phil put her in her place.

Mark: Likely Flunked his original polygraph; at least the direct questions. When asked about it, his answer was to avoid and say, "there were some discrepancies..." (passivity noted)

Ex wife: language showed signals of veracity in description of Domestic Violence.
Mark kidnapped previous kids.

She believes he could have harmed Dylan because "he has a violent temper and snaps easily."

Mark enjoyed himself, especially when he inflicted pain upon Elaine. Elaine was honest; signals of veracity consistently. He loved the attention, even negative.

Nothing on the show signals anything but that Mark killed Dylan.

Note the interaction between Mark and his oldest son:

The oldest son is scared for Dylan and Mark, on national television, answered him by saying "you are being disrespectful..."

This is bad enough of a divergent from Dylan, but then Mark gave us what is needed:

"And I believe that what you are saying is coming right from your mother..." (more on this in next article)

The son knows why Mark did this: "...to hurt my mom. "

Raising money: he went from "people" wanting raising money to "her"; they called "her"; singular. He lies consistently.

Elaine: reliable.

Linguistic Indicator of Why Mark Redwine Killed Dylan

Mark Redwine's statement on part two of the Dr. Phil Show may give us insight into why he killed Dylan.

Here is the statement he made to his older son, who told him he did not love him and that Mark was not helping find Dylan:

"I believe that you're being very disrespectful and I believe everything that's coming out of your mouth is perpetuated by your mother."

1. Please note that during the show, and in particular, when his son accused him of harming Dylan to "hurt my mom", Mark Redwine did not deny this.

2. Please note that Mark Redwine did not deny killing Dylan at any time on the show, or his other appearances on television.

3. Note the context of the statement: a 13 year old has been missing for more than 3 months.

4. He targeted his son, on national television, to humiliate him with "being very disrespectful"

5. This is the same thing in Statement Analysis of avoiding a question.

6 Note his belief:

He blamed Elaine. He did not refute his son's words, instead, attempted to humiliate his son, by blaming Dylan's mother.

Please note that his son stated that Mark "did this" to "hurt my mom."

Possible scenario:

Dylan did not want to see his violent, controlling abusive father, but was forced to, via court order. Dylan dealt with having to be with this man in his best 13 year old coping manner: he wanted to see his friends.

His father found this "disrespectful" and I believe at this point, he began to harp on Dylan that Dylan's mother, Elaine, was behind the disrespect, just as he did to his older son on national television.

The escalation turned violent, and Mark had the opportunity to give the ultimate payback of revenge to Elaine and took it.

I believe Dylan paid the ultimate price because Dylan stood up for his mother.

Mark had no intention of taking the polygraph, and walked out of the first one and balked at the second one. His walk through the office was the same as Casey Anthony bringing the police into Universal, relying on her wits.

Mark was able to blame the polygrapher.

"This is all happening so fast", although it has been more than 3 months as he hedged on taking the polygraph.

The polygrapher showed that each question asked was not answered, but he would answer another question.

Mark blamed the "truth" in saying, "well, he asked me if I was feeling up for this' and he wasn't.

Excuse after excuse given, Mark cannot take a polygraph because he killed his son. The national television audience looked at a killer of a 13 year old boy, who blamed Dr. Phil, his ex wife, his older son, and anyone else, but himself.

He is a sociopathic narcissistic violent man. This was similar to Scott Peterson's televised performance where he feigned concern after killing Laci and his preborn son, Conner.

Mark Redwine was deceptive about small detail and great detail; about the polygraph, his condition, his drinking, and his son.

Like Billie Jean Dunn had her "own" witness, Mark Redwine has his own "witness" proving Dylan to be alive, which police would have cleared out 3 months ago as unrelated.

Dr. Phil said that it would be "wrong" to say that he is suspicious of Mark Redwine.

I am suspicious of Mark Redwine.

I have followed his language.

Elaine Redwine does not possess guilty knowledge of Dylan's death, and her language is reliable.

Behavioral Analysis suggests that Mark Redwine caused the harm that befell Dylan.
Statement Analysis shows that Mark Redwine has guilty knowledge of the death of Dylan Redwine.

Crystal Magnum of Duke Lacrosse Case

As we recently discussed the prosecutorial misconduct of Alex Hunter in refusing to sign the indictment
against John and Patsy Ramsey, and his deceptive statement to the press, which gave the impression that the Grand Jury did not indict them, we have the misconduct of another prosecutor in the case of Crystal Mangum.

Here, the prosecutor saw a politically correct racial opportunity to gain fame. One can imagine that he saw himself at the head of marches, arm in arm with protestors outraged at the white, privileged, monsters, in support of the poor, underprivileged victim.

A prosecutor with political ambitions is a dangerous monster to behold. Sworn to uphold justice, this man, instead, sought to pervert it for his own gain, caring not that he was destroying innocent lives.

We covered this case in Statement Analysis and saw reliable denials. Here is a brief background of the troublesome accuser, Crystal Mangum, from Wikipedia.

We'll view some of the statements of the players shortly.

Crystal Mangum

Crystal Gail Mangum is an American woman who is best known for making false allegations of
rape in the Duke lacrosse case.
As of April 2011, she is being held on murder charges related to a fatal attack on her boyfriend.

Early life

Mangum was born and grew up in Durham, to a father who drove trucks. In 1993, at age 14, she claimed

to have been kidnapped by three assailants, driven to Creedmoor, North Carolina, and raped.

One of those she accused was her boyfriend, who was 21 at the time.

She filed a police report making these allegations in late 1996.

She subsequently backed away from the charges, a move relatives claimed was motivated by fear for her life.

Mangum's father says he does not believe any such incident occurred involving force,

though her mother believes a similar incident could have occurred- but three years later rather than in 1993.^[1]

After graduation from high school in 1996, she joined the U.S. Navy.

She served for less than two years before being discharged from the service after becoming pregnant.^[1]

By 2002 Mangum had returned to Durham and was working as a stripper.

In 2003, she was arrested on ten charges after stealing the taxicab of a customer

to whom she had given a lap dance. This prompted a police pursuit at moderate

speeds of up to 70 miles per hour, though occasionally in the wrong lane. After being stopped,

she attempted to run over a police officer, succeeding only in hitting his patrol vehicle.

She was found to have a BAC of just over twice the legal limit. Ultimately, she pleaded guilty on four counts,

serving three weekends in jail, paying $4,200 in restitution and fees, and being given two years probation.^[1]

In 2004 she gained an associate's degree from Durham Technical Community College,

and subsequently enrolled full-time at North Carolina Central University in police psychology.^[1]

Duke lacrosse case

Main article: Duke lacrosse case

After arriving, intoxicated, with a fellow stripper for a strip tease at a house rented by

two of the Duke University men's lacrosse team captains, she became involved in an

argument with the occupants of the house, and left. After becoming involved in an

altercation with her fellow stripper that necessitated police assistance, she made a

false allegation of rape. District Attorney Mike Nifong, up for reelection,

pursued the case despite questions about the credibility of Mangum,^[3] and exculpatory evidence

that failed to demonstrate that Mangum had been raped by the Duke lacrosse players.^[4]

It took nearly a year for the attorney-general's office to dismiss the charges and declare

that the players were innocent of the charges laid against them by Nifong.^[5]

[edit]Arrests since lacrosse case

Just before midnight on February 17, 2010, Durham police were called to Mangum's residence
by her nine-year old daughter. When they arrived, they said they found Mangum and her live-in
boyfriend fighting. They said she set fire to some of his clothing in a bathtub in their presence.
The building suffered heavy smoke damage. They arrested Mangum on charges of attempted murder
, first-degree arson, assault and battery, identity theft, communicating threats, damage to property,
resisting an officer, and misdemeanor child abuse.^[6]

Mangum was ordered to remain in jail on $1 million bond. Her bond was lowered to $100,000 in May,
and she was released from jail to live in a friend's house. She was required to wear an electronic
monitoring device. On July 12, 2010, she was released from house arrest and required to move
in with her mother. She was allowed to visit her three children but only under supervision of social services.
Mangum was arrested again on August 25, 2010, and held on $150,000 bond for failure to comply with
the restrictions on her child visitation order.^[7]

On December 17, 2010, Mangum was convicted of five misdemeanor charges involving child abuse.
She was also convicted of injury to personal property and resisting a public officer.
The jury deadlocked 9-3 for conviction on the felony arson charge but was unable
to reach a decision on it.^[8] After the verdict, Judge Abe Jones sentenced Mangum to
88 days in jail, which she had already served, and left the custody decision in the hands
of social services.^[9] Durham Assistant District Attorney Mark McCullough announced on
January 21, 2011, that he would not retry Mangum on arson charges.^[10]

Mangum was arrested on April 2, 2011, following accusations that she stabbed and seriously i
injured her boyfriend. She was charged with assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill
inflicting serious bodily injury, a class C felony in North Carolina.^[11]^[12] Her boyfriend later
died in the hospital, and Mangum was indicted on a murder charge.^[13]As of April 19, Mangum
was being held in jail under a $300,000 secured bail bond, which was set prior to her boyfriend's
death.^[2]^[14] In November, Mangum was deemed competent to stand trial for murder.^[15]
On May 1, 2012, Mangum's attorney withdrew citing the release by Mangum of
confidential information regarding her case to her supporters.^[16]

Friday, March 1, 2013

Two Women Defending Mark Redwine

by Kaaryn Gough

Take a look at the two women who are defending Mark Redwine. "Karen" his ex-GF and "Angie" his mail carrier.

Notice anything?

They could be sisters.

Angie (mail carrier) statement shown on the Dr. Phil show Pt 1:

"On the day Dylan went missing I saw two boys walking down the road not too far from where
Dylan lives. It was around 1:30 in the afternoon. When I saw the boys, I thought to myself ‘Hey,
there’s Mark’s son, Dylan’. The next day I talked to Mark and he said that Dylan hadn’t come home all night and he was really worried about him. I really don’t think Mark was the last person to see him that day."

"The next day I talked to Mark and he said that Dylan hadn’t come home all night and he was really worried about him."--not "has been missing since yesterday morning".

This suggests that Mark did not tell her that Dylan had been missing the whole previous day and that the last time he saw Dylan was at 7:30 in the morning.

I would want to know exactly what Mark told her. I'm sure she's been interviewed by LE. Her statement could be very helpful

"I really don't think Mark was the last person to see Dylan that day." --not "I know Mark was not the last person to see Dylan that day. The mail carrier is not committing to this statement.

Logic tells us that if Mark had told the mail carrier that Dylan had been missing since the previous morning and that he had notified the sheriff's office that the mail carrier would have told Mark she had seen him around 1:30. Logic also tells us that they simply wouldn't drop the discussion about Dylan missing. They would have discussed the mail carrier's sighting and would have concluded that the mail carrier saw Dylan after Mark saw Dylan that day thus making her the last person, of the two of them, to see Dylan.

So why can't the mail carrier commit to believing she saw Dylan after Mark saw Dylan?

I would expect the authorities have questioned the mail carrier thoroughly and have even explored the possibility of a relationship between Mark and the mail carrier.

Mark Redwine Behavioral Analysis

Last Thanksgiving, 13 year old Dylan Redwine was forced, via court order, against his and his mother, Elaine's will, into visiting his father, Mark Redwine, a violent, controlling narcissist.

Dylan hasn't been seen since.

When a child goes missing, Behavioral Analysis kicks in, immediately, observing the behaviors of the parents.

The first thing noticed is the reaction.

I. Crying Out To and For the Missing Child

If you are walking in a mall, holding your child's hand, and your child wanders off, your reaction will be to both look, and if not successful, call out to your child. This is natural, and it is "the expected." Only Cindy Anthony claims that the "expected" is not known. It is known. We know how parents of missing children behave: they attempt to find them.

If a parent went to the mall and the child went missing, we would not expect the parent to continue shopping, get in the car, and drive home, take a nap, and, eventually, call the police. The delay would speak volumes.

Casey Anthony waited 31 days to report Caylee missing, has often been reported. It is not true. She was not "waiting" to make a report. She likely had no intention of making a report but was forced into it by her parents, who later obviously regretted doing so. At the time, Cindy Anthony thought by calling the police she would force Casey to give Caylee to her.

When a parent does not cry out to or for the child, it is similar to losing a child in the mall, but continuing to shop, drive home, and take a nap.

When a child goes missing, police have the expectation, quite naturally, that the parent (s) will go before the camera and speak to the child, and to the child's kidnapper.

When a parent refuses, it is the same as the parent losing the child in the mall, but continuing to shop, just the same. The parent does not want the child found.

Justin DiPietro refused to cry out to Ayla because he knew she was dead, having been responsible for her death. When he did finally speak out, he indicated to us that Ayla was dead.

Sergio Celis, with his wife Becky, also refused, for 5 days, to call out to missing 7 year old Isabel, and only did so under pressure from media. When they spoke, they indicated guilty knowledge of Isabel's death.

When Casey Anthony was pushed into speaking out, we knew that Caylee was dead.

Mark Redwine did not speak out and did not cooperate with the search. When he decided to speak out, we knew just why he had been silent.

The polygraph.

Parents of missing children could not be more upset than they are, yet they polygraph. They polygraph quickly because they know that as upset as they are, they will not grow more upset when asked, "Did you cause the disappearance?" By clearing themselves, they cause investigators to focus in areas where success is more likely.

Parents fail polygraphs because they lie.

Justin DiPietro failed his polygraph.
Billie Jean Dunn failed her polygraph, as did Shawn Adkins.

Some refuse to take the polygraph. This is part of behavioral analysis.

Balking at the polygraph is an indication of guilt in Behavioral Analysis.
Failing a polygraph is obvious.
Attempting to "beat" a polygraph is an indication of guilt in Behavioral Analysis.

Mark Redwine agreed to take a polygraph, only to sabotage it by drinking alcohol, so he could then blame the polygrapher about not feeling "good" enough to take the test.

He said, "we're going to take it" even though he was alone. This was a verbal indication that he was not going to take the polygraph. There was no "we" in his taking of a polygraph and pronouns do not lie, nor make mistakes: deception indicated.

II. The Past Tense Reference

When a parent of a missing child references, even once, the child in the past tense, it can indicate belief or knowledge that the child is dead. This has been highlighted in cases recently, as going against the Solomonic wisdom of a natural parental instinct.

We recently saw this erroneously applied when a psychotherapist appeared on the Nancy Grace Show and said that the parent used "the present tense verb" in describing the missing child "proving" that the parent had nothing to do with it. (She was wrong). The deceptive parent will speak in the present tense while attempting to deceive, but 'slip up' by accident. Casey Anthony said, "Caylee loved the park. Caylee loves the park", correcting herself. The psychotherapist on the NG Show misread the principle and actually played into the hands of the deceiver.

Did the police give the parent reason to believe the child is dead?
Does circumstances rob the parent of natural denial, leading the parent into believing the child is dead?
How early in the case did the parent slip into past tense language?

When the police have given no indication that the child is dead, and it is early in the search, a single slip into past tense language can indicate belief or knowledge, from the parent, who is expected to have natural denial, instinctively, giving hope, that the child is dead.

We have seen this in cases where the parent was suspected in killing the child:

a. Billie Jean Dunn
b. Sergio Celis
c. Susan Smith
d. Casey Anthony
e. Deborah Bradley (Baby Lisa)

Mark Redwine.

III. The Statements

Once a parent is identified as having knowledge or belief that the child is dead, and there are no circumstances leading the parent in this manner, and the parent has been indicated for deception, we then move on to the language employed in deception, for a basis of what has happened to the child.

For example, Justin DiPietro used the phrase "floating out there", possibly indicating that Baby Ayla was dumped in water.
Mark Redwine used phrases such as "beaten up" and "digging" to cause us also to wonder why he is employing such phrases.

This is where the work is done.

"In my heart, I know she's close" said Casey Anthony. True enough, she was less than a half-mile from the home, dumped where Casey had previously buried pets.

Where is Dylan Redwine?

Statement Analysis is now being done on the statements of Mark Redwine, in order to gain insight into where Dylan may be.

Stay tuned for more analysis...

We will also help Elaine Redwine keep Dylan's name in the public eye, and listen carefully to any descriptions Mark Redwine has given.

Lena Lunsford Update

Lena Lunsford has been released from jail.

The mother of missing 3-year-old Aliayah Lunsford, will not be back with her children as the State Supreme Court unanimously decided to back a Lewis County judge who decided not to allow Lunsford to regain her parental rights of her other six children.

She has filed for divorce from her husband, Ralph. Her mother died while she was incarcerated.

Her daughter Aliayah was reported missing in September of 2011. Lunsford was serving an eight month sentence for welfare fraud.

Statement Analysis ®