Jennifer Hicks Missing: Past Tense Reference Meaning

A week ago, Jennifer Hicks, 31, divorced mother, went missing.  It is important to understand why someone refers to a missing loved one in the past tense:  it is an indication that the subject knows or believes the missing loved one is dead. 

An English speaking person of average intelligence has a personal internal dictionary of about 25,000 words. When the person is speaking freely, he must:

*Go into this vast dictionary and choose which information to include; which not do.
*Choose the order of information, reflecting priority and emphasis.
*Choose not only specific words, but specific verb tenses and pronouns. 
*Place each word next to one another perfectly in order to make sense.  
*It is something that the person has done millions of times and is very good at it. 

*It is a transaction in the brain processing system that takes place in less than a millisecond of time.  

When Eric Hicks said "She loved her daughter", instead of "She loves her daughter", he did not likely stop and say to himself, "hmmm, which should I choose?  If I say "she loves", I believe she is still loving her daughter, but if I say she loved...well, then I acknowledge that she is dead..."

In less than a millisecond in time, he chose to reference her in the past tense because he knows or believes that she is dead.  

Casey Anthony did it. 
Billie Jean Dunn did it.  
Baby Lisa's mother did it. 
Baby Ayla's father, Justin DiPietro did it. 

Even a husband who knew, but withheld from the media, that his wife was suicidal, did it while she was technically missing, later fuming that people saw this, yet after the fact, he admitted belief that she had committed suicide.  

Media reported that her ex husband was leading the search including in this assertion, some specific search details, including air-to-ground low level searching.

Eric Hicks said the following, though media has not given us a particular order for these statements, which reduces us from priority: 

"There are just no leads, no clues, nothing. Tips they get turn into dead ends."

"It's like she just vanished.  It's one of the strangest and oddest things."
"Me and her just didn’t see eye to eye so we divorced, but we took care of our daughter," he said. "She was a great mother. She loved her daughter and loved her family and friends."
"We need help.  When you look and see how many open cases there are of missing persons, it breaks your heart and it really hits you when it happens to someone you know."

 Jennifer Hicks left her job at the Lake Chem Community Federal Credit Union in Murray around noon Tuesday, to check on her daughter.  What we do not know is "why" he referenced her in the past tense. 

Q.  What has caused him to state this?
A.  His belief that she is dead.  

Q.  What is his belief based upon?
A.  This is something police need to learn. 

When a person goes missing, the investigation parallels the search and the circle begins tight and small and as each person is cleared, the circle widens.  

A.  The past tense reference in analysis is based upon closeness and instinct.  For example, a biological parent of a missing child has greater resistance (denial) than a step parent who is a fairly new step parent.  The deeper the relationship, the greater the resistance to acceptance that one missing  is deceased.  

B.  Next, the time elapsed is critical.  For a biological mother of a missing young child, months, and perhaps, even years can go by without the mother intellectually accepting the child's death and will reference him or her in the present tense.  Maternal instincts are the most powerful, with paternal coming next.  

C.  Context includes any details that further weigh upon the language (particularly, emotion has the most potent impact upon change of language from present tense to past tense) in choosing present tense or past tense.  Is the child a baby?  Did the child go missing near water or wildlife?  Or, like in the case of Baby Ayla, did she go missing in a safe suburban area?  In Ayla's case, the father, Justin DiPietro, said that someone kidnapped her getting in and out of the house, to the perfect room, without waking anyone nor leaving trace DNA, which would strongly suggest, if true, that Ayla was alive. 

Yet, immediately, he both refused to speak to the "kidnapper" on behalf of Ayla, but also referenced her in the past tense.  

He failed his polygraph and leaked that Ayla was likely dumped in water when he said, "Contrary to rumors floating around out there, I have been cooperating with Waterville Police."  

His immediate response to the case told us that Ayla would not be found alive and the word "with" between people, in this case, between DiPietro and police, indicated distance.   

Context may also include anything police have shared, such as criminal evidence that would lead the subject to belief the missing person is deceased.  We do not see that in the limited statements from Eric Hicks, but we should note his statement about leads would suggest no such information has coe from police that hints towards death.  

Eric Hicks believes that Jennifer will not be found alive, but this does not make him guilty of causing her death.  It may be that, as he stated, this is out of character for her to not make contact with family, as well as leaving her daughter.  It may be guilty knowledge.  

He should immediately take a polygraph, clear himself, and mobilize the public to search for Jennifer.  It is possible that he has done this already.  

Statement Analysis shows that he believes Jennifer is dead, but it does not show why this is.  Sometimes, context alone can indicate guilty knowledge, such as the case on more than a few of the missing children cases where a biological parent's natural denial was not in the language, in the immediate aftermath, with no indication of violence or foul play.  

Behavioral Analysis in missing person cases, particularly, children, is simple. 

When a child wanders off from the mother at a supermarket, the mother stops shopping for food, and calls out for her child.  

When the mother, instead of looking for her child, calls her attorney, or is "emotionally incapable of speaking" for his daughter (DiPietro) or has moved on (Deborah Bradley) or shows more concern for protecting self than finding the child (DeOrr) and alibi building (Billie Jean Dunn).  

Going before television is something both guilty and innocent people do, though they may do it for different reasons. 

A good study is Scott Peterson for those who wish to learn more, though no one used media to reveal the actual details of the crime like Billie Jean Dunn, mother of murdered 13 year old Hailey Dunn.  

If an investigator had nothing to go on but the mother's words on The Nancy Grace Show, he or she could solve the case.  This is the premise of the soon to be released book on Hailey's death and how the study of this case alone, is akin to a college degree in Statement Analysis.  

Guilty knowledge is indicated when it is a very close familiar relation (such as a mother) of whom there is no information to cause the subject to quickly process and accept the death.  

Missing Jennifer Hicks, 31

The ex husband is searching for her.  Eric Hicks said:

"There are just no leads, no clues, nothing. Tips they get turn into dead ends."

"It's like she just vanished.  It's one of the strangest and oddest things."

According to the Calloway County Sheriff's Office, Jennifer Hicks left her job at the Lake Chem Community Federal Credit Union in Murray around noon Tuesday, to check on her daughter.

Hicks described his ex-wife as a "a loving and caring mother" to their 8-year-old daughter and said it is completely out of character for her to be out of touch with friends and family.

"Me and her just didn’t see eye to eye so we divorced, but we took care of our daughter," he said. "She was a great mother. She loved her daughter and loved her family and friends."

Please note the past tense references.  While caring for their daughter, the unity is seen in the word "we"; it is only in context, however, that this should be understood.  Regarding the past tense reference, please also note the context of which this language is produced.  

Note them in context:  They are divorced.  

Have police given him any reason to believe she will no longer be a great mother?  Or, that she will not longer love her daughter, family and friends?

Has time brought the ex husband to process that she is not coming back?  She has been missing about a week.  How close (or distant) were the ex husband and wife that this information should be processed in a week? 

"We need help," said Eric Hicks. "When you look and see how many open cases there are of missing persons, it breaks your heart and it really hits you when it happens to someone you know."

The past tense reference in analysis is based upon closeness and instinct.  For example, a biological parent of a missing child has greater resistance than a step parent who is a fairly new step parent.  The deeper the relationship, the greater the resistance to acceptance that one missing  is deceased. 
Past tense reference indicates a belief that one is dead.  We seek to learn what caused this belief?
a.  police information
b.  passage of time
c.  circumstances?

Guilty knowledge is indicated when it is a very close familiar relation (such as a mother) of whom there is no information to cause the subject to quickly process and accept the death.  

Peyton Manning Transcripts

The following is a transcript from the video interview with Manning.  

We note not only the lack of a denial (RD) but we note just how far he is going to avoid or deflect in his responses. 

We also see that he justifies in his responses, as well. 

What does this suggest?

Not only may we conclude that Manning did use PEDs via the lack of denial and detection of deception, but the degree of which he goes suggests:

a.  habitual or patterned deceiver
b.  Greater issues beneath the surface, beyond this one allegation. 

Note his hostility and anger is not commensurate with the accusation of using HGH to facilitate healing.  Note that he justifies his healing through hard work and dedication; unnecessarily, making the healing from the specific neck injuries very sensitive to him. 

It is likely that Peyton Manning has some other issues of which he is concerned.  

Lisa: Tell me Peyton, what was your reaction to the Al Jazeera report that you had human growth  hormone

Peyton: Yeah

Lisa: mailed to your home when you were recovering from neck surgery

Peyton: Well, I think I rotate, Lisa, between being, uh, angry, uh, furious on and on, but disgusted is really how I feel. Sickened by it, that uh, I’m not sure I understand how someone can make something up about somebody, um, admit that he made it up and yet it somehow it gets published in a, in a story. Uh, I don’t understand that, maybe you can explain it to me, somebody else can, so um it’s completely fabricated, complete trash, garbage, uh there’s some more adjectives I’d like to be able to use, um, but it really makes me sick, makes me sick, makes me sick that it brings Ashley, uh into it, her medical history, her medical privacy being violated, that makes me sick. I don’t understand that and um, you know, I’m in the middle of my throwing workout, which I enjoy doing that and I gotta interrupt, interrupt this workout to come, and you know, talk about this, uh it’s not right. I don’t understand it.

Take note of order giving priority: his wife does not come first, and the introduction is incomplete, which is appropriate if the reporter knows his wife. If not, it is distancing language. See the number of words in the answer before his wife's privacy is an issue.

Lisa: Have you ever used HGH or any performance enhancing drug?

Peyton: Absolutely not, absolutely not and what and what hurts me the most about this is whoever this guy is, this slapstick trying to insinuate that in 2011, when I, you know, more or less had a broken neck, I don’t know four neck surgeries, you know broken neck, I’m not sure, I’m sure there’s a difference in there, but I had a bad neck and uh, I busted my butt, you know to get healthy, uh put in a lot of hard work. I saw a lot of doctors. I went to the Guyer clinic, he had a hyperbaric chamber that our coach, trainers and doctors thought might be good for me. They went with me and uh, um, thought it might help. Don’t know if it helped, uh, didn’t hurt. Time ended up being, probably my best medicine, along with a lot of hard work and that uh, it, it really uh it stings me whoever this guy is insinuated that I cut corners; I broke NFL rules in order to get healthy. It’s a joke. It’s a freaking joke.

Here is where readers may see the initial deception in his response. He does not say "no" to the "yes or no" question, but uses the emphatic "absolutely" added in unnecessarily. Next, note the need to assert, without denial, breaking rules and taking short cuts. This may be leakage of an embedded confession, since he does not attribute it linguistically to anyone else: "I broke NFL rules" will now need proof: instead of denying that he broke NFL rules, he needs to assert that he could not have because they were present. This is to not only admit he would have had they not been present, hypothetically, but it is a subtle shifting of blame to them, and it is insight into his personality. It is likely that he has been "gotten out" of trouble before and learned early in life how to shift blame to others.

Lisa: You mentioned your wife, uh their source for this report, uh, he’s a guy, Charlie Sly, who used to work for Guyer institute. He says they actually mailed medications to your home in your wife’s name.

Peyton: I don’t, I don’t, I don’t, I don’t know this guy, I’ve never heard of this guy, up until this report, never met this guy. 

The halting of broken sentences all begin with the pronoun "I" which show a marked increase in anxiety for Manning at the mention of "this guy." He uses the word "this" instead of "that", which brings the man 'closer' psychologically to him. This guy is very important to Manning; it not only caused him to repeat on the word "I", but to repeatedly use the word "this" regarding him. Not knowing or having met "this guy" is to move the target of his language from HGH to the guy. This is to not only avoid saying "I didn't use HGH" but to show a need to move the conversation to a different argument; or tangent.

Uh, any medical treatments that my wife received, that’s her business, it has nothing to do with me. 

As to being one who blames others; he now brings suspicion of possible HGH use to his wife. Note that his wife's medical treatments have "nothing to do with me", which is not something most husbands and wives say of each other: it is to distance one from the other.

Nothing that’s ever been sent to her, or my wife has used, have I ever taken, absolutely not. 

Liars go to far, and here he not only says that nothing that's ever been sent to her has he taken (with "absolutely not" showing the weakness of persuasion) but he adds "or my wife has used" offered unnecessarily. It is likely that she, too, used the anti-aging HGH besides him. He is not only deceptive in his denial, but implicates her in usage as well. This is not someone used to taking ownership and responsibility of failure.

HGH is used in low dosages to speed healing, and to reverse aging. It is considered the most popular drug of Hollywood stars who are desperate to look young for roles.

He continues to move the topic away from breaking NFL rules to his wife:

I have my treatments that I do, she may have hers, that’s her business, there’s no connection between the two and whoever this, uh, I’d love to, you know, I, I loved to understand, you know, why this guy is saying this, why he’s making it up and then he admits he makes it up, yet it still becomes a story. I’d like to be told and explained that.

"You know" is a habit of speech that shows a new acute awareness of the interviewer's presence. Here, he asserts that the "guy" reported it and recanted it, but he wants to know why it "still becomes a story", yet, this is betrayed just as quickly in his language with the distancing, "I'd like to be told that." He is not waiting for any answer.

Had he not used he would have said that, alone, and there would be no story, no follow up, and no new questions. Even without training, people recognize the increase in both words and emotions couples with a lack of denial, keeping the story alive. It is also to reveal that Manning has a desperation to run from this topic, which suggests more deception. What other rules did he break?

Lisa: You went to the Guyer Institute?

Peyton: Yes

This is the first reliable response he has given.

Lisa: And you’ve had treatments and you’ve had medications from there before?

Peyton: Yes

Lisa: What kind of stuff did they do for you?

After two short yes or no questions she must dig further. Now we follow the pronouns...particularly, when they go missing:

Peyton: Yeah, Yeah, Hyperbaric chamber, went with the Colts trainers, Colts doctors, hyperbaric chamber, um something called ECCP, which, uh, is supposed to create blood flow in your muscles. It is interesting to see how long he talked without using the pronoun "I" while at the clinic. This is distancing language.  First, the psychological removal of self, with the missing pronoun "I", but then, he continues 'not wanting to put himself there' with the second person pronoun, "you" as follows:

You’ve got to do 35 consecutive days of treatment. 

Finally, the subject 'arrives' at the location, but only when he is completely done with them:

I did all 35 days for an hour treatment, watched Hoda and Kelly Lee during my treatment, cause I was there during normal business hours at 9:00 AM eastern standard time and uh, I did that.  

Liars most always tell you something they did truthfully, because it marks a complete uptick in confidence for them to go into experiential memory. He really did watch "Hoda and Kelly Lee" and confidently says this, yet, even here, he feels the need to explain "why" he did something, though he was not asked, with "cause I was there during "normal business hours" which tells us:

**When the word "normal" is used, something not so normal took place: this is that he had interaction of some form with the clinic outside the 9-5 hours. This moves him closer to an admission.

It shows both the confidence of truthful memory (TV show) and the weakness of having to give such a minor, unimportant detail. This means he knows he is lying, and fears that his audience knows he is lying, so he must buttress his statement with something that establishes his presence there.

It is to offer an "alibi" or proof that he was there.

This means he knows he needs an alibi.

This is utterly unnecessary if the subject is truthful. Note next, a subtle blaming of others, including medical professionals:

I was a good patient, uh, had some nutrient IV therapies that I did that uh, um, that I thought may have helped me as well. 

He was a "good patient"; what do "good patients" do? they follow directions. He was following directions and if proof comes out, expect Manning to blame the staff.

Note regarding "some nutrient IV therapies" he drops his pronoun. "IV" is via needle.

HGH is via small needle, such as diabetics use. This may be the subtle distancing of the dropped pronoun: a needle. He continues to signal that he will blame others:

So, everything was under Colts, uh, authorization,

He was a "good" patient and "everything" that he did, was authorized by the Colts. You now know who, specifically, will be blamed if he is caught: the medical staff, and the Colts, his former team. This is a subject who is preparing his defense while avoiding making a denial. Watch how emphatic he is with this:

they knew about it, they went with me and um, uh, you know, anything else this guy is insinuating, complete garbage.

"This guy" did not "insinuate" (minimization of allegation) anything: he plainly stated that he was sent HGH from the clinic and then he recanted it.

Lisa: So in the age of PED use that we live in, we, we’ve seen all the athletes accused, we’ve seen many of the athletes deny

Peyton: Yeah

Lisa: we’ve seen many of them eventually admit

Peyton: Right

Lisa: So right or wrong, the cynicism is there for us  

Peyton: Sure

Lisa: so what do you want to say to a little kid waking up hearing this about Peyton Manning?

This is a good question to ask the image conscious athlete who has made a great deal of money on selling the image of squeaky clean. It is to formulate a question based upon the psychology of the subject:

Peyton: I can’t, I can’t speak for another athlete, I know what I’ve done, 

He was not asked to speak for another athlete.

Note "I know what I have done" is to avoid the denial, while, perhaps, considering exactly what he has done.

Next, we have justification:

I know how hard I’ve worked during my 18 years of playing in the NFL.

This is to both justify and to dilute. He justifies the use of HGH because using it, without hard work, will not bring success. He also moves from this specific period of time to 18 years; a lengthy dilution.

There are no short cuts in the NFL. 

No pronoun "I" here, yet, and no denial. This is a generalization for all NFL athletes; the ones he said he would not speak for.

I’ve done it the long way, I’ve done it the hard way and to insinuate anything otherwise is a complete and total joke, it’s defamation and it really ticks me off.

A. The allegation is minimized to insinuation

B. Complete

C. Total

D. Joke

E. Defamation

F. Ticks him off (emotion)

This is to suggest that he may use his money, like Lance Armstrong, to sue those who do not believe him.

Lisa: Your initial reaction when you heard about this? Your initial reaction?

She is looking for a denial; something he has not done.

"I did not use HGH" is the simplest way to end the interview. Nothing else matters, including his 18 years, his hard work, his doctors, the presence of the NFL, the "guy", and his wife. "I did not use HGH" was all that was needed; there were no other questions to be asked after that. It closes things out and it is what truthful people do. No need to minimize the allegation. He accused and I deny; end of story.

Peyton: Like I said, sick, disgusted, makes me want to, you know, just can’t say it on TV, nut you know, makes me sick, makes me nauseous.

Self reference indicates he is recalling what he said earlier.

Note the emotions: this is to show "moral high ground" and the need to have moral high ground. The need to show moral high ground is often an indicator of guilt. This is to 'sermonize' and project. I do believe he is sick to his stomach, but not over the accusation, and not over the use, since he justified it by the severity of the injury and the hard work and length of his career.

He is sick to his stomach because he is caught and is forced into not only damaging his image, but the expense of possible law suits. The more he speaks the more we know, the deeper he is in trouble.

Lisa: How do you plan to fight it?

How narcissistic will he go? He does not make us wait long. Here, he does not give further indication of any "fight" to come, instead focuses on his own emotions. No concern for the kids referenced earlier, nor his wife, nor the others he has cast suspicion and responsibility towards:

Peyton: I plan to go throw today, you know, a little harder, my ball has a little extra heat on it today. I  got some built up anger, as you might understand and uh, try to do what I can to help the Broncos get a win tomorrow night and I’m moving on, this is, I’m not losing any sleep with this, uh report. This slapstick’s lies and uh, you know, I’ll keep my head above it and keep pressing on to get healthy, try to uh, get back on the field next week and uh practice with the team and go from there.

Note the plural as quite telling.



If you wish to study Statement Analysis, we have both seminars and at home courses: www.hyattanalysis.com

Peyton Manning Denial Examined

When one is a liar, he holds the world in contempt.  Lying presupposes the audience to be too stupid to discern the deception.  

When caught, liars often attack and go on the offensive, and will do and say most anything other than the reliable denial. 

They often use more words than necessary, too, showing a desperation that may have more information behind it.  We listen not only for the lack of reliable denial, but we listen for the words used. 

Peyton Manning was specifically accused of using HGH yet the source recanted and attacks were made, still, against those who accused him.  

We, however, may listen to his denial, and this may now follow on the heels of much more regarding Manning. 

Look back at his denial. 

HGH has been hailed as the "anti aging miracle" hormone, reportedly widely used by Hollywood as well as professional athletes. 

It is the hormone that:

a.  helps sleep
b.  gives energy
c.  Facilitates healing from injury
d.  provides strength

In short, when you see a child jumping up and down, non stop, and you become exhausted looking at him, you are looking at the magic of human growth hormone. 

In low dosages, particularly over time, it has reportedly cut injury recovery time dramatically and has given athletes many additional years in their careers.  It is often combined with low dose testosterone, good nutrition and exercise for maximum results. 

Roger Clemens, for example, was indicated for deception regarding PEDs.  

Lance Armstrong, for years, avoided the Reliable Denial, instead, used his millions to destroy the lives and businesses of others, like a cornered animal, striking out against others to bully them into silence.  It is what liars do, especially when they have power. 

What has Manning said about the accusation of using performance enhancing drugs in rehabilitating an injury?

The expectation is, "I didn't use HGH."

The word "never" spans a large and sometimes indefinite amount of time, thus it is "unreliable."  If it is coupled with a reliable denial, it is appropriate, but alone, it is not. 

The use of "would not" or "would never" is not a reliable denial.  

Lance Armstrong "never" used PEDs.  He went on to confess, though even his confession contained points of deception.  

Marion Jones, who spent time in prison for lying, "never" used PEDs.  She combined "never" with qualifiers indicating a new level of weakness: 
"never" plus "NTP", or "Need to Persuade." 

Her video denial so impressed body language experts that even the media bought it; yet, she eventually was charged and convicted of lying.  

When someone has "never" used, he or she may say, "I did not" or the relaxed, "I didn't" (both are reliable), followed by "never"; but alone, it is not to be deemed reliable. 

If "never" is, itself, sensitive, it becomes even 'weaker' for the purpose of analysis, as it now combines the unreliability of "never" with the need to persuade. 

Peyton Manning denies allegation he received HGH in 2011

Peyton Manning issued a statement before the Super Bowl denying allegations  from an investigative report that an Indianapolis anti-aging clinic supplied him with human growth hormone in 2011.

"The allegation that I would do something like that is complete garbage and is totally made up.  It never happened. Never. I really can't believe somebody would put something like this on the air. Whoever said this is making stuff up."

The allegation is not that he "would" do anything:  the allegation is that he used HGH to hasten his healing from his injury.  This is the first step of distancing himself away from the direct lie of "I did not use..."

Next, we note that his statement is to say that this is to say that the allegation is not only "garbage" but "complete garbage."  In his own personal dictionary, what is "garbage"?  It is something worthy of throwing out?  Is it "garbage" to have published it?  

It is not only "made up" but it is "completely" made up.  This is to increase the sensitivity about the report, but not about the allegation.  Psychologically, he is running away from denying, which would be, if he used, a direct lie.  

This is to also avoid denying using PEDs, but rather make something "made up", itself, sensitive to him. 

Then we note "it never happened" is passive voice.  "It" needs someone to inject, after someone "mailed" or facilitated its purchase.  The passivity is used to conceal identity and/or responsibility, and without a reliable denial, it further weakens the denial. 

This is even further from "I didn't", with the pronoun "I" omitted; thus, the continuation of Peyton Manning psychologically removing himself from the denial.  

For the analyst, this is now becoming clearer. 

Not only does he distance himself from the denial, but he distances himself from injecting it (via the missing pronoun "I") and the report itself, by reducing the allegation to "stuff."

This is not "stuff", but a direct allegation that he used human growth hormone to facilitate a quicker recovery from injury, having it shipped to his home through his wife.  

Stuff

"making stuff up" is to use the word "stuff", which is nondescript. 

 This, too, not only avoids denying the allegation, but seeks to introduce vagueness, which is the essence of "never"; it avoids a specific time period which would increase tension for the liar, as the time period narrows.  The psychological hiding in a vast time period is not echoed by the material:

It is "stuff", which is often said when some things are not true (being "made up") but others may be true. 

Analysis Conclusion:

Deception Indicated  

1.  He does not issue a denial.  This, itself, is not enough to conclude deception; only to conclude that he has not denied the allegation. 

2  The use of "never" is a psychological thinning out of time. 

3.  The repetition shows increase in sensitivity. 

4.  The passivity is noted. 

5.  The need to persuade coupled with the above, including deliberately vague language, in both time and in content, allows for conclusion. 

6.  He psychologically distanced himself from both the denial, and the report itself.  This is important because even though he does not issue a denial, he shows an increased need to not only 'run' from the denial, he does not want to even deal with the allegation.  It is a specific allegation, not a   bunch of "stuff" from which Peyton Manning does not even want to confront. 

As easy as it is for the innocent to say, "I didn't use HGH", he cannot, nor can he even face the accusation.  This tells us that there is more, perhaps, that Manning is concerned about, than just this one allegation.  

This is particularly interesting when we consider the source has recanted and the report came from the soon defunct Al Jezeera.  

Yet, he is incapable of simply saying the words of truth.  

Expect more...

Manning missed the 2011 season because of four neck surgeries and joined the Broncos as a free agent prior to the 2012 season. The NFL collective bargaining agreement ratified in 2011 banned the use of HGH. However, the league did not begin testing for the substance until 2014. No NFL player has tested positive for HGH.

According to the  documentary "The Dark Side," British hurdler Liam Collins went undercover to expose the rampant use of performance-enhancing drugs in sports. As part of his investigation, Collins met with Charles Sly, a former pharmacist at the anti-aging Guyer Clinic in Indianapolis. Sly said he mailed HGH to Manning's wife, Ashley, to avoid any link to the quarterback. Collins gained fame in 2009 when he reached the semifinals of "Britain's Got Talent" as part of the Faces of Disco with his cousin. Collins received a 14-year ban in 2013 for bilking investors in a multimillion property scheme.

In a follow-up interview, Sly recanted the allegations, saying they "are absolutely false and incorrect." 

note, both "false" and "incorrect" seem reduntant.  Are they false?
Or, are they incorrect?

He then went on to give a reason for his original statement:  

Sly said Collins took advantage of him during a vulnerable time in his life following the death of his fiancée.

What would the death of his fiancee mean to one in this situation?

No matter what evidence is weighed, we listen to the subject, himself, and fail to hear truth.  

Ari Fleischer, who heads a sports communications company and is an adviser to Manning, slammed the accusations in an interview with The Denver Post on Saturday night, calling the report "junk journalism."

"There's no truth to it," Fleischer said. "What they have is a well-known con man from England who secretly recorded a former intern."

Again, we have no reliable denial and now a pummeling of the source.  This, too, is the pattern of an outright liar.  This is what Armstrong used, and others with much to lose also employ:  avoid the truth and raze the deliverer of the truth to the ground.  

Sly was an unpaid intern at The Guyer Institute from February 2013-May 2013, according to Fleischer. This disputes information in the documentary, which says Sly worked at the institute in 2011. Sly confirmed Fleischer's account, telling ESPN on Saturday that he worked at the institute in 2013, not in 2011 as the Al Jazeera report alleges.

According to Fleischer, Manning was a patient of The Guyer Institute in the fall of 2011 for rehabilitation from neck surgeries. Manning has not been a patient since, Fleischer said.

Manning told ESPN on Saturday night: "Yes, I have been a patient under Dr. Guyer. I have had nutrient therapy, oxygen therapy and other treatments that are holistic in nature but never HGH."

Here, again, he is unwilling or unable to say that he did not use HGH.  Note he does show he knows how to speak for himself, with the pronoun "I" correctly, and since the time period was significant, a simple statement would be:

"I didn't use HGH."

Rule:  if the subject is unwilling or incapable to deny the allegation, we are not permitted to say it for him.