Sunday, March 13, 2016

Analysis: Training The Brain

Recently, I took a poll of investigators who have been in formal training in Statement Analysis for 2 years and asked them to consider what their record of detecting deception has been in this time frame. 

The average in public is 50% guess work. 
Police score slightly higher.
Criminals score slightly higher than police. 

Most investigators cited "100% or very close" with "contamination" as the only source of error.  

This is not uncommon for those who dedicate themselves to serious and guided professional study, in law enforcement as well as human resources.  

The brain learns. 

They find that after 18 months of "circling pronouns" they began to "see the circled pronouns" in their heads as people spoke, along with other sensitivity indicators.  It is quite exciting. 



100 people were given a general knowledge test, but just prior to the test, they were given a white coat to wear for the test.

"This white coat is a painter's coat", they were told.

The scores recorded.

The next group of 100 were given the same test wearing the same white coat but this group was told,

"This white coat is a doctor's coat."

The results of this test, and repeated confirmation tests, showed consistently higher grades of those who were old that they were wearing the doctor's coat.


Expectation bias?

Perhaps.

The brain responded and test results proved it.

Audio:

Most of us listen to our music from a computer or smart phone in which the music is not only stored in digital form, but it is compressed.  Without feigning scientific knowledge of depth here, the average song has at least 1,000,000 pieces of "information" for your brain to interpret.  Much of the 'dots' or pieces of information are lost when the audio is "converted" from digital to audio, which we can hear.  Then, out of what we hear, much of this is lost as it is "too much" for the brain to interpret. A single guitar chord, that is, one strum, has 6 notes to it, with each note having a sound of its own, and each has a specific sound when in concert with another, and these two have a specific sound when in concert with the third, but then the fourth has a specific sound when with the first, but then...There is much data for the brain to interpret.

Speech:

The average person has about 25,000 -30,000 words in his personal dictionary within the brain.  When he reports 'what happened this morning', he moves into this dictionary, chooses the words to use, places the words in a particular order to make sense, and chooses the proper verb tenses and pronouns.  Since it is impossible for him to report "everything" that happened this morning, the data is reduced greatly, reflecting his priority.  This transmission is too fast to measure, and is called a 'millisecond' of time.  This speed of transmission gives us our incredibly high accuracy rate in lie detection.  Where the average chance is 50% (same as guess rate) and trained 'lie detectors' reach 53%, Statement Analysts often report close to 100% accuracy.

Sight:

The eyes are trained by the brain to look beyond the blood vessels before it and interpret geometrical shapes and figures, so that it does not see a 'door', but the brain recognizes these shapes, and in less than a millisecond of time interprets it.


It is said that many who suffer from autism have a sensory overload of these things, making them feel overwhelmed, frustrated, angry, depressed, and so on.

Back to audio before reaching the lesson for Statement Analysis training:

You hear a song in Mp3 format.  The millions of pieces of information have been compressed downward to fit more readily on our computers and iPhones.  We are told that much of the pieces of information culled out during the compression process are outside the realm of human audio anyway and people cannot tell the difference between "lossy" or compressed music, and high quality "lossless" or large files.   Test results are generally the same as guessing in lie detection or flipping a coin:

50%.

Not so fast.

The digital audio converter world is one where each iPhone, macbook, android, and PC has its own digital audio converter, or "DAC" within it.  To get higher quality sound, one can purchase a "DAC" from about $100 up to $100,000 that will glean more of the 'dots' of information.  For audiophiles, the DAC that costs about $2500 'does the trick' with high quality headphones.  Recently, a company in England known for high quality DACs took 30 years of research of which the owner said, "I am 60 years old and have all the money I will ever need in life.  I love music and I want the average person to enjoy music the way I do, with them using their smart phones..." and took his standard, expensive, best selling DAC, and stripped it down to its basic components, about the size of a cigarette box, and sold it for 1/4th the price.

It sold like crazy and won all sorts of audio-awards.




He said that they even had a special battery invented for it of which he thinks might last 25 or 30 years.  The only draw back was that they were not able to make their own iPhone adapter:  to do that, they have to submit their science to Apple, as part of an agreement and watch 30 years of research be stolen, so the owner has to buy an Apple adapter.  Apple gets its cut.

He said it has "500 times more data" than the average DAC sold today, making it many times more the DAC that is in iPhones, androids, PCs and apple books.

That's a lot of data for the brain to 'interpret' and process.

When I first heard it, I was stunned.

It sounded like the music was in my living room.  The guitar to my left, the cajon to my right and the vocals...

If Swan Lake can reduce you to watery eyes, this will make you weep.

It is stunning.

Granted, you must have good quality headphones but that it is; the source (computer or phone), this tiny box, and your headphones.  I was shocked.

The owner said something else quite interesting.

He said that people often rave about it, but then after a month report "it is even better.  It needed time to burn in."

There is lots of debate about "burn in" for audio equipment with some scientific tests saying, "uh, nah, no measurable change in headphones after 100 hours..." and so on.

The owner said, 'No, that is not it.  Here it is.  Just as your eyes learn to interpret geometric figures for the brain, so it is that over a few weeks, the brain is more efficient at processing more data than it was just one month ago.'

This is why sound engineers have close to 100% on double blind A-B tests of "Is this music compression MP3 or is it uncompressed lossless?" 

Some dismiss this as "gifted ears" while others recognize what the owner of Chord Electronics said:  'the brain adjusts to more data with training.'


Dulled Listening

With formal training, and consistent, guided, peer influenced regular practice, the dulled listening that you have lived your entire life practicing, begins the process of reversal.


The battle is long, but you can move from "statement analysis" to "discourse analysis" to the point where you not only are analyzing on the fly, that is, live during conversations and/or interviews, but this form of analysis, too, grows as you grow.

Like the listener who experiences music that he has heard for decades as if it is 'new' due to the dynamic increase in data, or like the sports fan who watches his favorite football team on high definition television sees an old game from the 80's, and feels it is almost unwatchable, you, too, can experience such intense growth both towards, and in, discourse analysis.

Lie detection takes years and even signals of 'shut down' or contamination can be audibly discerned over time.

The commitment to excellence takes resolve, dedication, sacrifice and consistency, but it cannot help but pay off dividends audibly, as time goes on. 

I do not have gifted listening skills, yet I recognize how deep the improvement has come over years where it is not something I 'can do' if I concentrate.  This began a few years back where I concentrated and analyzed on the fly. 

Now?

It is just what listening has become.  

I listened to the 30 minute interview of the Chord Electronics CEO on youtube and had a distinct opinion of topic after topic from his language.  His forthcoming answers were refreshing and the honesty pointed. It is unusual for one to obtain the level of success in his life and to speak so plainly, and honestly.  

If you wish to begin actual deception detection, you must 'give yourself' to it.  

We offer not only in house seminars, but an at home training course of which the tuition is reasonable and successful completion of this course, including all tests and its final examination, allows the analyst to join monthly training with other analysts in live, ongoing analysis of actual cases.  Confidentiality agreed upon, it is a marvelous period of growth with many committed to it for life. 

The successful completion of the initial training at your home or office also permits you to join our Advanced Statement Analysis Training where not only advanced techniques are used, but depth and breadth are explored, including Sexual Abuse in language, anonymous author identification, actual profiling, and detecting contamination:  the one element that can detract from your success.  This is a lengthy, deep course of which tuition is also reasonable and allows for adult credits to be awarded from the University of Maine.  

A commitment will help you train the brain from dulled listening, to being able to pick up sensitivity indicators as one speaks, with no 'turn off' switch as the ultimate eventuality.  

No other science can bring the success in lie detection, or even come close, that comes through Statement Analysis. 

To learn more about training, see opportunities for professionals here.






Thursday, March 10, 2016

Announcement: Advanced Course Is Complete!



The Advanced Course in Statement Analysis is now complete and ready for shipping CD lectures and e-format which allows for analysis homework to be sent via email.  

It is almost 400 pages  and 12 audio lectures and may take 3-6 months to complete successfully.

Tuition is $895 and registration is limited to those who have had formal training in Statement Analysis  from approved instructors.  This is due to the complex nature of Statement Analysis Profiling and anonymous author work.

It is a lengthy, challenging course, and requires successful completion of a final examination and submission of a thesis essay showing deep understanding of the principles of our science.

See Hyatt Analysis Services for contact information, as well as potential CEUs from the University of Maine and tuition payment.

The course is specifically useful in law enforcement, human resources and psychology experts and is may take up to two semesters to successfully complete.  A solid understanding and successful application of Statement Analysis is a prerequisite for success in completing this course.




Advanced Statement Analysis


Table of Contents


1.      Chapter One.  Introduction                                                 Page 2
2.     Chapter Two  Time and Form                                             Page 21
3.     Chapter Three:  Who Should Not Profile?                          Page 67
4.     Chapter Four   PC and Ferguson Shooting                          Page 72
5.     Chapter Five  Contamination                                               Page 127
6.     Chapter Six   Collaterals                                                      Page 141
7.     Chapter Seven: Profiling 911 Homicide                              Page 192
8.     Chapter Eight:  Employment Questionnaire                        Page  225
9.     Chapter Nine:   Passive Aggressive                                     Page 279
10.  Chapter Ten:     John Bowlen                                               Page 282
11.  Chapter Eleven:  Anonymous Author Identification            Page 289
12.  Chapter Twelve:   Profiling and Psychopothy                       Page 313
13.  Chapter Thirteen:    Analytical Interviewing                         Page 335
14.  Chapter Fourteen:  Final Exam Part One                               Page 367
15.  Chapter Fourteen:   Final Exam Part Two                              Page 370
16.  Chapter Fifteen:  Final Exam Essay                                       Page 380


     Closing Thoughts…   Page 382  and one additional exercise   Page 395


Tuesday, March 8, 2016

Pronoun Commitment: Or, Not




I will ask the boss about it. 

Pronouns give us commitment and the lack of pronouns reduces commitment.  There is a good deal of thought processing behind a single dropping of a pronoun with estimates up to as many as 10 sentences flowing through the mind at a single dropped pronoun.  There is distancing due to "zero commitment" but there is a psychological distancing within a dropped pronoun that has lots of layers of thought behind it.


I will ask the boss about it.


Will ask the boss about it.


Think will ask the boss about it.


Note the progression and the thought process behind the three statements as the distance grows, so does the processing of thought behind it.  

1.  "I will ask the boss about it"

Thought process behind it:

"He is easy to talk to.  He knows the answers.  I need this answer.  I will go get it.  No need to wait.  He is approachable.  His door is always open and he greets me well. He will smile.  Good guy.  Nice kids, too.  Smart man.  I will get coffee first and see if he wants one too. "


2.  "Will ask the boss about it."

Thought process behind it:

"I need the info but I hesitate to ask him.  He is not the easiest to talk to.  Maybe someone will beat me to it. Maybe I can figure it out on my own.  I'll give it an hour, and if no one knows by then, I will go and ask.  I am slightly hesitant.  I don't want him thinking that I can't figure things out for myself.  I've been here two years.  I don't know what to do.  I should flip a coin."

3.  "Think will ask the boss about it."

Thought Process behind it:


"He is a pain in the neck.  I need this info but he always acts like we are interrupting his on line surfing time and then acts like we should have known it anyway.  He probably doesn't even know the answer and he will know we are putting the responsibility of not knowing on his shoulders.  He'll resent us all.  One of us will have to get the info, but it ain't gonna be me.  I don't need the stress. I've been here two years and this guy is a magician at disappearing acts yet he always looks good to the top.  Nah, I am not the one.  Someone else has to, but it will be on all of us.  We will look bad.  He is nasty.  I would like to spill my coffee on his desk."


Monday, March 7, 2016

Peyton Manning's Denial



Peyton Manning has made a denial of sorts. 

Note how he violates the principle of a Reliable Denial while giving us additional information:

"It is sad that some people don't understand the truth and the facts.  I did not do what has been alleged, and I am not interested in re-litigating something that happened to me when I was 19 years old."

If you thought "nothing happened" when he was 19, you now know differently and it is something that could be "litigated."  

The Reliable Denial has 3 components.  If one is missing or changed, it is no longer reliable.  If a 4th or 5th is added, it is no longer reliable. 

Here, he says

"I did not do what has been alleged"
with

1.  "I" pronoun = Reliable
2.  "did not" is past tense and is just as Reliable as "didn't" statistically 

3.  Allegation answered?

"I did not do...what has been alleged" deliberately leaves out what was alleged. 

His statements continue to show deception.  He did not do "what has been alleged", which is not only non described, but it is also passive voice; concealing identity.  

Yet, "what happened" could be "litigated" but it is not because he is not "interested."  

It is close to an admission.  It is an admission in that "it happened" but it is not a confession in that he does not take responsibility instead he gives us even more insight into his personality as a 19 year old and as a 40 year old:

he blames the victim.  

This is not a man who takes personal responsibility and likely has more that he has "been gotten out of" by others.  

Saturday, March 5, 2016

DeOrr: Analysis of Attorneys

Defense attorneys loathe their clients' speaking to the press.  They recognize, perhaps acutely, how leakage works and just how much information the guilty reveal. 

Question:  When an attorney issues a statement about his or her client, is it of value to analyze?

Answer:   Yes.  

It often reveals what the attorney believes about his client's guilt. 

When the child was reported missing, the parents were indicated for deception and revealed, through slipping into past tense language, belief that DeOrr was dead.  

The language also suggested that DeOrr was not an unwanted child of chronic abuse, which led me to consider that DeOrr likely died as a result of unintentional death; an accident due to some form of neglect, and the parents panicked and conspired to report him missing. 

DeOrr Sr's language shows extreme sensitivity regarding his actions in his truck and while calling police. 

While describing his hope that his son is alive, he slipped into past tense language several times. Sensitivity indicators within his language showed that he was surpressing information.  This is more than passively withholding information; it is information that he must actively keep from coming out.  

He also went into lengthy tangents and the speed of transmission suggests self confidence.  This is likely why he volunteered to take polygraphs that he did not pass:  he believed he would.  He went on to praise the work of police who had failed to find his son.  These statements were made early in the search, with no indication that DeOrr was deceased. Parents of a  missing child find no reason to praise anyone early in the search:  this is something that may come much later, after the death has been accepted (processed in the brain) but not early on.  

He did so early and he did so in more detailed language than he gave to his son. 

This, too, affirmed the past tense references and it is something to listen to in the language of missing children's parents who have guilty knowledge:  they do not express concern for what the missing child is experiencing:  does he have his bottle, his blankie, her medication, her dolly...and so forth.  Instead, the priority comes out in the language:  What they, themselves, are experiencing.  They, themselves, are in need of help; not the deceased child.  

That DeOrr went into great detail about the very instruments and techniques used by searchers is not only a tangent away from "what happened" (thus showing the need to suppress) but also was a predictor of sorts on who might be willing to polygraph:  his wording showed confidence.  Not only was it a tangent, but it was a lengthy, detailed tangent.  This is the language of habitual liars.  These are those who feel themselves superior, even to polygraphs, as they have had a lifetime of success in deception.  This is why he dominated the interview, yet, in his own words, he, himself, was the one in trouble, not the little child who was incapable of self provision.  

When an attorney is aware of his client's guilt, the attorney, himself, will leak this information out in his choice of words; conversely, those who believe in their client's innocence will even use wording similar to a reliable denial and will base their argument on this belief.  We saw this in a statement by the attorney for the former college football player falsely accused of rape.  The player issued a reliable denial and later his attorney wrote what amounts to the same thing:  he does not fear evidence  nor testimony because "he didn't do it", as a recurring and easy to follow theme. (Jamesis Winston).  This is the basis of an attorney's thinking which is why we look for two things from an attorney:

1.  To raise the accusation (s) against his client
2.  To issue the denial which will reflect the principles of a Reliable Denial in analysis. 

Therefore, in the case of missing DeOrr, we expect such things as,

'The private investigator said that the mother knows where the body is.  This is not true; she does not know where the body is' or,
'The private investigator said that the father knows DeOrr died as a result of an accident.  This is not true because the father has told the truth when he said...' and so on.  

Quite simply:  When an attorney makes a statement, verbally or in writing, analysis will show if he believes his client's innocence or not.  Attorneys counsel their clients to be quiet, yet reveal much information themselves.  Search Billie Jean Dunn and John Young, her attorney, to see examples of such.  

When this attorney made this statement, he does so presupposing that some will read it and believe him, agreeing with his conclusion, and others will not.  

What does the attorney for the family of missing DeOrr think?

It is found HERE and it gives fascinating insight into the case, the private investigator, while revealing the attorney's own thoughts.  

He reported that the private investigator was paid $20,000 and was supposed to keep his findings confidential while sharing them with the family who hired him. 

It is interesting that he wrote that the private investigator was "hired to find" the child and "he was unsuccessful."

Then he wrote the following about responsibilities.  Is this a legal responsibility that was stated in the contract, or is it a public relations statement, to counter the "hate" that the attorney references?

"As a private investigator hired by Mr. Kunz, he has an obligation to share his findings with his client.  He also has an obligation to keep his findings confidential.  The week of January 25, 2016, Mr. Klein made inflammatory public statements to the effect that he has been doing an investigation and has found that there is no evidence to contradict the Lehmi County Sheriff's conclusion that the parents of Dennis Kunz' grandchild should be named as suspects in this case. Mr. Klein's statements caused many to believe that Vernon DeOrr Kunz and Jessica Mitchell were responsible for their son's disappearance, and that Mr. Klein had proof, and this caused the public to hate these people."

It is interesting to note that he does not say that a confidentiality agreement, fairly standard, was part of the contractual obligation.  He was hired to find the child is what is stated.  

Later, in describing DeOrr Kunz meeting with the FBI and investigators against his advice, the attorney wrote:  

"He met with them anyway, because he has not done anything wrong."

This is to acknowledge that he did do something, but what he dies was not "wrong."  It is not to say, "He met with them anyway because he did not cause DeOrr's disappearance."

We look for a reliable denial, issued by an attorney, on behalf of his client. 

We generally find the opposite:  An attorney who either knows his client is guilty, or who is in doubt and his own choice of words reflect this. 

They intend to sue the private investigator.  

Tuesday, March 1, 2016

DeOrr Investigator: Death and Cover Up

Most readers have the same conclusion:  parents deceptive because of unintended death, panic, and cover up...Statement Analysis shows deception via withheld information.  Recall the acknowledgement of them being "in trouble" without concern for what the child was going through. 


KUNZ INVESTIGATOR: JESSICA MITCHELL KNOWS WHERE DEORR’S BODY IS


Philip Klein, a private investigator hired by the extended family of missing toddler DeOrr Kunz Jr., announced Monday that he believes the child was intentionally or accidentally killed while on a camping trip with his parents. He also said (Vernal) DeOrr Kunz, DeOrr’s father, Jessica Mitchell, DeOrr’s mother, and Robert Walton, DeOrr’s grandfather, know more than they are saying about the child’s disappearance.


Nate Eaton, EastIdahoNews.com reporter: Last night you announced you had completed the third phase of your investigation in the disappearance of DeOrr Kunz Jr. Explain what that means.


Philip Klein, Klein Investigations: There were three phases to this investigation so far.
First, we wanted to start the investigation from the ground up. We didn’t want influence from law enforcement, we didn’t want influence from family, we didn’t want influence from anybody. All we knew was there were four people on a mountain and a child went missing.
We went back and rebuilt this case from ground zero. We interviewed probably over 150 witnesses and followed up on, I think, 300 tips.
We have declared it now an accidental death/homicide and we’ve based it on a few things.
I want to go over those things very clearly because there’s a lot of public conjecture at this point.

I want to announce for the first time we, law enforcement and the FBI have interviewed Vernal Kunz (DeOrr Sr.), the father of DeOrr, nine times. He’s been given nine interviews and none of the stories he has told has matched or even been verified.

That is very disturbing for us as investigators. He’s given us a story, and when we go out and try to prove up simple things on the timeline it falls apart quickly.

Eaton: Can you give us examples of the inconsistencies?

Klein: We can’t even match simple things like filling up with gas at a diesel store in Leadore on the day of the event. He clearly says that the gentleman who was pumping the gas actually saw the child. We interviewed the guy who had supposedly seen the child and he comes back and says, ‘I don’t remember seeing a child.’

Simple things like a dog in the back of the pickup – there was no dog.
Little things that investigators look at as simple things Vernal has not been able to verify with us.

As for Jessica, she has given five interviews to law enforcement and none of the stories she’s given us matched. In fact, she changes her story depending upon what day it is and what day we talk with her.

That’s very disturbing to us. We can’t even verify basic information that Vernal tells us and neither of their stories match. It’s not even close, as a matter of fact.
Eyewitnesses that they have listed – from guys that distribute the beer to the clerk at the store to the person that pumped the gas to the basic timeline information – Vernal and Jessica tell us one story but then the witnesses say no, that never happened. Here’s what did happen. 

So we take all of that and we come back to them with, ‘OK, tell us what really happened because all these witnesses you have given us, they don’t match.’
And so they tell us the story and again. We go out and we try to reverify with different witnesses. Then, in some cases, some say, ‘We don’t even know who these people are. Who are you talking about?’
Not only that, it comes down to simple things like they played with DeOrr at the store. We talked to the witnesses before and after who didn’t even see a child (in the store).

It brings concern to us and brings us to the question of why would they lie to us? Why would they not just tell us the truth?

We add that Vernal has gone in for five polygraph tests from different polygraph test administers – state, local and federal government. Vernal not only failed all five but he failed all five in the 99th percentile. That is hugely disturbing to us.

He can’t even pass a non-control question like, “Are you gonna tell us the truth today?” He flunks it and not only does he flunk it, he doesn’t just spike in his polygraph test, it’s like a wave. That disturbs us tremendously.
Then we move to Jessica. Law enforcement gives Jessica four different tests. Jessica failed not only to the 99th percentile but she can’t pass simple control questions. 

That’s not because she’s nervous. She’s able to pass her name, she’s able to pass where she is today, she’s able to pass the certain questions that are no-brainer questions, but doesn’t even come close to what happened to DeOrr or, ‘Are you going to tell the truth today?’ She fails so bad that in my 26 years, I’ve never heard of a person failing that bad.

Today we’re going to announce that there was a cadaver dog interaction with certain equipment at the site and that cadaver dog did hit positive. I can’t go any further than that other than we do have a dog that did hit in the initial two weeks of the primary investigation.

Eaton: This wasn’t up at the reservoir concerning the cremains? (Law enforcement had previously announced cremains were dumped into the reservoir around the time of DeOrr’s disappearance, but said they were unrelated to this case.) 

Klein: I’m not going to discuss where it was or the circumstances around it because it will be an integral part of the prosecution, and I don’t want to the hurt the prosecution, but a cadaver dog did hit. That has never been announced before, but we’re announcing it today because we feel the public needs to know.
I’m also going to announce to you today that Jessica herself has told investigators on our team she knows where the body is but she will not go all the way and finish her story.

This has been very disturbing to us. We have attempted to work with Jessica tremendously. We have offered to fly her to Texas to give her the opportunity to get away from Idaho because she’s scared of some situations. 
I believe some of it is paranoia that has set into her at this point because she knows the walls are closing in around her but I will announce today that Jessica has told our investigators that she knows where the body is, but she won’t go all the way and say more.

That is a huge piece of evidence in this case and we’re very concerned about it. We’ve asked Jessica privately, and now we’re asking her publicly to come in and tell law enforcement about what happened.

Also today we are willing to announce that in our interviews with the grandfather, he did admit to investigators that he believes there was an accident. He will not go all the way and tell the complete truth at this time.
We are willing to announce that Isaac Reinwand has given us some statements that we are vetting at this time. As soon as we’re done vetting those statements, there there may be a further announcement from law enforcement. 

Eaton: When Jessica says she knows where the body is, has she given you any suggestions or tips?

Klein: She has broken down in an interview with us, and I understand she’s broken down in an interview with law enforcement, that she does know in fact where the body is.

Eaton: Could she be criminally charged now that she’s admitted that she knows where the body is?

Klein: I’m a civil investigator, but I see a lot of problems for Jessica and Vernal.
First of all they have been lying to federal agents with the FBI and the task force. 
The second problem on the table is if it was an accident, there would be some laws regarding what they did what the body, not reporting an accident, those sort of things. 
We’re publicly asking Vernal, we’re publicly asking Jessica and we’re publicly asking Jessica’s grandfather, Bob, to let’s bring this to an end.
Enough of lying, enough of trying to mislead investigators, enough of going on Facebook and Instagram and Twitter and all these things and trying to mislead the public.
I’m just very frustrated with Vernal, I’m very frustrated with Jessica and I’m very frustrated with their inability to tell the truth. 
I’m frustrated with them trying to mislead investigators not only on our side, but FBI, who you don’t mess with, you be honest with them. And then of course to the fine people in Bonneville County and Lemhi County. They are stuck in the middle of this and are trying to just get them to tell the truth.

Eaton: When investigators confront them about their inconsistencies, what’s their response? Do they double down, or does the story change?

Klein: The story changes. They don’t ever double down. It goes off into a world that you – you know, you can’t be dumb all the time. Even things in the timeline such as where was the blanket, where was the sippy cup – nobody can tell the truth.
Quite frankly, the stories all break down at 8 o’clock in the morning. The only time their stories are true and correct and we can verify is the night before and then after the 911 call. Everything can not be verified between 8 o’clock in the morning and 2:26 in the afternoon when the 911 call was made – we can’t verify anything. I mean nothing. Zero. Doughnut hole.

Eaton: Where does the investigation go from here?

Klein: We’re going to Phase 4 of this case. It’s the actual ground hunt. We know an area that we will be going into. We will probably be up there with different teams within the next 30 days. 
We do have those places we’re going to hunt under surveillance to make sure nobody comes in and nobody goes out of those areas. 

Eaton: Is there anything you’d like to add?

Klein: The people of Idaho Falls and Lemhi County should be absolutely ecstatic with the law enforcement – from the FBI to the sheriff’s department – these guys are dedicated people.
On behalf of my nine investigators, I’d just like to say thank you to the people of Idaho.

I mostly hope that Vernal and Jessica and their families take a step back. They are very protective over them. They are in denial. You must understand that Vernal’s family and Jessica’s family – they are innocent in this. They are just doing what family members do and they are circling around their loved ones. They are in denial and they need to come out of denial. This is a very, very serious situation.