Christopher Lockhart Husband of Missing Wife: Statement

hat tip:  John

The following is an article on the disappearance of Theresa Lockhart.   Commentary and statement analysis in bold type.

Analysis Question:  

Is the husband of Theresa Lockhart telling the truth?

PORTAGE, Mich. (WOOD) — The man detectives have identified as a person of interest in a Schoolcraft teacher’s disappearance denies any involvement.

Christopher Lockhart told 24 Hour News 8’s Lynsey Mukomel over the phone Saturday morning he has given investigators all of the information he has on his wife, Theresa Lockhart, and that he has been cooperative despite their statements to media.

With no quote, please note that he has told them "all."  This is very important. 

Honest people who are missing a loved one do not ever feel that they have told everything as long as the person is missing.  They lose sleep and often contact law enforcement incessantly with such things as,

"I just remembered..." and "I was thinking that this might be important..."

It is incessant.  

On Friday the Portage Department of Public Safety named Christopher as a person of interest in their investigation.

They have deliberately put him on the defensive.  Since I do not know what interviewing/interrogation detail, I presuppose that this is part of an overall strategy. 

Theresa, a Spanish teacher at Schoolcraft Community Schools, was reported missing on Saturday, May 20, by school officials after she didn’t show up for work. Her car was found that same weekend just a couple miles from her home at a park-and-ride off of Angling Road.

Her husband cites a history with anxiety and depression, plus a potential non-renewal of her teaching contract after this school year as an explanation for her sudden disappearance.

Although we may feel that this is victim blaming, such is often done in very subtle ways and we do not know what questions were asked here.  

Journalists trained in Statement Analysis have a distinct and clear advantage over those without training, absent an agenda which perverts truth.  

Christopher said the district was trying to force her into resigning and she had been struggling the week leading up to her disappearance.

Dr. Rusty Stitt, superintendent of Schoolcraft Community Schools, told 24 Hour News 8 Saturday that Theresa initiated a potential resignation, however.

The district never received a formal resignation though and continues to pray she will return safely, Dr. Stitt said. Her contract runs through the end of this school year.

Her husband believes stress at work was too much and went on to explain that she received help in the past for her mental health without telling him.

“When she left I assumed she was going to get herself some help. That’s why I wasn’t really too worried about it at that point in time because I want to keep her issues private.  I basically told them the same story I’m telling you, that she up and left. She’s done this before. I didn’t think she had a job to go back to.”

Here we find a linguistic indication of withheld information.  This statement alone should cause the interviewer to focus, specifically, in the short time period just before she "left", as he is deliberately withholding information.  

Regardless of her situation at work, why would Christopher not cooperate with police if he’s not guilty of anything? Investigators told 24 Hour News 8 Lockhart will not let them search their home.

“I don’t recall in any way that they asked if they could come in and take a look around. That was never asked of me…,” 

Withholding of Information 

Here, he begins his statement with what he does not "recall."  He then qualifies (the rule of the negative) with "in any way" and uses minimizing language of "take a look around", rather than "search."

Lockhart claimed. He said an officer originally took a statement a few days after she had been last seen, then detectives showed up in his driveway unannounced a few days later.

Here we see what is often called "full cooperation" in a statement.  Those who give full cooperation in a missing person's case do not always feel the need to state it.  

“It was at that point after talking to that detective that it was like, OK, we’re going to handle everything through a lawyer.  I’m not acting unusual. I’m going to and from work. I’m carrying on normally around here as best I can. The initial officer came in the doorway and I let him in… I gave them the ability to contact her friends and her family but other than that I don’t see that there’s any other way I can help the investigation. Her car was found and returned. It’s in good working order… I’m assuming if something looked like had happened there, I’d assume they would’ve kept the car.”

Here is what we know from his statement.  

1.  Ingratiation Rejection   "OK" 

This is where he sought to align himself, unnecessarily (linguistically) with police and now feels rebuffed.  

2. "We're" is him and someone else (attorney in context) as he does not want to be psychologically "alone" with police.  

3.  "Everything" is "handled" (keep this in mind as the statement unfolds)

4.  "I let him" shows authority/control over police.  

5.  "I gave them"shows authority/control over police.  

This is critical information.  

The subject gives linguistic indicators of control when no such control is warranted. 

This is strongly suggestive of domestic violence.  Not only does he show the language of control in an unnecessary manner, but he does it in context of police.  It is this same police that have named him as a Person of Interest in her disappearance.  This requires in depth analysis, but suffice for now, it helps give us insight into some elements of what life may have been like for Theresa.  

Key:  He exercised linguistic control over police while his wife is missing.  This is not about him letting police in or anything similar:

It is about him telling us what he did.  

Remember:  this is not reality; it is his own verbalized perception of his relationship with police while his wife is missing.  

Mentioning the car may indicate confidence that they won't find evidence in the car to indict him.  

6. Normality:  His statement about him being normal is also unnecessary as he belies that his behavior has been anything but normal for an innocent man.  This is why it enters the language.  

We observe behavior.  When someone needs to linguistically cause us to observe behavior, we are dealing with persuasion.  

Next: 

He is now victim blaming:  

About a quarter of the way through the conversation Lockhart added their tenth wedding anniversary is this October. 

“I’m terribly worried about her, I don’t know where she’s at… I’m holding out hope that, you know, nothing has gone wrong. There’s no evidence right now to indicate anything is wrong.  Did something bad happen to her? Yeah, that’s absolutely possible. But could she also have picked up and left and, you know, drove off and decided I’m going to start a new life somewhere with somebody else or did she check herself into a hospital? It’s like all these other avenues are distinct possibilities.”

He does not know "where she's at" which is often used to describe relationship status, not locale.  "I don't know where she is" is stronger unless the body has been dumped in moving water.  

Lockhart said for now his attorney has advised him not to answer detectives’ questions.

Those who care nothing but the safe recovery of their loved one are not hindered by attorneys, nor by threats, coercion, warnings, or anything else.  Instinct to find the missing person takes over for the innocent.  Those who yield to their attorney have a need to yield to their attorney.  

I have seen family members of missing persons get themselves in trouble because this powerful instinct is difficult to control.

When you see it under control from the beginning, consider that the subject may not be displaying urgency.  

“I think the police just don’t have anything more right now and I guess they’re trying to shake some trees and see what falls out. It’s an attempt to embarrass me and put pressure on me.”

He knows why he is a Person of Interest, hence the weak assertion repeated in "think" and "guess." 

Consider the linguistic indicators of control and now add narcissistic indicators to it, as a portrait of this "normal" man emerges. 

In domestic violence, advocates often see "control" everywhere, and make consistent error in their attempts to protect women.  

We look not so much as for control (many couples say one person is better with money than the other), but we look for the verbalized perception of control.  This is far more effective than any checklist.  Remember:  most victims are not controlled by violence.  They are controlled by the threat of violence.  We look for linguistic indicators not only of control, but of narcissistic-like elements and de-sensitization.  Although this topic is too broad for a single article, even within his short statements, he gives much insight into his personality, including the lack of human empathy for the victim.  


Analysis Conclusion:

Christopher Lockhart is deceptively withholding information about what happened to Theresa.  

Even within this article we have a subject who is giving police (and now the public) the "one of two impressions" that every subject, innocent or guilty give:

The subject is either working with police to facilitate the flow of information, 

or the subject is not. 

Here, police have him rightfully named as a Person of Interest. 

For training in detecting deception, visit "training opportunities" at 

Hyatt Analysis Services

Madeleine McCann Case: The Free Editing Process

When we speak, there is an intention of being understood.  This is the presuppositional position within analysis:  

The person who is using words holds to an intention that his words will be understood. This makes all communication subject to analysis.  I have interviewed and analyzed in 2nd languages, and have interviewed non verbal adults with developmental disabilities.  If the subject holds to the intention of communication, analysis can be done. 

Free Editing Process

The Free Editing Process is where one is freely choosing his own words, rather than use the language of another.  The element of time is critical within the Free Editing Process. 

With an average personal dictionary in excess of 20,000 words within a person's brain, consider what process takes place when one is asked to "Tell me what happened."

Editing Process

Everyone must self-edit to tell "what happened" in every and all answers.  

The subject (speaker) must now go into his or her personal dictionary and choose:

1.  Which words to use
2.  Which verb tenses to use
3.  Where to place each word next to another in order to fulfill intention of communication 
4.  Decide which information to use and which to leave out.  No one can ever tell us everything that happened because it would never end.  This is only natural that the choice will reveal the subject's priority.  
5.  Which pronouns to use (for example, "we" when there is more than one person in mind) 

The subject is not telling us reality, but his or her own perception of reality.  

This process of choosing the words, syntax and editing is extremely rapid.  The person's brain has processed this information in less than a microsecond of time.  In less time than it takes you to blink your eye, the brain has processed what happened when Gerry and Kate McCann were asked by police,

"What happened?"

Missing Children 

We use a system of "the expected versus the unexpected" within analysis.  Although it may begin with,  "What would I say if I came home and my child was missing?" but moves to a data base of cases known and documented, as well as studies of reduction where what people said has been studied.  In this "data base" collected for many decades and more studies than I can even begin to compile, we establish:

"The Expected Versus The Unexpected."

Rather than rely upon one individual's hypothetical "what would I do?" answer, the reference point is how innocent parents communicate compared to how parents with guilty knowledge of their child's disappearance/murder communicate. 

Disagreements: 

There are two basic objections:

1.  Objection:   "You don't know how you'd react in that situation!"

Answer:  "Yes, we do.  We have a large body of research to show exactly how truthful people sound in this situation and how those who have been found guilty sound in this situation.  

This is a common excuse to dismiss guilt.  Cindy Anthony, mother of killer Casey Anthony said.  "Just because someone tells a few mistruths doesn't make them a murderer."  Indeed.  Yet, the outright fabrication of reality, rather than deceiving by withholding information, is rare (10%) and is the language of sociopathic elements within murderers who hold no true human empathy for anyone but self.  

2.  Objection:  

When one disagrees with analysis, we sometimes find the following in various forms:

"Well, I wouldn't say that if my child disappeared!"  

Answer:   Principle is build upon general and overwhelming data.  There will always be an exception.  For the narcissist, the exception is the rule of thumb because it is self-centered. 

Several months ago, while working with a team of analysts on an anonymous letter, I came upon a phrase that I put out a question to:

Is this phrase complimentary, or is it, in any way, negative?  Most saw it as a subtle insult but it was not until a bit more regional expressions were compared that consensus emerged:  in this locale, it is insulting.  I went with consensus.  

Mothers of Missing Children 

When a child goes missing, the parent speaks with the presupposition that the words that come out of her mouth, as a mother, will be understood.  Even if the subject intends deception, there is an expectation that the audience will understand her words, with the intention of leading the audience away from the truth. 

When an innocent mother speaks, she may be just as emotionally traumatized as the guilty mother (the guilty mother will cry real tears and feel deep fear, remorse, guilt, etc, just as the innocent mother will), and her words will be used by her presupposing that whoever is listening will understand. 

Neither mother is likely to choose a local colloquialism that will confuse the audience unless she wants the audience confused. 

Truth comes from experiential memory, while those who are actively speaking (freely choosing her own words), speak from chronological order, with a priority on finding the missing child. 

Even while great emotional upheaval is present, the message will be clear. 

What is the expectation of innocent mothers of missing children?

The innocent mother will go into her personal dictionary and in less than a micro second, will tell us:

1.  Her priority is her child
2.  Her child is alive
3.  Her child must be found
4.  She calls out to her child
5.  She pleads with the kidnapper 

When does this happen?

It happens immediately.  It happens in less than a micro second whether or not police advise her to remain silent or what to say.  It is a powerful instinct recognized since antiquity that  a mother is created with.  In this sense, she has no choice but to express this powerful maternal instinct.  

The guilty mother will go into her personal dictionary and will have a disruption in the speed of transmission.  She has a new pressure (stress) in which she must say "what happened" while editing out any information that will bring suspicion upon her. 

Both mothers are emotionally charged and traumatized to some extent. 

The guilty mother will show a priority of:

1.  Concealing what happened becomes a priority.  She must try to slow down the process and even, at times, interrupt it.  
2.  She will also speak truth.  She will emphasize truthful elements because these are stress-reducing words. This will be evident in slowing down the pace of the chronology of what happened, and it often produces additional and unnecessary detail. 

Emergency calls make analysis easy. 

Remember the case of the missing Florida girl where the babysitter/step mother Misty Croslin called police?

What did her brain produce? In less than a microsecond of time, when she had to tell police what happened, here is what she said: 

1.  "Hello"?   

This is called the Ingratiating Factor, where the subject's guilt causes them to seek some form of acceptance by authority.  We find this, if rejected, will turn into oppositional scorn and anger.  While initially feigning "full cooperation", the liar often turns and attacks later.  

2.  "I was asleep..."

Here her brain told her tongue to protect herself by creating her alibi before she tells them what happened.  She, herself, is more important (priority) than the "missing" child.

3.  "The door was open..."

Here is the delaying of information.  It was true:  the door had a brick blocking it from closing and she is pleased to give out such information because it is true. 

4.  "and our daughter is missing..."

She finally gets to the critical information.  


Behavioral Analysis 

Consider the absurdity of the following.  

You were grocery shopping with your toddler, and turned to check a price and the toddler was gone. 

What would you do?

You'd call her name and look for her. 

Would you:

a.  keep shopping?
b.  finish your shopping?
c.  load your car?
d.  drive home?
e.  unload groceries at home?
f.  eat lunch?
g.  Take a nap?

Wake up and now call emergency services to help find your daughter?

This is what Gerry and Kate McCann essentially have done, but add in:

Attack those who disagree
Dedicate lives to self preservation

When a child goes missing, the parent will say:

Madeleine is kidnapped.  

The kidnapper will be identified by the parent.  It will not be in passive voice.  

Why not?

Objection:  Passivity is appropriately used when the subject does not know the identity of the kidnapper, responsible for kidnapping Madeleine.

Answer:   The kidnapping of a child from a mother (and bio father) is to enflame the single most powerful instinct within woman.  It is even more powerful than breathing or self preservation.  History is replete with accounts of women who have sacrificed their own lives, without a moment to even consider, instinctively to save their children' lives.  It is not only personal to the mother, but there is nothing more personal to the mother than a stranger putting his hands on the child.  

Someone kidnapped Madeleine, not "she has been taken" which de-personalizes and conceals the identity of the person who "has taken" her.  Kate did not say, "someone took her" but "has taken" is (in Statement Analysis) an "imperfect" past tense; it is used to emphasize something truthful. It also elongates time (element) in the subject's wording. 

It is truthful.  

Madeleine has been taken.  I believe Kate.  Kate also said that she hid her incredibly well.  I believe this too. 

Two Questions:  What and When. 

1.  What would an innocent Kate McCann sound like?

1.  Madeleine is kidnapped. 
2.  Madeleine is alive. 
3.   Madeleine must be found. 
4.  Give me my daughter back.  

This can be said through tears, or through stony icy cold resolve.  It can be said in hysterics or it can be said in composure, but it is what innocent people say when their child has been kidnapped.  

2.  When is this said?

Immediately. 

This is the point of the Free Editing Process. 

When there is a delay to say these things, the subject has not only denied her own maternal instincts, but she is now giving "contaminated words"; that is, words spoken well after the event because of external influence.  It could be the cries of the disbelieving public, or the suspicions of the police. 

When Kate McCann finally made this speech it is akin to not only the absurdity of going home from the food store and putting away the food, napping and waking up: it is akin to doing this for the next two years before finally deciding, "I guess I better talk to the kidnapper now."

Absurdity creates anger. 

When someone is not speaking from experiential memory, but disrupting memory in order to deceive, it often sounds absurd.  When people hear this, they become naturally angry.  It is the same as fake news. 

It insults us.  

Liars hold their audiences in some level of contempt and when not believed, this contempt may increase to the point of going on the offensive with threats and suits against those who do not believe their lie.  

Gerry and Kate McCann have held the world in contempt for ten years.  They have grown in their contempt to the point of attacking others with threats and suits.  This is no different than what liars do, such as Lance Armstrong who sought to destroy reputations, businesses and the lives of anyone who dared doubt him.  Even his televised mea culpa employed deception.  

The McCanns can read a statement here or hear it on the news and call a press conference and say

"We did not cause Madeleine's death.  Madeleine was kidnapped and we appeal to you who have her..."

It is no longer the Free Editing Process.  

In an Australian newspaper, Gerry McCann did not give  weak denial of killing Madeleine, he gave an "unreliable denial."  

After ten years, there is nothing he could say to make it "reliable."  

OJ Simpson can now stand up and say, "I did not kill Nicole", but it is no longer a reliable denial.  This was something we expected to be said in the initial police interview.  This would have turned the burden of the interview over to police because no matter where the interview went, if he did not kill her, he is behind the Wall of Truth.  

No matter the local expressions, nor the emotions, body language, nor any other factor, it was ten years ago that they were incapable of telling us that their daughter, Madeleine, was kidnapped.  

It was not in their language.  It is, however, in the language of absurdity of those who have dedicated their lives to defending the McCanns.  These defenders must say the words that the McCanns were incapable of saying. 

Statement Analysis is non interpretive and allows the subject to be believed. 

The same principles applied to the McCanns are applied to known liars.  The similarities are not "striking"; 

The similarities are consistent.  

In order to defend the McCanns, one must interpret their words and assign them new meaning, and speak for them.  

This absurdity is why McCann supporters use words like "hate" or attack personally, rather than address analysis.  This is why they must rely upon personal motive rather than fact.  

Portuguese police knew they did not have a kidnapping case, but stonewalling parents. 

In every interview, the subject will give you one of two impressions:

Either the subject is working with you to facilitate the flow of information to the same end (finding Madeleine) or

The subject is working against you to hinder the flow of information to conceal guilty knowledge of what happened. 

When someone "didn't do it", media interviews are often short and even dropped by media because they are not interesting. 

Truthful people issue a reliable denial, immediately, and it becomes a wall of truth of psychological protection.  They care about finding their child and show little linguistic concern about anything else.  If suspected, they immediately take a polygraph so that investigators can quickly get to the business of finding their child.  

How would you react if your child was kidnapped?

You'd be in an emotional state like nothing you've experienced and your instincts would have you:

Call out to your child;
Call out to your child's kidnapper;
and focus everything on finding your child.  

Timing?

Immediately.  

Not two years later.  

Not at the ten year anniversary.  

The language of Gerry and Kate McCann revealed that their daughter was dead and that they needed to conceal what had happened.  Please see here for analysis of their words.  In it, you are asked to follow the language and believe them as you go along.  
You should begin with the presupposition of a kidnapping and see if the McCanns will affirm this, or if their own words will talk you out of this position.  



For training in Statement Analysis, beginning with deception detection, visit www.hyattanalysis.com

We offer the Complete Statement Analysis Course in your home, via MP3 lectures and work book, as well as seminars for law enforcement, business, security, insurance, social services, and professions in which communication is key.  

Reversing the Dulled Listening Process

This video highlights how the brain interprets sound and vision at the same time.  

It is a good example of brain interpretation.  It is also why I often look away while conducting an interview as I am concentrating upon the words spoken, rather than be unduly influenced, emotionally particularly, by facial expressions. 

The process for hearing in which deceptive people exploit is reversed in formal and guided training's implementation of practice. 

That which we repeat we embed into habit.  Learning incorrectly will embed error. 

We use the written statement to begin this process and with the careful training and guided application, the person learns to "hear" the very same words that were once processed without further attention.  

That which, for example, sounded like a powerful, emotionally strong denial, wasn't. 

In fact, it was not a denial at all.  

We let the subject's own words guide us, knowing that most deception is from withholding information. 

The key is knowing that the withheld information is actively on the mind of the speaker, at the time of deception.  It is a priority to conceal this information, so that while yielding information, there are indicators of concealment apparent. 

Determining the subject's language is like dealing with a crossword puzzle.  When we have to decide what is the missing word, we should use the knowledge that we already have from other places in the puzzle.  

Next, these indicators are words specifically chosen and themselves, yield information.  

It is only when the analyst builds a large internal "data base" of deceptive language will the analyst appropriately discern deception. 

Once this becomes habit, content analysis begins...

For enrollment in training for you, your law enforcement department or private business, contact HyattAnalysis@gmail.com after visiting www.hyattnalysis.com and view our training opportunities. 


*Tuition payment plans available for law enforcement as well as seminar discounts for hosting departments.    

Statement Analysis in Everyday Life

I received the following from an investigator, analyst, and certified Statement Analysis instructor who is a part of our team.  He shows not only its usage, but a bit of fun he and his wife had.  

He is in training for advanced certification and a trusted colleague who's childlike enthusiasm and selfless sharing is a blessing to all who attend the team analysis sessions. In anonymous author identification, he is invaluable.  

This  highlights a simple and effective application of Statement  Analysis in everyday life. 

If you wish to enroll in training, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services. 

The Complete Statement Analysis Course is done at your home or office, and comes with 12 months of ongoing email support of your work.  In addition, you will receive a free invitation to a 6 hour live team analysis training session.  This allows you to put your knowledge to work while being guided by professional analysts and instructors. 

The course should not be rushed, and much repetition involved.  

The New Mattress

Thank goodness for Statement Analysis training and the ability to

 overcome the dulled listening that allows deceptive people to 

succeed.  

My wife, Barbara and I went shopping for a new mattress last week.  We first went to a well-known national mattress chain who advertised Memorial Day sales.  The salesman showed us the various name brand mattresses they carried.  Then, without being asked, the salesman said some of the mattresses were closeouts or blemishes.  This of course prompted the question from me:

  

Are these refurbished mattresses? 

The salesman responded appropriately…at first, by telling me “no.”  However, he then mitigated the “no” by telling me what they “can’t do,” which only showed sensitivity and raised my suspicion level: 

“We can’t sell them as new if the packaging has been opened for any reason.”  

He continued to dig the whole deeper by stating: “We aren’t like the 2^nd hand company down the street that sells refurbished mattresses.”  

I know he didn’t realize what he was doing, but he just compared himself with the company down the street that sells refurbished mattresses.  By now I had no intention of buying his mattress, but as a Statement Analyst, I couldn’t wait to hear what came out of his mouth next.

  

Q: What tool was I going to use to elicit more sensitive information from him?   

A: The exact same question that caused him psychological duress the first time around:

So, are these refurbished mattresses?

His response was priceless:

“No, they shouldn’t be. I mean we just can’t sell them as new if the package has been opened.”  

He should have shut his mouth at the “no.”  At the very least, he suspected they were refurbished.  At the worst, he knew they were refurbished and was desperately trying to convince me otherwise.  His problem was that his brain couldn’t contain the information he knew to be true, while formulating a deceptive and mis-leading statement. 

I wanted to toy with him more, but my wife new what I was doing and gave me “the eye,” which told me it was time to leave the poor salesman alone.

  

Needless to say, we didn’t buy from his store.  We did however, come away with a good laugh and a great lesson to pass on about the usefulness of Statement Analysis in everyday life.