Sunday, October 28, 2012

The Disappearance of David Hartley

The Disappearance of David Hartley

by Peter Hyatt

Analysis Question:  Has the subject truthfully reported what happened to her husband, David Hartley?

This would mean that she told the truth, and the complete truth in reported what happened, and did not withhold information.  

Background: On September 30, 2010, Tiffany Hartley made a 911 call. She began the call with, “hello” and told the 911 operator that her husband had been shot while on the Mexican side of Falcon Lake, in Texas.
Shortly after, she contacted the Denver Post and gave her story to them. She reported that she and her husband, David Hartley, were moving from Texas back to Colorado, and went out for a last visit to Falcon Lake, where David wanted to take pictures of a church which, on the Mexican side, was under water.
It was on the lake, she said, that Mexican pirates opened fire on her and her husband, while they were on jet skis, knocking him into the air. While they continued to fire upon her, she drove her jet ski to her injured husband, who lay floating face down, hit by gun fire to the head, and was forced, she said, to leave him to die, in order to save her own life.

After contacting the Denver Post, she began to show up on various news programs, including Good Morning America, The Today Show, On the Record with Greta Van Sustren, and upon each network news program, where, each morning and evening, the hosts declared her to be a hero, who courageously drove directly into oncoming bullets in an attempt to save her dying husband.

Gov. Perry from Texas declared her a hero and renewed his call for the border to be secured. Hartley’s family called upon President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton to make our border with Mexico a priority.

Gov. Perry stated that anyone who questioned Tiffany Hartley’s account needed to be “ashamed” of himself. Sheriff Ziggy Gonzalez, the chief law enforcement official from Falcon Lake Texas declared that Tiffany Hartley was 100% truthful, and that he saw “no need” for her to be polygraphed after Mexican officials expressed doubt over her story. As more challenges arose in media, the sheriff refused to polygraph her.  This raised the question of whether or not he would polygraph a man who came ashore claiming his wife had been shot by Mexican pirates. 
Then, one of the investigators into David Hartley’s disappearance was found be-headed in Mexico. This came just after the investigator told media that two brothers were wanted in Hartley’s disappearance, as well as other drug related murders.
The news programs announced that this was evidence that Tiffany Hartley’s story was credible and that she was a young, courageous victim. ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News, and CNN all declared her story to be credible and that the unfortunate death of the investigator was “proof” that Tiffany told the truth.
Mexican prosecutors, however, stated that the investigator had acted on his own, and that the brothers he named as suspects, were not suspects in David Hartley’s disappearance, but were wanted in other drug related killings, suggesting that the investigator used the Hartley disappearance as an attempt to put pressure on US law enforcement to help bring in the two brothers.

The following are interviews Tiffany Hartley gave shortly after reporting her husband had been shot and killed by Mexican pirates. Your analysis follows.

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: Tiffany, what happened?

This is the best open ended question.  It allows the subject to answer any way she wants, in particular, it allows the subject to start the event at her own starting point.  In this type of open ended question, the first sentence is always important as it can show priority.  Expected is the immediate, "My husband, David, was shot and killed..."

TIFFANY HARTLEY: David and I were on the Mexico side taking pictures. And we were heading back. Just had some boats come after us and started chasing us and started shooting at us. I had several bullets going over me and hitting behind me. And I looked back and David was hit.

Instead of starting with her husband being shot, her first sentence is concerned with her location:  geography. 

1.  This sets priority.  

It is critical to the subject that she establishes that she was on the "Mexico side" (not the "Mexican side") which means that it is up to Mexican officials to investigate, not US officials.  She would later go on to say that she did not want to return to Mexico because she feared arrest.   The priority is her location:  she was not on the U.S. side, where they would have jurisdiction to investigate.  

2.  The word, "And" indicates that there is a continual thought connecting her first sentence to her second, but the information is missing.  Between the word "pictures" and "And", there is missing information. 

3.  Note "we were heading back" sounds like story telling, rather than reporting. 

4.  "Just" is a word which reduces or minimizes an event via the means of comparison.  "The car costs just..." means that the price of the car is attractive when compared to something else.  Why would the 'murder' of her husband cause her to use the word "just" as if to minimize it?

5.  "Just had some boats" has no pronoun.  She did not say "we had some boats...." or even "we just had some boats...", but without the pronoun, she distances herself from the event.  In only these few words, we have two issues associated with "just" that cause us to seek to learn if this is deceptive. 

6.  "some boats":  Note that her story had already been reported and that pirates in boats chased them and shot him was already announced.  "Some" boats sound like just any boats out there, rather than something up close and very personal.  

7.  "Just had some boats come" uses the present tense verb, "come", reducing reliability.  Already in her answer, we can indicate deception.   It was a past event and it should have been reported as such.  

8.  Chronological order:  When someone recalls from memory, Mark Mcclish describes it this way:  It should be like a parade of events passing before their eyes, moving in chronological order.   Here she says:

"Just had some boats come after us" which puts the boats in motion in the present tense, but then she says, 

"started chasing us..." which she reported already;

9.  Activities Begun:  Take careful note when someone reports activities that are begun, but without completion:

"started chasing us" instead of "chased us" and
"started shooting at us" instead of "shot at us"

The past tense verbs show commitment to memory and the lack indicates that she is not committed to her account, which resembles story telling rather than a truthful account, in the past tense, from experiential memory. 

                                      This is why she refused to take a polygraph.  

10.  "several bullets"

Instead of saying she was fired on and missed "I had several bullets going over me and hitting behind me" uses additional language, which is unnecessary and sounds dramatic.  This is supposed to be a report of her husband being murdered and she has not gotten to it yet.  Someone on a jet ski, being chased by boats, would not likely think of the number of bullets ("several") and their locations.  

11. And I looked back and David was hit

She has yet to say her husband was murdered.  
"And" indicates missing information.
"I looked back" shows concern over her positioning. 

12.  Passivity  "David was hit" is unexpected.  Her husband was reported murdered.  Passivity in language indicates, often, a concealing of responsibility.  Since her husband was murdered, we should now wonder if the passive "David was hit" indicates that she knows who shot him, yet, he was only "hit" still; and not shot.  

She was asked about the "Mexican pirates" as they were in a known drug area.  She later said that David knew it was a known drug area, but took her anyway.  She said that David even talked to her about the possibility of being kidnapped!  This part of her story did not likely sit well with David's family as she portrayed him as someone so incredibly selfish that he was willing to put his wife in harm's way just to get pictures. 

Well, after we had taken the pictures at the church, we were on our way out when we saw boat outside of this little brush area that was underwater.

Her husband was murdered, but it was just "a" boat.  In spite of being prepared for possible kidnapping and violence, he got his pictures.  

Always take note when one claims to have seen, or thought, or heard, for another.  It is usually an indication that there is a 'need to share' in affirming an activity:  it is weak.  The subject does not want to say "I saw", so she reaches for the weaker, "we saw", as if to make it sound like there is another eye witness, not just her own testimony.  This is indicated as weak. 

When we were coming out, we saw them. They just waved at us, like we were -- you know, friendly, very friendly wave. We were on our way -- so we just continued, took a few more pictures, continued out. And we were, I don`t know, maybe halfway to the U.S. I can`t really give you a great idea of where exactly.

Here the subject feels the need to share everything; every thought, opinion, vision, etc.  She even stayed with the plural regarding taking pictures.  
"Friendly" is sensitive, as seen through repetition.  Note the broken sentence:

"They just waved at us like we were..."  and stops herself.  What was she going to say?  Was she going to say "like we were friends?"  This would support Pat Brown's assertion that David and Tiffany went deliberately to purchase drugs and it went bad.  

"So we just continued" tells us "why" they did something, yet it does not have anything within the text that would indicate a need to explain why.  This is a point of sensitivity as she has a need to explain, rather than report what happened. 

Note "you know" increases sensitivity as she considers the interviewer's presence at this point. 

Note her last sentence in terms of how many sensitivity indicators are there regarding location:

I can't "really" give you a "great" idea of where "exactly":  Deception indicated.  She knows the exact location and could not bring herself to say "I don't know where we were."  Three qualifiers in one sentence.  

VAN SUSTEREN: Were you riding side by side at the time you were flag or was he behind you? What happened?

Since the subject was committed to talking about the locations of each of them, the Interviewer goes with her.  She had to "look back" to see that he was hit.  Pat Brown had said that if this was really on land, and not on water, the story works where she ran and looked back. 

TIFFANY HARTLEY: He was between me and the boats. So he was keeping himself between me and the three boats that were shooting.

Another sensitivity indicator:  "so" explains why she did something.  

Please note that it was not someone who shot her husband, but three boats were shooting.  If we take the passive reference above, "David was hit" which passivity is used to conceal responsibility; along with the sensitive "friendly, very friendly", and now that "three boats" are shooting, it is likely that she knows who shot her husband and is deceptively attempting to portray the shooter as someone unknown, even assigning responsibility to boats shooting. 

VAN SUSTEREN: Did they say anything to you these people? Did they ever get close enough to say anything to you?

Compound question:   did they say anything?  did they get close enough?  

TIFFANY HARTLEY: No, they didn't.

We cannot be certain which one she is answering.  

VAN SUSTEREN: Had you seen them before the encounter?

This is a "yes or no" question for the subject herself.  It is the easiest of which to lie.  

TIFFANY HARTLEY: No. We haven't seen any boats from the time that we had launched to the time that we were at the church.

Deception indicated.  She answered the question, "no" but then betrayed her answer by not answering the question:

"we haven't seen any boats":
1. "we" and not "I".  The question is directed to her.  She can only conclusively answer for herself.  She cannot say that she knows all that David did not see.  David is dead.  
2.  "haven't" is present tense 
3.  "any boats" not any of the shooters or people involved.  This tripped her up later as well. 

Instead of saying "I did not see any of them" she is deceptive. 

VAN SUSTEREN: So, as you are fleeing, bullets are flying, you look at your husband, is that right?

TIFFANY HARTLEY: Yes, I saw two shots hit next to meAnd I looked back at my husband, that's when I saw, that he was flying over the jet ski.

Note that while on a jet ski, at a high speed, being chased with bullets flying behind her, she "saw" "two" shots; even able to know the number. 
"And" indicates missing information here. 
Note that he is not David, but "my husband" here.  What caused the change?
Note that he "was flying" and not "he flew".
She was able to see all of this, looking backwards, while operating a jet ski at high speed.  She does not use plain language, and cannot use past tense language, establishing commitment because she is not speaking from memory. 

VAN SUSTEREN: What did you do next?

TIFFANY HARTLEY: I turned around to go help him, see if I could get him back on my jet ski and get out of there.

Here, instead of telling what she did, she has the need to tell not only what she did, but the reason why she did it.  The question is plain and open:  What did you do next?  When someone tells us why they did something, they are telling us more than what we asked for.  This is sensitive information.  

Why would a wife of a shot man need to tell us why she turned around?  Why would she feel the need to tell us she went to help him after he was hit?

This did not proceed from memory. 

VAN SUSTEREN: When you were doing that, when you were attempting to help your husband, where were those other boats?

Since they were "chasing" her and "shooting" at her, and they were going at high speed.  Now when she stops, it would be that the "three" speeding boats would catch her.  But this would not work for her heroine of the story, so their positioning changes in mid story:  

TIFFANY HARTLEY: Two were in front of me quite a ways away. One actually came up to my boat, my jet ski, and they pointed the gun at me. They were talking amongst each other and pointed it back at me. Then they decided to leave. ...

Deception indicated.  Here she cannot keep her story straight and is caught. 
Note the change of language: 

One came up to my boat.  The "boat" is changed to "jet ski".  This should cause the investigators to learn if she and David had approached drug dealers in a boat or were taken to dealers via a boat and something went wrong. 

Note that pronouns are never wrong.  When pronouns are "wrong" it is deception indicated:

"They" (more than one; not singular) pointed "the gun", (singular) at "me."

Were more than one pirate all holding the same gun?  Note that "the" gun rather than "a" gun. Oops. First comes the introduction with the word "a" gun; and then comes the article, "the" after recognition. 

The two types of speech exempt from Personal Internal Subjective Dictionary are:

Pronouns and Articles. 

They never lie. 

They are never wrong.  

Deception is indicated. 

"They were talking amongst each other" indicates that they were close enough for her to hear them, even though above she was not close enough to talk to them.  This is simply the error that liars make in being unable to keep track of their lies. Talking amongst each other is casual listening of casual conversations, yet she heard them.  This is another indication that she is withholding the identity of the shooter. 

"and pointed it back at me"  Who?  They pointed it?  Did they still have a single gun and now pointed it back "again"?  She has utterly lost track of her story because it did not happen.

"Then they decided to leave" indicates that she knows that while they were "talking among themselves" she knew what they were thinking:  she could tell they made a decision.  How could she know?

Instead of reporting what happened, such as "they left", the extra words give us additional information: she was privy to their conversations.

VAN SUSTEREN: Did you say anything to them?

TIFFANY HARTLEY: And meet up with the other two boats.

She even knew their plans. 

Is it possible that David Hartley's family could listen to this and not know she was lying?  It may be that they now know the truth and let the story go due to the drug purchasing. 

VAN SUSTEREN: Did you say anything to them?

TIFFANY HARTLEY: Yes, I told them please don't shoot, don't shoot.

And the ruthless, decapitating killers, who fired many shots, scoring a direct head shot on David, while in motion on a boat, in choppy waters, also just missed all of the shots on her, but then found it in their hearts to not shoot her.  Could Greta Van Sustren buy this?

VAN SUSTEREN: At that point your husband was there. Was he within reach of you?

TIFFANY HARTLEY: I had a hold of him and I had a hold of my ski. We were both in the water, at that time

It was a "jet ski" and then it was a "boat" and now it is a "ski":  a change of language should reflect a change in reality.  If it doesn't, deception is indicated.  

VAN SUSTEREN: So how did you get away? If you got in other boat, and you are hanging on to your husband, hanging on to the jet ski, what happened?

TIFFANY HARTLEY: After I told them please don't shoot, they left and went with the other two boats. I got on my boat and I was trying to pull him up on my ski. And I couldn't get him up. I felt like God was telling me I had to go otherwise I wasn't going to make it out. I had to go past them. So I got on my ski and I had to leave David behind.

There are many signals of deception in this answer:

1.  They "left"; with "left" being highly sensitive with missing information
2.  They not only left, but they "went with the other boats" would indicate knowledge.  Did she watch the one boat pull away, and go to meet the other boats, and then on to another location?  All this while holding her 200lb+ husband with one hand, while on her "boat", "ski" "jet ski" with the other hand, after being composed enough to "tell" them not to shoot, please not to shoot?

3.  Note she got on her "boat"; change of language.
4.  Note next she tried to pull him on her "ski"; change of language. 
5.  "And" has missing information (lots of it)
6.  Note inclusion of what she felt:  that is, her emotions are in the "logical" or "perfect" place in the story; something that does not happen in reality (in reality, it takes time to process emotions, which is why, in truthful statements, emotions are found after the event, but in story telling, the emotions are in the "high point" of the story, grabbing the listener's interest)
7. Note inclusion of divinity in her story:  this shows the need for Divine witness, a weakness
8.  "Otherwise" is the same as "so, since, therefore, because" as it is "because" if she did not leave, she would die:  the center hero of the story. 

9.  Not only did she have to survive, and she had God talking to her...all after she survived the hail of gunfire that got her husband in the head; now she had to drive right back into the killing boats:  "I had to go past them"

10. "So" indicates need to explain her actions, indicating sensitivity.  Now that she is leaving him, he is "David"making "leaving" highly sensitive to the subject.  

Overwhelmingly deceptive story. 

Later, she gave the description that sounded exactly like the movie, "Titanic" where Rose leaves Leo. 

"I felt like God was telling me..."

Always note Divinity used to justify actions.  

VAN SUSTEREN: You actually drove towards those boats?

TIFFANY HARTLEY: Yes. I had to drive towards boats, go past them to get to safety.

VAN SUSTEREN: How close did you get to them when you drove past them?

TIFFANY HARTLEY: I honestly have no idea. I didn't look at them. I just drove and went as fast as my jet ski could go.

"honestly" have "no idea" is not credible. 
note that she reports what she didn't do. 
Note "just" as comparison and reduction. 

VAN SUSTEREN: What did you think the motive was?

TIFFANY HARTLEY: Who knowsWe have no idea. Most likely they just wanted money, which we don't carry on our -- with us. And it could have turned to both of us dying or me getting kidnapped, I don't know. We have no idea what the motive was.

1.  Note when someone asks a question in a response, it is very sensitive.  She asks "who knows?" when she is supposed to be in "past tense mode" which would cause me to ask:

To whom is this question directed?

I cannot help but wonder if she was asking this question to herself?  Who knows the truth?  What do they know?  What can they figure out?  

But then notice "we" have no idea.  David is dead.  Who is "we"?  Since the pronouns never lie, we can safely assume that she knows exactly why he was shot.  Why would she even say "we" since she was, allegedly, the only survivor of the Americans who can tell why?

2.  "We" (whoever that is) has no idea.  Next, she gives us her idea:  they just wanted money. This means she was not truthful when she said "we have no idea."

3.  Note about money:  "which we don;t carry on our, with us." is a broken sentence = missing information and it is in the present tense. 

It is likely that when they went to buy drugs, they were robbed.  She did not say "we did not carry money on us" committing herself to the statement, but went to the present tense to avoid lying. 

4.  She could have been kidnapped, she said, she does not know.  After giving us ideas on motive (money) she reaffirms that "we" have "no idea" indicating that she is lying, again. 

VAN SUSTEREN: Nikki, there has been a suggestion by the investigator in Mexico and the D.A. that they don't buy this story is your thought about this?

NIKKI HARTLEY, SISTER OF MISSING JET SKIER: We don't believe it for a minute. We believe everything that we have heard from Tiffany. We've never doubted that and we stand behind her 120 percent more than we can say there was never a question or thought that ever crossed our mind and it never will.

Note the sensitivity of "120 %", and "never doubted", "never a question" and "never a thought" which is in the plural:  speaking for the family, she knows they have never even had a thought of doubt:

This shows that there are those in the family who saw through this easily discernible lie. 

TIFFANY HARTLEY: Today I have met with the Mexican consulate.

VAN SUSTEREN: What did they ask you, Tiffany?

TIFFANY HARTLEY: Same thing everyone else is asking me, just the story, what happened. And they are sending my story (and) document to Mexico City and also to whoever it needs to go to so they can do what needs to be done.

Note that it goes from "just" "the story", separate from "what happened" but then there is a change:  it is now "my story" being sent.  Rather than what happened, or even the truth, it is her "story" with possessive pronoun.  
note that "so" indicates sensitivity about what they are going to do with her story. 

Tiffany Hartley refused to take a polygraph.  Tiffany Hartley has steadfastly refused to take a polygraph. 

VAN SUSTEREN: Tiffany, have they indicated that they have fully exhausted the search of the area? Are they actively looking for your husband?

TIFFANY HARTLEY: I don't know if they are actively looking right now. But with that documentation they can at least start doing what they need to do and connecting with the federal police and whoever they need to. I believe that they are going do what it takes as of right now.

This next section affirms the deception and is difficult for most to understand how an interviewer can miss the lie:  

When Hartley appeared on the Anderson Cooper show, she was asked, “what happened?”

HARTLEY: There were three boats that were chasing us and then one boat came up to me and saw two people in that boat. But there was a third or a fourth person in that boat. I just didn't see them.

Anderson Cooper did not ask how she was able to identify those she did not see.  Here she has knowledge of how many were on the boat, while offering that she did not see one or two of them.  This shows that she has more knowledge of what happened than she is willing to let on.  

On another show, Tiffany Hartley was asked: What happened?  It was difficult, especially in the first few appearances, to keep the story straight.  As someone repeats a lie often enough, they will eventually use self-references such as "like I said" and "as I said before" indicating that they are not working from memory of what happened, but memory of what they said previously. 


But we saw three boats coming towards us, and as soon as they started coming towards us, we just kind of started leaving. We passed them, and then they started chasing us. And once they started chasing us, they started shooting, and I had seen two shots next to me on my left. And that`s when I looked back to check on David, and that`s when I saw that he had been thrown off and into the water facedown.

Here, they "kind of" "started" leaving.  The "leaving" is sensitive. 
Here, they "passed" them and then they started chasing.  After the chasing came the shooting.  
Please note that even again, she does not say "they chased us" and "they shot at us" but uses the description of activities begun, but not completed.  

Note "I had seen" rather than "I saw"

Next, note that she has 4 qualifiers to the sentence:  "I went back to him"  It is rare to see more than one, but here she has 4 qualifiers attempting to persuade: 

And I, of courseno questions askednot even thinking, just went right back to him to make sure and check and see, check on him to make sure he was OK. When I flipped him over, he was shot in the head.

1.  "of course
2.  "no questions asked"
3.  "not even thinking"
4.  "right" back to him

This is like the person who says "I am very very very very happy" causing one to ask, in that non-Shakespearean, Shakespearan way "me thinks thou does protest too much" and ask:

Who are you trying to convince, you or me, that you are happy?

It is childish, cartoon like lying. 

"to make sure" tells us why:  attempt to persuade us that she cares for him. 
Note that he was shot "when" she turned him over. 

She cannot keep track of her lies. 

And a boat came up to me and tried -- you know, I don’t know.

She stopped herself from telling us what the boat came up to her to do.  Not a person, but a "boat"

They didn’t say anything to me,

Here she reports what was not said. 

so I don’t know what they were trying to think

"So" indicates sensitivity but notice that she does not know, not what they were thinking, but what they were "trying" to think.  This indicates that she was a part of a conversation, particularly, with the shooter. 

or what they were doing, but they left. They just left me there.

There are two lefts here, making this highly sensitive. When there are too many lefts, we see a murder (see analysis on OJ Simpson in light of too many lefts).  This means missing stories and they are sensitive.  I cannot help but wonder if the murder was pre arranged. 

Thankfully, they didn’t shoot at me. They had a gun pointed at me.

Not "shoot me" but "shoot at me"  
Note "they" pointed "a" gun:  are we to believe that two or more pirates held a single gun?  This is the language that Tiffany Hartley chose. 

And I tried getting David up on that -- on my Jet Ski, and then the three boats started heading back to me, and I just had to go. I just didn`t have enough time to get him up. And I just couldn`t do it, because he`s so much bigger than I am. That`s when I -- once I started...

"just didn't have enough time".

HARTLEY: Once I started heading back -- once I started heading back towards the U.S. side, they had shot a few more times at me.

Did she lose track of when they did not shoot at her and when they did?  Did she stop counting the bullets flying by her?  

Here is another comical lie, similar to Casey Anthony having "dead squirrels" climbing into her car:

I was on the side of my Jet Ski, between them and my Jet Ski. I was on the other side, so once I started to get going, I just went as fast as I could and didn`t look back until I couldn`t see them anymore.

Care to even attempt to explain this one?  
She reports what she did not do:  she did not look back
but only "until"

Until when?

Until she could not see them "anymore"

Tiffany Hartley lied about what happened to her husband and rightfully feared prosecution in Mexico.  She refused, repeatedly, to take a polygraph, and eventually, with increasing questions from media, abruptly stopped her public appearances and her 15 minutes of fame dried up. 

David Hartley's family is left with accounts like these, knowing that she lied. 

Does not David Hartley's family have a right to know what really happened?


John Mc Gowan said...

Peter, i listened to your Blog Radio one evening when Pat Brown was on discussing this case,do you concur with Pat that this all happened on dry land?

Anonymous said...

Was Davids body ever found? I am not as familiar with the details of this case.

Anonymous said...

Even if there were no indications of deceptions in her words (which there are, many), just from a common sense standpoint her story doesn't add up Peter.

Okay. There are three boats shooting at them and her husband has been shot and flys off into the water. At some point, she says two people on one boat has a conversation in front of her while pointing a gun at her, yet she knows there are two more people on this particular boat even though she didn't see these other two people.

Then they leave when they could have shot her face to face but didn't. Why not? How many people were on the other two boats? What were they doing while this one boat has stopped near her? The other two boats stopped shooting? Then she had to drive right past all three boats on her way back, she doesn't look at them, but no shots are fired at her then?

Then, all three boats are AGAIN chasing and shooting at her. During all these bullets flying everywhere, before, during and after; none hit her! Not buying this cock & bull story.

Not buying the David is shot story the way she says it happened either. He flies past her into the water, having been shot, is face down. During and after dodging bullets, she goes and turns him over THEN sees that he has been shot in the head. Ridiculous. He would have already been losing blood in the water and the water would have been turning red all around him before she ever turned him over.

I too had started to wonder if David's murder was prearranged. In fact, I wonder if his death even occured in the lake at all or if there ever were any boaters that day. One maybe, who shot David in the head during their drug gone wrong deal? Possibly.

If her family no longer believes her Peter, why haven't they said something? Even if it might have been a drug buy gone bad, that wouldn't be as bad as David being murdered and Tiffany getting away with her part in it.

Vita said...

Ms. Hartley's written reaction to suspect arrest - her personal blog.
Presser she linked to her written reaction:

TH Quoted in Presser linked below:

She was shocked. She hadn’t heard anything from the State Department, despite her weekly emails to officials there, or anyone else for 10 months, since Mexican authorities found some remains in Falcon Lake that could have been David’s (as it turns out, it was not his body).

“Peace? Joy? Happiness? No,” Hartley said and smiled. “I wasn’t really expecting to hear that this morning.”

“I can still relive that day,” she said. “I just choose not to.”

“I know now that life with David isn’t my future,” she said. “I do have to find a new life and a new path, and unfortunately, it’s not with David.”

John Mc Gowan said...


Gary Glitter Arrested By Savile Police.

Former pop star Gary Glitter has been arrested as part of a police investigation sparked by sexual abuse claims against the late Jimmy Savile.

Glitter, whose real name is Paul Gadd, was taken from his central London home by officers early on Sunday morning and then questioned at a police station in the capital.

The ex-glam rock star, who had a string of hit singles in the 1970s, is being held on suspicion of sexual offences.

Gadd, 68, was detained by officers working on Operation Yewtree, which is investigating allegations of child sex abuse against Savile and others.

A police spokesman said: "Officers working on Operation Yewtree have arrested a man in his 60s in connection with the investigation.

"The man, from London, was arrested at approximately 0715 on suspicion of sexual offences, and has been taken into custody at a London police station.

"The individual falls under the strand of the investigation we have termed 'Savile and others'."

Gadd served almost three years in jail in Vietnam after being convicted in March 2006 for child abuse offences.

He had moved to Vietnam to avoid media attention into his private life.

Gadd was deported back to the UK in 2008.

Anonymous said...

Three boats - the liars number

Anonymous said...

quote John at 6.54 am: Pat Brown was on discussing this case,do you concur with Pat that this all happened on dry land?
That would indeed explain the apparently totally incoherent story of skis and boats and men and guns and shots on the water ... If she didn't kill him herself, she knows what happened and it wasn't what she's telling IMO

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Pat has asserted that she believes this happened on dry land, but I think otherwise.

The difficulty is that some of the description may have been on dry land while other was in the water. It is an interesting assertion and I remain open, but just don't see it.

There are some things that are certain, and others, not:

1. Certain: Deception in Tiffany's statements
2. Certain: Refusal to take polygraph due to deception

3. Uncertain: What they were doing there.

PB thinks they went to buy drugs wholesale, to make money, and David was shot and killed in this transaction.

I think this hypothesis is as good as any, except for some of Tiffany's language:

Why the need to "move on" with her life after only 3 weeks?

Now, this could be due to racing away from the situation from guilt, making PB's hypothesis correct, or, it could be that her post-crime behavior showed that she wanted away from him, and wanted to move on with her life without him. "He'd want me out shopping and traveling and happy" mere weeks after his death?

That Tiffany lied is certain from the language, but her descriptions of language and thought (what 'they' were thinking, etc) appears to come from discussion with 'them.'

Another thing that fits PB's assertion is that Tiffany lied about WHY they went there in the first place. This is a strong indicator of drugs.

She said that David warned her that she could be kidnapped before hand. She wants us to believe that a loving husband put his lovely wife in harm's way just for a snap shot of a sunken church.

It not only doesn't pass the straight face test, the language indicates deception.

Here is a mystery: Why have we not heard more from David's family?

Why didn't they publicly demand Tiffany take a polygraph?

Susan Murphy Milano believed that this was a set up of domestic homicide.

I had hoped she would see Tiffany arrested.


Statement Analysis Blog said...

John see my answer above. BTW, you are right: I am crazy busy this Fall.

Anonymous: his body was not found.

Anonymous of common sense: I agree, but the governor of TX did not. Common sense is not common. The goofy bullets flying everywhere scoring a head shot but not a single mark on her jet ski??


John Mc Gowan said...

Thanks for your reply Peter,im wondering whether the family have knowledge of what was going down.

Are they privvy to past events that they know may have involved alledged drug deals and thats why they are backwards in coming forward..

MaryK said...

I agree that the Hartleys went to Mexico for a drug deal. They probably thought they could screw the "dumb" Mexicans out of drugs or money and found out the hard way that criminal pursuits are not for amateurs. I didn't realize at the time how stupid Tiff's assertion was that the "boats" left but she still had to leave David's body behind to save herself. Her story makes no sense.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your response Peter.

I tend to agree more with Susan Murphy Malino, that this was a domestic murder/homicide engineered by Tiffany. It likely did involve drugs and could have happened either on land or the water, most likely the water as you suggest. If it happened on land, he was placed in the boat and dumped out in the water.

Tiffany wanted to make sure his body was never found, lost forever in the lake; possibly not even where she said it happened, but then couldn't say exactly where. If so, I don't think there ever was more than one boat involved and likely not more than one other person.

All these bullets couldn't have been flying around and not one struck Tiffany OR her jet ski, yet at point blank range shot David in the head.

Agreed about her refusing to take the poly. She's lying big time. I just don't understand why David's family are letting her get away with it. I sure wouldn't!

Tania Cadogan said...

I want to know why 'sigi' refused to polygraph her.

Normal LE behavior in such cases is administer a poly, clear the immediate family and then they can concentrate on other suspects. If they poly the family members and one fails then they can reinterview and find out why, often in such cases the family member is inviolved and case closed.

Why is 'sigi' not acting like LE rather he is acting more like he is involved and has a need to cover up.
Is it that if she is poly'd and fails he immediately becomes suspect as well?
To cover his own butt he has to cover hers.

Given his proximity to Mexico he is perfectly placed to deal in drugs, weapons and human trafficking.
For a payoff he turns a blind eye.
I would be interested to see his lifestyle, if it matches his income, bank accounts and the like.
What is clear is he has a reason to act the way he did. we need to know what his link is to both tiffany and Mexico.

Tania Cadogan said...


NEW YORK – While prosecutors weigh what to do about a suspect who surprisingly surfaced this spring in the landmark 1979 disappearance case of Etan Patz, the man who was the prime suspect for years is about to go free after more than two decades in prison for molesting other children.

These two threads in the tangled story are set to cross next month, a twist that evokes decades of uncertainties and loose ends in the search for what happened to the sandy-haired 6-year-old last seen walking to his Manhattan school bus stop.

The new suspect, Pedro Hernandez, has been charged with Etan's murder after police said he emerged as a suspect and confessed this spring. But there's no public indication that authorities have found anything beyond his admission to implicate him, and his lawyer has said Hernandez is mentally ill.

The Pennsylvania inmate, Jose Ramos, was declared responsible for Etan's death in a civil court, but the Manhattan district attorney's office has said there wasn't enough evidence to charge him criminally. After serving 25 years on child molestation convictions in Pennsylvania, he's set to be freed Nov. 7, about a week before prosecutors are due to indicate whether they believe there's evidence enough to keep going after Hernandez.

It stands to be a coincidence fraught with anguish for Etan's parents, who brought a successful wrongful death lawsuit against Ramos, and for the former federal prosecutor who went to lengths to pursue him. At the same time, it offers a glimmer of vindication for Ramos, who has denied involvement in the boy's disappearance, though authorities have said he made incriminating remarks about it.

In a letter last month to The Associated Press, Ramos said he was declining interviews while in prison but will be available to speak after his release.

Etan's disappearance made national news and raised awareness about children's safety, turning him into a symbol for the issue in a now-familiar response: He was among the first vanished youngsters ever pictured on a milk carton. The day of his disappearance, May 25, is now National Missing Children's Day.

After years of investigation as far afield as Israel, an arrest was finally made on the eve of this year's anniversary. Hernandez, who worked at a convenience store near Etan's home when the boy disappeared, wasn't a suspect until a tipster contacted police this spring after the case, long quiet, returned to the headlines when officials dug up a neighborhood basement looking for clues. After his arrest, the New York Police Department announced that Hernandez had admitted strangling the boy and leaving his body in a trash bag.

There has been no signal that an extensive probe in the months since has turned up further evidence against him. Hernandez's attorney, Harvey Fishbein, raised further doubts about the case, saying Hernandez is schizophrenic and bipolar and has heard voices.

During the decades when Hernandez wasn't on investigators' radar, they explored many other leads and possible suspects, including Ramos.

The 69-year-old came under suspicion early on because he had a relationship with Etan's former baby sitter, but investigators didn't find anything solid. In the early 1980s, Ramos was arrested, though not convicted, on charges he tried to lure children to a drainage pipe where he was living. Photos of young, blond boys were found in his backpack.

Ramos then traveled the country by bus, attending gatherings of the Rainbow Family of Living Light, a loose collection of peace activists who come together around the country. He was accused of luring three boys into his bus and assaulting them at two of the group's gatherings in Pennsylvania in the mid-1980s.

Tania Cadogan said...

"He had thousands of dollars in `Star Wars' toys on his bus. He had videotapes, and he had all kinds of materials he used to lure children inside," Barry Adams, a longtime Rainbow member, recalled this week from his Montana home. "It was a horrendous circumstance from A to Z."

Ramos' record got the attention of Stuart GraBois, a Manhattan federal prosecutor assigned to help the investigation into Etan's disappearance.

GraBois interviewed Ramos and became convinced he had assaulted and killed Etan -- so convinced that GraBois helped Pennsylvania authorities get one of their convictions against Ramos. He was ultimately sentenced to a maximum of 27 years in the two cases, but got credit for time served and is being released.

Over the years, Ramos has made a series of ambiguous admissions and denials about Etan. Two jailhouse snitches claim he confessed to them, and GraBois said Ramos gave him a "90 percent confession." But during sworn questioning in 2003, Ramos said he'd never encountered the vanished boy.

"I have nothing to hide," he said, according to a transcript.

Etan's parents, too, zeroed in on Ramos, pursuing him in a 2001 wrongful death lawsuit. After Ramos refused to answer some questions, a judge ruled him responsible for the boy's death. But there wasn't enough evidence to make a criminal case.

A DA's office spokeswoman and Hernandez' lawyer declined to comment on Ramos' release, as did the now-retired GraBois. The Patzes' lawyer didn't respond to phone messages; the parents have asked to be left alone.

There's no time limit for bringing charges in a murder case, so prosecutors could charge Ramos -- or someone else -- in future if they decide not to pursue Hernandez. But from a practical standpoint, the fact that Hernandez was charged could be grist for any other suspect's defense.

Read more:

Anonymous said...

I was wondering, how much is known about David Harley's background and friends; did he have prior arrests, any drug charges, what kind of family did he come from? Also, Tiffany. Where/who is her family, close friends, did she have a prior drug history? Did they have jobs, careers?

Does anyone know these things? Sorry, but I wasn't keeping up with this story at the time it happened. Thanks!

Anonymous said...

Harley = Hartley.

Tania Cadogan said...

off topic & fascinating

You comfort them over a skinned knee in the playground, and coax them to sleep with a soothing lullaby.

But being a nurturing mother is not just about emotional care - it pays dividends by determining the size of your child's brain, scientists say.
Both of these images are brain scans of a two three-year-old children, but the brain on the left is considerably larger, has fewer spots and less dark areas, compared to the one on the right.

According to neurologists this sizeable difference has one primary cause - the way each child was treated by their mothers.

The child with the larger and more fully developed brain was looked after by its mother - she was constantly responsive to her baby, reported The Sunday Telegraph.

According to research reported by the newspaper, the brain on the right worryingly lacks some of the most fundamental areas present in the image on the left.

The consequences of these deficits are pronounced - the child on the left with the larger brain will be more intelligent and more likely to develop the social ability to empathise with others.

But in contrast, the child with the shrunken brain will be more likely to become addicted to drugs and involved in violent crimes, much more likely to be unemployed and to be dependent on state benefits.
The child is also more likely to develop mental and other serious health problems.
Professor Allan Schore, of UCLA, told The Sunday Telegraph that if a baby is not treated properly in the first two years of life, it can have a fundamental impact on development.
He pointed out that the genes for several aspects of brain function, including intelligence, cannot function.
And sadly there is a chance they may never develop and come into existence.

These has concerning implications for neglected children that are taken into care past the age of two.

It also seems that the more severe the mother's neglect, the more pronounced the damage can be.

The images also have worrying consequences for the childhood neglect cycle - often parents who, because their parents neglected them, do not have fully developed brains, neglect their own children in a similar way.

But research in the U.S. has shown the cycle can be successfully broken if early intervention is staged and families are supported.

The study correlates with research released earlier this year that found that children who are given love and affection from their mothers early in life are smarter with a better ability to learn.

The study by child psychiatrists and neuroscientists at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, found school-aged children whose mothers nurtured them early in life have brains with a larger hippocampus, a key structure important to learning, memory and response to stress.

The research was the first to show that changes in this critical region of children’s brain anatomy are linked to a mother’s nurturing, reports.

The research is published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Early Edition.

Lead author Joan L. Luby, MD, professor of child psychiatry, said the study reinforces how important nurturing parents are to a child's development.

Tania Cadogan said...

I wonder, will we see MRI scans of children where neglect and abuse is suspected?

The parent denies neglect, a brain scan shows marked differences to the norm. If the child has no known underlying health issues then questions need to be asked of the parents as to why their child is missing fundamental areas of development.
It would also mitigate criminals if they could show differences in fundamental areas thus confirming any claim of alleged neglect whilst not excusing or exonerating them of responsibility for their crimes.

Maybe if mandatory tests are performed on children of parents with criminal/neglect/substance abuse/domestic violence/ long term unemployed/on benefits at ages 2 and say 5 ( more often if changes are noticed) some may object because i mention poor families, abuse can and does cover all income brackets, in poor families it is likely to be more physical whereas more affluent may use emotional abuse. It is known that parents on low incomes are more likely to be abusive, be one parent and have multiple children by multiple men.
Where changes are noted the familes can be monitored and supported or if needs be the children removed.
By finding and stopping the problems early it is possible crime rates, substance abuse and so on will drop as a result as the children mature.
Children at risk can be helped and if needs be removed to a healthier situation (personally i would remove from the family and relatives completely) if the relatives didn't bring it to the authorities attention why should they then get care and risk exposure to their toxic parents again.

Lis said...

OT Amazing article, Hobnob, thanks for sharing it! Add to this info that many abusive parents hit their children in the head, causing head injuries, and you have the perfect storm.

It's discouraging that we have so much information yet things seem to keep going downhill in today's world.

Lis said...

I haven't seen anything lately, but in the beginning, Hartley's parents were almost militantly supportive of Tiffany.

I'm curious if she has always been scatterbrained and confused, she seems ditzy.

Anonymous said...

Allo Hobnob :-)
Very interesting indeed. Nature and nurture ... It reminds me of scientific trials with Rhesus monkeys in the early 70's. Some monkey babies were nurtured and fed by their mothers, others were having a fake one, equipped with soft furry skin and nipples with milk bottles behind them. They were perfectly well fed, but without the affection of a real mother. All of those developed seriously deranged characters :-(
Regards, Châtelaine.

Anonymous said...

ETA: and didn't know how to take care of their own children, once they were grown up. It was really horrible to watch their behaviour.

skip said...

Interesting, hobnob!
My second child was born with a huge head. His head stayed in the 90th percentile until age 5-6. He has severe autism, and he's had to learn empathy, but he's loving.
My oldest child was born prematurely, he has a smaller head and he's more empathetic and more affectionate. (also autism)

In my cases, there was something underlying. But children should be raised 'underfoot,' around their families at all times and not shuffled off to their rooms all day.
In many neglect cases, that is the life they lead- away from even casual encounters with friends outside. Kids often learn how to talk just by watching, how to love just by watching, and how to abuse and neglect, just by watching.

skip said...

omit "at all times," I was mid thought without coffee...

Anonymous said...

From everything I've read thusfar scientists have been able to link autism (and many other disorders) to Candida albicans. I'm still researching. It may help to employ the Candida diet though. (you can look it up on the web.) No sugar, low carbs, no gluten.
(My son has aspergers.)

emerald said...

Hob Nob,
What the MRI scans do not reveal is the condition of the brain at birth for these abused and neglected children. There is much biosocial evidence that brain structure is correlated to the brain structure and condition of the parents. If this is the case, the parents of abused children may be neglecting and abusing them, in part, due to their own stunted brain growth. The life course criminality theory is growing in popularity among US criminologists and at first I was resistant to the concept because I don't want to hand defendants new trial strategies. However, the evidence is mounting that genetics and biology can impact aggressive behaviors. Just another way to explain the brain MRIs. Not necessarily attributable to parental abuse or neglect, may be hereditary and the abuse or neglect might be explained by the same conditions in the parent(s).

Nicole said...

I don't understand, don't police depts have their people trained to detect deception?? It sure makes the governor and Greta (who, for shame! does this for a living!) look like idiots for repeatedly singing this woman's praise.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Police are offered the training, but retention only comes through practice.

Hobs, I think we will see MRI's of neglected brains and other forms of abuse/neglect.


Tania Cadogan said...

Nicole said...
I don't understand, don't police depts have their people trained to detect deception?? It sure makes the governor and Greta (who, for shame! does this for a living!) look like idiots for repeatedly singing this woman's praise.

Ratings count for far more than the truth.

Lis said...

Châtelaine, I remember that research, it was chilling.

Skip, you reminded me of an interesting article I read recently-

A study was done where researchers differentiated what they describe as two types of empathy- cognitive and affective. Here's an excerpt:

"In a hot-off-the press paper in Personality and Individual Differences, Michael Wai and Niko Tiliopoulos looked at the empathic nature of dark individuals. They distinguished between two types of empathy: cognitive empathy and affective empathy. Cognitive empathy involves the ability to figure out the emotional states of others without feeling any emotional contagion (i.e., without being able to feel what they are feeling). In contrast, affective empathy involves sharing an emotional reaction in response to others' emotions. This form of empathy facilitates altruistic behaviors. Prior research shows that individuals with high-functioning autism are impaired in cognitive empathy, but do not differ from neurotypicals in emotional empathy. The exact reverse appears to be true for Dark Triad individuals." [Dark triad = Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy]

In other words, psychopaths can read others' emotions although they do not share the the same emotions; they use this to manipulate others. Autistic individuals have trouble reading others' emotions but they do share the same emotions and feel empathy and compassion when they understand what others are feeling.

I think this differentiation of the types of empathy makes sense.

Anonymous said... - Learn how to turn $500 into $5,000 in a month!

[url=]Make Money Online[/url] - The Secret Reveled with Binary Option

Binary Options is the way to [url=]make money[/url] securely online

Anonymous said...

Mulching In Your Garden Topsoil Is The Answer To All Your Gardening Problems!

Also visit my blog post Trees for Sale Milwaukee

Anonymous said...

Is this possible? On the web following two Blogspot accounts using my Twitter
account. But once i check out my Twitter news feed,
I never see updates from either of the Blogspots (and they have
been updated). Is there a setting I need to change, or is not even possible to

my web blog ::

Anonymous said...

A good detective would have torn her up. Get her on record, then question her the next day holding a transcript of her statement, not letting her see it. "boat or jet ski?" Have her draw a diagram of where she was, bad guys, etc.