Friday, November 2, 2012

Statement Analysis: Chad Evans on Death of Kassidy Bortner

Kassidy Bortner

wrongfully convicted?
                                                          Analysis by Peter Hyatt

             In 2000, 21 month old Kassidy Bortner died from injuries consistent with child abuse. 

Chad Evans, Kassidy's mother's boyfriend,  was found guilty in the death of his girlfriend's almost 2 year old daughter, Kassidy.  Evans has a groundswell of suppor, including a book and website in support of him.             Did he harm Kassidy which led to her death?

Statement Analysis gets to the truth.  We employ the same techniques in the same manner, in all cases. The system which showed Casey Anthony's lies is the same system used in this, and every case.  

Here is an interview last year found here.  Note in the article that it states it is the first time in 9 years he has addressed the murder charges.  This is an exert from the article: 

"Evans admits he might have credibility issues with the public, since he was convicted of murder, along with several other offenses related to Kassidy's death, by a Strafford County Superior Court jury on Dec. 21, 2001.

"There's a complete and total lack of evidence that I killed Kassidy," Evans said from a small room that adjoins the visiting area of the state prison, a large cafeteria-like space with New Hampshire-centric paintings splashed along its walls."

We note that he frames the words "I killed Kassidy" without the apparent entrance into the language of another.  This is not generally found in the language of the innocent. It is sometimes found when one person enters the language of another, such as, "You say I killed Kassidy", but not when an innocent person chooses his own words. 

Upon request, I have done Statement Analysis of the transcript of the initial police interview with Chad Evans.  Underlining, italics, and color is added for emphasis, with Statement Analysis in bold type. 

Please note: 

If Kassidy died later, from injuries, the subject can say "I didn't kill her" as the subject may not believe that he caused the death.  We saw this in the case of a man who gave drugs to a sheriff's daughter, who later died.  He was able to say "I didn't kill her" because she did not die in his presence.  She died later, from the drugs he gave her.  

Note in the article he gives a reliable denial about the death, but not about the injuries.  He violates the 3 component principle of a reliable denial:

""I don't know the answers to what happened," Evans said. "All I know is I didn't kill Kassidy. I know that I didn't intentionally, maliciously hurt her."

The denial, "I didn't kill Kassidy" is strong and indicates that she was alive after leaving his presence, but his denial about hurting her is not a reliable denial. 
He does not deny knowing what happened to her, however, only that he does not know "the answers."  This is not to say "I don't know what happened", which would have been stronger.  Instead, he says he does not know "the answers."  This is how additional wording, that is, words in which, once removed, still leave a complete sentence, give us additional information.   

Also note that within this statement:  He denies motive, but not the action. 

He did not "intentionally" or "maliciously" hurt her, but this presupposes that he hurt her, with admission of doing something, but not believing with certainty that she died from his direct actions.  

We have seen this in the language of child abuse where a child beaten or shaken to death did not die immediately, but lingered on life support for several days.  The subject who is guilty can say "I didn't kill her" but not able to use the same strong denial on "hurting" or "harming" or "hitting" her.  

To use anything less than death is minimization and is consistent with child abusers.  

Question for Analysis:  

Did he physically abuse Kassidy?

A website dedicated to Casey Evans is where you may find the full transcripts and other articles is found here:

                                                           Transcripts from Police Interview 

RL: Good deal. Okay. We - we're investigating the death of KASSIDY. Tell us what went
on the last day or so with, with KASSIDY?

Note the  purpose stated by the interviewer, RL is to investigate the death of Kassidy. This allows the topic or reason for the interview is clear to Evans (the subject) 

 CE is the subject.  

The victim's name is "Kassidy"; 21 months of age, therefore, we note when (and how) the name "Kassidy" is used by the subject, particularly because the subject is in a role of caretaker.  

CE: Um, just the last day or so?

RL: Oh you can, you can go back two weeks.

Interviewers should avoid telling a subject where to begin his account; instead, allowing for the subject to choose what is most important to him.  It works out this way: 

CE: Lets see. I'll just go back yesterday and if you want to know anything else you
can ...

RL: Yeah.

CE: ... ask me.

RL: We'll, we'll interject. Yesterday being November, November 8.

CE: Yeah. Being Monday, was that Tuesday.

RL: Huhuh.

CE: Tuesday. Thinking about it. Just got up in the morning, had breakfast. Actually she, you
know AMANDA was a little late so we put cereal in a baggie for her whatever. Went to
JEFF'S house for the day because I had to work and AMANDA is working at Old Navy.

Please note that when one is asked "What happened?" and tells us "why" something happened, the information should be considered highly sensitive.  This is noted in the sensitivity color coding blue, being the highest.  Where there is more than one blue sensitivity indicator, the sensitivity should be considered vital.  
Also note that dropped or missing pronouns mean the information is likely unreliable.  This is distancing language and he is removing himself from commitment. 
Note the use of "we":  who put cereal in a baggie?  Both together?  If not, the use of "we" is often indicative of one who wishes to share guilt.

Pronouns:  Please note that when he said, "she", he recognized the need for clarification and said, "you know, Amanda"; therefore, this use of "she" is specifically Amanda, not Kassidy. 
Kassidy is referred to as "her"

We will now look to see when he uses Kassidy's name.  In child abuse cases, there is often distancing language between the abuser and child.  We often find in child abuse cases, the use of greetings/salutations, such as "good bye, I love you" etc as signals of a troubled relationship.  Since we all say "good night, I love you" to our children, there is generally no need for us to include this in our statements.  When we find them, therefore, we take note of them as they often attempt to persuade that the relationship is good. 

The need to persuade indicates weakness in the relationship.  
RL: Okay. And JEFF just - JEFF being, what's his last name?



CE: JEFF's her well they're not really related yet but he's been going out with his  sister for a year.

CE: So any ways, went to - Ah so she went to JEFF'S house and I - AMANDA was suppose
to work till 8 and then, actually she was working 5 to 11. Her schedule got kind of
screwed up I don't know. But I told her, you know JEFF didn't want to watch KASSIDY the whole time I guess, and I told her it wouldn't be a big deal I'd pick her up
when I because I had to pick up KYLE, my son. 

Dropped pronouns indicate distancing language; it is unreliable as the subject wishes to distance himself from the statement.  Here, we see that he does use the pronoun, "I", indicating that this is not a "habit of speech" to drop pronouns.  Please also note that pronouns are instinctive in human language and do not become confused. 
Note that "told" is used rather than "said."  "Told" is generally firmer, and more of a one-way communication, often found in arguments.  
Note the need to explain why something was done:  "when I because I had to pick up..."

Note that in reference to "Jeff", we have the name used:  "Kassidy"

Note next that the statement in {   } was written by the subject, years later, in commenting on the transcripts.   Note the elevated sensitivity indicators:

Actually, the original plan was for Kassidy to just  stay overnight at Jeff's but a day or so earlier, I offered to watch Kassidy because I didn't like the way care was going at Jeff's. I had no idea here that the police thought Kassidy was beaten to death so I wasn't needlessly trying to get Jeff in trouble.]

"Actually" is used when comparing two or more events. 
Note he gives his reason why he offered to watch Kassidy, though not asked.  This means he anticipated being asked why.  

In his original answer, he could not remember what the plans were (note the broken sentences and changes in pronouns), yet, almost 10 years later, in commenting or annotating the transcripts, he "remembers."
Having "no idea" is not credible, in any form.  We have all ideas on just about anything and everything.  It is to distance himself.  He explains, in the negative, about "not" trying to get Jeff in trouble.  This is very sensitive. 

RL: Huhuh.

CE: And, and so I - I picked her up. In the evening went to pick KYLE up, then we went to,
well from there I talked with KYLE'S teacher for a minute, then we went home. I'm
sorry I just - you know what keeps going through my mind right now is I keep flashing
back to like you know coming in here and having the other detective or whatever ...

The stuttering "I" by non-stutters shows increase of tension.  The pronoun "I" is used by humans millions of times, and like the pronoun, "we", is instinctive, with the brain telling the mouth in less than a microsecond, what to say.   Two "I's" show increase in tension, Three or Four indicates anxiety, 5+ suggests nervous breakdown, personal homicide. 

In all homicide statements, we note the words "I'm sorry" if they enter the language of the suspect.  This is often found within the guilty, as the brain 'leaks' out what is there, in spite of the attempt to control the flow of information. 

"You know" is a habit of speech that indicates an acute awareness of the interviewer's presence of question.  Like all habits of speech, we note when it appears, and when it does not appear.  When it appears, we note the topic that caused it, and we note if it is repeated, as repetition is noted as sensitive. 

The name "Kyle" is used in direct relation to the subject.  This is the expected closeness in parent or caretaker/child statements.  

He had just learned she died, and his mind flashes to the police.  I expected him to say his mind went back to the last time he saw Kassidy alive.  His concern is not "her", but himself. 

RL: Huhuh.

CE: ... just tell me that she was dead and it just like hey rewind, rewind, rewind. Because you
know I mean last night fed them, her and KYLE and we were playing. I gave her a bath,
gave KYLE a bath and put her to bed, I put KYLE to bed. I did her alphabet with her
before she went to bed and now I get a phone call today telling me she's dead, you know
I mean. 

Here, she is "dead"; we now look to see what language he employs about Kassidy. 

Note reduction/comparison with the word, "just":  What is he comparing being told that she was dead with?  This is to have the thought that something was done to her by his own actions that compares with death. 

Note:  "her and Kyle" is clearly distancing language for the subject.  Note "fed them" drops pronoun, and "I gave her a bath" continues without her name, even while continuing to use Kyle's name.  In this short answer:

Kyle is mentioned three times by the name, "Kyle"
Kassidy is mentioned 9 times:   none by name, all by "her" or "she":  

What is pronounced about this distancing language is that several times they are both in the same sentence, (same activity) yet he avoids using Kassidy's name, even while using Kyle's name.  It is that Kassidy is dead and he, without pre-thought, as words are processed in less than a microsecond, avoids using her name.  This is consistent with the need to distance himself from her, and de-personalize her. 

To the subject, the relationship between him and Kyle is very much stronger than the relationship between him and Kassidy.  

In doing his own analysis on his own statement, years later, he wrote:  

I guess this is what shock is.  I felt numb all over while talking to them. I had just kissed Kassidy good-bye for the day earlier that morning and now these officers were telling me she was dead. How could this be?

Please note that he does not claim to be in shock; he only can "guess":  If the subject reduces commitment to the text, we cannot say it for him.   This is what is said in either uncertainty, or when one does not wish to lie outright and can only give a weak commitment.  Later, when confronted, can use the defense that he only was guessing. This is a reduced commitment to emotions.  We note the location of emotions within a statement. Because it takes humans time to process emotions:

Emotions in the logical portion of a story is often an indication of artificial placement of the emotions.  Emotions in the 'after' portion of the account are more consistent with experiential memory.  

Please also note that when a subject uses a question in an open statement, it is often an indication that he is reliving the event and may be questioning himself, in the moment.

In child protective interviews, we note "kissed" as well as "good morning", "I love you" and such, as indicative of a poor relationship.  When a mother, for example says, "I'm a wonderful mother!" we generally ask if she has been investigated for child abuse.  It is a linguistic signal that she has been accused of being "less than wonderful" by someone. 

Please note that within familiar homicides, such phrases of departure, including kissing goodbye, often match the time of death. This has been thoroughly researched (LSI) and has received print in the FBI Law Bulletin.  

RL: Huhuh. It's hard. It's hard. Okay so you went to pick up KYLE?

CE: Yeah.

RL: Where does, where does KYLE (inaudible)

CE: He's, he's three. He goes to Christ Crossroad Kindergarten, it's a division of Tri-city
Christian Academy in Somersworth. 

RL: Huhuh. Who's, who's KYLE'S mom?

CE: TRISTEN, TRISTEN is my ex-wife.

Note the name and title.  This indicates a positive, or at least, working or cooperative relationship between estranged or divorced parents.  She is "my" ex wife, and her name is used:
This is a complete social introduction and indicates a good relationship in Statement Analysis at the time of this statement. 

RL: You, you picked KYLE up and you stayed and talked to the teacher?

CE: Yeah just for a minute. She was telling me about what KYLE is doing.

Note present tense verb.  This indicates that he is vested in Kyle, as if Kyle's "doings" are going on for him, even during this interview.  The language shows, at the time of the statement, that he had a good relationship with Kyle.  

Strong bond noted which is likely confirmed in the pronouns:  

RL: Huhuh.

CE: And then we went home. (Inaudible)

He did not take Kyle home:  "we went home" shows a strong bond between subject and Kyle at the time of this statement.   The word "we" indicates unity or cooperation.  It is another in a series of linguistic indicators of just how close he was to Kyle, from his perspective and highlights the distancing in contrast to his relationship with Kassidy. 

RL: You picked KASSIDY up before or after KYLE?

It almost feels as if the detective is trying to get him to use Kassidy's name.  Here, the Interviewer uses Kassidy's name.  Since Reflective Language is easiest, it is expected that he will answer back using Kassidy's name:  

CE:  I picked her up, I picked her up and then I went to get KYLE.

He does not use Kassidy's name, even in a leading question where he could simply reflect back the Interviewer's language.  

To this analyst, given my years experience in child protective services, the distancing language is indicative of child abuse.  It is rare to see someone avoid a child's name this often.  Even abusive parents will use their child's name in a Reflective Language statement, reflecting back the words of the Interviewer, employing the Interviewer's words.  

RL: Okay. How was KASSIDY when you picked her up?

Another use of Kassidy's name in  an opportunity for the subject to simply enter the language and reflect back with "Kassidy was fine" or "Kassidy was upset", and so on.  

CE: (Inaudible) I've been sitting and thinking about things that, kind of feeling guilty like
maybe I could of prevented things if I had just taken her to the hospital.

This is a critical point of the interview.  

1.  The question is avoided:  this means that the question of "how was Kassidy?" was sensitive to the subject. 

2.  Body posture enters his language, with "sitting", meaning that for the subject, tension is increasing.  

3.  Note the inclusion of "guilt" in the language should be taken along with "sorry" above. 
4.  Note embedded, "I could of prevented things" does not come from the Interviewer's language (entering into the language of another) 

RL: What happened?

This is the best question.  

Since he did not answer the direct, "What was Kassidy like?", this open ended question allows the subject to begin his statement wherever he wishes.  If he chooses not to answer it a second time, statistics say that he will answer it if asked a third time.  This question is so sensitive to the subject that the subject wants to end the interview:  

CE: She just was acting funny. You know I don't even know if I want to continue. I do but I
don't.  I don't want to like, I don't know anything so I don't want to get...

This is a strong indication that the question, "What was Kassidy like?" is very sensitive to the subject.  Something, at this point of time within the statement, is so severe that the subject, who avoids Kassidy's name, wants to completely avoid talking about Kassidy at the time he picked her up.  

He does not answer it, but suggests his own guilt instead.  Here, the principle of repetition in analysis is in play:  he does not know if he wants to continue.  

Something happened at this time that is very sensitive and connected to reason for the interview:  Investigation of Kassidy's death.  

He was simply asked, "How was Kassidy?" and twice, he does not answer.  This, in context of a murder investigation, is a very bad signal.  

In child abuse deaths, we often find that the killer wishes to blame someone else; sometimes even the child.  Please note carefully what follows in his response: 

RL: Huhuh.

CE: ... anyone in trouble. You know first AMANDA didn't give me her car seat, she didn't
leave it at, at JEFF'S house so I had to strap her in the back seat which I'm, I'm probably
gonna get a ticket for telling you guys this because it's against the law.

Truthful people tell us what happened, so that when someone tells us what did not happen, it is very sensitive.    

1.  He says "first Amanda didn't..."   By using "first", it indicates that there should be a "second" and even possibly a "third" in his list.  It is in the negative, making it important.  It may be a subtle shifting of blame  

This is another "cluster of blues" in which an analyst knows something very important happened here, as the subject has a very strong need to explain why he did something.  That he is being interviewed in the death of his daughter and states he was worried about getting a seatbelt ticket is not credible.  

Something happened at this time, in the car, or at this time period, that is directly related to the investigation.  

The guilt here, in this time period, is acute.  First, he blames Amanda for what she did not do:  give him the car seat.  By blaming her, he is signaling that he has a reason to cast blame.  He "had to" strap her in because Amanda didn't give him the car seat.  This is then amended to she didn't "leave" it.  This is unnecessary information (the latter) which makes it important to the subject.  In child abuse, there is often such intense guilt that the guilty will often seek:

a.  to reduce it by 'spreading it around' as seen in pronouns 
b.  minimize it by changing its language often from 'death' to 'harm' of sorts
c.  distance himself from it by dropping pronouns
d.  conceal responsibility by using passivity 

Note the willingness to accept a "ticket" as a staged contrast. Getting a ticket for not using a car seat is set in contrast against homicide.  This is not only extreme distancing, but also sets up the subject as "accepting some responsibility" and even "making friends" with police, psychologically. 

2.  What happened when he strapped her in?

Note "so" explains why, but add this to the pronoun, "I" (strong) in this sentence:

"so I had to strap her in the back seat" is something he "had" to do:  He is justifying his actions in the back of the car towards Kassidy.  While strapping her in, her behavior was such, in his mind, that he "had" to do something.  

This is when child abuse took place.  This is likely where he hurt her, possibly, on previous occasions and suggests struggle not only here, but in other times, such as feeding.  

   It is likely that Kassidy struggled with him. 

Note the doesn't want to get anyone in trouble, in a death investigation,  yet he blames Amanda for not giving him the car seat.  Note that which is in the negative as important:  he "doesn't" want to get anyone in trouble but then mentions Jeff. 

He reports what did not happen, what was not given to him.  Truthful people simply tell what happened, with little or no need to explain "why" they did something. 

There is hyper sensitivity regarding the condition of Kassidy when he "had to" put her in the car seat.  This may be a subtle blaming of the victim. 

Truthful people tell us what happened.  They should not feel the need to explain why they did something.  The "why" is how cases are solved.  This shows that the person may think to himself, "they're going to ask me about this, so I better explain why I did something..."

We have a hyper-sensitive portion of the statement for him:  

RL: No we're not gonna give you a ticket for that.

CE: But I just strap her in because I had to get KYLE, the school closes at six. I didn't have
time to go buy one or anything so I strapped in. But like JEFF brought her out to me out
to the car, he has this big feddish about seeing the house or something, and I just grabbed
her and put her in the car. And I was driving down the road and she wasn't talking, but
she's kind of a quiet kid. Like my sister spent the weekend with her and she spent six
hours straight with her and KASSIDY sat in the chair the whole time, didn't move,
didn't, you know which is kind of weird for a little baby to do you know. Not to be all

1.  Note the word "just" is used to compare something downward, such as if I wanted to sell you a car for $15,000, so I first show you a car for $20,000, and than say, "Okay, that is too much but this one is just $15,000" knowing that I am triggering a comparison to the more expensive $20,000.

In this statement, he "had to strap her in" and gives his reason ("because"), yet now repeats it again, but adding the word "just", indicating that he is comparing it to something else.  

Note that he has changed from past tense verbs to present tense. 

2.  Note the word "because" as a need to explain why he did something. 

3.  "So" again explains why he put her in the car seat. 

4.  Her name is avoided again, until Kassidy is not with him.  She is "Kassidy" in relation to Jeff, and now she is "Kassidy" when with his sister.   This avoidance indicates child abuse. 

5.  Note the language, "I grabbed her" indicates rough handling. 

6.  Note Jeff's "feddish" is attempt to blame Jeff.   Earlier, he blamed Amanda for not giving him the seat.  
7.  Note he calls his daughter a "kid
8.   Note that he reports what she did not do, rather than what she did do:  "she did not" talk. 
Yet, he feels he must justify her not speaking by calling her a quiet "kid" and gives a story of her being quiet at his sister's. 

Note that he is out of chronological order in his statement.  He had strapped her in because he "had to" but then goes back to "grabbing her" from Jeff because Jeff would talk to much about seeing a house. 
9.  Note the sentence beginning with "And" indicates missing information.  We must note where the missing information is:

"I just grabbed her and put her in the car."   "And..."

Note that he "just" grabbed her, meaning that the grabbing is being compared to something more than just grabbing.  "Just" seeks to minimize, via comparison.  Its reduction is noted in relation to his handling of Kassidy. 

This is likely where Kassidy was injured, so much so, that she did not speak while he drove.  One should question if she was either shaken, or finally shoved into the car's seat.  This description suggests trauma to the child that could be shaken baby, or pressure directly to her front.  The seat of the car could have caused injuries to the back of her, as well as to her head.  

LM: Sure ...

CE: But I look back and I was driving up on the Spaulding Turnpike and I looked back in my
car she's being extra quiet. And she's just sitting there like leaning forward like this, like
where the on the seat belt. I'm like what the hell is wrong with her. And like she was.
kind of drooling, which she doesn't usually drool unless she's cutting a tooth or
something. I'm like what the hell. So actually I - then I called JEFF up on the phone. I.
said, you know I was kind of joking when I said this I said "What the hell did you do,
beat this kid or something?" And he, he started laughing or whatever and he said "No
why?" And I'm like I don't know she's acting strange like laying against the seat and
whatever. And he, so any way he said you know whatever so I just was like all right.
"Well I just was pretty cautious after that wanted to watch her, you know what I mean.

Note first that he began with "I look back" in the present tense.  This is then changed to the past tense.  Since the event is past tense, a reliable statement will work in the past tense.  The change to present tense is significant.  Alternating between tenses is indicative of deception. 

Note "look back" changes to "looked back" (past tense) which changes to "she's being" which is present tense.  He doubles up on this activity, making it very important. 

Note the inclusion of emotions, again, in the "perfect" or logical portion of the story.  This is another indication that he is editing his own story, and has placed them there artificially.  In truthful accounts, events are given and then emotions are in the 'after' portion, as it takes time to process information from event to emotion.  He is not credible in this part of his statement. 

Note "sitting" is both indicative of increased tension for the subject (body posture in a statement, sit, stand, stood, etc, indicates an increase in tension.  "My boss told me to be at work at 9" versus, "My boss stood and told me to be at work at 9."

Note the emotions in a statement are entered in several places by him; always in the active part of the event.   Emotions in a statement can be indicative of truth, however, it often depends on where the emotions are. 

Humans take time to process emotions.  This means that in truthful statements, the emotions are found in the "after event" portion of a statement of "what happened?" and not in the "perfect" or "logical" portion of an answer. 

Here, the emotions appear to be placed artificially since they are in the "perfect" or the "logical" part of his answer.  This is another indication of deception.  

Note the inclusion of the word "phone" often links someone to the crime scene (McClish).  Here he said, "I called Jeff on the phone" with the words "on the phone" unnecessary.  

Note "like laying" not only has body posture, but only describes what she was "like" rather than if she was laying on the car seat. 

Continue to take notice of when "you know" enters his vocabulary as it shows acute awareness of the question or the interviewer.  The topics in which it arises is critical.  

CE: Because she's not, you know ...

CE: You know. So I'm like all right whatever. So then I picked KYLE up, brought her
home, and I, I started feeding KYLE. He wanted something different and she wouldn't,
she wouldn't I tried - I mean her grill cheese she wouldn't eat whatever. I was like what
the hell. So I gave her a banana and she mowed it, half of it and then didn't want the rest
which was kind of ... because she's got a really good appetite for a baby that young. So I
thought it was   a little strange. But any way so she ate her banana or whatever and then.
You know I fed her, fed KYLE, then we went upstairs, and you know I played with - It's
hard because you know KYLE is a boy he's three and she's you know 20 months a girl
you know. So they don't like to do the same things so I tried separating them to do
different things with her.

The avoidance of her name here is actually awkward.  "So then I picked  Kyle up, brought her home..."

 shows  a greater than usual (in child abuse cases) distance in his language.  Alone, this suggests a very poor relationship, and given her age, it gives the appearance of one who very much is antagonistic towards a child.  He dislikes her immensely. Her mother would likely shine light on this:  did he call her names?  Did he blame her for things going wrong in life?  Crying?  Disruption? 

Note the dropped pronoun but only when bringing Kassidy home.  This is very sensitive time period and he is psychologically distancing himself from her, even when the wording is so awkward.  

Follow the pronouns:  Note the break:  "she wouldn't, she wouldn't, I tried..."  Broken sentences  show "self censoring" as he stopped himself.  This is missing information and his frustration is very high at this point in his story:  "tried" in the past tense, indicates failure.  

"Whatever" and "what the hell" show his frustration.  It is likely here that Kassidy was assaulted again. 

"But" refutes what came before it. 

"Any way" may be that he forced food into her, getting his way. This is actually a frightening description. 
"Or whatever" suggests something else.  It gives the listener the feel that Kassidy was to blame for whatever he did to her. 

Note that he blames her age and being a girl.  I am a father of six children, with four of them being born within a very close time period.   Boys and girls at this age play together.  This is a very sensitive time period for the subject who is telling us of his explosive anger, even blaming Kassidy for being a girl.

HIs love of Kyle and animosity towards the "girl" who's name he cannot bring himself  to say in connection to himself, is striking.  

The "cluster of blues" tells us that something very bad happened here, just as it happened in the car.  When he "tried" to separate them, there were likely injuries that matched this description:  grabbing, kicking, or throwing.  

LM: If he's anything like your size I'm sure he's ...

CE: Yeah he's a tank you know.

LM: Sure.

CE: But he's, hopefully be tall.

LM: Yeah.

CE: But yeah he's very physical.

Note the proud description of his son.  Note the absence of anything kind towards Kassidy.  

LM: Sure.

CE: He's real aggressive. But any ways so you know I played with him for a few minutes and
then I go play with her and then you know him and then her. One of the things that's like
she is - JEFF I don't know if you guys met JEFF yet or anything, he's kind of a big guy,
about your size but heavy set. You know about - probably 240 or whatever. He stepped
on her the other day, like on her foot. So she's having a hard time walking. And so like
what I eventually I would just carry her around, you know what I mean?

Verb tense:

"I played with him" but, "I go play with her" shows unreliability, as well as distancing language (the word "with" between people).  He told us he played with Kyle, but he did not tell us that he played with Kassidy.  This is an example of following the language.  

Chronological order:  when someone speaks from experiential memory, it will be in chronological order, like a parade going by our eyes.  Here, 

1.  I played with him

2.  I "play" with her (present tense)
3.  "then her" breaks chronological order. 

Deception indicated. 

Note that he does not say he carried her around.  He only says what he "would" "just" do (future/conditional tense) and reduction.  It is likely he injured her leg and impaired her ability to walk, which added to his frustration of having to pick up this child.  

LM: Huhuh.

CE: She doesn't like to walk any way she likes to be held. But usually I don't want to baby
her, you know I make her walk do her thing but she was hurting so I carried her from her
LM: Sure. Sure, no problem.

CE: Yeah. I think that was actually - Yeah. So we just pretty much, we played, did our thing
and then my roommate came home probably at, I was probably home half, half an hour or
so before he got there.

RL: Who's your roommate?

CE: His name is TRAVIS HUNT.


CE: Yeah.

RL: And he lives with you?

CE: Yeah.

RL: Where does he sleep?

CE: I have four bedrooms in my house.

RL: Okay.

CE: And he has a, uh, kind of like a downstairs kind of apartment.

RL: Okay. 'What does TRAVIS do for work?

CE: He is an assistant manager at one of my restaurants. Been friends with him for about 10

RL: Huhuh. When was the last time you saw him?

CE: What do you mean?

RL: When was the last time you saw TRAVIS?

CE: This morning he went to work.

RL: Okay. Did you talk to him since, does he know that KASSIDY ....

CE: Well I called. I don't think he knew that she was dead. 
RL: Okay.

CE: He might. I called my wife because TRAV, myself and a bunch of us we were suppose
go do something tonight.

RL: Called your wife?

CE: Yeah.

RL: Your wife being?



CE: Well my ex-wife.

RL: Yeah what...

CE: That's just recently.

RL: What were you gonna do?

CE: Well usually on, on Thursday nights we go to Banana's in Portsmouth, have a few
appetizers ...

LM: Yeah.

CE: ... whatever and then after that we go work out at my friend BRUCE'S house. Like I
couldn't get a hold of BRUCE to tell her that I'd probably be late because I didn't know
how long you guys were going to talk ...

LM: Huhuh.

CE: .... or whatever. But I didn't feel like doing anything. You know she goes "What's the
matter?" I mean we don't get along at all right now.

RL: And she's still gonna go to Banana's with you?

CE: No, no not her.

RL: Oh!

CE: No, no. She - All our - See we just recently split up. All our friends are mutual friends.
I couldn't get a hold of them so I called her to see if she could get the message across
because I didn't want to tie up your phones, you know. But yeah we still, we still talk
and everything and we just - a lot of times don't get along about stupid things but. So
anyway I told her. I started crying and she started crying, Oh my God.

RL: Now you said you called JEFF?

RL: Is JEFF the, the baby sitter?
CE: Well he wasn't actually.
RL: Yeah what's, what's that situation there?
CE: JEFF is AMANDA'S well soon to be brother-in-law.
RL: Sister's boyfriend.
CE: Yeah, there in you go. And - But he's been watching her because she hasn't been able
like just checked with a couple day care she said she can't get in them yet. I get her into
one and then she checked into one down here that had openings but it was too close to the
road so she didn't want it. So JEFF, he's a landscaper... 

Here, I have included a portion of his commentary on his transcripts to indicate that he is continuing to be deceptive.  As humans, we process our words in less than a micro second.  Even courts see this "rushing" as reliable in "Excited Utterance":  That he even has a need to explain his answers suggests deception and makes it highly sensitive, in itself.  Note, years later, the entrance of Kassidy's name, even while subtly disparaging or blaming her:  "potty training"

[Again, I am rushing my thoughts. You cannot imagine how fast everything seems and slow at the same time.  When I said, "I get her into one and then she checked into one." What's in my brain but unable to make it to my lips is that I tried to get Kassidy into one - Cross Roads, where Kyle goes, but because Kassidy wasn't potty trained, the director, Sue Edgar, couldn't take her. 
This is another perfect example of my mouth moving too fast for my mind to process. Run on sentences, leaving key words out, mistaking my facts. 

These are the exact things that make Statement Analysis so trustworthy.  We look to see what words are processed quickly, and what self censoring (broken sentences) indicate.  

What I was trying to say is, “Amanda has been trying to get Kassidy into professional daycare and is on several waiting lists. Jeff has been watching Kassidy until a spot opens up. With schools starting back in September daycares traditionally fill up then. Trying to get in during months of Oct and November is tougher. I tried to get Kassidy into Kyle’s daycare program at Crossroads Kindergarten but she wasn’t old enough, which Mrs. Edgar, understanding our situation, was willing to make an exception on, However, Kassidy also wasn’t yet potty trained and Mrs. Edgar couldn’t make an exception for that. Amanda thought she found a daycare with an opening right in Kittery, but the daycare was too close to the road and the road was very busy so she didn’t feel comfortable with that.” It is so much easier to think and respond when you didn’t find out about your child’s death just hours earlier.

RL: Okay.
CE: .... this time of year he doesn't have a lot to do so he's been watching her.
RL: Okay. So the reason JEFF is watching her is because they, they can't get I mean day care
is a problem. ..
CE: Right.
RL: Today is she on any waiting list or anything?

CE: To be honest with you, you know she just, she - we haven't been together all that long.
I really, there's a lot of things that I mean are going through my head right now that I'm,
that you know that I just don't know. But one of the things that you know she doesn't,
we don't, I don't really tell her how to run her kid and I don't really, we did get into
a ton of conversations you know I tell her how she should ... You know but I don't know
her, like with my wife I guess is what I'm getting at is I followed up everyday. Like did
you get this day care thing, have you done this and you know. With her I felt like I kind
of raised one, one (inaudible) not raised but you know what I mean kind of, I don't want
to do that again

He made it very clear that he raised one (in spite of being only 3 and with his mother) and had no intention of raising another.  This is harsh language for one being interviewed by police in a murder investigation. 

Follow the pronouns.  Note the language of deceptive (statistics) with:

To be honest with you" is a signal that he has not, to this point, been honest with the Interviewer. Here, he wants to emphasize honesty. 

Dr. Paul Ekman says that "I don't remember" is the number one form of deception in court.  Pronouns are instinctive and trustworthy.  

Here is a memory test we give investigators.  

Since "I don't remember" is so common, and after a few weeks, or even months, one might forget something, let's take this test:

Think of something that happened to you. 

Think of something that happened to you at least 10 years ago; not a few weeks, or a few months, or even a few years:  Choose something that is at least 10 years old.

Be ready to tell the story. 


If you are asked to tell what happened, would you begin with the pronoun, "I" or the pronoun "we"?

It is likely that you recall whether or not you were alone or with others and would not struggle with pronouns. 

Therefore, struggle with pronouns indicates deception.  

Note the change of pronouns.  He struggles to complete a sentence with straight pronouns.  

Note that he reports what did not happen. 
Note communicative language tells us that the "kid" and how to raise her was a source of stress for the subject.  

We often find this subtle shift of blame to others in guilty statements. 

At this point, there is enough to indicate Chad Evans for deception and for assaulting Kassidy during the time period in which he put her into the car but there was more when he got them home. 

Can you imagine referring to a dead toddler as "her kid"?  I cannot.  

Investigators, prosecutors and the judicial system were correct in finding him guilty.  

There are more transcripts, a web site and a book dedicated to proving that he did not do it.  The preface begins with a reference to Dennis Dechaine, of whom Statement Analysis has shown was deceptive and guilty in the death of Sarah Cherry (12), which is not been wise.  

If you continue to work through the complete interview, you will see a similar pattern of deception.  

Chad Evans severely injured Kassidy, who later died.  For us, (Statement Analysts and Readership) we go by the subject's own words to guide us.  Here he has guided us through a very sensitive time, that is, when he was putting Kassidy into the car.   The extreme sensitivity surrounding this is noted and likely where the most serious injuries were incurred, though in his statement, more injuries are to come.  

This does not rule out any ongoing abuse, including neglect, and rough handling, by himself or others, but shows where a major event took place that led him to being interviewed by police in her death.  

His distancing language from Kassidy is striking and is something found in child abuse cases.  It is especially noted against the back drop of his own son, of whom he uses his son's name regularly, while avoiding, in the extreme, Kassidy's own name.  This is indicative of distancing due to the stress of internal guilt.  

It is difficult to comprehend why anyone would be fooled by Casey Evans.  With only a portion of the interview, under the question, "What happened?" he has given us many deceptive indicators and the need to explain away not only his activities, but his answers, years later. 

Police and the legal system worked. 

Kassidy was a very abused little girl who deserved better.  Whether others abused her as well does not excuse what Chad Evans did to her, nor does it mitigate his guilt.  

Like Dechaine, he has his followers without discernment. 

In waiting for the DNA results, Dechaine's own attorney, after claiming that Dechaine never saw or laid eyes on Sarah Cherry, said, 

"this could backfire on us."


Our words give us away.  One might study Statement Analysis for decades and the principles will not be suspended:  we all give ourselves away.  It does not teach us how to lie because as soon as we enter the Free Editing Process (where we are talking freely, using our pronouns, broken sentences, and so on) we give away the truth. 

Deception is indicated in those who have the will to deceive.  Repeating error is not lying.  

Chad Evans' physical abuse of Kassidy contributed to, if not directly caused, her death.  His language reveals how he viewed Kassidy, in the reference point of how he viewed his own son, who was only 14 months older.  He, in his mind, had raised one child (his son was only 3) and did not want to raise another.  His view on gender should not be lost. 

RL: You already went through it. Let's go back to, to your relationship with what is it,
CE: Yeah.

RL: Yeah. How did you guys meet?
CE: We met, we met through JEFF.

RL: Through JEFF. Now were you and JEFF friendly through high school?

CE: Yeah. No, no, no I just met JEFF he, he is a landscaper for my restaurants.

RL: Oh really

CE: Yeah. (Inaudible)

LM: How long have you guys been together?

Not a well worded question. 


LM: Yeah.

CE: Not very long. I mean I just met her I think it was July we went on a date to a concert. 

RL: What concert?

CE: You would ask that. Sting. 

RL: What?

CE: A group called ........ Sting It's like a .. .

LM: Local group?

CE: No it's, well it's kind of local. They're, they're, they're a lot like Pearl Jam (inaudible)

LM: Oh yeah.

CE: I'm really into alternative rock.

LM: Sure.

CE: ... stuff.

LM: I listen to Limp Bizkit

CE: Yeah.

LM: Stuff like that.

CE: Right. They're a lot like that, yeah ...

LM: This is the stuff you listen to when you're working out.

CE: You got it. And that's what we listen to. But it was down at Hampton Beach though.

He still considers that a "we" exists between him and Amanda, as we see in the word, "we."

RL: Yeah. How did that, that relationship develop? I mean did you know what was going on
in her life? Did she know that you were separated?

CE: Yeah, you know to be honest with you, I don't know, I mean the whole thing is so weird
when I think about it. We, you know I met, I mean I've been friends with JEFF, I've
been talking to him about kind of what happened in my life with my wife and you know
he'd been talking. You know he had a similar situation with an ex-girlfriend and ...

Note the phrase "to be honest with you" in the interview as one used by deceptive people.  

Kassidy deserved better. 

He spoke as if he was "done" raising a child, and wasn't going to do it again.  His child was three, not twenty three, and it is obvious that the baby stage is something he did not want to do, and his actions led to the accomplishment of this very thing. 

In reading his words, the pronoun 'mistakes' are almost cartoon like.  His distancing language from Kassidy is provocative.  

The court put away a monster. 

Update:  The selfish, self serving monster is gaining an audience of those who lack discernment.  In reading readers' comments here, it is clear that even those new to analysis did not struggle to discern deception. 

 Chad Evans had also been convicted of domestic violence against women:  his ex wife and Amanda.  In 2011, he admitted causing "some bruises" to 
Kassidy's face by squeezing it too hard.  

Birth: Feb. 4, 1999
York County
Maine, USA
Death: Nov. 9, 2000
York Village
York County
Maine, USA

Kassidy Caitlyn Bortner was the daughter of Amanda J Bortner. Her grandmother was Jacqueline M Nicholson-Conley. Her grandfather was Paul F Conley. She had a aunt Jennifer Bortner, uncle Joshua Caleb Bortner, uncle Scott Paul Christian Conley, and uncle Charles H Bortner, III. She was a innocent, beautiful girl who's life was taken by her mother's boyfriend in acts of rage. Because of her death, the "Kassidy Bortner Act" was passed in the state of New Hampshire. The Act is intended to help protect children from all forms of child abuse and violence. It helps to make people and the State of New Hampshire be held accountable for their actions towards children.  (bio by:conley) 
Buckfield Village Cemetery
Oxford County
Maine, USA
Plot: new 124

Created by: conley
Record added: Dec 31, 2008
Find A Grave Memorial# 32538741
Kassidy Caitlyn Kassie Bortner
Added by: conley
Kassidy Caitlyn Kassie Bortner
Added by: conley
Kassidy Caitlyn Kassie Bortner

Next Up:   Was Jeff deceptive?  Did others contribute to Kassidy's nightmare of abuse?  

Statement Analysis gets to the truth!  


Randie said...

Peter, I am not reading anymore than the first few paragraphs. There is deception everywhere. That man wreaks of lies....I can't bring myself to read anymore.


Deejay said...

CE tells us he did not want any responsibility for Kassidy and that he did not agree with how she was being raised...

I'm going to guess that Kassidy struggled in the car and was about to make him late to pick up 'Kyle' and he struck her, causing great injury. The reason that his language is so odd from the period after taking her out of the car, is that she was unresponsive.
He tells us she could not talk, or walk, she would/could not eat. He may have tried to stuff part of a banana in her mouth.

He played with Kyle, then 'plays' with her- NOPE. He played with Kyle and checked to see if she was still alive. Likely she was almost comatose. He put Kassidy to bed in that condition- the poor mother came back at 11:00 pm. At some point, Kassidy died- but he does not take full responsibility- others may have hurt her too.

Hope he rots in jail.

Statement Analysis Blog said...


It is so "off the charts" deceptive that I think many people without training will see so.

With or without training, his avoidance of using the victim's name is extreme.

We find it common in child abuse cases, but even in the world of child abuse, in reflective language, a perpetrator will use the name.

His hatred of his victim was acute.


Unknown said...

Guilty as charged rightfuly convicted...Another child murder in the UK.................

sugacat said...

I can't believe he has supporters who think he is innocent. His story makes no sense. I think the jury got this one right.

Tania Cadogan said...

Thanks for posting this Peter.
It is disturbing.
Whereas years ago i would have said hmm something isn't right he is skipping round the roses, now i look at it as i find myself circling pronouns, noting dropped pronouns and tenses, non use of her name as i am going along.
I don't have to think about it anymore, i don't have to consciously think woah back up a minute, it is instinctive and i include it as part of what i reading.
it's as if what he says is on top and underneath is what should be there.
I read what he says and in my mind i am saying dropped pronoun, tense,tense, dropped, no name, WTH? and so on, it's like the audio description on tv.

I love SA, the downside is i find myself doing the same thing when reading fiction books, biographies, Mark McClish and so on.

The guy attacked and brutalised Kassidy in the car and then again in the house.
In his mind he didn't murder her he only beat her.
I know that I didn't intentionally, maliciously hurt her."
He cannot say he didn't hurt her either, he qualifies it with intenionally and maliciously.
This would imply premeditation ( i wonder if he had abused her before and harming her was on his mind given the chasm between them)
He lost his temper and lashed out therefore it was accidental not intentional nor malicious. He should be doing LWOP at the least.

Vita said...

Failure to protect - earns less a sentence then Kassidy was alive.

Bortner, Amanda Jean (Mandy). Mother of Kassidy Caitlyn Bortner, and girlfriend of Chad Evans. Convicted of child endangerment and served 16 months in Strafford County House of Corrections.
Is this correct? copied from the save Chad site.

State of N.H. Vs Amanda Bortner

I cannot believe the amount of abuse that Kassidy " survived" prior to taking her last breath.

2011 News Video on Chad Evans
He claiming innocence, wanting his justice, guess he is going to have a long wait,

@2:20 either I held her face too firmly, er too long, we do not know why she bruised so easily,, I held my son's cheeks...

OMG, Held her face too firmly or too long? bruising, not of his comprehension, hmm, she was a baby, not yet two years old. He a grown Monster, 20 times her size. He had no conclusion of his " hands upon her" why she bruised ..

video is partial he being interviewed, it is 4:51 in length

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Next, we can do analysis of Jeff's statement, to see if Evans was not the only one who physically abused this poor child.

Kassidy deserved better.

PS: The analysis has been updated with more material. Since the subject is so obviously deceptive, I would like to hear from readers regarding what they saw intuitively, and if any readers shared the statements with others, such as spouses, did the untrained, or at least, those unfamiliar with Statement Analysis, to see if they heard deception intuitively, without knowing principle.



John Mc Gowan said...

Hi Peter,

I introduced my partner Siobhan to SA,while reading this article she was picking out inconsistancies in his statement,what she thought was wrong was the substantiated with your analysis under each section,i think she has a natural flare for SA,either that or she is a witch.haha

Tania Cadogan said...

Voice Stress Analysis (VSA) technology is said to record psychophysiological stress responses that are present in human voice, when a person suffers psychological stress in response to a stimulus (question) and where the consequences may be dire for the subject being 'tested'.[1]

In the Detection Of Deception (DOD) scenario, the voice-stress produced in response to a Relevant Question ("did you do it?") is referred to as psychological stress or 'deceptive stress'. However, it is not possible to cleanly separate the excitation signal into component dues to emotion and those due to deception. Thus no DOD technology can detect a lie or truth unequivocally, but only whether a speaker is experiencing stress. For example, a suspect under questioning would also display natural stress even if he were not guilty.

The technique's accuracy remains debated. There are no independent research studies that support the use of VSA as a reliable lie detection technology, whilst there are numerous studies that dispute its reliability.[2][3

In civil court testimony, the CVSA founder, Mr. Charles Humble, testified that "NITV acknowledges that the CVSA is not capable of lie detection and specifically cautions its users regarding proper use of the device."

There is tension between the voice stress analysis community and the polygraph community, due in the main to the fact that the polygraph is heavily regulated and has been subject to numerous detailed, contentious scientific studies, while voice stress analysis is largely unregulated. However, there are few studies which show VSA RESULTS TO BE EVEN BETTER SLIGHTLY BETTER THAN CHANCE

Since SA has shown him to be deceptive, even those not familiar with it have said he is lying, i wonder if he would be prepared to take a normal LE administered polygraph.
This polygraph was a privately paid for one. ( John - ..."I’m a licensed private investigator, and a polygraph examiner, and I am doing this exam at your request the request through Mr. Morrison Bonpasse.") and thus the interviewer may have ulterior motives.

Anonymous said...

The sick son of a b'tch. He killed this baby. Slowly. He didn't bother to do it quickly. He made an evening of torturing her.

I don't believe that's the first time he beat her either. His telling how she sat in a chair for four hours at his sister's and didn't move of speak tells us she was too scared to move or speak. She had been beaten.

OhMG, her pitiful injuries. The poor little baby. It makes me want to cry.

Deejay said...

Vita- thanks. Your links explain a lot. I hope CE serves this whole term.

Lemon said...

I agree with Hobs, it is disturbing.

The 'cluster of blues' is striking.

When he states: "There's a complete and total lack of evidence that I killed Kassidy," it almosts sounds like he's bragging.

Vita said...

Here he is attempting to tell a rehash of events to " provide" himself wiggle room with the interviewer.

CE: ... just tell me that she was dead and it just like hey rewind, rewind, rewind. Because you know I mean last night fed them, her and KYLE and we were playing. I gave her a bath, gave KYLE a bath and put her to bed, I put KYLE to bed. I did her alphabet with her
before she went to bed and now I get a phone call today telling me she's dead, you know
I mean.
Play by play if his mind were showing the interviewer flashcards. As he is attempting to paint a picture, of him being a doting " father like" do gooder.
Remove the first 17 words of hot air. Begin his statement where he begins to put words together.

I mean last night fed them, her and KYLE and we were playing. I gave her a bath, gave KYLE a bath and put her to bed, I put KYLE to bed. I did her alphabet with her before she went to bed and now I get a phone call today telling me she's dead, you know I mean.

I mean = yes he is

last night

fed them - obligation

her *this is derogatory KB = object

and Kyle =

Kyle & Kassidy did not eat the same food, or they ate separately, he to give her what? " Her" like she is a mongrel to him. Did he smear her face, with HER dinner. This is when it began, his attention applied to " Her".
she though was already abused by (?) as it states in the presser linked below, sounds as if she had a concussion.

and we were playing =
he taunting the children, smack the baby girl around? knock her dinner around, that type of playing?

I gave her a bath =
did Kassidy vomit? or was she bleeding? did she have an accident, due to abuse, being tortured, or was she wearing her dinner on her face/body?
* he to hate her, why give her bath? other than to destroy evidence of abuse.

gave KYLE a bath - he must have been exhausted, by now ol Chadder.

and put her to bed - put her

I put KYLE to bed - I put Kyle

I did her alphabet with her
before she went to bed

now we have introduced reiteration - he adds, in an after thought.
She was 21 mos old, the Alphabet to be meaningless to her, it was though to him meaningful enough to mention. What did he do? he counted off with her. He gave her an ultimatum vs what going to bed? that he said, the ABC's, Before he " did her" Think of a scared child that fears a thunderstorm, the parent to count off, one one thousand, two one thousand, except this wasn't to calm Kassidy, it was a count down, did he act as though she at 21 mos old should know it? he to hurt her for each wrong, missed letter?

I did her
With Her
to bed
and now *Kassidy's fault she died
I get a phone call
telling me
she's dead
you know
I mean = he repeats I mean beginning and end.
He mean alright
His statements in the press, the original news article, linked PDF.

"During the evening she ate, played, had a bath and worked on the Alphabet with him" he said

So much abuse stated in this article. My brain can't comprehend it. Is he is solitaire? if he is, he should not be. He should be Big Bubba's "Cat toy" for the rest of his miserable ROT, behind bars. -

Link to Newspaper
12/13/2000 or 2001(?)

John Mc Gowan said...

Peter,I was wondering do you think when questioning a suspect that the tactic of asking them to tell their story backwards is a good route to take,given that are memory recall is such that we play things back in the order that they happen,and if the story is fabricated it is harder to keep track of the the position of certain events.

Thus making it difficult to remember details in the order they are supposed to be..

Vita said...

His statements in the Newspaper, this appears to be Dec 2000, or Dec 2001. I cannot tell. An ad says only good till 12/14, no year.

Ohmygod he is such a pig. Pigs are better than he is. Reading his words of the officer with a photo of Kassidy deceased.

He throughout his statements he speaks as if Kassidy was out to get him, her pure existence was to undermine him. That she was fully aware at 21 months old, she was bulling him into beating her, as she was placed on this earth to be his punching bag.

He whines of her falls, her she then fell over again, could not hold her head up, even half dead she could not please him. Kassidy all 25+lbs, not be to free from him, this gave him all the more power, to give her another kick for " not being 3/4 of the way dead" yet.

She to be 1/2 dead, to him this gave him promise, he could continue his abuse in stages, till her end. He methodically, systematically killed her slowly and she is still in his craw at present, 12 yrs later. He didn't get enough of her?

He demands his justice, his what? freedom? so he can take a cab to her grave and spit on it?

Kassidy is haunting him. Not for her being unmercifully tortured by him, he for whatever reason isn't satisfied yet. He wants to take Amanda " Momma" out? there is motive in his "want for release".

He has to know he on the street is a walking dead man. Someone with nothing to lose, would take him out with pleasure.

The chronicles of Kassidy's end
*graphic* Poor little Angel didn't have a chance, not within the small world she was provided.

Jazzie said...

Amanda's (Kassidy's mom) letter to Judge Nadeau:

Jazzie said...

read the grand jury indictments:

Jazzie said...

Jeffrey Marshall vs Chad Evans for Libel:

Vita said...

Jazzie, am reading, I think I am done, thank you for the link.
Amanda's pleading for Chad.

She to say, he is all these wonderful qualities - what happens when you have your standards set so low, he looks good?

Reading, they moved in with each other mid summer 2000, Kassidy dead first week of November 2000. Her injuries she sustained did not happen over night, but were a period of months.

Barnes and Noble selling a book, price: $2.00

EYE CONTACT - The Mysterious Death in 2000 in Maine of Kassidy Bortner and the Wrongful Conviction of Chad Evans in New Hampshire [NOOK Book] Written by
Morrison Bonpasse with Chad Evans

67 pages, 65 are free to view.
Cannot copy and paste, I will copy one entry of his, you can find on page 3.

"Unfortunately this case doesn't have the type of "Black and White" proof to secure my freedom, as those mentioned above (at least not yet). If I did, I would be home with my son because I simply DID NOT kill Kassidy. The truth is, no one knows what really killed Kassidy"

Chad Evans
I simply did not kill Kassidy
He did not kill her "instantly" he killed her slowly by torture, so he can believe he did not " simply kill her". It was complicated not simple.

The truth is, no one knows what killed Kassidy.

He doesn't say No one knows WHO, he say's no one knows "what". I guess after being a human pinata at less than 30lbs, by the hands of a Muscle bound Goon, it would be difficult to determine exactly which blow took her last breath.

*No news on Carnel*
waiting impatiently

Anonymous said...

Intuitively, he sounded defensive to me, and like he was trying to put all the suspicion on Jeff and make it look like he was so sorry for doing so. (Yeah, right.)

He says he "offered" to pick Kassidy up since Jeff couldn't watch her the whole time, like it was no big deal, but I don't think so. I think he resented it. I think there was more to the foot injury, too, and he tried to make that Jeff's fault as well.

He doesn't seem to connect Kyle and Kassidy in any way. He doesn't pick "them" up, feed "them", play with "them" or put "them" to bed. Instead, it's all separated.

Even if someone picked up their pets from different places on the way home (doggie daycare and pet salon, perhaps!), I think they'd say something like "I got Lady from grooming and Petey from dog-care, then they ate dinner and we played for awhile before bed." You wouldn't keep splitting them apart. You also probably wouldn't be describing how "he" (Petey) didn't eat his food right unless that was sensitive to you for some reason and you felt the need to explain or justify it. I also don't think you'd bring up the foot injury unless that's another sensitive spot.

The whole explanation was weird and sad, and I think Kassidy was already in bad shape by the time he describes her as sitting strangely, etc. in the car. He acts like he called Jeff to check and see "did you beat her or something?" then just takes no for an answer when Jeff says he didn't? If she looked the way he described, a trip to the E.R. was in order, not just "oh, okay whatever wtf".

These are some of the things that stuck out at me.

Lis said...

I was going to just skim this article because I was in a hurry but once I started, I couldn't stop reading. There are so many things wrong in this statement, it's a challenge just to try and read along and follow his sentences, they are so broken and halting. So many examples to analyze.

Right away, he says "There's a complete and total lack of evidence that I killed Kassidy." I would think one would want to start out with "I didn't kill Kassidy" not talking about evidence.

If I ate the last piece of pie in the fridge but I know that no one saw me do it, I can honestly say "there is no evidence that I ate that pie!" it does not mean I didn't eat it.

His description of picking Kassidy up is painful to read. He can't even put together a coherent sentence, he's like a squirrel in the middle of the road that can't decide which way to run.

It is clear that he loathed this little girl from the awkward way he separates her from his own son throughout his statement.

"I know that I didn't intentionally, maliciously hurt her" means that he did hurt her, he just claims it wasn't intentional or malicious.

He is sneaky in trying to direct suspicion onto Jeff, but if he actually thought Jeff was the one responsible for Kassidy's death, he would have been clear about it.

"you know what keeps going through my mind right now is I keep flashing back to like you know coming in here and having the other detective or whatever ..."

"Whatever" referring to what he knows he did to Kassidy?

I found it interesting that he still expressed unity with his ex-wife. I think Amanda was just someone he was using for the short term and he had even less consideration for her child.

Ney said...

I did not even have to try to use SA, he "painted the picture clearly". I got so upset not only with the obvious deception, but the complete lack of respect he had toward this poor little girl.
He said "whatever..., whatever .... whatever..."so many times in connection with this little girl's obvious medical emergency, it is terible.
His statements tell me, Kassidy needed to be taken to the hospital when she was strapped in the car. He described pretty clearly, when they got home, the children were separated, Kassidy was either dead already or unresponsive.

sidewalk super said...

Is this convict/liar/bully in jail general population? Tell me that he is!

Statement Analysis Blog said...

John, I only use it early in the interview when either an inconsistency has shown up, or I wish to put the subject on alert.

If the subject believes that I am able to pick up deception, he may be a bit less willing to deceive.

I remind them how easy truth is to keep in order.

To others:

It is surprising that anyone could read the transcripts and not be, at least, infuriated. It is difficult to understand how anyone could read this and believe him.

In his commentary, he is also deceptive.

Having said all of this, we will next see if others also physically abused Kassidy.

I think some of you are already seeing issues in some of the other statements in the case.

Kassidy...she did not have a chance with those who surrounded her.


John Mc Gowan said...


Thanks for your reply.

Skeptical said...

Many excellent comments have been made. I only want to add one that brings awareness of the heinousness of the crime to my heart. Kassidy would have celebrated her 13th birthday next Friday.

Tania Cadogan said...

~Waves to Siobhan~

Welcome aboard.

John Mc Gowan said...

Waves back :-)

Anonymous said...

Wow, i just read the account of her death on God Bless our Lost Angels. I work in an ER as very little shocks me. This did though. 3 other adults ( the mother, mother's sister and mother's sister's boyfriend) watched her suffering and dying by degrees for at least 24 hours prior to her death and DID NOTHING TO HELP until it was too late. Only the mother, Amanda, received 2 years.

rob said...

He probably didn't 'mean' to kill this beautiful baby. He just wanted to bully and abuse her into submission, like he does every female in his life. Sadly, it takes less to kill a 2 yr old than a twenty-something yr old.
How many bruises has this monster left on females in his life. Probably some had the sense to leave after the first time. Two obviously did not.
I suspect his father abused women in front of him.

Anonymous said...

Hello everybody,
I wish some of you would post comments on the site....My name is Bob Arnold, aka Bob A. I've been studing this case for nearly two years, and I've believed all along that Chad is guilty of murdering Kassidy Bortner. At times I've found myself greatly outnumbered by the Chad Evans supporters. I've been threatened, harrassed and publicly confronted by members of the CEWCC. However, I've been steadfast in my belief, and I've stood my ground.

Today I read Peter's SA of Chad Evans initial police interrogation, and with great relief I've finally found the burning question I've had all along: At what point during the evening of Nov 8, 2000 did Chad inflict the fatal blow? Peter answered that question for me. I have no experience in SA, but Peter was able to articulate many of the things about Chad's video tapped interrogation that I've tried to point out to the CEWCC all along.

Thank you, all of you, for taking the time to apply Statement Analysis in this case.

Best Regards,

Bob Arnold

Statement Analysis Blog said...


You're welcome.

truth is all that matters. I think his private investigator asked me to look into it with sincerity, and I did not know about the case until I finished the initial analysis. Since the attorney general's response included a reference to SCAN analysis (Scientific Content Analysis), I thought it important to send a copy of the analysis to him.

I have included much commentary, but the analysis remains the same.

Statement Analysis remains the most reliable source of information available, surpassing even the polygraph, as we are able to identify specific areas of sensitivity for the subject. This is what you are referring to.

I will, eventually, get to the work by Morrison B. He is obviously an intelligent man who feels passionate about the case.

The deceptive answers found in Evans' responses are so extreme that they are useful for teaching. No SCAN analyst in the country will conclude "truth" in the answers found in the interview. We all employ the same principles.



Bob Arnold said...


I agree, Morrison is a very intelligent guy, he's made his website as transparent as possible and permits debate from both sides of this case. However, I've strongly disagreed with his portrayal of Evans as a loving, nurturing guy. I would like to clarify a statement I made in regards to harrassment I've received, the harrasment came from members of the CEWCC and not Morrison.

Thanks again,


Statement Analysis Blog said...

Bob, your initial post was clear. Morrison has interacted as a gentleman, and I see that he allows for varying opinions.

my calling of Evans as a "monster" is obvious commentary, and not analysis, but it is based on years of child protective interviews, as well as the principles of analysis.

I don't think I have seen more distancing language from anyone that exceeded the distancing language of Evans.

He is a violent and dangerous man, who has conned others into believing he is innocent. His pattern is one of abuse of woman, in particular.

I wondered if steroids played a role in increasing his venom towards women.


Bob Arnold said...

It's interesting that you brought that up (steroid use) because Chad did work out regularly with Bruce Aube, they lifted weights. At one point during the police interrogation while there was a break in the quesitoning, Detective McCleish and Evans discussed working out, lifting weights and using protein shakes etc... Though I have no experience with SA, I've always noticed a distinct change in Evans disposision during the casual conversations he had with McCleish, vs his rambling answers during the formal questioning.

One thing I'd like to point out is Evans explanation for the phone conversation he had with his ex-wife Tristen, prior to his arrival at the police station. It just didn't seem right, he's been summoned to the Kittery PD, he calls Tristen and claims he wanted her to "pass the word" to his friends that he wouldn't be meeting them at Banannas that evening, however in later statements he claims that he wanted her to meet him at the Portsmouth traffic circle and help him find the police station. Then again, much of what he said during his police interrogation has me baffled. Ironically, when he did finally show up at the police station, he had a posse of friends with him.

Chad Evans has a long history of violent, abusive behaviour, he violently beat his ex-wife so badly that one of the Rochester police officers described it as the worst case of domestic abuse he'd ever seen. There's also a police interview with a prior girlfriend, Barbara Hammel, where she described in great detail how deviant and violent he was. Reading these accounts have convinced me that Chad Evans is like a hateful little kid who lives in a muscle builder's body, a kid who throws tantrums, lies, manipulates and becomes enraged when he doesn't get his way.


morrisonbonpasse said...

I look forward to further analysis, even if Peter seems overly confident of its validity. (In another posting to the comment about the “football party,” please note that the party never occurred. Never. It was another case of the police hearing a rumor and passing it on as truth in order to persuade a witness of the correctness of their theory of the case.)

For more information about the Chad Evans case, please visit the website, and the book, “EYE CONTACT - The Mysterious Death of Kassidy Bortner and the Wrongful Convictions of Chad Evans and Amanda Bortner.”

Anonymous said...

Chad Evans is a sick, self serving and manipulating scumbag who is currently in the right place, and should be for the rest of his life!
I grew up with him in Keene, knew him well, watched him beat and bully others on numerous occasions. He personally threatened me with a pistol while chasing me down the streets of Keene over an incident with his younger brother,(also a scumbag). I went to the Keene police to report it and Chad had already reported that I had threatened HIM with a gun!!!! I couldn't believe it! I was also told that since "Mr.Evans was an upstanding member of the community" that it would be wise to just drop the issue. I think he was on the Keene school board or something and was buddies with several cops because he gave them free Mcdonalds food! I had not heard of his name nor did I want to until years later when I heard that he murdered this little girl! Soo sad! Now i'm seeing that he is manipulating others, as he always did into thinking that he is innocent and is such a nice guy! It's disgusting and I hope he never gets out!

Anonymous said...

Chad Evans is a psycho murderer who deserves to spend the rest of his life behind bars!
I grew up with Chad in Keene and watched as he bullied and abused others. It wasn't until the summer of 1991 did I witness his behavior on a personal level when he chased me through the streets of Keene with his Corvette brandishing a 9mm pistol threatening to kill me over an incident with his brother,(another looser)!I got away from him after he crashed his car into some trees, went to the Police and told them what happened and Chad had called them and told them that I was the one with a pistol! They then told me that it was my word against his and that since he was such an upstanding member of the cummunity that it would be best to drop the issue, so I did! I believe he was a member of the Keene school board or something and used this to cover up his true self! He was a liar and a manipulator then and he is doing it again by fooling all to think that he is an innocent and kind hearted man who was wrongly accused! Rott in hell Evans!