Thursday, November 22, 2012

Statement Analysis Test: Child Molestation

Here is a statement with no analysis at first.  The allegation is all that you need to know:  a man accused of molesting his own daughter.  

Follow principles already well discussed here at the Statement Analysis blog and 'solve' the case:

Did he do it?

Child molestation is one of the most egregious of crimes which, in a sense, cannot be 'paid for' since the impact can be generational with almost no possibility of accurately measuring how many future persons will be hurt as a result of this sexual deviance.  The innocency of childhood is destroyed and all those that love her, including in the future, will, with her, pay for the act of selfish sexual deviancy.  Child abuse is not "obscenity" because it never has a place in society, no matter what laws or beliefs change in a culture.  "Obscenity" means "off stage"; that is, private. In the sexual abuse of a child, there is the presence of evil.  

Do your own analysis and publish it in the comments section. Then, scroll down for my analysis.  This is the same test given 
to investigators in training.  See how well you do. 

For those seasoned readers, explain well your answer based upon principle. 

For those new to Statement Analysis, this gives you an opportunity to test your "intuitive" abilities; that is, your "feel" or intuition of the statement.  Don't be afraid to give your opinion, even if you do not know the principles of analysis.  This is a very useful statement for instructive purposes. 

"This is a load of crap.  You people should be disgusted with yourselves. Do you think that I am disgusted?  This is a bunch of lies and you people know it.  
What I did is this.  I got home from a friend's at 10AM and my wife and my daughter were home.  She was ticked that I was out early because she
wanted to go shopping.  She left.  I was busy and the girl had homework anyway. 
The next thing I know she gets home from shopping, wants me 
to carry in the groceries and my daughter is crying like there's
something wrong.  you get called.  Cops get called and here
I am with this crap."

Scroll down for the statement with analysis after you have entered your work.  Now compare your analysis with that which is below.  

                                                                    Did he do it?

Statement Analysis will be in bold type, with underlining and color added for emphasis.  

"This is a load of crap.  You people should be disgusted with yourselves. Do you think that I am disgusted?  This is a bunch of lies and you people know it.  
What I did is this.  I got home from a friend's at 10AM and my wife and my daughter were home.  She was ticked that I was out early because she
wanted to go shopping.  She left.  I was busy and the girl had homework anyway. 
The next thing I know she gets home from shopping, wants me 
to carry in the groceries and my daughter is crying like there's
something wrong.  you get called.  Cops get called and here
I am with this crap."

It helps to break down a statement in order to highlight principle.  Although we use the "red flags" method, the color blue, should you decide to further your studies with LSI, represents the highest level of sensitivity and it is only used in two places:

1.  The leaving of a place.  The word "left" (or "departed") indicates that the subject is 'still at the location left' in his mind.  It is 70% likely mentioned due to rushing, traffic, or time constraints, but it is 30% likely to be critical, missing information. 

2.  The reason 'why'.  If someone is supposed to be telling us what happened, it is the need to explain 'why' something happened that it so very sensitive.  Words such as "so, since, because, to, therefore, hence..." and so on, are given the color blue as the highest level of sensitivity.  For those of you who desire to study through LSI, the use of blue will make for a seamless transition.  The online course is of great value to any field where information is exchanged, not just investigators, but journalists, therapists, lawyers, parents, teachers, writers, online bloggers, hobbyists, true crime followers, those who do not wish to be taken advantage of while buying a car, and on and on.  SCAN Training is where our nation's best analysts have trained, and is the 'grandfather' of all analysis today.  The online course can be drawn out over a period of weeks, which, I think, is of advantage over the intense in person training.  The in person training, however, does allow for the live interaction which, particularly when spontaneous, is invaluable.  

Leaving a location and the reason 'why' are the only two sensitivity indicators in which the color blue is used.  

"This is a load of crap.  

Note that the word "this" indicates closeness to a situation or topic.  We note that he uses the word "crap" and will see if it is repeated or what the context is.  We will also note any changes in language. 

We have touched upon several principles:

*repetition indicates importance
*"this" shows closeness to the situation
*A change of language:  We will see if there are any changes in language in the statement.  A change in language should be indicative of a change in reality, as judged by the statement itself.  If so, memory is in play.  If there is no justification for the change, we should be on alert that the subject (speaker) may be making things up as he goes along.  This principle ("Change in Language" ) is critical for the analyst. 

The skill of the analyst does not come in simply highlighting principle, but in his conclusions. 

You people should be disgusted with yourselves. 

"People" is a plural word, with one person being addressed (likely a social worker) and the other (at least one other) being a police officer.  Note that he does not tell the people why they should be disgusted with themselves. 
Note the word "disgusted" for possible repetition. 

Do you think that I am disgusted?  

Here we meet, again, with the word, "disgusted" making the topic of "disgusted" one that is sensitive to the subject.  We will seek to learn why.

Next note that this is a question found within an open statement.  

When a person asks a question within an open statement, not waiting for an answer, the analyst should be aware that, maybe, the subject is reliving the event, and speaking to himself. 

Remember, the subject did not wait for an answer.  

Did he question himself as he considered what happened? Always note a question in an open statement for the possibility that the subject is going back in memory (experiential memory) and may be speaking, not to the audience, but to himself.  With the repetition, we have sensitivity, yet now we have a question within an open statement that does not require an answer.  The wording appears awkward, but we should now be on alert:  does he feel disgust with himself?  If so, it would be indicative of guilt.  

This is a bunch of lies and you people know it.  

We note that "crap" was used previously, and now "bunch of lies" is distinctly plural, not singular.  It is different than a "load of crap" (singular).  

What I did is this. 

Always be on alert for embedded admissions.  The inclusion of the pronoun, "I" is important and we know he did something.  Always remember that people do not like to lie directly, due to the cause of internal stress; instead, they leave out information in order to deceive.  A person can be, therefore, 100% truthful, line by line, yet still be guilty.  

 I got home from a friend's at 10AM and my wife and my daughter were home.  

1.  "a friend" is gender neutral, and not "my friend."  
2.  Time is noted:  10AM
3.   Introduction of people is now explored in the principle of "Social Introductions."

Please search the blog for teachings on "Social Introductions" in Statement Analysis.  

a.  "a friend" is not "my friend" and the name is not used.  This may not be someone he wants to name. 
b.  "my wife" does not have her name, which indicates a less than appropriate introduction, yet it does use the possessive pronoun, "my" wife.  She is not given a name, but she has a title.  The relationship is not a great one. 
c.  "my daughter":  We learn that it is difficult for one to use the title "my daughter" while molesting.  We also note that his daughter is not given a name, which also indicates that the relationship is not good.  

Best is: "my wife, Sally" or "my daughter, Sally"

Since we note all names, we now have:

"my wife" and "my daughter" and will note any other references to these two people, in the statement.  How he addresses them is critical. 

She was ticked that I was out early because she
wanted to go shopping.  She left.  

Going only by the color blue, we now come to the most sensitive part of his statement:  we have "two blues" very close together, making it very sensitive.  We note that the highest level of sensitivity is found in the leaving of his wife.  

"She" is not designated, but by context, it is his wife.  Note that he feels the need to explain "why" she was "ticked" (his word for 'anger' is likely, yet in the follow up interview, we would ask him to define 'ticked' for us, and use examples, so that we can allow him to interpret for us since we avoid interpreting words.)

"She left" is very sensitive to the subject and may be the reason for the molestation.  In his mind, it is her leaving of the residence that is critical.  We might ask if she was rushing (70%) but due to the close proximity of the other 'blue', we may safely conclude (skill of the analyst) that it is in the category of the 30%, critical information missing here, instead. 

I was busy 

Please note that he tells us that he was busy, but avoids telling us what he was busy doing. 

and the girl had homework anyway

Note the change in language: 

She was "my daughter" previously, but is now "the girl." Please note that he had 'downgraded' her from "daughter" to the "girl", gender specific.  

Please note that child molesters do not sexually molest a "daughter"; but a "girl."

Remember:  we are not analyzing reality; we are analyzing verbalized reality.  

Since there is a change in language that deprived the girl of her status as daughter, we must learn what it is that caused this change. 

For the analyst:

"What caused the daughter to be changed from a "daughter" to a "girl" in the subject's words?

The answer to this question is what we now seek and may allow us to know what it is that happened. 

The next thing I know 

The "temporal lacunae" or, skipping over time, is something, in the subject's mind, that he withholds from us.  This is the time period in which he "did" what he "did" and he does not want to stop to explain.  His skipping is sensitive and is where we now aim our questions towards:

she gets home from shopping, 

We now note the verb tense change.  We know that culturally, he uses the past tense, so the change is something we must note.

wants me 
to carry in the groceries 

Heaven forbid he have to carry in groceries!  He sounds lazy and entitled; not a good combination for a husband and father!

and my daughter is crying like there's
something wrong.  

The "girl" has now returned to being "my daughter", which is the basis of our analysis.  

There is something wrong just as he says.  This is a truthful statement.  

you get called.  Cops get called and here
I am with this crap."

He returns to "crap" and uses the word "this", indicating closeness.  He said "what I did is this" yet does not tell us what he was busy doing.  The missing information is critical. 

The analyst now asks himself:

"What happened to change his daughter into "the girl" and then back to "my daughter" again?

Answer:  The presence of his wife.  

While the wife was home, the child was safe because she was his "daughter" but when the wife left to go grocery shopping for her family, she was now in danger, and was "the girl"; but once his wife returned home, the child was "safe" again, because she was his "daughter."

He molested her and is blaming his wife for it. 

If she did not "leave" the residence, his "daughter" would have been safe, but because she left (note the highest level of sensitivity in the leaving), the "daughter" was now "the girl" who was molested.  

He asked himself if he was "disgusting" to himself.  

When his wife came home, his "daughter" was safe. 

It was the presence of his wife that had the power to change his language.  In her presence, the child was safe.   

Notice how, line by line, he has told the truth?  This is a good example of how to discern deception as he does not outright lie, nor does he deny molesting the child.  In his verbalized reality, he did not molest his "daughter", but only a "girl."  Remember:  the subject is 'dead' to us; it is his statement which is 'alive' to us.  

The child will never be safe with her own father.  


Justme said...

He never denied doing anything, let alone the specific allegations. He disparages the accusers. He asks if they thinks he is disgusted but doesn't answer for himself that he in fact is disgusted. "What I did is this." Stalling for time. He doesn't use his wife of daughter's name. He disparages his wife, "she was ticked". He uses the word left, should be flagged. The thing that stands out more than anything to me is that he refers to his daughter as "the girl". Extreme distancing. "The next thing I know", story telling. Also skipping time. He goes into present tense, he is making up a story. "His daughter is crying LIKE there is something wrong." I can't remember the analysis principal behind the use of connecting words. "Here I am with this crap". Shows no concern for his daughter, only for himself.

Justme said...

Could "what I did is this" be an embedded confession? This is close and personal.

John Mc Gowan said...

Its Oh so tempting to peek at your analysis before i finish mine.If only it was under a hide button which you could click and reveal to check.

No turkey for me i guess.

I missed the change in language both times,and when he ask the question about being disgusted.

I am finding myself becoming a pronoun geek.What also tend to stick out to me a lot are the words,because,so,therefore, left and all variations of them.

Anonymous said...

There is no doubt in my mind he did it. I don't know much about analysis but I have picked up a few things on this blog. He never says he didn't do it. He uses the word disgusting and I think that he's disgusted becaus he's being quested. He uses the word "crap" probably because he thinks what he did isn't a crime and really no big deal in his mind. He never uses the name of either his daughter or wife,I don't think he has any love or respect for either of them. He really does love himsef. He has no respect for those who are questioning him. His language shows he is probably uneducated. His employment if any is probably menial. I also think he is young maybe late teens or early 20's.
Tommy's Mom

Randie said...

I read the statement.
I didn't want to read your conclusion or other posts till I make my comment.

* When the wife is home the victim is a "daughter", when the wife is gone the victim is "the girl"

He is guilty.

There is so much more but I am curious what others have to say....gotta go read them now.

Anonymous said...

Still learning, so newbie:

He's guilty

1. He does not make a simple denial.
He doesn't say "I did not molest her" or "molest Jane (actual name).
2. He says they should be disgusted (not sure what it means, but it does mean something in SA).
3. "you people know it" --is like "of course" like they
are in agreement; everyone should know he is innocent.
4.Alibi building. "I got home from a friend's at 10AM"
5. My wife and 'daughter' were home" Does not say his daughter's name(Distancing).
6. "The girl had homework" (Does not say daughter's name again & distance's himself with "the girl" and maybe makes her an object instead of a person and his daughter).
7. Leaves out pronouns at least twice at end.
8. Gaps, something is left out.

Randie said...

Oh yea...the jump in time!

"the next thing I know"

Vita said...

You people is ambiguous. His words follow suit. You should be disgusted, he to find it as it was, they were disgusted. He reflecting their disgust not of him, but his actions. His quip, Do you think I am disgusted is not ambiguous. It's blurred. As he lives a life of blurred boundary. He has no boundaries. He says it himself.

"I got home from a friend's at 10AM and my wife and my daughter were home" - he was out, Cat-o-nine tales, came home, his wife and daughter there, where else should they be? He was out all night, is my thought. He to have the only vehicle?, sounds like it. " She left" yes after they had a dry meeting of words, she left. She wanted to go shopping, he attempts her to appear selfish and aloof, no, sorry. The grocery store is not a girls day out. She ticked off because he is who he is, proven how many times over. His word means nothing.

I was busy = occupied or preoccupied by the girl?
Her fault. He could not keep his mitts off her.

The Girl. His daughter or step daughter. The girl had homework anyway. This is a particle statement of fragment. She was to? she was to what? comply with him?
do under his submission? sounds like it to me.

Next thing " Interrupted". His wife came home, sooner than he had hoped. Wife with her mystic lured him outside? for aid to carry in the groceries. Beneath him. Now THE girl becomes " My Daughter".

Ownership in why she is crying. He caused her to cry. Like there is something wrong. She was then not simply crying, she was more than, she was post, as in hysteric. When tears flow, and breathing is rapid, which would red flag any mother. He attempting to dilute her reaction, when she heard her mother arrive home.

Wife did not offer him, his moment " his explanation" to lie. She called from her cell phone 911?
She did not enter the house, she saw her daughter from a distance or heard her, when she arrived back to the home " being molested" her cries.
The word he uses in repetition being CRAP, that is him, and he knows it, he is nothing less than his own belief of himself. A POS.

This my own, by the statement. I have not read PH's analysis, nor any of the comments. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, renders a statement as a POS, it's who he is. He confirms it.

My only unknown is, is the minor girl his blood. My gut tells me she isn't. She is not his, she then ripe for his picking, as he felt she was. Her fault. He could not keep his hands off her. Vomit.

Tania Cadogan said...

This is a load of crap.
This is close, that is distancing.
What is crap?

You people should be disgusted with yourselves.
He weakens the intial statement with the qualifier of people.
Instead of denying the sexual abuse immediately he instead attacks and demeans the interviewers.
I would like to know what was said immediately prior to him to warrant this reaction.

Do you think that I am disgusted?
He is asking a question, is it to himself or the interviewer.
What is he disgusted at?
The allegation of abusing his daughter, or that he did it and enjoyed it?

This is a bunch of lies and you people know it.
This is close, that is distancing, he is close to the lies, what are the lies?
He still hasn't denied abusing his daughter.
I would expect here to see the strong first person singular event specific past tense denial I did not sexually molest/abuse my daughter xxx (especially if he has more than one daughter)
It is missing.
If he can't make a denial then we can't either.

What I did is this
i would expect a clear strong statement of what he did, looking for anything that could show his innocence. I would also be looking for anything missing, pronouns and temporal lacuna.
What he says should show he is innocent.
I would also expect to see at some point a strong denial, something we have yet to see.

I got home from a friend's at 10AM and my wife and my daughter were home.
Improper introduction, who is the friend?
A friend not MY
Why the distancing from his friend?
Why doesn't he take ownership of his friend?
What was he really doing?
No proper introduction of the wife or daughter either though he does take ownership with the pronoun MY
What happened prior to 10 am?

She was ticked that I was out early because she wanted to go shopping.
Who is she?
He doesn't tell us so we can't assume.

She left.
Who left? he doesn't tell us so we can't assume.
What stands out is the lack of proper names.
He should have introduced them and then used names thereafter.
Why the need to conceal identities?This smacks of distancing, what is the family dynamic like as so far it looks to be poor.
Left is worth noting, why did she leave?

I was busy and the girl had homework anyway.
No mention of her name and distancing language, he refers to her as THE GIRL
Why does he need to distance himself from her by not only not using her name but also not using any familial title such as my daughter.
Why does he need to tell us she had homework with the additional qualifier of anyway
Is this the reason why she didn't leave?
Why did he introduce the fact he was busy>
I couldn't have done it i was busy, she was doing homework?

The next thing I know she gets home from shopping, wants me to carry in the groceries and my daughter is crying like there's something wrong.

Big temporal lacuna here.
Why does he suddenly go from she left to she gets home?
When there is a temporal lacuna the subject has a reason to skip that period of time.
I would be asking what went on in that time since it is so sensitive.
He still hasn't told us who left only that SHE left and then SHE came home.
Since he hasn't properly introduced her and only refers to her once as my wife i will say that there is a poor relationship between him and his wife.

Tania Cadogan said...

I would ask about the relationship between them, what the problems are and it may give me an idea as to why he abused his daughter and if the wife knew or suspected.
Note the change of language, before the temporal lacuna the child was referred to as THE GIRL after the temporal lacuna and the the wife's return she is now referred to as MY DAUGHTER.
What has prompted the change in language?
What has prompted the change in language occured in the temporal lacuna.
Since this is obviously when the abuse occured, i wonder if she was the girl when he was abusing her ( distancing himself from the family tie and thus distancing himself from incest)and then after he is done she reverts to my daughter ( ownership) and acknowledging and reinstating the family tie.
There is also a dropped pronoun when he mentions carry in the groceries.
you get called.
He doesn't say who called them or why.
Who is the YOU that gets called.
Is the interviewer not a cop?
YOU get called
COPS get called.
Order is important.
YOU is called before the COPS

Cops get called and here
I am with this crap."

What is the crap he refers to?
At no point in this statement do we hear any reference to sex nor do we see any strong denial.

I would expect to hear the reason why police were called since they wouldn't be called if she was crying for a trivial reason.
He hasn't told us what the allegation is, which i would expect since it would then allow him to make a strong first person event specific past tense denial.

He skips around the reason why his daughter is crying, why police were called indicating sensitivity.
He cannot make a strong denial so we can't make one for him.
Instead of showing concern for his daughter he instead concentrates on attacking the interviewers.

He cannot deny the allegation so we can't either.
He can't even bring himself to mention anything to do with why his daughter was crying, who called the police or anything even remotely close to a denial.
He doesn't even try to deny doing anything.

He did it.

Anonymous said...

Vita, you give a lot of the same analysis I was already thinking, the only thing I might add is; since the article says "the girl" is his daughter then we can't assume she could be his step-daughter. If he doesn't say it we can't say it for him.

Many men of this caliber rape/molest their own daughters, they are not all step-fathers. (and higher caliber too); I'm just glad her mother had sense enough to call 911 and not turn a blind eye to her daughter's rape, allowing it to continue. Many of them do, you know, acting as if it never happened or will deny that it did, some will even blame the child, while their child(ren) have to continue to live in years of molestation and rape. They make me sick.

You have a vivid imagination of the scene as it may have happened. My thinking was that the mother probably yelled and demanded that the husband come outside to help with the groceries, then when she walked in and found her daughter crying, perhaps disshelved and with her clothes torn, she discovered then what happened. Either way, she caught the b'stard and that's what counts. REB

Tania Cadogan said...

This is a bunch of lies and you people know it.
i reread my posts and here he admits what he is saying is a bunch of lies and that the interviewers know it.
This is admission of guilt.
His story is that he didn't do anything, his story is a lie therefore he is admitting he did something.

I also noticed the change from past tense to present tense when his wife came home.
she gets home from shopping, wants me to carry in the groceries and my daughter is crying like there's something wrong.

What ever happened was a result of his wife being ticked and her going shopping.
If she hadn't left then he couldn't have attacked his daughter.

Anonymous said...

Yours too Hobnob; excellent post. The only thing, I had no difficulty in distinguishing that the reference to "she left" to go shopping was the infererance that it was his WIFE who left.

He had already made it clear (at least to me) that she was waiting for him to come home so she could go shopping but he didn't get home until 10:00 AM and by this time she was angry. (Assuming (which we're not supposed to do), they only had one car and she had to go grocery shopping.

For whatever reason, she couldn't leave until he got home. Too bad, she didn't take the daughter with her. Of course he did it! POS.


Mainah said...

oh, you all nailed it, IMO. I'll just say ditto what justme said, and go read the analysis to see if "we" missed something...HAHA! just kiddin' with the "we" thing. (See the "we" comment in the Elisha Dip story).

Mainah said...

Interesting. I caught the basics but was most impressed with the analyst picking up on him calling his daughter, "daughter" when the mother is around, but she's a "girl" when moms not around. That was good. Thanks Peter, and everyone!

HatterH said...

"This" is a bunch of lies and you people know. What I did is "this". He tells us he did a bunch of lies and people know it. Ha!

John Mc Gowan said...

I can see why it takes hard work and dedication to become a good statement analyst,that was quite a short statement and the amount of of work and analysing that goes in to it is quite taxing.
I can only wonder what it takes to sift through reams and reams of statements and and putting it all together.
It must be satisfying that all the hard work and toil go to helping catch some very nasty people.

Vita said...

I have a vivid imagination?

Sounds personal to me, you calling me out. Does not matter if she was his or not - it's the same outcome for him as I see it. I have zero tolerance for molesters. She the girl, his daughter or not doesn't change anything. I do appreciate your candor. You would never want to know my imagination, esp on this subject. V

Anonymous said...

"This is a load of crap. You people should be disgusted with yourselves. Do you think that I am disgusted? This is a bunch of lies and you people know it.
--- no reliable denial
Tries to throw us by talking about disgust; we are to believe that he is disgusted and therefor not capable of molesting his daughter but he doesn't say so. ---

What I did is this. I got home from a friend's at 10AM and my wife and my daughter were home.
--- incomplete social introduction = distancing---
She was ticked that I was out early because she
wanted to go shopping

-- explaining why something happened = sensitive---

. She left.

--- left = possible concealed information or hurried. ---

I was busy and the girl had homework anyway.

--- refers to his daughter now as "the girl" change in title = change in reality. Does not claim her as his own here, he distances himself by not associating himself with her. We are to believe they were both too busy for him to molest her.--

The next thing I know she gets home from shopping, wants me
to carry in the groceries and my daughter is crying like there's
something wrong.

-- he skips time and jumps forward. He indicates he is surprised by his wife's arrival home by "next thing I know" . His daughter is now his daughter again- change in pronouns = change in reality. He puts the words together "something is wrong" --

you get called. Cops get called and here
I am with this crap."

--- still no relable denial.

Yes he did it. He is gulty. He molested his daughter when they were home alone and she became "the girl"


Anonymous said...

This= word that carries shame in abuse.
Crap= the closest his brain will allow him to get, to articulate to the shameful thing he's addicted to doing.
Disgusting= He knows he is, and he knows what he DID is.

He seems agitated and angry about what he did, more than getting caught, and he's projecting it onto the investigators.

Not a statement analysis, but a 'gut feeling' analysis from someone who was abused and who has ended the cycle.

Anonymous said...

Vita! In no way was I "calling you out"! I meant it as a compliment in that you have a keen imagination, a trait of a good writer. Please accept my apology in that you misunderstood my intentions. I guess I wasn't clear enough in the way I expressed my thoughts. Apologies.


Anonymous said...

To me, Anon @ 8:38, he seemed more agitated and angry about getting caught than about what he had done to his daughter; also his feeling and use of the word 'disgust' was how he knew they viewed him, but was trying to portray himself as being disgusted at the idea of doing such a thing.

SO sorry you were abused, it is heartbreaking; but glad for you that you have pulled through and were able to end the cycle of abuse in your own life.

I could be wrong in my own knee-jerk reaction and analysis to this disgusting pervs comments upon getting caught. Your personal experiences leads me to believe you may know more about this than I do.


Jazzie said...

The weirdest part of this freaky statement was:
"I was busy and the girl had homework anyway."

That statement is just freaky weird.
And all that "crap" talk.
What's up with that?

Guy's messed up.

Cat said...

Right Jazzie.

"I was busy and the girl had homework anyway."

I can't get that part of the statement out of my mind. Did the girl tell him "No Daddy. Don't! I have homework. Just let me do my homework." Was she trying to distract him or buy time until her mother got back home? Did he go after her while she was doing her homework? The best alibi he could come up with was that he was too busy to molest her and, besides, she had homework???? Even in his short statement his "ick" factor comes through loud and clear.

Lis said...

This statement is a gold mine of indicators, a great one for an example.

I don't have anything to add to all the other analysis but, like Jazzie, that one statement popped out as especially wierd to me: "I was busy and the girl had homework anyway."

It seems like "I was busy" is an attempt to say that he was too busy to have molested his daughter - but then "the girl had homework anyway" almost seems to be saying that he was going to molest his daughter but she had homework to do, so he couldn't molest her "anyway". A wierd statement, indeed!

"Do you think I am disgusted?" is also a wierd question. Why would they think he is disgusted? Why would they care if he is disgusted? He could not even tell the lie "I am disgusted," he could only ask if they think he is.

Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla

"This is a load of crap. YOU PEOPLE SHOULD BE DISGUSTED with yourselves. Do you think that I AM DISGUSTED? This is a bunch of lies AND YOU PEOPLE KNOW IT.
What I DID IS THIS. I got home from a friend's at 10AM and my wife and my daughter were home. She was ticked that I was out early because she
wanted to go shopping. She left. I WAS BUSY AND THE GIRL had homework anyway. The next thing I know she gets home from shopping, wants me to carry in the groceries AND MY DAUGHTER IS CRYING like THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG. you get called. Cops get called AND HERE I AM with this crap."

Vita said...

REB, no hate, I apologize as well.

Gambler777 said...

I'm read a lot of your articles but not good with a lot of the scientific stuff.

Here's what I've came up with, I'm sure there's a lot more.

First off I say he's guilty!

No realiable denial.

'You people should be disgusted with yourselves.' (deflecting and on the defensive)

He doesn't refer to his child by name and calls her 'the girl'. (distancing language)

'Next thing I know she gets home' (Sounds out of place, its like he didn't expect her to come home. Also like he's telling a story.)

Moa said...

He did it, he do not say simply : I did not molest my daughter .

He explains what he did, not what he did not do.

Use of the word left is sencitiv, use of The girl is sensitiv.

There is no denial just anger towards the girl , police, the mother of the girl ..

John Mc Gowan said...


I thought you may find this site interesting.

False Confessions & Interrogation.

Anonymous said...

Peter, thank you for your response to me yesterday (moved over to the archives), concerning your thoughts about Hostess vs the union in the closing of Hostess and their subsidaries (there will be many) who could also belly up.

At this point I'm leaning more towards believing that this was a final scheme instigated by Hostess but made to appear that it is the fault of the "greedy" union/employees, and some of it IS, IMO; but also a case of them blackmailing each other while Hostess made the union the underdogs. Will explain.

Also your comments about Obamacare, etc. Yes, I do have (limited) opinions on both these issues but will have to get back to you later. Tkx again.


Dee said...

"This is a load of crap. You people should be disgusted with yourselves. Do you think that I am disgusted? This is a bunch of lies and you people know it.

First off there is no reliable denial. The first thing I would expect with a allegation like this is a firm "I did not molest my daughter, xyz. I find the "do you think I am disgusted?" question curious. Is he asking for an opinion?

"What I did is this. I got home from a friend's at 10AM and my wife and my daughter were home."

Improper social introduction. He does not name his wife or daughter which may mean there is a poor relationship with both.

"She was ticked that I was out early because she wanted to go shopping."

Deflecting blame by saying his wife was ticked. Is he trying to blame what happened on his wife because she was ticked with him?

"She left. I was busy and the girl had homework anyway."

There was either a time constraint or there is missing info. In this case I'd tend to believe it was a time constraint issue because his wife wanted to leave to go shopping. He calls his daughter "the girl" showing distance, a poor relationship and, I feel, contempt.

"The next thing I know she gets home from shopping, wants me to carry in the groceries and my daughter is crying like there's something wrong."

The nest thing I know is skipping over time. There is missing information from this time frame that he wants to gloss over. He holds his wife in contempt also, the way he states she wanted him to carry in the groceries (how dare she!) Again he says "my daughter" and does not use her name. He was the one home with her, he should know why she was crying. He's disparaging the victim. She's crying like there's something wrong. Why would she be crying if there wasn't something wrong?

you get called. Cops get called and here I am with this crap."

It's all crap to him. No concern for his daughter, only himself. There's also missing information. What happened between when his wife came home and the cops were called? Did his daughter confess to her mother what happened and she went off on him before calling the cops?

I would question this guy further about the missing information from this statement and the time frames he skips over. My initial reaction to his statement - guilty as charged.

Anonymous said...

"This is a load of crap." Could refer to his own statement being a load of crap. Hidden confession?

"This is a bunch of lies and you people know it." Could refer to his own statement being a bunch of lies. Hidden confession?
"What I did is this." Might not mean anything more but note that he admits to doing something.

"my daughter" Refers to his daughter with words 'my daughter'. This changes later.
"She left." (Might not mean anything more but note that she (wife?) 'left')

"I was busy" doesn't say with what. Could have been busy abusing his daughter.
"the girl" Refers to his daughter in a new way. He has distanced himself from her (He regards her as 'a girl' which means she is emotionally more distant than 'a daughter' would be, and so easier for a father to abuse).

"The next thing I know" He's skipped time.
Also, he's changed the story from past tense to present tense. I think something has happened and that's why the change in his language & skipping of time.

"wants me to carry in the groceries" Did he add this seemingly irrelevant comment to buy time from saying what followed next:

"and my daughter is crying like" Note that she's his 'daughter' again.
"there's something wrong." He 'admits' there is something wrong. Hidden confession?

"I am with this crap." It seems he's done something and is admitting to it.

Ivanna-Anna said...

(The above Anonymous comment was from me.)

mommaklee said...

"This" instead of "That" shows closeness to the crime. Innocent would be expected to use "that".
"I am disgusted" embedded?
Disparaging law enforcement.
"What I did is this." Earlier, "this" refers to the crime he is accused of, then he uses is again
to describe what he did. Is he admitting to the crime, but yet not?
Wife is "ticked".--disparaging?
Wife "left". Stress/sensitivity.
"the girl"-- distancing.
"The next thing I know..."--temporal lacunae--missing info
When wife returns from shopping, the story goes from past tenst to present tense. "gets, wants, is crying..." move from experiential memory to present-tense story telling.
"my daughter is crying like there's something wrong"--"There's something wrong" embedded?
"Cops get called"--passive statement. Who called the cops? Why were they called? How quickly were they called?
"here I am with this crap" accusation is referred to as "this" (close) again and "crap" is used again.
"I am with this crap"....embedded statement again? I don't know much about embedded statements in SA so I could be wrong about the ones I noticed.
"my daughter"->"the girl"-> "my daughter"-- before mom leaves, he uses "my daugher" but doesn't state her name, while wife is gone she is "the girl"
during the time in which the alleged molestation took place. When he molests her, she is not his daughter but just t
he girl, when mom returns she
is now "my daughter" (no name given) again. Doesn't name wife or daughter. But does use "my" in relation to them.
Inappropriate pacing. Doesn't follow 25%-50%-25% but is more like 40%-10%-40%.
He protests too much "This is a load of crap. You people should be disgusted with yourselves. Do you think that I am disgusted? This is a bunch of lies and you people know it...Cops get called and here I am with this crap."
He NEVER says "I didn't do it" or "I didn't molest my daughter."

Did he do it? In my opinion, yes he did.

My husband read this. The biggest red flag he noticed was "The next thing I know", another one was "the girl", and then his use of "is" right at the beginning when the expected would be "was". He never really said what he did, just that he got home from a friend's, was busy, then "the next thing I know". Also, after then learning that the man was responding to being accused of molesting his daughter, my husband quickly noted that the man never said he didn't do it. He beleived the man to be guilty, or at the very least increasingly suspect.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Impressive work!

The biggest thing to remember is the context.

When the wife was home, the child was "my daughter" and was safe.

When the wife was gone, the child was "the girl" and in danger.

When the wife returned home, her presence had the ability to change his language to "my daughter" again.

The greatest impact on language is emotion. Here, it was the presence of his wife that had the power to change his language.

next up: Ejection of the pronoun, "I".


Anonymous said...

I post here often as a pretty extreme skeptic of SA, but I also post here when Peter issues new articles that I find to be helpful in alleviating my skepticism. I do this to add to the discussion, but also to help Peter know which types of lessons and which explanations of analysis speak clearly to skeptics like myself.

The analysis around "daughter-girl-daughter," and the effect assumed by the presence of the man's wife, was amazing. As always, some people here take SA principles too far, but I TOTALLY see where this point makes perfect, and glaring sense. Thank you from a skeptic for another thought-provoking lesson.

Nic said...

Thank you, Peter! I love case studies like these. The way you analyse the nuances, i.e., connect left with change in language is *so* fascinating. Thank you for sharing your talent with us. I appreciate your generosity.

Anonymous said...

When he talks about "crap@ several times it makes me think of the Hailey Dunn case, with Billie's reference to you as an ass, and Shaun talking about farting with her. Whenever a person talks about bodily functions or sexual body parts it indicates a sick fascination with sexual abuse

Anonymous said...

The first thing he did was turn the table and direct negative attention to those questioning him. He probably does this with his wife often and it probably works well for him. He's deflecting because if a person is busy defending themselves, they can't question him. Power play.
Then, he goes from giving detailed accounts of what happened to extremely vague and back again to detailed accounts. The details he gave are all filler and fluff and don't have anything to do with the real question at hand. This is probably to distract with irrelevant details to avoid drawing attention to 'guilty time'. Another song and dance that probably works well withi his wife. I made note that the switch from detailed to vague was like a switch in personalities; that's what it felt like, like it was suddenly someone different. As I type that I see how telling that really is.
I think that he is so used to being able to deflect by pointing out his wifes flaws (real or made up) and forcing her to focus on herself that he took the same measure here.
He then failed to mention any exchange between he and his wife about her calling the police. He mentions nothing that lead to that except his daughter crying. He does not link his daughter to his wife at that time. For example: "My wife went to console my daughter and calm her down. Then my wife said my daughter told her I did something to her." There is nothing like that in his statement. Nothing like "we argued, I told her I didn't do anything but she called you people anyway."
After the first three sentences, I was convinced he did molest his daughter. I even looked for cues to clear him as I read the rest and unfortunately, I was only convinced even more.

Anonymous said...

I have read a few just right stuff here. Definitely price bookmarking
for revisiting. I surprise how much attempt you put to make one of these excellent informative site.

Also visit my blog ... Check it out