Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Wendel Noyes: Statement Analysis

Wendell Noyes on Celina Cass' disappearance.  The use of "we" when it should be "I" is often a signal of wanting to share guilt and/ or responsibility. 

"When got up that morning, there was, well, she usually sleeps on the couch," said Wendell Noyes.

A broken sentence means missing information.  He tells us not what happened, but what usually does.  This indicates an avoidance of truth

"We left the door unlocked that night for somebody else to pop in. And, I don't know," .   

Note the change of pronoun.  "We" left the door unlocked shows weakness, then he switches to "I".  He is not speaking for anyone else.  But notice the most important word in his sentence:  "else".  "Somebody else" is a somebody besides himself.  This points to himself. 

Note that he gives the reason why "we" left the door unlocked; making the locking of the door very sensitive to him. 

Officials seized Noyes' truck, cellphone and computer as evidence in the ongoing investigation. Noyes now lives alone, confirming that his wife has asked him to stay away. Noyes still wears his wedding ring and said he still cares for Luisia Cass.

"had nothing to do with it. We left the door unlocked, and somebody else was in the apartment after we went upstairs," Noyes said on Monday.

Unreliable denial noted. 

A reliable pronoun is first person singular, past tense, and specific to Celina's murder.  

Note the change from "I" to "we" as weak:  he is speaking only for himself, not another, and the somebody is him, and the somebody "else" is deceptive.

Officials said autopsy results did not offer conclusive information as to how Celina died. Toxicology results remain sealed. No arrests have been made or people of interest identified in the case.


Jazzie said...

"Noyes was one of the last persons to see Cass, 11, alive. She was reported missing from their West Stewartstown home on July 26. Her blanket-shrouded body was discovered a week later after a massive search, submerged in the Connecticut River, a quarter-mile from home. "

What killer wraps their young victim in a blanket? Is it a relative or stranger who feels the need to "cover up" the horrible crime?

Jazzie said...

post above source:

Tania Cadogan said...

When a body is found covered up it is indicative of the killer undoing the crime, if the face is covered as well then is is often the case the killer is known to the victim.
Mothers who kill their child will often wrap the child in a blanket and even go so far as to include a comforter. The child may be dead yet maternal instinct still causes the mother to make sure her child is warm and protected against the elements.

In a case such as Lisa Irwin or baby Sabrina i would be looking for a missing blanket, with Madeleine Mccann there was a photograph of her favorite pink blanket on her bed the night of the crime yet later on it vanished (did kate take it to Madeleine when her body was moved?)
I wouldn't expect a blanket as a comforter with Ayla Reynolds as her killer was her father aided and abetted by the other women in the house. There would be no maternal bond thus no instinct to kee her warm or comforted. There may be a blanket used to wrap her body that was perhaps used to cover her whilst they decided what to do, it my also have been bloodstained and so neding disposal a well.

Tania Cadogan said...

Anonymous said...
Why all the rehashing of old cases?

Hi Anon.
if you look at these old cases you can see immediately a pattern running through them.
The story of abduction is the same, the reactions of th parents the same, the non co-operation is the same.

Reading the Baby Aisenburg case and comparing it to Lisa Irving, Ayla Reynolds and Madeleine Mccann they are almost identical ( i noted this particularly with the aisenbergs and the mccanns)
In fact you could easily swap the names around or remove them completely and they would read the same.

Innocent parents act a certain way, guilty parents another.
Both are consistent and easy to see and follow.

By 'rehashing old cases' it refreshes our memories when it comes to SA, something in an old case can trigger an idea or a memory in a new case and vice versa.

Comparing the cases it reiterates the priciples of SA, if you belive the parents of missing child A are guilty because of ... then the same rules apply to the parents of missing child B if their behavior and statement mirror that of the first set of parents.

If you believe the parents of missing child A are guilty because of... but the parents of missing child B are innocent because of... and the behavior and statements of the parents of child B mirror that of child A then you need to take a step back and ask yourself why don't the priciples which indicated guilt in Child A not apply in child B?

If you believe the parents of missing child A are guilty because of... but the parents of missing child B are innocent because of... and the behavior and statements of the parents of child B are the opposite of the behavior and statements of child A then the priciples of SA work and are proven.

With SA the principles stay the same for every case, we can't pick and choose what to apply where and when, we can't apply them to one case and not another because the subject is rich, famous, a celeb or just good looking.

I have seen this happen in many cases where the guilt is obvious, the subject has told us of ther guilt and even the motive and commentators have agreed with the guilt of the first person and not the second.
the differences being one victim was a child, the other a woman, one took place in the states, the other italy, one had a dysfuctional family the other a healthy family, one had money one did not, one was smart one was not.

I have seen commentators apply the priciples to casey anthony and declare her guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, yet claim SA doesn't work and numerous other excuses when applied to amanda knox.

We either accept and apply the princples and the conclusions regardless of what we want to believe emotionally or we don't apply them at all and and stick with they couldn't have done it because they are rich, famous, a celeb or good looking.

It's all or nothing.

Dee said...

Excellent explanation Hobs. Sometimes it's hard to analyze without my prejudices and emotions getting in the way.

Anonymous said...

Stepfather arrested: