Monday, March 31, 2014

Oscar Pistorius Messages

This is an interesting article:

http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2014/03/31/is-oscar-pistorius-the-boyfriend-from-hell

Note some of the quotes that the psychologist used in informing the court of his character and that of his girlfriend.

The fights:
January 19
Steenkamp: There are a lot of things that could make us feel like shit.
Pistorius: I'm just very honest.
Steenkamp: I won't always think before I say something, just appreciate I'm not a liar.
Pistorius: I know, it was just when you got back from Tropica  you made it seem like you smoked weed once. I don't know if you took other things.
Steenkamp: I'm sorry if it upset you, it wasn't my intention.
Pistorius: I do appreciate it, I could never be with someone who was.
Steenkamp: Me neither.
January 27
Steenkamp: Today was one of my best friends' engagements and I wanted to stay longer. I was enjoying myself but it's over now. You have picked on me incessantly since you got back from CT and I understand that you are sick but it's nasty. I was not flirting with anyone today. I feel sick that u suggested that and that u made a scene at the table and made us leave early. I'm terribly disappointed in how the day ended and how u left me. We are living in a double-standard relationship where u can be mad about how I deal with stuff when u are very quick to act cold and offish when you're unhappy. Every 5 seconds I hear how u dated another chick ... yet you get upset if I tell ONE funny story with a long-term boyfriend. I do everything to make u happy and to not say anything to rock the boat with u. You do everything to throw tantrums in front of people ... I can't get that day back. I'm scared of u sometimes and how u snap at me and of how u will react to me. You make me happy 90% of the time and I think we are amazing together but I am not some other bitch you may know trying to kill your vibe. I am the girl who let go with u even when I was scared out of my mind to. I'm the girl who fell in love with u and wanted to tell u this weekend. But I'm also the girl that gets side stepped when you are in a shit mood when I feel you think u have me, so why try anymore. I get snapped at and told my accents and voices are annoying. I touch your neck to show u I care, you tell me to stop. Stop chewing gum. Do this, don't do that. Your impression of something innocent blown out of proportion ... f***** up a special day for me. I'm sorry if you truly felt I was hitting on my friend Sam's husband and I'm sorry that u think that little of me. From the outside I think it looks like we are a struggle and maybe that's what we are. I just want to love and be loved. Be happy and make someone SO happy. Maybe we can't do that for each other. Cos right now I know u aren't happy and I am certainly very unhappy and sad.
Pistorius: I want to talk to you, I want to sort this out. I don't want to have anything less than amazing for you and I'm sorry for the things I say without thinking and for taking offence to some of your actions. The fact that I'm tired and sick isn't an excuse. I was upset that you just left me after we got food to go talk to a guy and I was standing right behind you watching you touch his arm and ignore me ... when I left you just kept on chatting to him when clearly I was upset ... When we left I was starving. The only food I'd had was a tiny wrap and everyone was leaving for lunch. I'm sorry I wanted to go but I was hungry and upset, and although you knew, it wasn't like you came to chat to me when I left the table. I was upset when I left you cause I thought you were coming to me. I'm sorry I asked you to stop tapping my neck yesterday. I know you were just trying to show me love ... I had a mad headache and should've just spoken to you softly. I'm sorry for asking you not to put on an accent last night.
February 7
Steenkamp: I like to believe that I make u proud when I attend these kinds of functions with u. I present myself well and can converse with others whilst u are off busy chatting to fans/friends. I also knew people there tonight, and whilst u were having one or 2 pics taken I was saying goodbye to people in my industry ... I completely understood your desperation to leave and thought I would be helping u by getting to the exit before u because I can't rush in the heels I was wearing. I thought it would make a difference in us getting out without u being harassed. I didn't think you would criticise me for doing that, especially not so loudly so that others could hear. I might ... be all tomboyish at times but I regard myself as a lady and I didn't feel like one tonight after the way u treated me when we left. I'm a person too and I appreciate that u invited me out tonight and I realise that u get harassed but I am trying my best to make u happy and I feel as tho u sometimes never are, no matter the effort I put in. I can't be attacked by outsiders for dating u AND be attacked by you, the one person I deserve protection from.
The love:
January 9
Steenkamp: You are a very special person. U deserve to be looked after.
Pistorius: Will you please let me know you safe.
Steenkamp: I'm home boo.
February 4
Steenkamp: If u want to go chill with M, that's OK angel.
Pistorius: No, I want to chill with you. I miss you.
Steenkamp: I miss you too.
February 11
Pistorius: I miss you 1 more than you always.
Steenkamp: Impossible.


Sunday, March 30, 2014

Statement Analysis With Peter Hyatt April 6, 2014

Our next show will be April 6, 2014 at 6:30PM with upcoming announcement with details...

The Language of Mark Redwine Analyzed Part One



Dylan Redwine went missing after visiting his father, Mark Redwine.

 The case is not closed.  

The following two articles are Statement Analysis of his father, Mark Redwine.  Police said he was not a suspect, but he was the last to see his son, whom he had in his home on a visit. 

Here is a video with Mark Redwine, father of missing Dylan Redwine.  His language has some very concerning portions.  Please note that Statement Analysis is in red flag.

Mark Redwine uses the language of domestic violence. 






Please note that  a reliable denial of involvement would be simple to say:

"I did not cause Dylan's disappearance" and things similar.  It will have the pronoun, "I" along with the past tense verb, since what happened to Dylan happened in the past.  It will also address the disappearance. 

Words that do not show a reliable denial:

"Never"  "Would never" "...would never harm..."

If someone adds to the three elements of a reliable denial, it becomes unreliable. 

                                                 What does he tell you?

With the interviewer, we find a desire to 'please' Mark Redwine, and not ask direct questions, as she attempts to sound empathetic rather than journalistic.  It is a mistake.  

Here are a few of my observations:

He subtly attempts to blame Dylan's mother as she was out making a living he was home bonding with Dylan. 

"This versus That"

The word "this" indicates closeness, while the word "that" shows distance.  If I ask for a cup of water, I might say, "Not that one (far from me) but "this one is mine" (near me).  It is the same in emotional distancing language.  

He speaks of himself in a positive light, as a great father, yet the language shows distance:

"I would do anything for that boy."  

He portrayed himself as willing to drive all the way to Brooklyn, just to buy a pizza:

"That boy ate 2/3rd of it.  He woofed it down."

We hear the need to persuade the interviewer what a great father he was.  This need to persuade should be noted in context of distancing language from Dylan. 

When a parent has a need to persuade that he is a good parent, it is this need, itself, that is concerning. 

He speaks as one who is involved in Domestic Violence, as if something was wrong with Dylan's mother not wanting the father to know where she was working.  He blames the mother for a poor living environment and for providing for Dylan instead of bonding with him. 

His plans for Thanksgiving:

He avoided the question directly, making the question sensitive. 

"I just wanted him to be happy."  
"So when he wanted to spend time with his friends, I had no problem with that."

"He wanted to spend time with his friends.  I have no problem with that."

He had no problem with "that", which leads to the question:
What did he have a problem with?

This is the nature of "this and that" that even parents readily recognize.  "Did you really tell the teacher you were not going to do your homework?"
Child:  "I didn't say that!"

Parent:  Then what did you say?

Mark Redwine is telling us that he did have a problem with something. 

"When he's with me, its me and him, with the exception of his friends. You know, I know those are important to him."

Note how he goes from past tense to present tense.  

"I monitor what he does, where he's at.  Its just me and him.  There's not people coming and going in my life because everything I focus on is him and us being together and spending that time.

"I monitor" is present tense.  
Note the need to explain why he has no social interaction with people.  

"There's not a day  goes by that I am not hopeful that we will  find Dylan today. "

Since he is not with Dylan's mother, and his references to her show a very poor relationship, we do not expect to hear him use the word "we" often.  Pronouns are critical to understanding what someone is thinking.  His language shows distance from Dylan's mother.   There is no "we" when he speaks of Dylan's mother.  There is, however, a very strange and unusual use of the pronoun, "we":  

*Please note the use of "we" when speaking of Dylan being missing.  As a father, and the last one to see him alive, if he is speaking for himself and not for he and Dylan's mother, Elaine, the expected is the pronoun, "I" (he and Dylan's mother are not speaking as one as Elaine believes he killed Dylan)

"We still don't have Dylan."

"We needed to know where he's at.  We need to know he's safe. And we need to know that whoever is repsponsible for this has enough  compassion in their heart to to change what has been done and bring him home.  I know that is imprtant to his mom.  And it is very important to me.  We need Dylan home."

1. Who is "we" is something the interviewer should have asked  a man who speaks so poorly of Dylan's mother and has already asserted that he does not have "people" coming into his life "because" of his focus on Dylan.  This is a missed opportunity of a very strange use of the pronoun, "we"

Please note that guilty people will often use the pronoun "we" when having a need to share guilt or responsibility.  This is something that parents of teenagers are familiar with. 

A simple and direct question as to his involvement could have, and should have, been asked. 

2.  "needed" came first, and is past tense. 

3.   Regarding the "person" involved in Dylan's disappearance, Redwine says "compassion in their heart" and needs to:

4.  "change" what has been done.  This is a strange expression.  Rather than just say "bring him home" he says that what has happened needs to undergo a "change."

What "change" does he refer to?  This should have and could have been asked. 

4.  "I know this is important to his mom" is the obvious. 

5.  He then adds in what would apparently be needless:  "It's very important to me"

Note that it is only "important" to Dylan's mother to have him back, but it is "very important" to him. 

Both phrases are unexpected.  

When something is "important" to a person, it takes a place of priority, along with other things that are also important in life. 

Is there anything more important than a missing child to a parent?  It is needless to say. 

It is "important" to his mother, but "very important" to him.  

This is highly unexpected language. 

Q.  What do you want to say to whoever has Dylan?

This addresses, possibly, the person involved.  What language will he associate with this "person"?

A.   Let him go.  Drop him off at the closest police station.  Take him to a Walmart. 
Dump him off.  If you have any compassion in your heart"

Note the use of "dump" in regard to his missing son. 

Why would he consider a kidnapper or someone who harmed Dylan would be a compassionate person?

That the word "dump" entered his vocabulary, law enforcement should consider searching in dumps.  


For the love of God, if you have any compassion in your heart, you will do the right thing and let him come home to his family. 

Note the invocation of Deity is not in asking for help in finding Dylan.  

Note the phrase, "compassion in your heart" is repeated; making "compassion in the heart" something sensitive to Mark Redwine.  

The person associated with Dylan's disappearance has the description of "compassion" and "heart" together. 

Regarding abduction, he claims that Dylan never met a stranger, and continued to use the word "that boy", which is distancing language. 

"He never knew a stranger, ever in his life."

If he knew a stranger, it would not be a stranger. This is a very unusual sentence and appears to be an attempt to portray Dylan as having gone off with someone he instantly trusted, without discrimination or sense. 

 This is, in a twisted way, a disparagement of the victim

The interviewer sounded juvenile with her overly use of the word "like" in her sentences and does not ask relevant questions, in spite of preparation.  Some sentences she uses it 3 and 4 times.  

She needs analytical interview training.  

There are some very concerning things in this interview, in spite of the interviewer's reluctance to do her job. 

"I wanted to go to a sit down restaurant.  Sit down and talk to him. He wanted to go to McDonald's."

Argument.  They wanted different things.  The reference to "sit down" is associated with tension (body posture).  It is also sensitive since it is repeated.  This appears to be another reference to arguing with his son. 

When he wanted to see his friends, Mark had no problem with "that" yet here, there is a problem.  Where there is a "that", there is a "this."

His description of what time he got home begins a period of time that is sensitive. (12:50)  This period of sensitivity continues.

"I specifically remember him texting at that time. People can only tell us what they remember so why the need to emphasize?  The texting is important to Mark Redwine.  Why?

He wants us to think he cannot remember certain things, like a movie title, or what time he went to bed, but wanted us to know that he "specifically" remembered Dylan texting that night. 

Whatever took place that night is sensitive to Mark Redwine.   From this point in his statement, we enter into the very sensitive part of his story and it continued through the next day.  Anything said during this period of time is important.  

Alibi building should be considered. 

Regarding waking Dylan up:  

"He was having no part of it.  You can't get him to bed and you can't get him up. "  

He did not say Dylan was asleep here.  Note the distancing language of "you" and not "I" 
It is hard to believe that Mark Redwine could not wake up his son, unless his son was dead. 

"Never heard from him. I sent him text messages.  Hey dude, are you up yet?  Call me.  Is there anything you need?"  

dropped pronoun means no commitment. This is very significant.  People do not like to lie outright.  He did not say "I did not hear from him."  He said, "never heard from him."  Notice how he can say "I sent him text messages"?  This is likely true, based upon the structure of the sentence.  

"Never heard from him" may be because it was a ruse:  Dylan, dead, cannot return text. 

"I spoke with my divorce attorney" is mentioned in the same time period.  This is alarming.

The word "with" when found between people, indicates distance. 

Q.  Anything else?

"I made a phone call to a property managment company."

He then went on to say what his "biggest reason" to want to communicate with Dylan was.  

Note his references to phone call, bill, and divorce attorney, while Dylan was not responding. 

"I need to go find that boy" is not only present tense, but it also uses the distancing language. 

"So I am driving by the lake and I didn't see anything..." is also present tense. 

Present tense language, in this sensitive period of time, is unreliable.  Redwine changes to presnt tense language after Dylan is no longer 'speaking' or communicating in the story.

Analysis conclusion:

Police should consider Mark Redwine a suspect in the disappearance of Dylan Redwine. 

"I was at the marshal's office taking care of this" and than about Dylan's mother he said,  "that's when all hell broke loose with her" 

"Taking care of this" and not about the business of finding his son. 

Why wouldn't "hell" be his missing son?  Why is "hell" associated with Dylan's mother, and not with Dylan being missing?

He continued to disparage Dylan's mother.  The repeated emphasis should be something police consider as a motive.  

"Dylan's a peace keeper.  I believe that Dylan's the kind of kid that when he is with his mom, tries to keep peace with her and will tell  her anything she wants to hear."

He only "believes" Dylan's "the kind of kid."  He does not know.  

"I don't bug him about what goes on with mom."

He did not "bug him" but this is not to say that he and Dylan did not talk about his mother.  

"He and I get along, when we're together.  Contrary to what people might want to think."

Note the lack of "we" with he and Dylan, in context, to Dylan being missing.  From the point of the sensitive part of his story, Dylan is no longer quoted.

"I'm  a private person. "

"I see her being more vocal.  I can only imagine that her focus is on finding someone to blame" instead of finding Dylan.  This is a very negative portrayal of a mother of a missing child.  Police should take careful note of the level of bitterness this man has towards Dylan's mother. 


"In her eyes, 'Im the last person to see him. "

Please note the words, "I'm the last person to see him" are not words attributed to Dylan's mother, but to her thoughts.  When asked about blaming himself, he switched from "I" to the second person, "you":  

"you relive this a thousand times. "

In the police eyes, he is the last one to see Dylan.  

"I seen him laying on the couch and maybe I didn't try hard enough, maybe, to wake him."

The concern here is that in a domestically violent situation, did Dylan stop breathing and Mark not try to revive him due to fear of consequences.  

"To sit here and beat yourself up...is not helping me stay strong."

"yourself" and not "myself"

Mark Redwine speaks like a man who has been domestically violent.  

Note that the language, "beat up" enters  here.  This may indicate what happened to Dylan.  This violence is associated with Dylan's mother.  

This may indicate that Dylan was defending his mother, to his father, when the father became violent. 

"I don't care if its his mom he reached out to"

Mark Redwine has  a strong need to portray himself as being very close to Dylan.  There are two things to be noted about this:

1.  The need to portray himself as close to Dylan suggests distance.
2.  The language employed by him about Dylan is distancing language. 
3.  Note the lack of the pronoun, "we" regarding Dylan, particularly note the change in language AFTER the last night he described Dylan, right at the point of sending a text message. 

The language before the text and the language after the text should be noted. 

"Authorities have not said a whole lot, to be honest with you" suggests that police do suspect him. 

Redwine questioned that in only 24-48 hour period that a sex offender could be cleared.  It can be done in under 5 minutes:  if a sex offender has an alibi, it is not difficult to discern.  This appears to be a desire

"I'll be honest with you. We are all suspects."  

He is now going to be "honest" here, indicating that he has not been honest elsewhere. 

A journalist should simply ask direct questions.  She finally asks him about his involvement: 

"Absolutely not.  I would never do anything to harm that boy. "

Unreliable denial.

"I'll be honest with you, the only thing that anyone should be interested in is finding Dylan."
Note the need to use this phrase comes only after the sensitive time period above. 

Is he still alive?

"Absolutely" quickly became "that's a possibility

"It's a thread that we all hold on to"

He then confused pronouns, "that's what crosses our minds and I..."

Regarding not going public early on:  

That's why I agreed to participate in this.  This isn't about me"

The interviewer went to Jonbenet case.  Self-importance.  Poor interview.  Jonbenet had nothing to do with this case and the interviewer should avoid, as best as possible, of introducing any new words or new topics.  Training is needed.

Analytical Interviewing takes the words of the subject and asks follow up questions using the subject's own words, seeking to avoid introducing even a single new word.


"These are the things I say when I am praying to him, talking to him."

Note that he "prays" to his son.  This deification of someone is after death

Redwine does not give any indications that he believes that Dylan is alive.  When he does assert, he contradicts quickly.  

His animosity towards his ex wife is severe.  

The time period in his story, beginning where Dylan sent a text message, is highly sensitive and the language changes.   


Next:  Part Two indicates guilty knowledge on the part of Mark Redwine, along with indications of how Dylan died. 

Saturday, March 29, 2014

Trista Reynolds Letter Calling for Justice for Baby Ayla




An unemployed father of two children, from two different mothers, takes out a large life insurance policy against, not for, one of those children.  

He texts the mother his concern about this child being taken. He does not express concern about the other child, the one of whom he did not take a life insurance policy against.  

Weeks later, the child of whom he took out a life insurance policy against  is reported "taken"; and he has "no idea" what happened.  Shortly later, he had an "idea" and said that someone who did not agree with his parenting, kidnapped her.  This narrowed down the list of suspects from infinity to a handful.  

Police find no evidence of an intruder, but do find the baby's blood throughout the house. 

The father's statement shows deception.

Police state publicly that the father, along with his girlfriend and his sister, are all withholding information about what happened to the baby that night. 

The father "smoked" his polygraph.  

Yet, no consequences have fallen upon the father.  




[Editors note: This letter, dated March 24, 2014, was mailed to the Morning Sentinel, 31 Front St., Waterville, as a Letter to the Editor by Trista Reynolds, now of Biddeford, Maine. It was not edited for content, though misspellings were corrected.]

I am Trista Reynolds, the mother of Ayla Reynolds. Ayla went missing from her father's home on December 17, 2011. She was only 20 months old when she went missing.

I have had to accept that my daughter, in the words of the Maine State Police, will likely not be found alive. What I cannot accept is that her father has not been prosecuted. At the time of her disappearance she was staying with her father, Justin DiPietro on Violette Avenue in Waterville. There was so much of Ayla's blood found at the time that it is obvious a crime was committed there. My daughters blood was found on the car seat in Justins vehicle, on Aylas slipper, on a sofa upstairs, on her doll, on a fan cord downstairs in the basement, on a plastic tote, on a blanket found inside the tote (the Maine State Police said the blanket was used to clean-up the blood), inside Justins sneakers, a fist size stainon Justin's mattress and sheets, on the cement floor and wall beside Justin's bed (the MSP blood analysts determined that the blood splatters were created by intense projectile vomiting and/or blunt force trauma) and on a wood pallet in the basement. My daughter suffered and suffered greatly while in the care of her father yet he has not been held accountable.

I want to know, why hasnt Justin been charged with Endangering the Welfare of a Child? According to 17-A M.R.S.A S.554, a person is guilty of endangering the welfare of a child if being the parent, or having the care and custody of the child, cruelly treats that child by abuse, neglect or extreme punishment; being the parent of the child, knowingly deprives the child of necessary health care, with the result that the child is placed in danger of serious harm; or recklessly endangers the health, safety or welfare of a child by violating the duty of care. Endangering the Welfare of a Child is a Class D crime. However, Endangering the Welfare of a Child is a Class C crime when a parent recklessly fails to take reasonable measures to protect the child from the risk of further bodily injury after knowing that the child had, in fact, sustained bodily injury under circumstances posing a substantial risk of serious bodily injury or such bodily injury was, in fact, caused by the unlawful use of physical force by another person. You don't need a body to prosecute this crime; there is enough blood evidence to prove this crime was committed.

Maeghan Maloney, as the District Attorney for Kennebec County, you have a duty to prosecute crimes that occur within your jurisdiction. An incredibly heinous crime occurred on your watch yet Justin is allowed to walk free. You may not have the authority to prosecute Justin for murder but you do have the authority, and the obligation, to prosecute him for other crimes. The statute of limitations to prosecute Justin and others on the lesser Class D crime expires in less than 9 months.
Who can argue that Ayla was not a victim of heinous abuse? Her father had a duty to protect her and he did not and for that he needs to be prosecuted. I call upon Maeghan Maloney to begin the prosecution of Justin DiPietro before time runs out. 

Final Thoughts: Missing Person Leann Bearden



I continue to see that there are a small pocket of internet readers that want "justice" for Leann Bearden, who was a suicide victim.

As owner of the blog, I have instructed that all such comments be removed, and have initiated the moderation of the comments section on the old articles.  She was a missing person, and now found, her family is left suffering from their loss.

Leann was not a homicide victim.

There were no linguistic indicators of deception to justify accusing Leann's husband of murder.  Besides this, police have found no reason as well to think anything but suicide.  In hindsight,  I think police should have guided the family into revealing that Leann was suicidal, and this would have explained the distancing language, and perhaps would have lessened suspicion, though I cannot help but wonder if it would have not dissuaded some from their suspicions.

Leann was reported to have hung herself.

This is a violent way to die.

How much suffering may this family have experienced before her death?

This suggests that her depression, or even self loathing, was deep.  It also may indicate that her husband has long known about it and likely dealt with the suicidal ideation for a long time.

Those who live with victims who commit suicide often speak of living life on the edge, as the victim may have long expressed, or even threatened suicide, leaving her loved ones with the terrible agony of not only losing her, but also of a terrible pain of...

relief.

Families of suicide victims can be left with this terribly conflicting emotion.  They may have gone weeks, months, or even years of fear of suicide.  This may include:

middle of the night phone calls;

suicide attempts of varying degrees of severity

countering threats of suicide by altering not only their life styles, but even the words they choose to use.  This means that the loved ones have learned to adapt, down to a single word, their language, just to not set off the suicidal verbalization.

It is unbearable for the loved ones.

They have the same high level of hormones that any person in an emergency experiences, but sometimes it is repeated, over and over, and the natural consequence (PTSD) that comes from the brain protecting itself is a form of 'shut down' or distancing.

They rushed out to the ER in the middle of the night and it was very difficult.

Then they did it again.

And again...

and again.

They can even become embittered towards the victim and the suicde actually ends the constant state of emergency.  As they catch their breath, they feel guilty for a sense of relief that there will no longer be middle of the night phone calls, waking them up with the frightful news that the loved one is en route to the hospital.

Even as relief sets in, so does the guilt.

Not only do they have the "what if" guilt of what they could have done differently, but they feel guilt for having the nightmare of constant emergencies or threats come to an end.

If they get past this pain, they then are now finally confronted with:

loss.

They no longer have the loved one.

They miss the good times.

Suicide is bad for everyone.

In our modern era, it may be just this much rougher on a family member to have to see in the news baseless speculation.

Baseless.

It has to hurt and add needless pain.  There is no reason to call for justice for Leann.  None of us knows how terribly her husband and her loved ones suffered, just as we do not know how badly Leann suffered enough to bring her to the point of hopelessness.

Sometimes it feels like medical science still knows so little about depression.

God comfort those who loved Leann Bearden.

Tammy Moore's Threatening Text

In the previous article from an anonymous stalker of a Little Leaguer's family, we saw the subject using passivity in the threat of violence.  Although highly emotional, she was not able to use the pronoun, "I" when it came to violence.  
Here is a text message sent from Tammy Moorer, to murder victim, Heather Elvis.  Statement Analysis is in bold type.  First is the text, then it is repeated with emphasis and analysis. 
Nov. 1, 2013
To Heather.. someone's about to get their a-- beat down.. your b--- is about to take his last breath... You can tell me where you are right now or I will find out another way... that way wont have a great turn out for you... I am giving you one last chance to answer before we meet in person.. only one.
To Heather.. I've been having Sidney followed since Jan. 2012.. it's best you call back and speak to me, save yourself. Hey ...... you ready to meet the MRS?
Heather responds...
I think you are a little obsessed with me. I'm nobody you need to worry about anymore.
Nov. 3, 2013
To Heather.. by the way dad no longer owns a phone.
Nov. 1, 2013
To Heather.. someone's about to get their a-- beat down.. your b--- is about to take his last breath... 

Did Tammy intend violence towards her husband, Sidney, which would lead to his death?  ("last breath" indicates death).
1.  Please note that only "someone's" is not to name Sidney, or even "my husband."  This is neutral language and lacks emotion.

2.  "about to get..." is not to say "I will.." but avoids using the pronoun "I" in the threat.  It is not "he will get" but "about to" get, adding in a pause of time.  

3.  "is about to take" is passive language.  This also avoids the pronoun "I" and also adds the pause in time of "about to", weakening commitment to violence. 

You can tell me where you are right now or I will find out another way... 
She now turns her attention away from Sidney, and towards Heather.  "I will find out another way" is very strong.  This is a threat:

that way wont have a great turn out for you... 
Here she says "that way", that is, the method of finding out where Heather was at the time.  It won't have a "great turn out for you", is not a threat of direct violence, but a threat of the means of which Tammy would learn Heather's whereabouts. 
At this date, Tammy is very serious about learning Heather's whereabouts.  In context, it is chillingly frightful. 
Tammy's method of finding out where Heather was, was, itself, a threat.  

I am giving you one last chance to answer before we meet in person.. only one.
The threat is to reveal where Heather was at the time.  The threat, in context, is not violence, but in learning her location.  
Question:  What other possible threats could Tammy have used in her attempt to meet, face to face, with Heather?
Answer:   It may be that Tammy had threatened Heather's family. 

Take this possibility along with the Facebook rant Tammy posted and look at the possible projection where she accuses Heather's father of such threats. 
Did Tammy make threats against Heather's father, mother and/or sister?

To Heather.. I've been having Sidney followed since Jan. 2012.. 

Note it the passivity "I've been having" could be that she does not wish to reveal who has done the following or..
there is no identity of one following him because no one followed him.  Either way, the identity is not revealed. 

it's best you call back and speak to me, save yourself. Hey ...... you ready to meet the MRS?
Tammy is "the MRS" with "MRS" emphasized in full capitalization.  We have seen in her statements the language of dominance, and this is no different. 
Heather responds...
I think you are a little obsessed with me. I'm nobody you need to worry about anymore.
Nov. 3, 2013
To Heather.. by the way dad no longer owns a phone.

Conclusion:  Sidney was never in physical danger as the rage and hatred was towards Heather.  

Analysis: Little Leaguer's Family Terrorized

The following is an article from the NY Daily News.  The note has emphasis  added with Statement Analysis in bold type.

Statement Analysis work can, and should be done, on Anonymous Threatening Letters and can reveal the identity of the writer, as well as learn if the threat is likely real or not. 

Was the author trying to frighten the family, or was violence planned?



Little League family terrorized for years on New York’s Long Island by crazed parent  

Woman eventually jailed for stalking Little League coach and his loved ones. In new interview, dad says the woman terrified them with threats over her son failing to make the team.






Janet Chiauzzi, 44, seen here in her 2012 booking photos, befriended a Little League coach’s family in  East Meadow, N.Y. while sending threatening, unsigned letters over her son not being picked for the travel team. NASSAU COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENTJanet Chiauzzi, 44, seen here in her 2012 booking photo, befriended a Little League coach’s family in East Meadow, N.Y., while sending threatening, unsigned letters over her son not being picked for the travel team.
The terror campaign started with an anonymous letter and then grew to threats with specific details.
"We spent days, months, years … looking over our back," father John DeMasi told ABC's "20/20" in an interview to be broadcast Friday night.
"It was just anonymous letter sent, how wrong I was coaching the team and how bad they we were," said DeMasi, who was also accused of playing favorites because his son was on the suburban Long Island team in New York.
His wife, Linda DeMasi, said she became fearful and felt hunted. One letter said "I know where your wife goes every day. I know where your daughter goes to dance school," she quoted the note as saying.
What the DeMasi family didn't know was that their new friend and, Janet Chiauzzi, was the one sending the letters. Her son played on DeMasi's team.
I know where your wife goes every day. I know where your daughter goes to dance school,
The unsigned letter saga began in 2010. By the following year, it had escalated to the discovery of an anonymous note left in family's mailbox addressed to Dominic DeMasi, then age 10.
"I know where your wife goes every day.  I know where your daughter goes to dance school."
The pronoun "I" makes these two short sentences very strong.  The subject not only "knows" (truthfully) but gives "dance" school as proof.  Was the author simply attempting to scare the family, or was violence planned?
"Think about it Dom. If something terrible happens to your dad, or mom or you sister, you can blame you dad for not taking my threats seriously," the letter said. "He will meet harm and the outcome will not be good for you. You might never see your dad again."
Note the passive language.  Passivity is used to conceal identity, or responsibility.  
"something happens..." is not that the author will cause something to happen. It is the same with "he will meet harm" is stated, instead of "I will harm him..."
This reduces commitment to physical harm. 

The note appears strongly emotional, with both the pronoun, "I" and the child's name used, but when it comes to violence, it turns to passivity.  

All the while, Chiauzzi continued to get close to the family, even though police said she was sending the threats because her boy was not picked for the East Meadow Little League travel team.
She also made false, anonymous child abuse claims against the parents.
By 2012, investigators had begun to focus on the family's recent friend, Chiauzzi, and obtained a handwriting sample. Police said they matched.
After her arrest, Chiauzzi admitted sending the letters and making the abuse complaint.
She pleaded guilty to two felonies and six misdemeanors, receiving a sentence of 60 days in jail and five years of probation.
Linda DeMasi told "20/20" she is still waiting for an apology.

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Statement Analysis: Sheena Morris Case




Sheena Morris was found dead, hanging in the bathroom of a hotel room.  Police quickly concluded that it was a suicide, and that Sheena had a history of issues.  Instead of this young, beautiful woman marrying and bringing her family grandchildren, her family is left bereft of not only the life that is not, but of answers, justice, and closure.  

Statement Analysis gets to the truth.  By principle, we listen carefully to what one says, and even to what one does not say.  

If you were falsely accused of causing Sheena's death, it is appropriate for you to think how you would answer the allegation. 

I would say, "I didn't cause Sheena's death." and in subsequent questions, I would add, "I was not there when she died.  I did not contribute to her death.  I love Sheena..." and so on. 

It is this simple. 

I recommend reading the analysis before watching the "20/20" episode.  It is persuasive about highlighting that this was not a suicide.  My preference is to let the subject, Joe Geonese, speak for himself first.  He appeared on the Dr. Phil Show, and on 20/20.  He voluntarily submitted to a polygraph. 

                                        http://www.justice4sheena.com

The question at hand is simple:  Is Geonese truthful?  

The following is Statement Analysis of Joe Geonese appearance on the news program, “20/20”, which included a short clip from the “Dr. Phil Show” in which the subject, Joe Genoese was given opportunity to speak for himself regarding the allegation that he had involvement in the death of Sheena Morris.


The quotations are in italics, with underlining and color added for emphasis, with the Statement Analysis in bold type.

On the 20/20 Transcripts, the subject is on pages 20-29.  No changes have been made to the subject’s words.

Lying is stressful.

People do not generally directly lie due to the internal stress it causes.  Mostly, people will either mislead, in order to deceive, or will deliberately leave information out of their statement for the purpose of deception. 90% or more of deception is done in this manner. 

It is in the will to deceive that we find linguistic indications.

The Expected Versus The Unexpected

Statement Analysis presumes innocence.  This is done so that we might set up the difference between “the expected” response from someone who “did not do it”, against any response we receive that does not deny involvement.  This is the “unexpected” from the subject.

By presupposing innocence (not merely judicial innocence but de facto innocence) Statement Analysis is confronted by words not expected to hear.  This is how truth from deception can be evidenced.

An innocent person will not surprise us.  He will say “I didn’t do it”, early, and often if necessary, and will not show sensitivity indicators within his speech.  For example, he, the innocent person, will not allow weakness in his statement:

I don’t think I killed Sheena” would be to add weakness by the word “think” in the sentence.  To say “I don’t think I killed Sheena” allows for the subject, or someone else, to “think” differently. “I didn’t really kill Sheena” qualifies “kill” with the word “really”, something an innocent person would not say.
"I'm not guilty" is to deny judicial guilt; not the killing of Sheena.  It is not reliable. 

Short sentences are seen as best, with no psychological need to buttress them with many words, in an attempt to persuade.  It is the need to persuade that the analyst must take account of. 

Context: 

Sheena Morris is dead, found hung in a bathroom, in an apparent suicide.  The subject is being accused by Sheena’s family of murdering her. 

We presume the subject did not do it, therefore, in being interviewed by national television, or by the police, he will, on his own accord say, “I didn’t kill Sheena” freely.


Dr Phil:   These two people think you had something to do with their daughter's death.

Please note that Dr. Phil Shows generally have an allegation presented so that the subject can speak to the allegation choosing his own words.

When a person speaks for himself, it is call the “Free Editing Process”, that is, that the subject is freely choosing his words, what to add in and what to take out. This allows the subject the opportunity to say that he did not “do it” in a “Reliable Denial.”

A “Reliable Denial” in order to be reliable, must come from the subject’s own words.  It consists of three (3) components.  If there are less than three components, or more than three, it is no longer to be deemed reliable.  The three components are:

1.     The Pronoun “I”
2.     The Past Tense verb “Didn’t” or “did not”
3.     The Specific Allegation Addressed

In this case, a Reliable Denial would be:  “I did not cause Sheena’s death.”  The innocent will simply make this statement, often not even waiting to be asked.  It is to be deemed reliable.
Other denials that are not reliable include:

1.     Didn’t do it”, dropping the pronoun “I”
2.     “I would never cause her death”, with the words “would never
3.     I did not harm Sheena”, which now minimizes her death to “harm”
4.     I never caused Sheena’s death” as the word “never” is substituted for “didn’t” or “did not” and is not reliable.

parroting or reflective language reduces reliability for the analyst: 

The denial must be his own words.  For instance, if asked,
Did you hang Sheena by a dog leash in the bathroom” to which the subject says “I did not hang Sheena by a dog leash in the bathroom” would be to enter into the Interviewer’s wording, and not freely choosing his own words.  This is why leading questions are to be avoided in an interview.  Best to say “How do you speak to the accusation?” and allow the subject to simply, without qualifiers, say, “I didn’t do it.”


In Statement Analysis we have a principle:

If the subject is unwilling or unable to say he didn’t do it, we are not permitted to say it for him.
By Dr. Phil’s laying out the scenario, we now have “The expected”, that is, what we expect an innocent person to say.  This is the perfect opportunity for the subject to say “I didn’t do it.  I didn’t cause Sheena’s death.”

Presuming innocence, we look for him to say so:

Geneose:  All these things are lies.  They're just, they're not true.”

Please note that “all these things are lies.  They’re just, they’re not true” is not to say “I didn’t do it.”

He does not issue a Reliable Denial.

We do not know what “all these things” (plural) are that he refers to. He is accused of murdering Sheena Morris and it is expected that an innocent person will tell us that he did not do it.  The subject fails to do so.

He says that “all these things are lies” but he does not tell us what things are lies, nor who is telling the lies. 

Next, note the word “just.”  The word “just” is used when comparing two or more thoughts, with one being lesser.  For example, if I sought to sell you a car for $15,000 but knew it was very expensive for you, I might show you a car that is $20,000, knowing that it is far too expensive.  After you turn down the $20,000 car, I say,
Wait.  Let me show you this other car.  It is just $15,000.”  The word “just” is used to compare. 
What is the subject comparing that which is “not true” towards?  He does not tell us what is “not true” nor does he tell us what “all these things” are.  This is to employ vague language, which avoids the simple, and easy Reliable Denial of “I didn’t do it…”
The next context is that the subject voluntarily agreed to take a polygraph but failed it.

 MUIR:   How do you explain those test results?
  And what it was that led to this...

 GENOESE:  Can we cut?

  DAVID MUIR:  Tonight, as some of Florida's top investigators take another look at the mysterious death of Sheena Morris found dead in that hotel shower, the man she was getting ready to marry, who failed that polygraph, has decided to sit down with "20/20."

JOSEPH GENOESE (FIANCEE OF SHEENA MORRIS)
Hello.  How are you?

DAVID MUIR:  Nearly five years after he lost his fiancée, Joe says he is a victim too...

So why sit down with me?

Topic:  Failed Polygraph

The question is designed to allow the subject to defend himself.  Regarding a failed polygraph, we expect an innocent subject to state:

“I told the truth” with three components:

1.     The pronoun “I”
2.     The past tense, “told”, since the polygraph test took place in the past
3.     The word “truth” should be in place.  We note any inclusion of the word “lie” or “lying” as not reliable.
He is asked now to explain the result.  The expected is “I told the truth”, and it is that Statement Analysis is confronted by the “unexpected”, that is, one that will not say “I didn’t do it” and “I told the truth.”

The subject can be nervous when he takes the polygraph, but a truthful subject is expected to say “I told the truth” and allow the blame to fall upon the machine, itself.  The truth stands alone and it stands strong.  It does not need extra words to buttress it, nor does it have need of persuasion.  Better to hear, “I told the truth” than anything else. At this point, our expectation has been:

“I didn’t kill Sheena” to be said easily, and regarding the polygraph, “I told the truth.”
He has been unable or unwilling to say either.

 GENOESE:  Because I have to tell you my side of the story.  I'm being victimized 'cause I cared about someone.  I was there for her when her family, a lot of times, wasn't.


We note that he has a "side" in this. 


Statement Analysis deals not only with what one says, but also what one does not say.
First, note that he does not say “I told the truth” in challenge to the results of failure.  Instead of disputing the results, he says he has to tell his side of the “story.”

One might question if he considers his account a “story.”

Note that his fiancé is deceased yet he says “I’m being victimized.”  He also gives the reason for being “victimized” as caring about “someone.”  Please note that he does not say he cared for Sheena, but only “someone.”  Direct lying is internally stressful and often avoided by deceptive subjects.  Here he does not use Sheena’s name, which may suggest distancing himself from her. 
Please now note that instead of saying that he did not kill Sheena, and that he told the truth, he disparages those who accuse him:  I was there for her when her family, a lot of times, wasn’t.”
Please note that he does not say he was there for “Sheena” but only “her”, where he had previously used the word “someone.”  To call “her” from “someone” is to distance himself from Sheena.  He does not assert that he cared about Sheena, nor does he use her name while attempting to disparage Sheena’s family.

This is not expected from an innocent subject, but is the “unexpected” in analysis.
When the victim or the victim’s family is blamed, even in a subtle manner, it should be carefully noted as guilt.

Guilt causes stress, and a guilty subject might attempt to mitigate the guilt by:
1.     Blaming others
2.     Disparaging or blaming the victim
3.     Share or “spread around” the guilt by using the pronoun “we” when the pronoun “I” is expected.  This is something that parents of children readily recognize, especially where teens are concerned, as they like to “hide in the crowd” of “everyone doing it”, reducing their own guilt or responsibility. 
Thus far, we must note:
1.     The subject has not denied killing Sheena
2.     The subject has not asserted that he has told the truth
3.     The subject has disparaged his accuser rather than answer the accusation.

DAVID MUIR: .put under the microscope, he says, by a mother determined to prove her daughter did not commit suicide.

BRENDAN MCLAUGHLIN (ABC ACTION NEWS):  The story we've been following for years now.

DAVID MUIR:  Joe says the portrait painted of his relationship with Sheena is not a true one.

 REPORTER (MALE)    A domestic dispute between Morris and her fiancée.

 DAVID MUIR:   We've interviewed a lot of Sheena's friends.

 JOSEPH GENOESE (FIANCEE OF SHEENA MORRIS)

Mm-hmm.

MUIR:  Many of her friends say that this was a tumultuous relationship.

Please note that this is the perfect place for the subject to deny domestic violence, or even simply deny that it was a tumultuous relationship. 

Interviewers should seek to avoid introducing language whenever possible.  

JOSEPH GENOESE:    I just don't understand where they're getting at, you know?

The subject does not deny that the relationship was tumultuous, but only that he does not “understand” where “they’re getting at”, or “where” the information, or the point is coming from, or “getting at.”

This is to avoid saying “it was not tumultuous” or something similar, with, perhaps, a different word than “tumultuous” if he was not comfortable with it. 

This is also the place where he can describe the relationship in positive terms.  He has just heard the accusation:  the relationship was negative, therefore, this is the perfect place to say that this claim is not true, and that the relationship was positive. 

Please note that “you know” is an habit of speech. Like any habit, we note where it appears and where it does not appear.  “You know” is an indication that the subject is acutely aware of the Interviewer’s presence at this point, with this question.
This is the place for him to tell us that not only was the relationship not tumultuous, but that it was a good relationship.
He does not. 
His answer appears not to be lost by the Interviewer, David Muir, who then specifically asks:

   DAVID MUIR (ABC NEWS)  There wasn't any fighting?

The Interviewer asks this question in the negative, making it important for the Interviewer, himself.  This may signal that the Interviewer may not believe that there was no domestic violence or "fighting" in the relationship between the subject (Genoese) and Sheena. 

JOSEPH GENOESE 

Well, in a relationship, there's always, there's always arguments and stuff.


The word “well” is a pause, which means that the question, itself, has caused the subject need to pause and think of his answer. 
The question about “fighting” is now sensitive to the subject.  One might wonder why a question about “fighting” would be sensitive to him, and cause him to need to pause to think longer before answering.  It is another habit of speech and like all habits, we note what questions cause it to enter his language, and what questions do not cause it. 
He says “in a relationship” and not in “my” or “our” relationship.  This is to avoid answering the question.  This is the second indication that the question is sensitive to him.  It is to distance himself by moving away from “my” or “our” relationship. 
Note “arguments and stuff” does not define what, besides “arguments” the subject is speaking of.  This is where the Interviewer can ask, “What stuff?” and learn what the subject is thinking of, regarding “fighting” besides arguing.
It may be that in “fighting” there is “arguments” but for the subject, there is something else in addition to arguing. 
This should be taken along with the two indicators that the question on fighting, itself, is sensitive, therefore, it is a likely a signal that there was domestic violence in the relationship. 
Remember, people do not like to lie outright, and to avoid the internal stress, they will deceive by leaving out information instead. The interviewer senses that there was more than just “arguing” in his answer, and that he avoided speaking for the relationship itself, instead turning to vague terms that might apply to others instead of himself.
He avoiding answering if there was “fighting” making “fighting” very sensitive to him. 
Principle:  When a question is avoided, the question, itself, is sensitive.

Muir:   It was never physical?

This is a “yes or no” question, which is easier (less stressful) to lie in response.  We note every word that is added beyond  the word “no”:

JOSEPH GENOESE:

No.  You know, in a normal relationship, there, there was fights, there was, you know, back and forth.  But there was no, never any violence.  No.

Deception indicated.

The word “no”, by itself, is a good answer.  Instead, he continues, as do many deceptive individuals who are concerned that the simple “no” is not strong enough by itself.  They feel the need to emphasize the denial, which actually weakens it. 

Please note that in Statement Analysis, any word that is repeated is sensitive.  We see that in this one answer, he uses the word “no” three times, making it very sensitive.

Please note the inclusion of the word “normal” in statement analysis is indicative that it was not normal.  Even in early grade school readers when a young student reads, “it was a normal day like any other”, they know that someone not normal, or extraordinary, is about to take place.
This is a strong signal that this was not a “normal” relationship within the context being domestically violent. 

Note that he was said “back and forth” which appears to be a subtle blaming of the victim, that not only did the violence go in one direction, but in two.  This voids his answer of “no” that he began with.  Each word that goes beyond “no” is critical in analysis.  

Note that “You know” appears twice in this answer. This is to be acutely aware of the Interviewer’s presence while asking this question. 

The word “never” in statement analysis is not a reliable denial unless the word “ever” is in the question.  When the word “never” is added to “no”, it is to be noted.
It is very likely that not only was this relationship domestically violent, but acutely so. 

 DAVID MUIR (ABC NEWS)

 Nor was there ever any violence with his ex-wife, according to Joe, when we asked him about those battery charges that were dropped.

By simply stating the accusation, this allows the subject to say "there was no violence" and direct his answer to the relationship between himself 

GENOESE:  It was a push back and forth.  She pushed me, I pushed her back.  And then she looked at me and says, "Now you're going to jail."

Note that “push back and forth” is not “violent” according to the subject. 
Note the order:
1.     She pushed me
2.     I pushed her back
This puts the priority upon her, that he only pushed her “back”, which is to minimize.
Please next note that he said, “And”
Sentences that begin with the word “And” indicate that there is missing information between the sentence and the one that preceded it.  After he pushed her back, and before she “looked” at him, there is missing information that he is deliberately withholding.  This would be a good place to ask about it. 
Note that when he quotes her, he does not say “she said” but moves into the present tense “says”, reducing reliability.  Note also that he does not say “she says” but “she looked at me and says”, with “looked” in the past tense.
One might want to know what it is that is missing between the sentences that caused him to say “she looked at me”:
When he pushed her, did she fall in such a way that in order to address him, she had to rise to her feet and turn around in order to look at him while speaking? This indicates that prior to her speaking, she was not facing him.
This may have been a serious assault or “push” that took place.  This should be seen in light of the above conclusion of an acutely violent relationship.

                                            DAVID MUIR (ABC NEWS)
  And he points out his ex-wife dropped it all.  And he says his fights with Sheena, including the one that New Year's night, were often caused by her jealousy of the family he already had.  And he also says that Sheena was often depressed.  Remember that Christmas morning video, where Kelly sees her daughter smiling and laughing.


                    SHEENA MORRIS (DAUGHTER OF KELLY OSBORN)
At least I'm (inaudible).
               

                              DAVID MUIR (ABC NEWS)

  He sees something else, remembering the fiancée who couldn't get out of bed that morning, who didn't wanna spend Christmas, he says, with her family.


  JOSEPH GENOESE (FIANCEE OF SHEENA MORRIS)

She wasn't out of bed for two days, hadn't eaten anything in two days.  And...

Please note that he again avoids using Sheena’s name, which suggests distancing language. 
Please note the missing pronoun, “hadn’t eaten…’, which reduces commitment to the statement.

When a name of someone as close as a fiancé is avoided, it is a signal of emotional distance.  Why would an innocent, bereaving fiancé avoid using his love's name?  We look to see, by the language itself, if there was trouble in the relationship.  



                                      DAVID MUIR (ABC NEWS)
Was she depressed?

This is another “yes or no” question in which we expect the subject to answer with one or the other, or an explanation why "yes or no" is not an appropriate response.  "Was she depressed?" is very straightforward, especially in a suicide case. 

  JOSEPH GENOESE:

I guess she was upset with the fact, or depressed with the fact, that I was spending time with my kids over the holidays.


Please note that he does not answer the question about depression.  This indicates that the question, “Was she depressed?” is sensitive to the subject.

Please note that he only says “guess” which is to express uncertainty and instead of using “depressed” he uses “upset.”

Note that she is not “upset” but “upset with the fact”

Note that she was not “depressed” but only “depressed with the fact.”

Principle:  Change of language should represent a change in reality.  If there is no apparent change of reality within the statement, it may indicate deception on part of the subject.

For example:  The officer pulled his gun and fired his weapon at the suspect.  He re holstered his gun and called for back up.”

The context shows veracity:  it was a “gun” until it was being fired, at which time it changed into a “weapon”, but after it was no longer being fired, it returned to being a “gun.”

The car sputtered. I left the vehicle on the side of the road.  After it was repaired, I picked up my car at the garage.”

It was a “car” until it no longer operated, at which time it became a “vehicle”, but once it was back running, it returned to being not only a “car” but “my” car.  This is a sign of truthfulness in a statement.

In the subject’s response, there is no apparent change of reality from “upset at the fact” and “depressed at the fact.”

Conclusion:  deception detected.

                                            DAVID MUIR (ABC NEWS)
  And Joe says that surprise New Year's trip was out of concern for Sheena because she had been down.

This is a statement.  Best to ask questions, but the inference is, 'Did you take the trip to help her with depression?' but keep in mind that the subject (Genoese) did not assert that Sheena was either suffering from depression, or that she was depressed. 


GENOESE:   

And I said to myself, maybe we'll just go down there for New Year's Eve, since we had a crappy Christmas.

Here, it begins with "And", which may be an editing issue, as a sentence beginning with "And" is a 'connection'; that is, a signal of missing information between sentences. 

Note that he did not state that she had depression, or was depressed, and that this trip was to help with depression.

Instead, depression is avoided, and it is not that "Sheena" had a "crappy weekend" but that "we" had a crappy weekend.  

This is to avoid the depression issue and bring the focus to them, as a couple.  They had a crappy weekend, rather than Sheena being depressed.

Remember, people do not like to lie outright, but will 'skate around' the truth, to leave an impression of deception, rather than lie.

Sheen lived with him.

He is unable to bring himself to say that she was depressed.  We are not to say it, nor conclude it, for him, nor to match the police finding of "suicide."

It is not because of depression, but because of a crappy weekend.  Follow the subject.  Do not try to make his words fit any police theory, or murder theory ; just listen to him. 


                                           DAVID MUIR (ABC NEWS)

(VO)  And Joe says that Sheena was happy that New Years Eve night.  He remembers, too, as she sat there texting her friends from the dinner table.

We don't know if the Interviewer is quoting the subject or not.  When body posture enters, it may signal an increase in tension.  Is he quoting the subject?

Here is an example:

1.  "My boss told me to be at work at 8AM.

This is stronger:

2.  "My boss stood and told me to be at work at 8AM" with the body posture a signal of increase in tension for the subject. 


     JOSEPH GENOESE

We went out to dinner at the place we were gonna get married at.  She was texting and talking with her family most of the night.

Please note that even though they were out to dinner at the place they were going to get married at, there is distance between the subject and Sheena:
1.     He continues to avoid using Sheena’s name
2.     He does not tell us that Sheena was talking with him, but instead, communicating with her family, which would leave him out of the communications, as he is not mentioned.
This was not likely a good night between them, even if Sheena enjoyed communicating with her family. 
Note that she was not only “texting” with her family, but “talking” with them.
Note that this went on for “most of the night” which may make one ask if this angered the subject and gave occasion for “fights and stuff”

Next, notice the location of the dinner is important to the subject.  It is unnecessary information, therefore, it is important.  By using the location of the dinner, he is emphasizing that it was a special place for them to get married at.  

During this special time for where "we" were going to get married at, she was both "texting" and "talking" with her family, not only during the dinner, but "most"of the night. 

This is a signal of discord between them.  This is the domestic fighting that is of primary concern; more than depression, which has not been acknowledged.  Remember:  listen to his words to guide you.  If he is unable or unwilling to say it, we must not say it for him. 



                                           DAVID MUIR (ABC NEWS)
 And he remembers their kiss at midnight.

The interviewer introduces the word "kiss."  Better is, "What happened at midnight?" which allows the subject to  choose his own words.  New Year's kiss is something significant.  Will he affirm the Interviewer's statement about the kiss?

 GENOESE:

And then New Year's, you know, 12:00 came.  And we - went out on the balcony and fireworks went off, and you know, we celebrated New Year's.

1.     “And”:  when a sentence begins with “And” it is an indication of missing information between sentences.
2.     “You know” as a habit of speech showing acute awareness of the interviewer at this point.  Here, it enters his speech twice.
3.     He does not say that they “kissed” at midnight.  They “celebrated” but not kissed?
It is likely that midnight was sensitive to the subject, as it is not something he wishes to disclose here.


                                        DAVID MUIR: 
 A New Year's kiss?
The failure to mention “kiss” is not missed by the interviewer.

 GENOESE :

Yeah.  Exactly, yeah.  Everything was great.

“Yeah” is to agree rather than assent.  Then it is repeated, making it sensitive, but it is also described as being “exactly”, giving us three indicators.  The need to say “Everything was great”, when he was only asked if they kissed should lead one to ask if they fought at midnight. The need to say “everything was great” may come from the fact that “nothing was great” at that point. 

                                          DAVID MUIR (ABC NEWS)


 Great, he says, until he went back inside that hotel room to call his children, to wish them a happy New Year too.

He leads the subject. 

   JOSEPH GENOESE:

It lasted all about 15, 20 seconds that I was on the phone.  And as I turned back around, she was right there.  She just looked at me and said, "You just (censored by network) up the whole night."

Note his need to add in the time of the call. 
Note body posture.  “And” indicates missing information.
“And as I turned back around”  This is an indication that physical maneuvering was part of his memory.  He not only turned around, but “back” around, indicating that he may have turned from her deliberately.  This was not a pleasant exchange.

        DAVID MUIR:
  Why did she have such a big problem with you calling your kids?

Please note that Sheena was not able to speak for herself and rebut this assertion.  This is the subject's assertion, in the words of the interviewer.  What will this topic reveal from the subject himself?


GENOESE:

She just didn't want me involved with my children.  It was like another family to her.  And she started getting really upset, screaming and yelling.  And then she started punching the wall.

“And” indicates he is skipping over periods of time, withholding information that has to do with “really upset” and “screaming” and “yelling” and eventually, “punching” the wall.

The word "with" when it is between people, suggests distance. 

My wife and I went shopping" is one way of saying it. 
"I went shopping with my wife" puts, "I", as far away from "wife" as possible.  This is distancing language. 

Something like the above may simply be distance due to the fact that in the first sentence we were shopping together, but in the second sentence, I did not really want to go shopping with her. 

Note that he says "she just didn't want me involved with my children" reduces the relationship to not parenting, but only being "involved" with his children.  The distancing indicator is between the word "me" and "my children."

Perhaps it is he, himself, that caused the distance, and not Sheena. 



   DAVID MUIR:  Joe says initially, it was Sheena's idea to leave the hotel but that she suddenly changed her mind, refusing to go.

GENOESE:

 She actually at one point tried to grab the money that I had on the bureau so and - she said that I wasn't leaving.  And I told her, "I am leaving.  We're leaving."  Because at that point, I, you know, from her punching the wall and screaming and yelling the way she did, I, I was afraid that, you know, cops were gonna come.

Every person has an internal subjective personal dictionary.  When one says “boy” for example, one reader here might think of a new born baby boy, while another thinks of the fighting “boy” in the military at 21 years of age over in Afghanistan.

 It is subjective and follow up questions, or context might be needed to give clarity.

Everyone one of us has a personal, internal, subjective dictionary.  A good interviewer will "decode" it. 

There are two exceptions: 
1.     Articles (“the, a, an”)
2.     Pronouns

Pronouns are instinctive.  They do not require thought and are reliable for analysis.  Here he described “she” (he continues to avoid using Sheena’s name) and said “I am leaving” but this changed to “we’re leaving.”  Pronouns that are confused are often indicators that the subject is not speaking from memory but is being deceptive.

Note repeated “you know” in context.

Stuttering I” in Statement Analysis.

When a non-stuttering stutters on the pronoun “I”, it is an indication of an increase of anxiety at this point of the statement.  The pronoun “I” is used millions of times by us, therefore, the stuttering upon it is an indication that the topic the subject is speaking about is causing him anxiety.

The word “actually” is used when comparing two or more items.  “Do you like chocolate?”  “No, I actually like vanilla.”  What is he comparing this response to? Sometimes it may be that the subject is comparing a deceptive statement to what actually happened.

Because.” 

The subject was asked to explain what happened.  When someone who is asked to explain what happened feels the need to explain “why” something was done, it is very sensitive.  It means that the subject anticipates being asked why he did something and feels the need to explain it first, as he does not want to be asked.  This is very sensitive information.


  DAVID MUIR:   But guests were already placing that call to 911.

                                                       CALLER (MALE)
There's two people over there just screaming and yelling, a woman and a man, at each other.
                                            
 DAVID MUIR (ABC NEWS)
 And Joe told us what police say he's always told them.
                                         

DAVID MUIR 

 And where did you go?

 GENOESE:

Home, straight home.  Straight to my townhouse, where there were people there, they were having a party, and at least five or six people saw me.

Deception indicated. 

Please note that when he answered, “Home” it was a very strong answer, but he did not stop with “home.”
Deceptive people say too much, and use too many words.  They feel the need to explain and add words in order to sound convincing.  It makes them sound deceptive instead of convincing, as it underlines the weakness in the assertion.
Instead of simply saying “Home”, he adds, “straight home” suggesting that he could have gone somewhere else.  But then he changes “home” into a “Townhouse” which we see what caused his “home” to change:  a party.
Note that he adds that five or six people saw him:
This is alibi establishing.
This may cause one to ask why he feels the need to establish an alibi?
These additional words indicate that he has a need to be “seen” and that before going “home” to the “Townhouse” in order to be “seen”, there is missing information about where he was.
Note that he does not say “we were having a party” but “they” were.  Where?  His “home” or his “Townhouse”?
He reveals that he needed to be “seen” suggesting that he knew what he had to do in order to establish his alibi.

 DAVID MUIR:
On the drive home, Joe says Sheena was on the phone with him suddenly sinking into that depression.

"sinking into depression" is the words chosen by Muir, taken from the subject, pre interview.  The follow up question should be:

"If she was sinking into depression, why would you leave your fiancé alone in a hotel room?


DAVID MUIR (ABC NEWS)

 What was she saying to you?

If she was "sinking into depression", this is a good question.  Was she begging him to return and help her?  


 GENOESE :  There was one thing that she did say.  In a somber note, she said, "If I can't have you all to myself, don't wanna be here."

Note that additional wording often gives away the deceptive subject.  He was asked what was she saying to him and instead of simply answering it, he affirms only one particular thing with the wording, “there was one thing she did say”, giving us the word “did” as unnecessary. 
Note the editorializing: “in a somber note” is added.
The word “did” along with the editorializing suggests:   rehearsed speech. 

Please note that he is presorting to speak for her, but even here, we have a dropped pronoun:

"...don't want to be here."

Even in repeating this, he drops a pronoun.  Was he quoting her accurately while dropping a pronoun?  

If so, it may be the first time I have ever encountered such a thing.  

I do not believe it. 

It appears that the Interviewer did not either. 

Even without training, a dropped pronoun sounds awkward.  It may be that David Muir heard that, and did not even know why it didn't sound "right", but knew enough to ask about such a strange thing. 

People drop pronouns when they are being deceptive -it shows a lack of confidence in the statement. 


DAVID MUIR :   Had she ever said that before?

This is a “yes or no” question.  It indicates a strain:

JOSEPH GENOESE: 

No.

Please note that he is able to answer a “yes or no” question with a simple “no” showing what a truthful response looks like.  

This is likely a truthful answer. 

He has no need to add any emphasis. 

I believe his answer.  I don't think she ever said that to him before, and, in fact, I don't believe he ever said it...period.  

DAVID MUIR 

And as for that 911 call Sheena made just after 2:00 A.M...

 SHEENA MORRIS (DAUGHTER OF KELLY OSBORN)

He just made me bleed and left claw marks all over me and stuff.

The subject will now speak to the allegation, via 911, that he made her bleed and left claw marks all over her.  "And stuff" indicates that he did other things to her, that may not have left visible proof, but were done just the same.


 GENOESE:  The scrape on her, on her finger, we know that came from her punching the wall.  And the scrape on her neck, when she went to grab the money off of the bureau and I grabbed her by her - her shirt, and - and it got her necklace and it, and left a little scratch on her neck.  That's, that's it.


Deception indicated.  

Pronouns are instinctive.  Here he says “we know” instead of “I know”, since he was there personally.  Sheena had reported where the injuries came from.  He was there, alone with her.  Who is the “we” he now speaks of?  This is a very strong indication of deception.
Note the admission of “I grabbed her by her her skirt” with the stutter.
Note that “that’s it” is unnecessary, which gives us an indication, since he was not asked if that was all that took place, that there was much else that took place and that he has the need to stop the flow of information and end it with “that’s it”, yet stuttering on the word “that.”
This is a strong indication that he is not truthful about this.

 DAVID MUIR:   And he says like the mother who loves Sheena, he was devastated, too, on that New Year's Day when they all learned Sheena was dead.

The interviewer uses the name, “Sheena” but her fiancé distances himself as he is unable to bring himself to use her name. 

 GENOESE:

And I walk up, and I - and I look, and I was like, what's going on?  And he looked at me and said, "I'm sorry for your loss."  And I, I fell to my knees.  And I just looked at him.  I couldn't believe what he said to me.  Can we cut?  Can we cut?

Please note that the subject speaks in the past tense about what has happened, yet now, he slips into the present tense with, “I walk up” instead of “I walked up”, and “I look” instead of “I looked.”  Yet, when it comes to the activity of another, he appropriately says, “And he looked at me” in the past tense “and said”, which is also in the past tense.
Speaking of himself, he slips into present tense, but speaking of another, he remains in the reliable past tense.
This indicates that his reaction is artificial, while the reaction of the other person is real.



 DAVID MUIR:

  And when he was ready to continue...

 GENOESE:
She was a beautiful girl.  I - this is a tragedy in everybody's lives, you know?

Note that she is a "girl", not a "woman."  
Please also note that she is not “Sheena”, the name he has consistently avoided in the interview, which is distancing language, but the phrase “you know” reenters his language, regarding it being a “tragedy.”
The interviewer caught this fact:

 DAVID MUIR:   For you too?

This is a “yes or no” question.

GENOESE:

Absolutely.  I was engaged to her.

Note the need for emphasis with “absolutely” while he continued to avoid using her name, distancing himself from her.  See "Joey Buttafouco"

 DAVID MUIR: Do you think everybody's forgotten that you felt this way too?

 GENOESE: 
No.  I just think that they, they're on the Kelly train.  And if you go against what Kelly says, then you're not an advocate of Sheena.

Here, he finally uses Sheena’s name.  This is a very significant point of the statement.  What has caused him to finally say Sheena’s name?

Please note that it is the entrance of “Kelly”, Sheena’s mother, which causes the subject, Joseph Genoese, to finally use her name.  With Kelly present, she is “Sheena”, a person with a name and identity. She is now close, because “Kelly” and the “Kelly train” is present.

It is the entrance of “Kelly” into his mind that gives “Sheena” a voice, life, and the respect that is rightfully hers.  “Kelly” is a very, very important person in the life of Joseph Genoese.  One may wish to learn why Kelly is far more important to the subject than his deceased fiancé.

The name "Sheena" is not in his vocabulary as:

his fiancé,
a beautiful girl
a suicide 
a person involved in domestic dispute
the one he went to dinner with
the one who talked to and texted her family
the one who was left alone in the hotel room

She was never "Sheena" until a new atmosphere, or context arises:

She is now "Sheena" in an adversarial role.  

This is highly significant. 

His concern is the "obsessed" mother, Kelly Osborn.  It is his worry, and the language reveals why:  he is deceptive about the death of Sheena Morris, Kelly's daughter. 

Kelly is demanding justice.  Kelly has seen him fail his polygraph.  Kelly has known he is lying and that he assaulted Sheena and caused her death in a domestic homicide and staged the hanging. 

The presence of Kelly is enough to trigger closeness to Sheena.  

He is distance from Sheena in all things, except in justice.  Now, faced with accusations and guilt, Sheena is "close" and right in his mind.  

This is a striking comparison. 


DAVID MUIR:

 A grieving mother out for answers no matter the cost, refusing to accept the possibility that her daughter could have taken her own life, or a fiancée covering his tracks?
  We've talked to Sheena's mother, her family, her friends, and they all categorically say she never would have taken her own life.

This is issued as a challenge to Joseph Genoese, and the final place for him to say "But she did.  I did not cause Sheena's death."

He has had many opportunities to 

 GENOESE:

My personal opinion is nobody ever thinks they're gonna take their own life.  Does anybody presume that somebody's gonna take their own life?

Note that it is not only his “opinion” but his “personal opinion”, which suggests that not only do others have differing opinions, but he, himself, may think otherwise.
Always note a rhetorical question within a statement as it may be that the subject is speaking to himself.

 MUIR:  "Did she ever say to you that she was depressed or, or having suicidal thoughts?"

This is a fair question.  Was there a pattern of suicide?  His answer is important:

 GENOESE:

She told me she tried to commit suicide when she was 15 years old, took a bottle of pills.

Communicative language:
We note how one portrays communication.  “Sheena said she tried to commit suicide when she was 15 years old…” is not what he said. 

1.     He avoided her name again
2.     He used “told” and not “said.”  The word “told” is more authoritative.  For example:
“My boss said for me to be at work at 8” is not as strong as “my boss told me to be at work at 8” 
One may wish to question why a young woman, confessing a weak moment as a teenager, would need to use authoritative language to report something embarrassing and even shameful, while confiding to her fiancé?
The language does not appear to fit well. 


Muir:  In fact, that's the same story police say Sheena's mother told them the day her body was found.

 Had there ever been suicidal thoughts before?

 KELLY OSBORN

She had gotten in some trouble with her dad and, and she kind of, like, said to her father that she took some pills.  They checked everything out.  She really didn't take anything.  It was a false alarm.

 MUIR   Joe says he understands Kelly's need for answers but says she's looking in the wrong place.  But how does he explain the mountain of evidence?  The sand on Sheena's feet but no sand in the shower, her perfect appearance, her hair, her clothes, and that diamond bracelet on the wrong wrist.

This is another place for him to say “I didn’t kill Sheena.” 

 GENOESE:  
I let that, the professionals deal with that, the investigators and everything else.

Note that he does not bring himself to say “I didn’t kill Sheena” though he has been given another opportunity to say so.  If he is unwilling or unable to say it, we are not permitted to say it for him.  Also note that he is not only leaving this to the investigators, but “everything else.”  What is “everything else”?

MUIR (ABC NEWS)
  He welcomes this new investigation because he insists he still has nothing to hide.

  And once and for all, did you kill Sheena?

This is a “yes or no” question, to which he should say “no” without the need for more wording.  Every word after “no” can weaken the denial.  We have already seen that he knows how to answer a "yes or no" question with the answer, "no", without the need to add words or change words for emphasis.  The best answer is "no", with nothing added: 

 GENOESE:  "Absolutely not.  What would be my motive, for God's sake?  I'm 50 years old.  I have three children."

“Absolutely not” is to avoid saying “no”

“Absolutely not” is to show the need for emphasis, weakening the denial.

Please note that he then asks a question.  This is sensitive.  He challenges as to his motive, and this is not something that the “Kelly train” would struggle to answer, nor is it something an analyst, who knows nothing more of this case than this transcript:
Domestic violence. 

Note that having 3 children does not indicate innocence. 


Muir:  But what about the polygraph?

This same question would be asked on the polygraph, perhaps worded "Did you cause the death of Sheena?" so that he cannot say he didn't kill her, but the rope did.  The polygrapher was retired FBI and well experienced. 


 DAVID MUIR (ABC NEWS)   But why take the test?

This is another "soft ball pitch" where the Interviewer lets the subject say "Because I didn't kill her.  Because I am telling the truth."


 GENOESE: Cause I had nothing to hide.

Better is to say "I took the polygraph because I did not kill Sheena.  I told the truth."
If this was his response, the Statement Analysis would have been finished. 

  DAVID MUIR:    How do you explain those test results?

This is where an innocent person will say “I told the truth” and need nothing else to add.  Will he now, given this easy opportunity, assert that he told the truth using the three elements:
1.     The pronoun “I”
2.     The past tense verb “told”
3.     The word “truth”?
Will he now make this simple statement that honest innocent people do?

 GENOESE:

Well, I don't.  I was uneasy with a lot of the questions he asked, first of all.  Second of all, I was told by a professional the questions that he asked should never have been asked.  They were setup questions.

1.     He uses “well” as a pause, showing the need to think
2.     “I was told” is passive.  Passivity is used to conceal identity or responsibility.
3.     The simple questions about causing the death of Sheena “should never have been asked” is something that “a professional” would not want his name attached to.

Please note that sample questions in a homicide are like these:

1.  Is your name Joseph Genoese?
2.  Did you cause the death of Sheena Morris?
3.  Is today Thursday?

and so on. 

There would be no surprise questions and the pre screen interview would make this clear.  


DAVID MUIR:   But now for Joe, there are new questions to answer, this time from those investigators taking a fresh look at the case with the real possibility that someone could be charged with murder.
 When was the last time you talked to the investigators on the team?

 JOSEPH GENOESE: Three weeks ago.

Note the short response is very likely to be truthful.

DAVID MUIR:  Were you nervous?

GENOESE: Of course, I'm nervous.  I mean, who wouldn't be nervous?

“Of course” is when one wishes us to take an answer without questioning it.  Please note the rhetorical question as he may be speaking to himself.


 When we come back, Joe's message tonight for Sheena's mother, what he wants her to hear.  And we ask Kelly how she will react if no one is charged with murder in her daughter's death.

MUIR:   Sheena Morris' mother gave up everything to become the lead investigator in her daughter's case when she says no else would, determined to find answers.  The boyfriend who lost his fiancée says all these years, he's been asking questions, too, of the young girlfriend found in that shower.

GENOESE: "I ask the question all the time.  I - I asked her, "Why did you do this?"  I don't understand it.  I mean, I, I, who, who understands it?  I don't.

In this short response, he uses the pronoun "I" 8 times.  This is a signal of anxiety. 

Please note again that this is the perfect place for him to say “I didn’t do it” but he is unable or unwilling to issue a denial.

Note also the stuttering “I” as an increase in anxiety. 

Note that he is referring to Kelly.  It was Kelly who’s presence in a statement caused him to finally identify Sheena by name.  Kelly brings Sheena close to him.  Otherwise, he keeps her distant, in the statement.  He has a need to distance himself from his own fiancé.  This is not expected from an innocent person, but is expected from the guilty.


DAVID MUIR:   What are you hoping to hear?


KELLY OSBORN (MOTHER OF SHEENA MORRIS)

I'm hoping my phone rings and it's the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and say, "Miss Osborn, we have a suspect in custody."

DAVID MUIR:  Will this ever be over?

 KELLY OSBORN (MOTHER OF SHEENA MORRIS)

When there's a trial and the jury finds the suspect guilty.  That chapter will be over.

 LEE WILLIAMS ("SARASOTA HERALD - TRIBUNE")

She needs some answers.  The community, Southwest Florida would like to know what happened to Sheena.

DAVID MUIR:   Do you think they'll ever know?

 LEE WILLIAMS ("SARASOTA HERALD - TRIBUNE")

Yeah, I do.  I would be very surprised if they come back with a, it was a suicide, because the evidence is overwhelming that it's not.

DAVID MUIR
Joe, as you sit here across from me, have you gone there?  Have you thought about possible charges?


 GENOESE:  I'm not guilty of anything, so...

This is a truthful statement.  He has not been convicted of anything.
It is also a statement that avoids saying “I didn’t kill Sheena”

 MUIR:   You don't fear there are charges coming?

GENOESE: 

No, absolutely not.  As a matter of fact, if anything, I think I should bring civil charges against Kelly and her family.

Note that “no” is weakened by “absolutely not”.
Note that “I think” is weak, as it allows for him, or someone else, to “think” otherwise.  Why would he only “think” he should bring civil charges against Kelly?
One might wonder if he is not sure he wishes to bring civil charges against Kelly because he would have to answer questions under oath. 

 MUIR:   Do you plan to?

GENOESE:   We'll see how it - I'm gonna wait till the investigations is over with.  You know, there's no reason why this family did what they did to me.

Note the change of pronoun from “we’ll” to “I’m.  Note the blaming of the family what “they did to me” and not what “Kelly” or the “Kelly train” did to him.  It may be that he is, here, adding Sheena into the equation, subtly blaming Sheena for the domestic violence that ‘forced ‘ him to kill her, in his mind.

 MUIR:  If they clear you once and for all, do you think that will be enough for Sheena's mother?

Another great place for him to say he didn’t do it.

GENOESE:  No.  I don't think she'll ever stop.

Agreed.



 Analysis Conclusion:

Deception Indicated.

The subject is deceptive and withholding information about what happened to Sheena Morris.  This interview reveals a domestic homicide in which Joseph Genoese is unwilling or unable to tell us that he did not cause Sheena's death. 

We are not going to say it for him. 

He is deceptive about the nature of his relationship, and of what happened that night.  He uses distancing language throughout, until finally "Sheena" is in the place of pursuing justice via her mother, Kelly Osborn, which provokes the name, "Sheena" to enter his language. 

The Statement Analysis of this interview agrees with the result of the polygraph:  Joseph Genoese is not telling the truth about his involvement in the death of Sheena Morris.