Oscar Pistorius: Complete Statement Analysis

How about one statement with three analysts?

The case of Oscar Pistorius is in the news.  Statement Analysis of the case has been done by Kaaryn Gough as well as Mark McClish.  In reviewing both work, I find excellence in their work, as well as some great teaching samples.  

Here is the statement of Oscar Pistorius, alongside statement analysis done by both analysts.  I have added using my own name.  

Mark's website is  here.  Mark gives in person training as well as online training.  

Note the ability of both analysts to enter into the subject's personal internal subjective dictionary.  The statement is in the form of an affidavit,  in italics, with analysts comments in bold type. I have added underlining and color for emphasis. 

"On the 13th of February 2013 Reeva would have gone out with her friends and I with my friends. Reeva then called me and asked that we rather spend the evening at home."

Mark:   The word then can mean "immediately" which is how people usually want to use it. However, this word can also mean "soon afterward" which is how people usually use it. This means they have withheld some information. Something else occurred before the word then.

Peter:  "her friends" and "his friends" are different.  Was there a disagreement about this? Note that "we" enters his vocabulary about the two of them spending the evening at home. 

"I agreed and we were content to have a quiet dinner together at home."

Mark:  When people use the word agreed it sometimes means they first disagreed and then changed their mind. The police should investigate if Pistorius and his girlfriend had a disagreement. Perhaps he wanted to go out with his friends and did not want Reeva to come over that night.

Peter:  It is important to note when the word "we" is used, and when it is no longer used, with the context being the most important part of it.  "We" can show unity and cooperation.  When it comes to dinner, it produced "we" but only after the word "agreed", which is often used when there was an argument or disagreement.   We will continue to note the word "we" and see if it remains consistent throughout.  

"By about 2200 on 13 February 2013 we were in our bedroom. She was doing her yoga exercises and I was in bed watching television. My prosthetic legs were off. We were deeply in love and I could not be happier. I know she felt the same way. She had given me a present for Valentine's Day but asked me only to open it the next day."

Mark:  The phrase "by about" indicates he has skipped over something. He does not tell us what time Reeva came to his house. He does not tell us what they were doing prior to being in their bedroom.

I find it odd that at this point in his statement he tells us that his prosthetic legs were off. I would expect him to state this when he was dealing with the intruder. At this point, there is no reason to tell us this.

The same thing applies to his statement that he and Reeva were deeply in love. He mentions this to convince us that he did not purposefully shoot her.

Peter:  The word "we" was used when they were in the bedroom, then the pronouns "she" and "I" enter as they were doing different things.

When it came to being "deeply in love", "we" re-enters.  That they were "deeply in love" is strange here, just as "I could not be happier."  Both appear as Attempts to Persuade, or editorialize the account, rather than simply report it.  

Overview:  We should consider how long it is taking him to get to the shooting.  The overwhelming number of deceptive statements have a form that is heavily weighted in the "pre" portion of the statement. 

A truthful statement will often look like this:

25% introduction
50% main event
25% post event

When the introduction to the shooting is lengthy, it may not only indicate deception "on its form" but also a hesitation of the subject to get to the shooting, similar to an avoidance.  

"After Reeva finished her yoga exercises she got into bed and we both fell asleep."

Peter:  he does not write, "we fell asleep" but instead, feels the need to make an emphasis by adding the word "both."  This may also show a need to persuade. 

"I am acutely aware of violent crime being committed by intruders entering homes with a view to commit crime, including violent crime. I have received death threats before. I have also been a victim of violence and of burglaries before. For that reason I kept my firearm, a 9 mm Parabellum, underneath my bed when I went to bed at night.

Peter:  This is an parathentical view:  editorializing like as in a story.  It is very sensitive as it is:

1.  Unnecessary information 

2.  It is a delay in getting to the shooting (main event)

3.  It is explaining the reason "why" something took place, making it very sensitive to Pistorius.

"For that reason" is to explain "why" he had a "firearm" underneath his bed.  

Imagine how short a truthful statement would appear?

One might question if "I have been a victim before" is an attempt to garner sympathy.  

Mark:  Pistorius refers to his the weapon that he keeps underneath his bed as a "firearm." We will see if his language remains consistent in calling it a "firearm." 

"During the early morning hours of 14 February 2013, I woke up, went onto the balcony to bring the fan in and closed the sliding doors, the blinds and the curtains. I heard a noise in the bathroom and realised that someone was in the bathroom.

Kaaryn:  Change of language from “intruders” to “someone”. It is important to note when a person’s Personal Dictionary changes. People don’t change their language arbitrarily. People use very specific words and are consistent with their language as long as their relationship/experience with the item/person remains the same. A change in language is expected when the relationship/experience with the item/person changes. The change of language from “intruders” to “someone” at this point in the story, tells us that the subject viewed who ever was in the bathroom differently than from those ‘entering homes with a view to commit crime.’ “someone” is neutral and could be anyone, friend or foe, and the use of it at this point in the story tells us that the subject did not consider the “someone” in the bathroom to be an “intruder”.

Also note: “someone” is singular. The subject believed only one person was in the bathroom.

Peter:  Please notice also the word "to" here in "I woke up, went into the balcony to bring the fan in..." is used to tell us why he went into the balcony.  When someone is telling us what happened, and feels the need to explain why, it is that he may anticipate a question and seeks to answer it before being asked.  This makes it "very sensitive" and in SCAN (Kaaryn and Mark were both trained in SCAN) it is given the color coding "blue", as the highest level of sensitivity.  Therefore, "so, since, therefore, because" etc, are highlighted as sensitive information.  

"I felt a sense of terror rushing over me. There are no burglar bars across the bathroom window and I knew that contractors who worked at my house had left the ladders outside. Although I did not have my prosthetic legs on I have mobility on my stumps. I believed that someone had entered my house. I was too scared to switch a light on.

Kaaryn:  “someone”—the subject’s language tells us that he still does not consider the person to be an intruder.

Peter:  Notice also that he places the emotions in the 'perfect' or logical place in the story, at the height of the action.  Since emotions take time to process, deceptive people will sometimes artificially place their emotions in the story.  In truthful accounts, emotions are often found in the "after the action" part of the account.  

Notice anything anyone reports in the negative:  "I did not have my prosthetic legs on" as important to the subject. 

Mark:  There are two types of emotions: short-term and long-term. Short-term emotions occur at the peak of the incident. If you turned around and someone was standing directly behind you, you may become startled. Once you quickly realize the person is not a threat the surprise is over. Being startled is a brief emotion.

Long-term emotions such as being in shock or being frightened occur after the incident is over and the person has time to reflect on what happened or could have happened. The incident itself is so overwhelming these long-term emotions are suppressed. When a deceptive person inserts long-term emotions into his story he usually puts them in the wrong place. He places them at the peak of the incident.

Pistorius tells us that he was in "terror" and was "too scared." Later he will state that he was filled with "horror and fear." These do not appear to be brief emotions but long-term emotions. They also appear to be out-of-place in his story.

Pistorius states that he was "too scared to switch a light on." This does not make sense. Being in the dark usually adds to the stress and fear that one may be experiencing. Turning on the light so you can see what is going on usually helps to alleviate any fears.

"I grabbed my 9mm pistol from underneath my bed. On my way to the bathroom I screamed words to the effect for him/them to get out of my house and for Reeva to phone the police. It was pitch dark in the bedroom and I thought Reeva was in bed.

Kaaryn:  “On my way to the bathroom…”—not “as I approached the bathroom…”. “On my way…” is too casual considering the circumstances.

“words to the effect…” – He’s not committing to what he said. The “effect” is more important, which was to “get out of my house”.

Note: He does not include that he informs the someone that he has a gun. Since he doesn’t say this, we cannot assume that he did. One would expect when a person wants to gain control in a situation, he/she would use this information as leverage. It would be an important point in a story that the someone was “warned” that a gun was present. Why doesn’t the subject say this?

Also, if the subject screamed for the someone to get out of his house, this demonstrates that the subject had made the decision to allow the someone in the bathroom to leave of his own accord. In order to do that, the someone would have to open the toilet door in order to exit the house (Keep this in mind for later)*. Again, as part of his efforts to get the someone to leave, one would think that mentioning “I have a gun” would help to prompt the someone to leave.

Mark:    Pistorius had a change in language. Earlier he called it a "firearm." Now he refers to it as "pistol." There are no synonyms in Statement Analysis. Every word means something different. A change in language indicates a change in reality. Truthful people will use the same language throughout their statement. There has to be a justifiable reason why he changed his language or else it is an indication he is being deceptive. As I read his statement I cannot find a reason why he would change his language from "firearm" to "pistol."

"I noticed that the bathroom window was open. I realised that the intruder/s was/were in the toilet because the toilet door was closed and I did not see anyone in the bathroom. I heard movement inside the toilet. The toilet is inside the bathroom and has a separate door.

Kaaryn:  “Intruder/s”—change from “someone” as said earlier. The change follows the fact that the subject noticed the bathroom window was open. The question still remains, why did the subject originally consider the person in the bathroom to be “someone” but now considers them an “intruder” at this point?. The subject’s relationship with the someone in the toilet has changed.

“I realised that the intruder/s was/were in the toilet because the toilet door was closed and I did not see anyone in the bathroom. I heard movement inside the toilet. The toilet is inside the bathroom and has a separate door.”— The events within a story should be told in the order of how the subject experienced them. Note the order here. The subject realized the intruder/s were in the toilet before he did not see anyone in the bathroom and before he heard movement inside the toilet.

Mark:  The word noticed sounds rather casual.

Earlier in his statement he said that "someone was in the bathroom" and that "someone had entered my house." He now changes his language from "someone" to "intruder." It would appear there is not a justification for the change.

Peter:   Language does not change on its own; something must cause it to change.  In Statement Analysis, there is no synonyms as each word holds meaning.  The number one cause of language change is emotion (Sapir) and we look within the statement to find any justification for a change in language. 

If no justification is found, it may be that the subject is not speaking from experiential memory. 

Experiential Memory:  one that someone experienced. 
It can be that one is speaking from memory, but not experiential memory, but memory from a TV program, book, or what someone else said. 

"It filled me with horror and fear of an intruder or intruders being inside the toilet. I thought he or they must have entered through the unprotected window. As I did not have my prosthetic legs on and felt extremely vulnerable, I knew I had to protect Reeva and myself. I believed that when the intruder/s came out of the toilet we would be in grave danger. I felt trapped as my bedroom door was locked and I have limited mobility on my stumps.

 Kaaryn:  “I believed that when the intruder/s came out of the toilet we would be in grave danger.”—not “if the intruders came out…”. The subject was certain the intruders would come out. How did he know this?

“I believed that when the intruder/s came out of the toilet we would be in grave danger.”—“grave” provides the reasoning behind firing the gun. However, there is a conflict in thinking and logic at this point.

Recall earlier note in my analysis at the (*)—the subject claimed he screamed for he/them to get out of his house. This part of the story happened just moments before he believed that when the intruder/s came out of the toilet, that he and Reeva would be in grave danger. In effect, he’s telling us that he was willing to allow the intruder/s to come out in order for them to get out at the same time, making the decision that when he/they come out, “we would be in grave danger”. In other words, he was telling them to get out at the same time he was preparing to fire his gun.

 “I knew I had to protect Reeva and myself.”—not “us”. He separates himself from Reeva. However, he does place Reeva first, indicating Reeva was more important than “myself”.

“we”—This is the last time the subject uses this pronoun.

“I felt trapped…”—not, “I was trapped”. “felt” describes an emotional state rather than an actual physical one, and yet he uses physical reasons (my bedroom door was locked…) to explain why he felt trapped. Given the subject uses “I” and the past tense, he is committing to this statement and it is likely true—he felt trapped. But trapped how?

“I felt trapped…”—not “we were trapped”. There was no “we” at this point.

Peter:  Now notice that the emotions are  now"horror and fear" and are in the logical or "perfect" part of the story.  This appears to be artificial placement of emotions.  Not only does he express the emotions but to be "filled" with them. 

I would also want to know if "stumps" is his normal language.  

Mark:  We would want to clarify why his bedroom door being locked made him feel trapped. The door locks from the inside which means he could unlock it and get out of the room. Maybe he felt that someone else would not be able to enter the room and provide him with help.

He stated, "I have limited mobility on my stumps." Earlier in his statement his mobility was not as limited when he said, "I have mobility on my stumps."

"I fired shots at the toilet door and shouted to Reeva to phone the police. She did not respond and I moved backwards out of the bathroom, keeping my eyes on the bathroom entrance. Everything was pitch dark in the bedroom and I was still too scared to switch on a light. Reeva was not responding. When I reached the bed, I realised that Reeva was not in bed. That is when it dawned on me that it could have been Reeva who was in the toilet. I returned to the bathroom calling her name. I tried to open the toilet door but it was locked. I rushed back into the bedroom and opened the sliding door exiting onto the balcony and screamed for help.

Kaaryn:  Again, change of language from “screamed” to “shouted”. The subject first uses “screamed” when describing how he communicated with the “him/them” in the bathroom and in his communication to Reeva for her to call the police for the first time. However, after he fired shots at the toilet door, his language changed to “shouted” in his communication to Reeva for her to call the police. Why the change? What had changed for him in his experience with Reeva? He had fired shots at the toilet door.

One should note—“screamed” indicates an extreme emotional state and a very loud projection of voice, whereas “shouted” does not necessarily include an emotional state. One can shout simply because of distance or an impediment, such as a door, being between the two. The projection of voice is not as great as a scream.

Also note he included that “She did not respond.” after his second command to Reeva to call the police. One should wonder why he did not say that she had not responded the first time when he had “screamed” at her to call the police. Since he does not say it, we can not assume it happened. Therefore, we can only assume Reeva did not respond when the subject “shouted” to Reeva.

Change of language from “shouted” to “screamed”. Again, the language changed at this point of the story. However, given the events within the story, the change can be explained, making it “justified”. The word “screamed” indicates a highly emotional audio response. Generally, screaming is connected with extreme emotions such as fear, anger, joy. With all three emotions, it’s possible to “scream”

Peter:  He has the wherewithal to scream to Reya to phone the police.  What does he do when it comes to his own actions?  He does not call police but calls someone else to do it for him. 

Again, please notice how he feels the need to explain why:  here, he explains why he did not turn on the light.  This means he anticipated being asked, "Why didn't you turn on the light?" before even being asked.  This is very sensitive and is given the color blue as the highest level of sensitivity (SCAN)

Note "dawned on me" sounds like story telling language instead of adrenaline fueled 'fight or flight' activity.  To "dawn on me" would be to slowly realize.  This sounds very awkward here for good reason:  it is split second reaction and instead of honestly reporting it as such, he is story telling with descriptive language and pressing reasons why something happened (or did not happen) instead of reporting the facts. 

Mark:  Earlier he said that he told Reeva to "phone the police." Now he is telling her again to phone the police. How does he know Reeva did not call the police the first time? He tells us that Reeva "did not respond." Earlier when he told her to call the police he made no mention of her not responding.

Even though he has fired several shots, even though the intruders now know he has a gun, even though Reeva is not responding, he is still "too scared" to turn on the light.

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.

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 Two

"Dylan, my prayers are with you and I love you very much. He was the light of my life and he meant everything to me."  

Mark Redwine, shortly after Dylan Redwine, 13, went missing. 

In the above quote, we see the first glimpse into the mind of Mark Redwine.  

2 principles stand out:
1.  The word "with" when found between people, indicates distance
2.  The past tense verb used describing his missing child, very early in the case. 

Mark Redwine did not initiate the call to 911 about his son, but did so in a response to Dylan's mother, Elaine's call.

When asked about the 911 call, Elaine said, "Well, there has been debates about that, I called the Police after he texted me and apparently he called the police right after I called them."  

This is consistent with his behavior.  

There is no controversy about the 911 call:  Behavioral Analysis shows this:

*When a child goes missing, the innocent parent does whatever necessary to help find the child;
while the guilty parent does only what helps build a defense.  A guilty person will do the minimum possible to avoid being seen as guilty.

An innocent parent seeks to have a never-ending source of information flow, to help find the child, while the guilty parent:

*seeks to control information
*seeks to limit information
*seeks to hinder information
*does only what is necessary to alleviate pressure and concentration.

This will come out in the language.  

After reporting his child kidnapped from his home, Justin DiPietro was given an opportunity to plead for his daughter's return.  Instead of taking the microphone, he said he was "emotionally incapable" of doing so.  He would go on to fail his polygraph, and a trail of blood would be announced, from his basement, to his closet, shoes and truck; blood belonging to Baby Ayla. 

This is like a parent losing a toddler while shopping at Walmart, and instead of calling the child's name, the parent decides to check out, pack the car, drive home, unload the groceries, and then think about calling out to the missing child. 

Behavioral Analysis:

When a toddler wanders off, the parent calls out to the child and will search.  When the parent does not, it is the "unexpected."

The guilty person cannot help but say "we need to keep the focus on the child" whenever the spotlight turns to him.  This is said in a variety of ways, but it is said repeatedly.  It is, in fact, the "expected" among the guilty:

Attempt to keep the focus off of the guilty party, while making a 'peace treaty' with guilt; that is, accepting the fact that people think he did it.  The innocent care for nothing, including their own reputation, because they can think of nothing but what the child is going through.

Tangents are a guilty person's best friend.  He will embrace them and run with them whenever he can. 

If you were on national television about your "missing" son, would you have the wherewithal to renew an old feud with someone else, unrelated to helping locate your son?

Our language gives us away.  All of us.  "Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks."

Mark Redwine:  concern about being disrespected on television, by his 21 year old son instead of being concerned about finding Dylan. 

DiPietros:  lots of concern about what Justin was going through, without a word of what Baby Ayla may have been going through.

Celis:  concern over media scrutiny and not over what Isabel might be experiencing.

Statement Analysis shows that the guilty parent's words reveal this very thing:

"And that's all I know..."
"I've done everything possible..."
"I searched everywhere."

These words  (and words similar) should recall such parents as Lena Lunsford (Aliayah), Misty Croslin, Sergio Celis, and so many others.  These are common statements of guilty parents:  if that is "all" that is known, there is no need to ask more questions, because the parent doesn't know anything else.
"I've done everything possible" indicates that there is nothing else to be done, so just stop.
"I've searched everywhere"; therefore, let's stop searching because there are no places left to search.

On the contrary, the innocent parent loses sleep in an attempt to replay, as it were, any and every detail that can be recalled, in order to remember even the smallest detail that might help police.  Police often find that the innocent parent will 'pester' them with any and every minute detail that comes to mind.

Mark Redwine has reacted, from the beginning, in a consistent manner.  He has consistently sought to control, reduce, and hinder the flow of information that would be useful in locating Dylan.  Baby Myra Lewis was more than 4 hours missing before police were called.  She was only 2.  

Mark Redwine did not report Dylan missing for hours; and even then only did so because of Elaine.  Then, he quickly scrambled to cover himself.  

He did not assist search efforts. 
 He did not make appearances. 
 He did not call out for Dylan, instead choosing to nap, stay inside, and when challenged, give only weak answers which only showed his contempt for Elaine.  Alone, he has consistently used plural pronouns.  Christopher Dillingham's research shows what parents of teens know:  the need to share guilt.

He stood alone: 

“There are too many people sitting at the computer trying to play Nancy Drew and Nancy Grace,” he said. “It’s not bringing us closer to finding Dylan.”

On public television, he said he would take the polygraph. 

"We're going to take the polygraph."

Those of us listening said, "No, he won't."  When he failed to say "I", it showed the weakness.  He was bluffing.  There was no way he was going to take the polygraph for Dr. Phil.  He had too much to lose and he did not posses the bravado to think he could beat it.  

When challenged, he found a way to dig at Elaine's emotions, further indicating what conflict it was that befell Dylan at his hands. 

From the Durango Herald:  "The senior Redwine said there is a “history” with Cory, but he said he thinks his son’s anger toward him is reflective of his mother’s hatred toward Mark."

The constant hatred for Elaine is as consistent as Mark Redwine's deliberate hindering of information. 

Innocent parents pass polygraphs.  Guilty parents "smoke" it.  

Some people do not like media and cameras make them nervous, but as Cory Redwine, all of 21 years said, you do whatever it takes to get your son back, in reference to the lack of effort by Mark Redwine. 

Family friend Denise Hess said, "I hate public speaking, and I hate cameras, but I want to bring Dylan home."

She cares not for her own personal comfort level because Dylan is missing. The word "but" refutes what came before it:  she uses the stronger pronoun, "I", than Dylan's own father. 

Mark Redwine's behavior is what brought suspicion upon him initially, but when he did finally speak out, we knew why it was he had avoided the camera.  Statement Analysis shows that he is deceptively withholding information about what happened to Dylan.  Even in late November, Mark Redwine refused to speak out for Dylan, even when challenged by Elaine.  He finally did speak out, however, and by going on the nationally televised "Dr. Phil Show", he allowed the nation to see what a deceptive man sounds like, as he was consistent in avoiding answering questions, much to the frustration of Dr. Phil, the polygrapher, and the audience.  The polygrapher finally said that Redwine avoids answering questions, instead choosing to answer questions not asked.  This is a clever technique, one of "control abusers"; those who will not suffer 'defeat' in a debate.  They are like the smug schoolboy who says "I know you are but what am I?" repeatedly, smirking as if he has just bested his opponent.  

http://www.koat.com/news/new-mexico/albuquerque/Uncut-Mark-Redwine-talks-about-son-s-disappearance/-/9153728/17616906/-/129kycz/-/index.html

This video shows deception in his statements and in his body language. 

Dillingham's research echoes that of the SCAN technique where we carefully follow pronouns and note when the expected singular is absent in exchange for plural.  Do you recall the case of the missing child in Maine where Dennis Dechaine (in prison for the murder of Sarah Cherry) claimed to have been alone but slipped out, "I was sitting down among the trees.  We were losing daylight..."?  The prosecutor did not miss its usage.  Pronouns are some of the most common words we use, and we use them from childhood.  They are reliable and trustworthy in analysis.  A guilty party likes the feeling of sharing guilt, even as a child does when he says, "but we were all doing it.  Everyone was doing it" as if this alleviates guilt.  It is, Dillingham explained, a desire to spread around guilt, in order to lessen its impact.  Mark Redwine uses the plural so frequently, he reminds me of listening to Deborah Bradley avoiding using Lisa's name.  (see analysis of Baby Lisa case)

Q.  What's it been like?

Mark Redwine:   "Well, you know, it's been a tough time for all of us...we're doing everything we can to try to find Dylan and we want to keep the focus on finding Dylan.  

Note the needless emphasis of "all" added.  
Note that if "we're doing everything..." there's nothing else to be done. 
Note that "everything we can" limits what "can" be done.  Innocent parents do not use these words until they have come to the point of utter exhaustion and acceptance; the final grieving step in the process that many of us go through.  

Then he attempted to make himself sound as if he was in cooperation with law enforcement.  Note that he repeats this, indicating its sensitivity.  

Note that he does not say "everything we can to find Dylan" but gives even further distance by inserting the word "try" to find Dylan.  This changes the focus from finding Dylan to the attempt, itself, of finding Dylan.  It distances the effort and changes the end.  It is not about finding Dylan, but instead, it is about the attempts being made.  He is more concerned about how the search goes, rather than finding Dylan. 

"I'm doing everything I know how to. "

When asked about accusation:

"Well, you know, he, it was, he was last seen at my house..."

Here he self-edited, making it important.  

Was he about to say "it was at my house that Dylan..."?  

I believe "it" did, with "it" being a dispute, first about friends, then about where to eat, then about friends again, and then, finally, Mark Redwine blamed Dylan's mother (as he did on Dr. Phil when claiming Cory was disrespectful) and Dylan received the full wrath of Mark Redwine, on the couch, unable to be revived. 

I don't believe the death was intended, that is, premeditated, but came, as Dr. Phil suggested, at a moment of temper being lost.  Redwine has a history of it.  He has a history of perversion, which may indicate shame and rage.  At a single moment, Dylan paid the ultimate price for Mark Redwine's hatred of Elaine.  

"One of the things we're trying to do is unite together..."  The key word "together" is unnecessary for the sentence; making it 'doubly important' to us. 

Interviewer:  Do you have anything you want to say to Dylan?"

This was a good question as it allowed the parent to remind the child that he will be found.  Instead, Mark Redwine gave us information, just a week after Dylan went 'missing':

"Dylan, my prayers are with you and I love you very much. He was the light of my life and he meant everything to me."  This said, as he shook his head in the negative, right to left.  

"I want him home, just like everybody else does."
As if there could be anyone who does not want him home??

"I don't want the focus to be on me."

How long until Mark Redwine is arrested in the death of Dylan Redwine?  This question has come and gone, and frustrations have given way to despair.  Yet, the case is not closed. 

"Dylan, my prayers are with you and I love you very much. He was the light of my life and he meant everything to me." 

We know that at this time, police gave no indication that Dylan was dead.  We know at this time a natural denial exists within parents, as hope springs eternal. 

"He was the light of my life" but is no longer. 
"He meant everything to me" but no longer.  

This is a perfect example of a guilty use of the past tense reference of a parent of a missing child, similar to Susan Smith, Casey Anthony, Billie Jean Dunn and others.  It is an indication that Mark Redwine knows or believes that the child is dead.  If police or circumstances have not indicated death, it is a strong indication of guilty knowledge. 

In this case, by speaking out, Mark Redwine, on this date, told the nation, including the police, that he knows Dylan is dead. 

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.