Here is the article, in tact, yet with emphasis added in bold type for analysis purposes, along with italics and underlining.
Question for readers: has an innocent driver been fired?
Raleigh, N.C. — A former Wake County school bus driver charged with assaulting two children on her bus says she did not touch either child.
“I'm not gonna punch no child in no stomach, that’s crazy,” Jacqueline Dennis said Tuesday.
Note first the verb tense. She does to deny punching the child, but tells us what she is not going to do in the future.
Note next the need to ridicule the action.
The double negative is likely part of her subjective speech pattern and should not be used to discount the statement, alone.
This is to avoid saying, "I did not hit the child" in any clear form.
Dennis, 50, is accused of punching a 7-year-old boy in the stomach, twisting his arm, grabbing the back of his neck and shoving him off her school bus during an incident on May 12, according to an arrest warrant. She is also accused of shoving an 8-year-old boy into the metal frame of the school bus window.
The only thing Dennis says she remembers is a kindergartner getting upset at one point.
It would have been interesting had the journalist allowed us to hear her own words about memory because truthful people can only tell us what is in their memory.
“He was on the second step and I said ‘where are you going?’ and he said ‘leave me alone,’” she said. “I went on and didn’t think anything else of it.”
Note communicative language.
We learn that the subject does, in deed, use past tense language, therefore, there is no deficiency in the earlier view of the future tense employed.
Next, note the communicative language. She said that she "said", not "told", nor even "asked", as a question. Does this fit the context?
Finally, note that she tells us what she did not think, rather than what she thought.
In account or event statements, truthful subjects will tell us what they did, said and thought. When one tells us what is not done, not said, and not thought, we have some very sensitive points to deal with; possibly deception.
Dennis was filling in for another school bus driver that day.
The Wake County Public School System placed Dennis on non-driving duty on May 13. She resigned from her job on June 19, three days before a warrant for her arrest was issued.
Dennis said she was blindsided by the charges. Her next court appearance is scheduled for August.
Here we have the opportunity to put the principle of Reliable Denial to the test.
A Reliable Denial has three components. What makes a Reliable Denial no longer reliable is this:
1. Any change in the three components
2. Any addition to the three components
3. Any absence of any of the three components.
"I did not kill my sister, Joan."
This is very strong.
I. The pronoun "I" is used
II. The past tense verb is used.
III. The specific act or allegation is answered.
"I know I did not kill my sister Joan" now brings in the additional language of "I know", which is to assert knowledge.
This is unnecessary language.
This is also to add to the 3 components, which means the denial is now "unreliable" itself.
Unreliable does not mean that she did it, it means that this, alone, cannot clear her. The interview would seek a reliable denial. "I know" weakens the assertion and pushes the denial out of "reliable", statistically, to "unreliable", yet not to the category of "deception indicated." Someone may have said, "we know you killed your sister!" to which she responded to the word, "know" in her answer.
Her first sentence coming up is interesting:
“Two charges on two kids I know nothing about,” she said. “I am not going to lose any sleep over this because I know I did not do this.”
"Two charges on two kids I know nothing about."
Did you notice that the "child" above, has been changed to "kids" here?
Also remember to not interpret, but listen to what one tells you.
She is stating that she knows nothing about the charges and does not deny assaulting anyone. The use of "kids" is distancing language from these two "charges", whereas the word "child" is often associated with abuse, including "child abuse", and her use above, coupled with the lack of denial (violating component #2 in the first quote), should help readers get to the truth.
She may not "know" yet the details of the two charges.
I am not going to lose any sleep over this because I know I did not do this.”
She introduces the topic of sleep. This is a very important topic to all of us as it relates to both physical and mental health. It is what refreshes the body and the mind. This is why when someone, in an open statement, gives the location of sleep, it is very important information and is often an indicator of a "refugee" status where the person has to go somewhere else to refresh herself. We find this comes up in D/V cases for women.
That she introduces this topic is important, but the importance increases as it is in the negative, as well. She is concerned about losing sleep.
"I know" is to, again, weaken the denial and then to move to "I did not do this" is to use "this", as closeness, yet it still violates component number three, the specific allegation addressed.
Conclusion: The subject assaulted at least one child and was rightfully terminated.