Saturday, December 23, 2017

Crime Watch Daily Interviews Justin DiPietro

"We have said from the very beginning that the three adults inside that home know more than they've told us," Maine State Police Public Information Officer Steve McCausland.

This was a deliberate attempt to provoke the adults into speaking.  It sent a signal, however, that was not one of strength, to the three as well as to defense attorneys.  

From the beginning of the case of missing Baby Ayla from Waterville, Maine, the father, Justin DiPietro, spoke and told us:

1.  He lied.  The baby was not kidnapped. 
2.  He failed his polygraph. 
3.  The baby was dead
4.  He was an abusive father

The subsequent news reports confirmed the initial (and basic) analysis of DiPietro, as did Behavioral Analysis.  There is a good deal of  analysis here at the Statement Analysis blog that the search feature will reveal.  

Behavioral Analysis was consistent with death:  there was no need to negotiate with kidnappers, nor urgency or care expressed for the child.  She was beyond help.  

We later learned that the profile of DiPietro, including anger, dominance and anti social behavior, also included low level drug activity and a life insurance policy, not for Ayla, but betting against her, while not engaging in a policy for his other child.  This, while living off tax payer dollars, including those paid by Ayla's maternal family.  The family that sold him this policy attempted to get a journalist to "get some dirt" on this analyst in order to protect both DiPietro and the family insurance business.  

The large policy taken out "in the event of the death of Ayla" was not only taken out by the unemployed DiPietro, but was done to "cover funeral expenses" when it is likely that under welfare, DiPietro would incur no expense in paying for said funeral; Maine taxpayers would foot the bill. 

DiPietro's mother, Phoebe, lied to media about "that night" and the video of the interview has been  used in training deception detection. 

Ayla suffered before she died while with  DiPietro, including wrenched legs and a broken arm, which went untreated for 24 hours.  This is typical substance abuse behavior from neglectful parents. 

Also typical of abusive behavior against children,  with the lack of self control comes general bullying.  Local reports of DiPietro and his brother, Lance, bullying citizens were heard, and this analyst received a threatening email from Lance.  

How Justin DiPietro bested investigators in the  interview is not known.  His psycho-linguistic profile show below average intelligence and an inability to follow through with critical logic.  His poor impulse control would implode during an Analytical Interview and subsequent interrogation.  An example of this was seen in his taunts of then TV show personality, Nancy Grace.  After making an emotional plea and issuing a challenge to her show to "come to Maine",  and "walk in my shoes" with his ever continuing focus upon himself, without concern for "kidnapped" Ayla,  DiPietro  hid in the bathroom as producers knocked on his door.  Nancy Grace sought to give DiPietro his time on air to plead with the "kidnappers"; something DiPietro consistently refused to do.  Instead, he continued his "my feelings are more important than Ayla" mantra. 

What of the other two adults in the house? 

Although less is known about his then girlfriend due to lack of linguistic sample, his sister, the other known "adult" in the home should not have presented a challenge in the interview process.  

DiPietro did not pass his polygraph, he "smoked it", employing junior-high level language over the supposed "missing" child.  "I smoked it", even with its obvious drug base, is to 
"best a contest", and not about "finding missing Ayla."  Its focus is upon himself, as if passing a polygraph is a "victory" of sorts.  This is insight into not only the psycholinguistic profile, but highlights that DiPietro's sole concern was his own emotional wellbeing.  This is something we see when a parent knows the child is dead. 

When police offered him the chance to speak directly to the "kidnapper" via media, he sent out a note saying he was not "emotionally capable" of addressing media.  This is part of the consistent behavioral analysis of a parent who has guilty knowledge of their child's death.  For him, there was nothing for him to gain by feigning a speech to non-existing kidnappers.  Self protection and self preservation highlights his personality, including prior to Ayla's death when she suffered child abuse.   

Regarding his lack of cooperation, he said, "contrary to rumors floating around out there..." with a linguistic signal to search water (Kennebec River) for Ayla's remains. 

With their statements, the missing trace DNA in the home, no sign of forced entry,  and a trail of Ayla's blood from the basement on up, the case remains, officially, "unsolved."  

In the following Crime Watch Daily interviewed the chronically unemployed DiPietro now living in Los Angeles.  The analysis is added to the interview in bold type. 
Crime Watch Daily Q:  Do you think that it was from someone that you know, or a stranger?
A.  "Yeah. Someone that, yeah, I know,
CWD wrote:  Justin seemed genuinely interested in telling his story, agreeing to meet later that night after he got off work.
He wanted to meet near his house. He came out, but then left, saying he was uncomfortable. The next day we attempted again but as we set up for the interview at a nearby hotel, Justin backed out a second time. He then agreed to talk only by phone.

Analysis:  Trained interviewers avoid compound questions.  This allows a subject to pick and choose which question to answer.  Open ended questions are both legally sound and rich for obtaining information.  They allow the subject to not only choose his own words, but to reveal priority in where he chooses to begin his account or story. 

 "Yeah. Someone that, yeah, I know,"

Here, we have the casual affirmation of "yeah" not "yes", and the self-censoring interruption of "someone that" with repetition of the casual "yeah", that he knows. 

We believe what one tells us unless they talk us out of it.  Justin DiPietro begins by telling us that "it" was someone he "knows."

We should consider that this is sometimes seen in deceptive statements where the subject, himself, is the perpetrator.  

He makes this assertion in the affirmative, which, given what comes next, suggests a contradiction of information.  After the number of years that has passed, the "story" should have continuity.  He knows who "did" whatever was done to Ayla.  Parental instinct would not allow for silence nor concealment of such information.  

Q.  When I met you that morning, you said that maybe someone you know had something to do with it. Who do you think would've taken her?
A.  "It's always been the same person that I thought it was from the beginning,"

Here we have the deliberate gender neutral "person" employed.  The subject is deliberately concealing the identity of the "person" he wishes to communicate as responsible.  

This is the second usage of such concealment, and with the repetition of "yeah" before, the analyst/reader should consider that the subject is protecting the identity of the person responsible for Ayla's demise.  

This is a good example of avoiding a direct lie.  Direct lying is rare (less than 10%) and studies that show people "lying 20 times an hour" are inaccurate.  Lying is rare until the definition of such includes material withholding of information in order to deceive.  

Technical Truth

Telling the "technical truth" is a way in which a deceptive subject can avoid the internal stress caused by the disruption of speed of transmission of information in the brain.  

By asking compound questions, the interviewer is allowing for an even greater decrease in internal stress.  By giving specific details within the compound question, the interviewer is not only further reducing reliability, but is contaminating the subject's language by literally teaching him how to deceive.  This is why it is imperative for journalists to have formal training in Analytical Interviewing. 

Q.   Who do you think it is -- is it her mom, a relative?

Here we have the untrained interviewer feeding information and specific wording to the subject with three choices.  This reduces the internal stress of deception and contaminates the information and reduces the wide open field to two categories:  "mom" or a "relative."

The analyst/reader should, at this point, ask "why?" regarding the interviewer's motive.  This appears to be beyond just the lack of training; including the most basic "journalism school" training.  Did the journalist believe the only way to get DiPietro to talk was to feed him information?  Even if this is the motivation, it ends up being a de facto collusion. 

A.  "Yeah, I think it's someone close to her," 

Here we have the informal affirmation with "yeah" and then the weak commitment with "I think."  This is different than the earlier statement.  He no longer "knows" but only "thinks."  

Please note that Justin DiPietro is the biological father of Ayla, now declared deceased.  The biological union allows for another "technical truth."

The questioning of the interviewer's motive is not answered here, but acquiescing  for the purpose of maintaining contact with DiPietro should be considered. 

Police ruled out anyone entering the home in Waterville the night of Ayla's disappearance and the mother and relatives were all ruled out as suspects due to alibi. 

Q.  Were there signs in your house indicating that someone was in there?

Police reported no evidence of an intruder, including Trace DNA.  
Here is a yes or no question rather than a question based upon his original answer above.  At this point, since he identified "someone close" to "her" (not avoidance of name) in a weak ("think") commitment, the most natural line of questioning not only includes "who" it is, but "why, as father, have you not reported this, or not reporting this now?"  

If Justin DiPietro or any biological parent believed in the guilt of a kidnapper, we expect to hear it.  

Q.  "Yeah, it's two things that were suspicious, of course,

Here is the continued low-stress "yes or no" questions in which he answers in the informal "yeah", tells us that there were "two things" that were "suspicious."  This counters the evidence.  Trace DNA being the most highlighted because even if the windows or doors were unlocked or opened, a suspect is not going to get in and out without some form of tiny DNA left behind.  

Police reported that there was no touch DNA, no sign of forced entry, no sign of entry and the implausible account of getting into the house, the correct room, and getting a toddler out without waking anyone, while spilling Ayla's blood in a trail form. 

To this, Justin DiPietro gives further insight into his profile with,

"of course."

This is a term used when a subject wants us to accept as a fact without question.  Yet, we can only believe what he tells us in an open statement, and cannot accept anything as "of course."

Why is this insightful into his personality?

It is due to context. 

When one takes the absurd or impossible and uses "of course", they show a powerful familiarity with deception that goes right back to childhood.

It is like a 7 year old with his mouth smeared with ice cream saying, "I did not taste ice cream" in the open deception (10%).  This classifies him as a person capable of great harm:  the rare outright liar.  A complete psych eval would likely highlight this in collateral interviews regarding his childhood.  This is to indicate someone who is not only comfortable lying since childhood, but will present the most absurd, challenging or outrageous falsehood and hold to an expectation of being believed. 

Once known, it makes the interviewer's job easier in both strategy and tactics. 

Q.  What were those two things? In her room?

Why would the journalist offer a specific element of his answer?
A.  "I can't get into exact details with you guys, but..."

This is a truthful statement:  he "can't get into exact details" and instead of letting him run with "non exact details" (which would have been useful for investigators), the journalist further shows the lack of training (and self control) by interrupting him: 
Q.  It was enough for you to think that this was planned and someone broke in and took her that night?

This is an example of collusion, whether intentional or not.  The journalist literally gave him the question and then the answer, negating information. '

This is sometimes seen when a journalist is seeking self promotion.  It is to betray the flow of information. 
A.  "Absolutely."

This is all he had to say regarding what should be "bombshell" information, including helpful information in "recovering the kidnapped" Ayla.  

Yet, the betrayal of information by the journalist is welcomed by DiPietro.
Q.  Did you tell police, and what was their reaction? Are they looking into that?

Here is a compound question with 3 separate questions.  
"I haven't gotten a lot of answers on a lot of things,

DiPietro avoids all three questions.  Because they are related, the analyst may conclude deception at this point, regarding "two suspicious things" from DiPietro, just as deception is indicated about the "person" who is responsible. 
From the beginning, Maine State Police have been very clear that they did not find any evidence of a break-in.
They believe if an intruder had gotten into the house, it's so small that someone inside would have heard or seen something.
"We don't think she was abducted, we don't think she wandered off, and we think foul play is involved," said Maine State Police's Steve McCausland.
Q. What do you say when the other side points the finger at you?

Here the journalist now reveals the alignment with DiPietro.  The journalist labels the victim's family (who are victims, themselves) as co-combatents against DiPietro and the journalist.  By calling the victim's mother and step father, "the other side", the journalist, using "other", (dependent word)  aligns with DiPietro.  

This is to linguistically  align self, as a journalist,  with the killer of Ayla Reynolds, against those who suffer Ayla's death. 

Here, however, we have yet another chance, years later for Justin DiPietro to issue a reliable denial:

"I did not kill Ayla" or "I did not cause Ayla's disappearance."

We need to hear this denial from him (pronoun "I") placed in the past tense, and with the allegation addressed.  No more, no less, this is the expectation in Statement Analysis.  
"I don't think it ever feels good for anybody to be accused of something they didn't do. I've never done anything wrong to anybody, to do any of this, and I know for sure my daughter hasn't either."

If you ever wanted to see linguistic evidence of what a chronic child abuser sounds like, you have an example to use and apply in investigations. 

Having never done anything wrong to anyone (absurd asserted), what does Justin DiPietro tell us?

He does not issue a reliable denial but immediately uses pronouns to avoid it. 

He does not go to the past tense. Ayla died or was, in his language, "kidnapped" on a specific date.  The word "never" is to avoid the specific date that should be etched upon the mind of an innocent father for his entire life. 

This is an unreliable denial and it is deceptive.  

But this is not the importance of his statement.  Justin DiPietro has been indicated for deception from the beginning. 

Listen to him. 

What does he "know"?

I've never done anything wrong to anybody, to do any of this, and I know for sure my daughter hasn't either."

He "knows" and he knows "for sure" something.  What does he know?

His "daughter" (he avoids using Ayla's name, and he takes ownership of her in a most specific context) hasn't done anything wrong to anyone either.  

"either" is a dependent word tying Ayla to him. 

But note that he is talking about a toddler.  

The toddler, in his language, has not done anything wrong to anyone.  

This is to assign adult language to a child and it is not simply linguistic indication, but it is linguistic evidence of chronic child abuse and neglect.

Abusive and Neglectful parents, often drug abusers, will choose their own elevated intoxication (the sense of euphoria) over the needs of their children.  They will lay upon a bed high from drugs, while the child learns to stop crying from hunger, and find a way to get food.  

These abusive and neglectful parents will later boast to others how "mature" and "advanced" the child is, because the child, even as a toddler, has learned to survive by dangerous means, including operating ovens, toasters, staying alone for many hours, and so on. 

I watched one drug couple get so high on drugs that they would lay in their hotel bed, defecate themselves, while the child hid beneath the bed.  

They would call hotel front desk and have their sheets changed, sometimes twice daily, by staff.

The child would not even come out while the maid had to change the disgusting sheets. Any time the child cried, spoke or tried to do anything, she was met with guttural screams from the parents to the point where she remained silent most the entire day.  

Some drug parents are very "nice" while on the drug and then turn into "Hyde" when coming down.  These parents used so much that they slept through most of the high.  

The tax payers paid for the hotel room, food, etc, as they became skillful at exploitation of welfare, while during the day, go out and make small robberies for drug money.  

The treating psychologist declared the child to be "incapable of human bonding."

The first time I heard this diagnosis I thought it most unfair, given the age of the child.  The psychologist insisted that "Reactive Attachment Disorder" was indicated and it was caused by severe chronic acute neglect for the first almost 3 years of the adorable little girl's life.  

She was correct; the child was almost feral like.  

The child did not develop what we would call "basic human bonding" in life.  

A few years later, the parents were on television leading marches against the "abuses" of "the system" and were literally elected to chair a board of parents.  They went from State to State, exploiting welfare, until they found the most generous (and gullible) to exploit. 

They, like so many other abusive and neglectful parents, assigned adult qualities to their child. 

I have had children as young as three, tell me "f*** off, bi***" while demonstrating how to construct specific drug paraphernalia. 

I had children who were victims of sexual abuse  routinely mess  run their own bedding laundry, to the praise of the abusive parent. 

We sometimes see neglectful parents "making a fair show" at soccer games, or at school, where they are often the loudest and most difficult.  They want "everyone to know" what a "great parent" they are, hence the ejections of "hockey moms" from ice rinks, or the teacher left discouraged and in tears from being torn apart by a vicious tongue lashing of projected guilt. 

This is the psychological underpinning of our 
"great mom" principle in analysis.  The guilt causes the increase in volume and assertion.  

Justin DiPietro "knows for sure" that Ayla, a baby, did not do anything wrong to anyone. 

The interviews of such are not challenging for those trained in Analytical Interviewing.  Not only do we have below average intelligence but an abusive, highly defensive habitual liar who can be brought into the absurd in the recorded interview , which is then presented to a Grand Jury who can only scratch their collective heads and indict.  The only risk of such is that a defense attorney may seek to assert some degree of insanity.  Yet even this is countered by showing the need and employment of deception.  

In the interview, DiPieto should have been agreed with, and allowed to run with his parentified "boasting" where Ayla's "character" (*having done nothing wrong to anyone) is explored.  Since it allows him to "boast" about her, he is permitted to ingratiate himself to police investigators as a "good parent."   This is the larger strategy.   Given the language here, he would likely have run with it. 

His history as a bully is another tactic employed in the interview process where he is further permitted to attack others, while defending himself as a good father. 

In the short time he had Ayla, Ayla had various child abuse injuries. 

Besides the broken arm, there are two others that are significant. 

Black Eye

As a toddler, Justin DiPietro offered that Ayla got a black eye from "getting into a fight" at "Chuck E Cheese ball playground."

It was quickly pointed out that the Chuck E Cheese cited did not have the "ball playground" section, but this is not the issue of Statement Analysis. 

DiPietro portrayed his toddler daughter as "getting into a fight" where punches are thrown to the face hitting the eye area. 

This is not only absurd, but it tells us of his own linguistic reference point. 

Getting into "fights" in childhood, is his normal baseline.  This is something that child protective caseworkers are trained to obtain. 
Just as the neglectful child sometimes changes (messily) his or her own diaper, or makes her own toast (the nutritional neglect is to compromise the immune system, perhaps for life) the adult projects this as the linguistic baseline.  It is, for the abusive parent, normal

He did not recognize how shocking this sounded (absurd) because to him, raised as he was, it would be normal to punch or be punched in the eye.  

That it is not age appropriate (toddlers generally push each other) was lost on him, but not on the audience.  

It is insightful into the abusive world that was and is his norm. 

Leg Injuries

The leg injuries DiPietro reported to Tricia are common in explosive temper parents. 

DiPietro's language is always about himself.  He, as a bully, did not even realize how weak it sounded for him to say "I am not emotionally capable..." in his press release when he refused to speak out for Ayla.  

This lack of awareness is a gift to the investigative interviewer.

In interviewing a child sex predator, he said to me and a female child protective caseworker, new to the work, that the child was "asking for it, you know?  By her walk, I could tell she was asking for it, you know what I mean?"

I nodded affirmation, but the young worker got visibly upset and I asked her to head back to the office to get some paperwork to be signed.  She had brought the interview to a screeching halt (this is why they go through de-sensitization training and often use humor) by her moral repugnance.  I thought she was going to vomit.  

I later explained that not only did her condemnation hurt the interview, but that if a judge would not have allowed the child's removal, her condemnation of the father might have impacted him to the point of taking out his rage on the child.  

Lesson learned.  She was a professional and embraced the correction. 

For this child molester, a toddler's "walk" was not only sexual, but his projection was that anyone would recognize it as such.  This is his "norm."

It is an open conduit of information to flow.  He did not have the self awareness to shut it off. 

DiPietro is the same.  Even as cautious he was, he still gave out information. Even as unprofessional and contaminating the CWD interviewer was, we still obtain information.

Ayla's leg injury description is common to forensic pediatrician experts. 

The child is forcefully put on her back and her legs are angrily twisted in the diaper change.  

It comes from angry, short tempered parents who are angry that the child's body naturally eliminated waste.  The abusive/neglectful parent is "interrupted" and "imposed" upon.  Whereas no one enjoys diaper changes, loving parents recognize that whenever relief is given to a child, the bond grows deeper.  

But with DiPietro, the focus is upon his own personal wellbeing at the moment.  He is a frightening example to parents who prefer to indulge their children, rather than teach them self control.  

It is consistent with Domestic Violence perpetrators who, once they become a parent, have the same need for "self first" satisfaction and control.  

The children suffer. 

The CWD article: 

But then Justin drops another accusation, saying Trista herself was in Waterville the day Ayla went missing. He finds that suspicious, saying she'd only visited once during the two months he'd had custody of their daughter.
"I thought it was kind of weird that Trista passed through Waterville, which is my town, that same morning. But nothing was ever like mentioned about that," Justin tells Crime Watch Daily.
In an earlier interview with our Michelle Sigona, Trista Reynolds did mention being in the area.
"We were driving to Machiasport and we were passing the Waterville exit, and I was thinking in my head 'Maybe on my way back I can stop and see her,'" said Trista.
But she says they didn't even exit the highway. About two hours later she got the call that Ayla was missing.
Q.  Do you think she's with her mom?
"I'm not sure," Justin DiPietro tells Crime Watch Daily.

Note the original article has "exclusive" and the self promotion repeated.  This may give us insight into the motive that colluded with DiPietro.  
The last time Justin and Trista saw one another, all hell broke loose.
"They had to shut the courthouse down," said Justin. "They had death threats against me that day, apparently.

"Apparently" reduces commitment to the assertion.  Here we have him showing concern for his wellbeing.  

When Ayla was "missing", he did not express any concern for her. He did not mention her blankie, her favorite doll, what food she would need nor anything else.  He did, however, talk about himself. 

He reported Ayla kidnapped and himself as the victim.  This should have been exploited in the police interview, allowing himself to be the victim.  He would have likely revealed a great deal. 
"She showed up for the court date with a whole army of like 100 people, and then they surrounded me, so of course I'm going to remove myself from the situation," said Justin.
The two will likely face off in court again soon. Neither parent has ever been named a suspect or person of interest in their daughter's disappearance.
Trista Reynolds is planning to file a civil lawsuit against Justin DiPietro now that Ayla has been declared legally dead.

The Life Insurance 

Unemployed, Justin DiPietro added to his policy a surprisingly how amount of life insurance connected to Ayla. 

He had, at that time, two children.  He was only entering Ayla into the insurance. 

Next, he was not buying life insurance to provide for Ayla in the event of his own untimely death.  

He was providing for himself, in the event that Ayla would die.  He was making a financial bet against Ayla living, so that he, himself, would profit from her death.  Justin DiPietro would only obtain a financial bonanza if Ayla dies.  

Now, the move to declare her dead is addressed and it is vital. 

Here, the change of language is revelatory:  
"It's not something that I pushed for. That was something that Trista wanted," said Justin.

Note that "pushed" is what he reports, in the negative, with himself, but "wanted" with Trista. 

He offers in the negative what he did "not" push for.  This elevates its importance. 

He offers in the positive what Trista wants. 

I believe him. 

He did not say "I did not want Ayla declared dead."  He could not "push" for it due to the suspicion upon him. 

He did not need to push for it; Trista "wanted" to do this and now allows him to distance himself from the action. 

This is the same passivity that is part of his personality.  The neglect of a child is insidious because it only requires passivity in life. 

Do nothing. 

Sit on the couch like Billie Jean Dunn, watching soap operas, while others go out to "search" for her "missing" 13 year old. 

Justin DiPietro was chronically unemployed when he lived in Maine.  He was filled with self importance and did not like taking orders from others.  Like "Cousin Eddie", he appeared to be "holding out for a management position."

This superiority allowed him to be a young, healthy male, to not work yet procreate with tax payers money. 

He was too important to stock a shelf at Walmart. 
He was too important to inconvenience himself by negotiating with the "kidnapper." It might upset his delicate emotions. 
He allowed his daughter's broken arm to go without medical intervention for at least 24 hours until it was "okay" for him to bring her in. 
He was too focused upon his own safety to even opine on what his daughter might be experiencing with "kidnappers."

This type of frail narcissism is literally fed into by skilled investagors in the interview process in which Di Pietro would be allowed to fully "justify" himself, as the real victim.  

Ayla kidnapped?  No, the real issue is Trista hurt his feelings. 

This is insight into his dominant personality traits.  Our words reveal our 

Dominant Personality Traits

In the interview process, the psycho-linguistic profile is used to obtain confessions or admissions.  

Justin says he isn't planning his daughter's funeral.
"Yeah, I still believe she's alive, yeah," said Justin DiPietro.
He's planning to find her.

This intention to "find her" is something that was not engaged when Ayla went missing, nor anytime shortly after. He eventually sought to raise money after the public outcry. 
Is there anything you would say to her if she were watching right now, if you think she's out there somewhere?
"Yeah, I love you and I'll see you soon," 

We should consider suicidal ideology here. 

Analysis Conclusion:

Justin DiPietro has been deception indicated about his daughter from the earliest press releases.  

Although a victim of chronic child abuse and neglect, it may be that Ayla died as a result of "unintentional" causes; that is, Di Pietro did not intend, that night, to kill her.  

The life insurance policy was very likely a competing motive.  

He knew his lifestyle was reckless and he had a short fuse and his childhood coddling left him lazy and uninterested in providing for and taking care of Ayla. 

The extra life insurance policy would only help underpin the fact that Ayla was unwanted and a tool of more government welfare:  money his hands would not earn. 

His connection to the drug trade only increased the jeopardy to Ayla.  

His girlfriend's sister had a large cache of drugs in her apartment in Portland, Maine.  

Drug dealing wholesalers do not take credit cards.  The high cost of the drug value coincided with the amount of the insurance policy.  Ayla was at this apartment. 

What happened that night at Phoebe DiPietro's home in Waterville?

Was Ayla caught in a drug dispute?

This is not likely, as one of the three adults would have given the information to obtain Ayla's release from drug dealers.  Drug sentences in Maine are not severe.  

What would cause all three adults to be silent?

Justin DiPietro's sister was present, with her own child.  To date, I do not know how she was able to retain custody of her child, given the police press release in which it was stated that all three are conspiring to conceal what happened to Ayla.  

The parent that conceals what happened to her niece, presents her own child as in jeopardy.  

I do not know what happened, but believe Ayla may have fallen while not being supervised, perhaps down the stairs, and bled to death.  

Having once not sought medical intervention for a serious injury, Justin and the other two adults could immediately and readily talk themselves into a "moral" and pragmatic position: 

It was an accident.  They'll never believe us, and they will take our children from us. 

Self protection.  Should the other two lose custody, they also lose money.  

In the welfare state, children represent money.  

This can be a powerful motive. 

We often reference, in Statement Analysis, "motives" as we do "priorities." There is often more than one at play at any given time. 

The life insurance policy would serve as a sub element of influence (not subconscious) further justifying the false kidnapping case.  

I do not discount, however, the scenario of Justin D Pietro underlining motive increasing his violence towards Ayla, "looking" for something to "happen" that would turn him as "victim" with the "burden" of Ayla, into getting "what I deserve"; the large insurance pay out. 

To learn Statement Analysis is to learn to discern truth from deception at or near 100% accuracy.  For this, we offer our Complete Statement Analysis Course, as well as seminars. 

We also offer advanced seminars, especially for law enforcement well trained in analysis. 

Here they learn Anonymous Author Identification through the profile, and the Analytical Interview:

the legally sound method of obtaining information.  

To host a seminar, or to take our course in your home, go to Hyatt Analysis Services. 

Tuition payment plans available for law enforcement only and Continuing Educational Units for professional licenses eligible for those who sign up for the live monthly trainings. 

The psycho-linguist profile will tell you, before the interview, how to strategize best to obtain a confession.  

It is "the path of least resistance" and for those who have gone through Reid Training, what they learned in Reid is used as a basic building block.

The Advanced Training is for law enforcement's best and brightest. When they are running at 100% accuracy, they then are trained in Content Analysis, which tells them what happened, when it happened, and often why it happened.

With this instruction, the natural profile emerges.  

They learn, step by step, to dissect the language to reveal the subject's priorities and dominant personality traits. 

In Employment Analysis for Law Enforcement, we discern those who should never carry lethal force in authority, from those who are not only driven by a motive of service, but who have the psychological ability to endure the great challenge of high stress, low pay, and even political resentment.  

These are experts who receive promotion, solve cases, and assist other law enforcement professionals.

The need is acute.  

For Employment Analysis in business, we not only glean out those who are most likely to file fraudulent claims, we identify the personalty traits that best suit the job description:

We identify the best and brightest.

For law enforcement, we work with some of the best investigators in the United States.  They come from local, state, federal and intelligence communities.  They are men and women of talent, drive and humility.  

Consider joining us for 2018 in our science.  We have analysts throughout Western Europe, Canada, Australia and elsewhere. These professionals continually support each other, as "iron sharpens iron" in their growth.  

Analysis With Immediate Results 

We receive requests from law enforcement on various cases and submit a written report for the investigators to work from.  These reports routinely show "who did it", along with not only detail, but specific interview and/or polygraph questions.  

Our analysis is applied to live cases with immediate results.  Not only do investigators discern truth from deception, save time and find success, they further the cause of justice for society, fulfilling the emotional drive to serve and protect the public.  

It is in their DNA.  

There are better ways to earn more money.  Law Enforcement, according to the professionals, has no greater professional emotional satisfaction for them.  

It is who they are.  

The training brings out the talent through the drive to obtain justice. 

Consider joining an elite team of investigators and analysts for 2018.  


Anonymous said...

Spot on Peter. I have learned so much thru Statement Analysis and I thank you for that. I do wonder if Ayla will ever have justice tho. One question, when Justin says, "he smoked" the lie detector test, do you think he could have burned her body and then dumped ashes in river? Hence his floating comment. They were so smug and confident that LE wouldn't find her body makes me think it was totally premeditated. It makes no sense these uneducated fools have outsmarted out Maine State Police.

LC said...

It is utterly outrageous that the people conducting interviews such as this one, are actually called Journalists.

Anonymous said...

"smoked" the test is typical jargon used among the younger generation. Jim Carey used it in one of his movies and hilariously claimed, "We're smokin'!" Mr. Carey would have been in his 40s at the time. It's similar to "gnarly." That word isn't used much anymore, but it did have it's time in the sun once upon a time.

Peter, why are you still gnawing on this subject?

If the police couldn't find evidence to charge him-what with blood splatters, broken bones prior to disappearance, feud between parents,lying of grandparent, and all witnesses, or lack thereof, sticking together- it's likely the DA didn't want to charge him with Nancy Grace's crew running the show. Not many counties can afford what happened in Orlando, Fla. nor would they want to entertain the fools to promote sciences that are not recognized by the court system.

This was a lengthy post and long enough to cause my head to spin around and almost spit up pea soup. You are quite passionate about the subject, but there are irrational statements contained within the text that do not make sense when considering thoughts expressed earlier in the text.

Are you certain the insurance salesman wanted a journalist to dig up dirt on you, or is it possible the journalist wanted to strike at your emotions, which it appears he did. The salesman isn't responsible for what happens to people after they are insured. She could have died in the car leaving his office, for all practical purposes, by being struck by another vehicle.

If he did not do it, then it would be someone that knew both parents that he would suspect. Low level drug activity? What exactly is that? Is everyone he knows at that "low level" status?

Nic said...

The family that sold him this policy attempted to get a journalist to "get some dirt" on this analyst in order to protect both DiPietro and the family insurance business.

Only a hit dog howls.

Nic said...

Anonymous 7:37 said:
when Justin says, "he smoked" the lie detector test, do you think he could have burned her body and then dumped ashes in river?

"smoked it" is a need to persuade. Similar to when my son was in elementary school and I asked him how his math test went and he replied, "I smoked it!" Right there, I knew that he knew he crashed and burned. Not long afterwards his test results confirmed he did just that! :0)

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Anon@ 8:52 PM said:

"You are quite passionate about the subject, but there are irrational statements contained within the text that do not make sense when considering thoughts expressed earlier in the text."

Can you cite specifically which parts you are referencing?

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Anonymous said...
"smoked" the test is typical jargon used among the younger generation. Jim Carey used it in one of his movies and hilariously claimed, "We're smokin'!" Mr. Carey would have been in his 40s at the time. It's similar to "gnarly." That word isn't used much anymore, but it did have it's time in the sun once upon a time.

Peter, why are you still gnawing on this subject?

The context is a "kidnapped child." It was not a math quiz, nor was it the false accusation of shop lifting. HIs child was, in his langauge, in the hands of a stranger and he was focused upon himself, throughout.

He chose this phrase, while his child was dead from his own hands, because it is most familiar to him in the brain given his drug connection.

If I posted something as ignorant as what you did, I too would want it to be anonymous. I've only included the first part of your embarrassing post. You assert irrational but offer no points to buttress it.

Consider the passage of years and emotion and language, and attempt to think critically.

The transparent defense of a child killer doesn't become one, even when it is done anonymously.

Peter Hyatt

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
The cops are BSing about the blood splatter or there would have been arrests made.

December 23, 2017 at 9:40 PM Delete

The blood spatter is part of the evidence. Justin took a look at the luminal enhanced pictures and ran out of the police station. He showed the same courage when the Nancy Grace producer knocked on his door.

Cowards react predictably to being challenged. They cower.


Statement Analysis Blog said...

We've left the post in tact. It is a good example of what happens when narrative meets reason. PH

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Spot on Peter. I have learned so much thru Statement Analysis and I thank you for that. I do wonder if Ayla will ever have justice tho. One question, when Justin says, "he smoked" the lie detector test, do you think he could have burned her body and then dumped ashes in river? Hence his floating comment. They were so smug and confident that LE wouldn't find her body makes me think it was totally premeditated. It makes no sense these uneducated fools have outsmarted out Maine State Police.

A few points here.

It is not always the interviewer responsible; it is sometimes the district attorney's office that refuses to go ahead with prosecution. Originally, it was
"we must find the body first."

When the show was picked up nationally (Nancy Grace), this invites predator attorneys from around the country who will attempt to turn it into a circus.

An assistant district attorney seeks employment in private practice. The private sector poaches the talent away. No one as an ADA wants to go up against a high profile attorney.
recall what was done in the Hailey Dunn case.

Police investigators must convince the DA's office to move forward.

I had no involvement in this case, so I speculate as to how Justin DiPietro has, thus far, gotten away with it. I will not be surprised, however, if he is arrested.

With my experience in the child protective world, I do not understand how his sister kept her child. Something is wrong.

The blood details combined with the deceptive story telling and stone walling would be enough, in my view, to convince a jury of "wrongful death" in the very least.

I believe that Tricia and Jeff will obtain justice for Ayla.

Also remember: insurance companies poach talent from law enforcement. These insurance investigators are often the best and brightest, they are paid more, quite talented, but...

since they do not have to "protect and serve", they get much more training time and opportunity to work their craft in detecting deception. They do not have to go through continual trainings nor work patrol. They investigate.

This is why I recognize the law enforcement community that is, in deed, the :"best and brightest" who turn down the financial opportunities that the private sector allows, and are life long committed to "protect and serve,."

I work with the smartest of them.

They work hard and they study incessantly, off duty, to become experts. They do not get overtime for this, and small departments struggle to reimburse.

they are dedicated professionals.


Anonymous said...

If done correctly, the polygraph is a great investigative tool. The real value comes in the pre-test interview and post-test interrogation (done in cases where the individual indicates deception). If an investigator asks a suspect during an interview how he thinks he'd do on a polygraph, he'll answer in one of two basic ways that give some insight into where that suspect's priorities are:
1. I'd pass it
2. I'd beat it

You pass a test; you beat a challenge. If you are truthful, then you can pass any test of your veracity because the truth is the truth. If you are being faced with having to answer questions about something you in fact did do, or have guilty knowledge of, then any questions or accusations to that effect will be a challenge to your own self-preservation. It will be a direct attack you must "defeat". Its a threat to you, not an opportunity to further strengthen the truth of your position.

"I smoked it" is arrogant bravado. It also isn't "I passed it". I don't know what specific questions were asked during the polygraph or the quality of the pre and post interviews. But his characterization of the test as a threat is something I'd definitely note as a sensitive issue if for no other reason than it invoked such a response.

Nic said...

Peter said:
The context is a "kidnapped child." It was not a math quiz, nor was it the false accusation of shop lifting. HIs child was, in his langauge, in the hands of a stranger and he was focused upon himself, throughout.

Peter, I'm not comparing Baby Ayla to a math test. But DePeitro does. IMO, herein lies the mind of the "man-child". IMO, DePietro held Baby Ayla in "warped contempt". IMO, what was between Baby Ayla and himself was less than zero. She cost him.

I agree with Anonymous @ 11:08t:
"f you are being faced with having to answer questions about something you in fact did do, or have guilty knowledge of, then any questions or accusations to that effect will be a challenge to your own self-preservation. It will be a direct attack you must "defeat". Its a threat to you, not an opportunity to further strengthen the truth of your position.

Re "something is wrong": Didn't DePietro's mom have an "in" with CPS? Isn't that how they got custody of Ayla in the first place? Or am I confusing this case with another.

Anonymous said...

great post

You have spelled out, in detail, about the crime and coverup mentality of an immature killer who thinks that he is allowed to abuse and kill his toddler without recourse for the insurance money which pays him more than taxpayer aid.

Justin seems to have beaten the system by his wits. No body, no conclusive evidence, no arrests, no witnesses...he even points to Trista as the criminal at large.

How can he stop himself from acting out this continued self-destructive behavior? Suicide? Confession?

Anonymous said...

Hi Peter, I dont believe the blood splatter could indicate large amounts of blood or there is nothing stopping LE from making arrests. If it, in fact, is Ayla's blood, and it is a substantial quantity indicating serious injury or death, that would be compelling evidence to charge all adults in the house with several very serious charges. The fact that they let Jusrin run out of the police station shows that whatever they were showing him was either fabricated evidence to try to get him to confess or it was a very small amount of blood.
Also, I have never heard of a case where one of the occupants of the house has managed to keep her whereabouts that night confidential (Phoebe).
LE theorizes Ayla was put in a sack. How do they know that? If they do know that, that is more evidence.
Something is very off with how the Ayla case has been handled by LE.

Anonymous said...

Why is Phoebe's alibi for that night being hidden from the public?
What I think: Someone very high up in the food chain (and yep it could be a cop) does not want LE or the public to know where Phoebe drove to that night bc then people will search for Ayla along whatever route it was Phoebe took & they will then find Ayla who I believe was put in a box or container and discarded off the side of the road. Phoebe may have told Justin she dumped Aylas body in water, but her language tells a different story about Aylas actual whereabouts.

Anonymous said...

Justin believes Aylas in water.
"rumors floating around"

Phoebe believes Ayla is on land.
Phoebe: " Pandoras Box, Good Samaritan who may have seen something that night"

Nic said...

IMO, Justin has always come across as indifferent. Being on the receiving end of indifferent is the worst "feeling" in the world. It means he feels nothing. Not love. Not hate. There would be nothing in him to provide the sort of environment Ayla would need. Having her with him wasn't about being a father figure. It was about money. The less time she was with him, the more money he would have to pay in support. That made her intrusive on his life. In the beginning Phoebe gave an interview and used Justin and monster in the same sentence. It was in her living room. I haven't been able to find it since. My impression was that that woman was protecting him. i.e., "He's not a monster." Or something to that effect. I wish I could find it again.

Anonymous said...

Justin wanted to take Ayla to the doctor for her hurt wrist. Phoebe however did not want Ayla to go to the doctor.
Justin is Phoebe's minion. She is the brains of the operation.

Anonymous said...

Phoebe said that it was so unsettling to think someone had been "casing" the house.
guitar case, suitcase? Was Ayla put in a guitar case or suit case?

James said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Statement Analysis Blog said...

The blood spatter was enough to conclude Ayla's death.

It was cleaned up. I believe it was found in trace amounts on his shoes, closet and the basement floor. Police do not just "hold at the police station" and yes, he did run out.

The issue, from what I understand, is concern about the three cooperating each others' lies.

I also believe that early national exposure worked against the case.

Having said that, I believe Justin DiPIetro will be arrested (the others too, will be charged, after the fact) as DA offices change faces over time.

Blood spatter is evidence, even in small amounts. Recall the excuse made by Di Pietro.

The anonymous Phoebe did it comments are not reasonable. She lied for her son afterwards.


Anonymous said...

Hi Peter, It just seems the very compelling circumstantial evidence could lead to an actual murder conviction, so that begs the question: if the cops have blood splatter evidence (they may), a missing toddler who vanished from that house who has been declares dead, previous abuse of Ayla, why was Justin not arrested for negligence leading to serious injury of child or something tamer than murder? Instead they just let him run? And how have Phoebes whereabouts that night never leaked out to the public?
Something is very off about this case.
Someone higher up is pulling the strings & stopping prosecution from going forward.

Anonymous said...

To me, it makes zero sense why Phoebe doesnt give her alibi to the public. She knows she is under an umbrella of suspicion. It seems like she may have disposed of Ayla at least & her language suggests a very callous disregard for Ayla's well-being. She may be just covering for Justin, yet there is something very sinister about Phoebe.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Happy Holidays........

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Phoebe did not say it was unsettling having someone casing the house.

House casing is psychologically intrusive. It is where we are most vulnerable: where we sleep.

She said it was unsettling when someone is "casing your house" and watching "your" house. Not hers.

Given the context, she is deceptively distancing from the event.


Anonymous said...

Merry Christmas! Share some uplifting writing for a some, that is.

Bobcat said...

Anon at 9:00,

One of my hobbies is building family trees on One if my publicly shared trees, titled "Christmas Baby" shows the biological lineage of many of the angels discussed here who died due to horrific neglect in their short lives. What is bittersweet in almost every family tree, is that in addition to the typical lines of teenage/absent/single/unwed parents, addictions and lack of church affiliation, there is usually a lost connection to a line of ancestors that one would find pride in belonging to.

My Christmas prayer is that those who suffer at the hands of their own parents will find one good person in their circle who will feed the innocent with benevolent support and acceptance enough to break the cycle of darkness in their lives.

Anonymous said...

Nice comment Bobcat. Especially paragraph 2. Could you do a tree on Blackburn? Fathers side, current.

Tania Cadogan said...

Merry Christmas Peter, Heather and family and a happy peaceful prosperous and healthy new year.

Merry Christmas and a happy healthy prosperous and peaceful new year to all the commentators and visitors to this blog.

Thank you Peter and all who have contributed to the blog by analyzing statements and educating us on what to look for and where.
Thank you all for your time and patience, I appreciate it as do many others.

May 2018 bring justice for those denied it, a dignified burial for those who lay unfound either at the hands of others or at the hands of those meant to love and protect them.

Have a wonderful 2018

Habundia said...

These TV programs misled people for ratings (viewers)........the program let the viewer think Justin was willing to do an interview.......the truth is he never wanted to do one in my opinion......he kept running away like he has been doing since the day Ayla "disappeared"
We see the interviewer walking down the street following him to ask questions.....this is not what happens when a person is willing to do an interview. They will sit down or stand along to answer questions.....they don't walk around (or run away)......also they not make appointments to then back of for whatever reason. Especially not parents who believe their child has been "kidnapped" by some stranger.
To me this was only shown for ratings.

Also at the courthouse he ran from his ex "who took 100 people with her" to "apparently" threaten him........
I've been watching the interview with Phoebe and I was wondering what it means if someone only says No, no, no, no to all the questions without using the "reliable denial"?

Nic said...

Peter's previous analysis of Justin DiPietro's 911 calls.

Anonymous said...

Anon inquiring about the Blackburn tree, there are multiple public trees already on

Trigger said...

Elisha was the last person to see Ayla alive and safe, in the house, according to Justin's 911 call. He shifted the spotlight to his sister, away from himself, right away.

Anonymous said...

Anyone remember Phoebe's Freudian slips? she leaked some very crucial info...When asked about that NIGHT, she replied it was a normal DAY...Ayla was supposedly home alone with him all day, Phoebe at work, Elisha gone too...And then there is that dead friend who stopped by THAT DAY and allegedly said Justin was snorting white powder, drinking and no sight or sound of Ayla...he said she was napping in the basement and blocked his buddy from going down...I think it was during the DAY, and he did not involve Elisha until that afternoon/early evening when she came home... The timeline and their leaky ass language, and the local rumor mill, as well as a string of related arrests tells an entire story if you follow the breadcrumbs...I do believe Courtney and Phoebe were called in for emergency damage control, and I am betting Courtney said yes due to Justin's knowledge of her and her family's drug involvements...