Tuesday, January 30, 2018

To "Agree" In Statement Analysis

"What does it mean when someone says...?" is a common question analysts face. 

From broken hearted requests for alleviation of emotional pain, to a criminal investigation, people seek answers within language, often guided by hope more than reality. 

Some receive the answer they sought; some do not. 

When freely speaking the brain processes at a speed so fast that we are able to identify that "no pre thought" was evident. The person does not need to pause and ask herself, "Should I say "I" or "we" here?"


In even simpler terms, the editing process that we all use is said to be "free" when the subject is using his or her own language. This is why "What happened?" and "What happened, next?" are the two most powerful investigatory questions. 

In asking, or in the imperative, "Tell me what happened", we allow the subject to choose where to begin his statement, what information to include, what information to leave out, what verb tenses to use, and where to place each word, next to another, to make sense. 

It is here that it is very rare that one will tell an objective lie. This is why we say, "90% or more of lying comes from the withholding information.  This percentage changes dramatically the more an Interviewer speaks.  As we speak, we not only give the subject specific words to use, but if we are not careful, we teach the subject how to lie. 

Polygraph Examiners can be their own worst enemy in this sense.  This is why the polygraph exam must use the subject's own words.  It is his own words where the psychological connection exists. 

Agree or Disagree?

"I was walking with him when I agreed to go for a ride." 

1.  Deception Detection
2.  Content Analysis 
3.  Profile 

This is a very short sentence and the yield will be measured. 

"I was walking with him when I agreed to go for a ride." 

1Deception Detection. 

There is nothing in this sentence to indicate deception. Someone who "sees" deception in this sentence is seeing that which is not there.  When the analyst is self disciplined, he or she will not guess, project, or manipulate a sentence to fit anything.  The analyst "submits" to the language. 

2.  Content Analysis 

"I was walking with him when I agreed to go for a ride." 

As we break down the content, we note several things:

a.  The subject (speaker/writer) separates herself from "him" with an important word: 

"with."

When the word "with" is found between the subject and another person, it is a signal of distancing language. 

What causes it?

What caused the subject to avoid saying, "We were walking..."? 

Analysis Consciousness 

This is an interesting phenomena that seems to impact those who give themselves to study of deception detection and in depth training. Over time, they begin to question their own choice of language until it reaches a saturation point:  they're listening with very high skill and almost analyzing while they are sleeping. 


They first catch themselves using a specific word, and asking self, "Why did I use that word?"

Over time, the answers match the principles learned and employed. It is often comical and an exciting period of growth for the analyst. 

"I was walking with him" shows distance, while walking, with the male in the statement. 

It could have been emotionally, intellectual or even geographical distance. 

*He was walking too fast for me and was ahead of me (geographical)
*He was talking about his job and I did not understand (intellectual) 
*I don't know how I really feel about him (emotional)

1.  "Heather and I were watching a movie."  It was an okay movie. 

2.  "I was watching a movie with Heather."    It was an okay move, but she missed quite a bit of it.    She was texting a friend during it and I like when we comment back and forth on the dialog. 

The second sentence shows the cause of distance.  I did not stop to think, "Hmm, which way should I word it?"  I just blurted it out.  This is where Statement Analysis gets its advantage. 

"I was walking with him when I agreed to go for a ride." 


What might  a very subtle change of wording here indicate?

"I was walking with him and agreed to go for a ride." 

Did you notice the change?

"...and agreed to go..." instead of "when I agreed to go..."

Elements in Language 

We ask, "What is the element present in a sentence?"

Here, in the actual quote, the woman said,

""I was walking with him when I agreed to go for a ride." 

The element of the sentence is "Time."

The subject is thinking about the timing of what happened, as part of the overall answer to "what happened?"

She not only distanced herself to him, but in looking back, she is thinking of the timing of the events.  It is a signal that she is in experiential memory and very likely telling the truth. 

In a sense, the language does not lie.  If she were to lie about this event, we'd still get to the truth of what happened. 

What caused her to distance herself from him?

Time. 

She is thinking of the timing and the choices she made, along with way.

She "agreed" to go for a ride with him.  

Content Analysis now seeks to learn what produced her to use the word "agree" here?

Look at time as an element: 

We live in time. 
We look back in time. 
We look forward for hope, anticipation, or even dread, fear or anxiety. 

She could have said: 

I went for a ride with him.  

It is not, however, the ride she is thinking about.  

She is going back into her memory of what she experienced, and as she is answering, "What happened?" she is thinking how she and the man disagreed about going for a ride.  

She had an instinctive sense of fear and did not yield to it.  She let him keep talking until he prevailed.  


In conversation, you might say, "Agreed" to an assertion.  It did not follow an argument or disagreement.  It could be, however, as you look within at your own choice, that you may have anticipated not agreeing, or with the subject, have disagreed in the past. Or it could be that you anticipate others not agreeing. In other words:

It entered your language for a reason.

In our sample, she looked back at the moment in time where she could have, and should have, walked away. She had the opportunity and her instinct told her, "Don't do it."  

For her, she is engaged right at the point in time just prior to getting into the car where she was assaulted.  

She "agreed" to get into the car and although there was not an argument, there was no true agreement.  It began politely enough, and he was pleasant, polite, but also very strong in persuasion.  She had, in her mind, opportunities to rebuff him while they were walking and talking.  She looks back and in her mind, she is not in the car being assaulted, she is in the moments before that, when she had her legs beneath her, much safer, both physically and psychologically, with the distance her language recreated.  

She had that moment of fear, instinctively, that she looks back on and regrets not yielding to.  Her statement shows she was not thinking about what happened in the car where she was assaulted. 

She was thinking of the timing and the opportunity she had, while he was still polite, to not get into his car. 

It was, in this sense, that fear was a gift she did not avail herself of. 

3.  Psycho-Linguistic Profile

The profile needs more information, but even in what we have, we see an intelligent female who distanced herself from an assailant, who is not likely to so quickly "agree" and dismiss her intuition for safety.  

From an investigator's perspective, it is very tempting to try to bring the victim to talk about the assault that took place in the car.  However, more information of greater depth and usefulness is obtained by skilled listening to what is most important to her. 

To use "agree" here, with the pronoun "I", rather than dropping it, its a very small indicator from which we may consider: 

She is not only intelligent, but she is one who takes personal responsibility for her actions.  This is a strong personality trait. She did not say, "he sexually assaulted me in the car."  She said, "I agreed..." 

This does not negate the criminal action of the perpetrator.  It does, however, suggest to us that she is not likely to let her guard down again.  It is intellect and personal responsibility being engaged.  

Then, once established, questions are formulated to help facilitate the flow of information.  She will tell the investigator what happened, but let her talk and let her guide you to truth. 

Her words recreate her perception of what happened. 

It is legally sound, reliable and worthy of court testimony.  

From it, we can learn if she is truthful or not, what happened, and about her, as a person.  We use the profile to do far more than identify anonymous authors or strategize our interviews.  Trained therapists can know exactly what issues to address to help process the trauma. 

For Training in Statement Analysis, visit Hyatt Analysis Services 




February 2018 Training Schedule

                         February Training Schedule 

February 12-13:  Advanced Analysis, Profiling and Handwriting Analysis w/ Det. Steve Johnson Veritas Profiling   Contact Det. Johnson at 

steve@veritasprofiler.com for availability.  





February 14:   HIDTA  Phoenix, Arizona   Deception Detection (closed) 








February 20:  Live 6 Hour Training  9am to 3pm EST 

February 21:  Live 6 Hour Training 10am to 4pm EST 

February 22:  Live 6 Hour Training  12pm to 6pm. EST 

Please note:  the "Live" training seminars are for those who have completed or are in the process of completing the "Complete Statement Analysis Course" and have enrolled in the training, either on a month-to-month basis or a year's subscription.  

This training is guided team analysis, often quite intense, and is via confidentiality agreement. 

For those with professional licenses, it is approved for Continuing Education Units (CEUs) through the University of Maine.  The CEUs are for those who must maintain credit hours annually or biannually through their state's licensing board. Enrollment in the "Live" training is by approval only. 

Announcements 

Sex Crimes Units:  We offer specific advanced Statement Analysis training for Sex Crimes Units.  The focus is the specific language of victims as well as those who indicate predatory behavior within their language.  

Units trained in Statement Analysis, Reid Technique or similar schools benefit from the advanced training, including:

a. identifying linguistic signals 
b.  recognizing disassociation and its impact upon deception discernment 
c.  post trauma stress, 
d. as well as the language communication issues inherent for adults developmental disabilities  

Child Protective Services

This is Statement Analysis training for child and adult protective caseworkers.  The legally sound, open-ended interviewing is enhanced by analysis, increasing accuracy, court documentation (including affidavits in support of protective action) and report writing. 

We offer one and two day interactive training to licensed social workers who must identify risk factors and take appropriate steps to  reduce, mitigate or nullify the danger to the vulnerable. 


Religious Organizations

We are contracting with religious organizations in hiring to avoid hiring those who pose a risk to others; particularly children.  We have correctly identified pedophiles and those who pose a risk to others. This includes those who have been deceptive in presenting their background, and of whom motive has been revealed to be illicit or inconsistent with the religious or charitable organizations' belief system. The cost effectiveness of this confidential work is inestimable. 

 If your church, synagogue or charitable organization hires, we identify those who seek exploitation and bring harm. 

Business

We both train business and contract with them for:

Employment Analysis discernment
Anonymous Threatening Letter Author Identification 

The employment analysis will allow businesses, in a legally sound format, to identify the best and brightest hires, while screening out those who pose the risk of theft.  The highest threat of exploitation comes from fraudulent claims.  We identify, specifically, those who pose said risk, work with your attorneys, and will save your business money, time, stress and reputation.  

If you or your business receives an anonymous  threatening letter, we can successfully identify the author's background, experiences, motive and dominant personality traits.  We may know:

a.  If the threat is real 
b.  The level of threat posed
c.  The author's primary motive

Deception Detection expectation:  100% accuracy 
Threat Assessment Accuracy expectation is above  90% 
Identifying elements:  With 70% accuracy of the author;'s background (sex, age, race), experiences (education, work experiences, such as ex military, etc), priorities (motive, sub- motives,) and dominant personality traits, leads most clients to recognize the author. 

This confidential work is most advanced and has successfully led to identification and adjudication. 


For individual or seminar training, please visit: 

Hyatt Analysis Services for Training Opportunities.  

Currently, we have those in training within law enforcement, business and the private sector.  Tuition payment plans restricted to law enforcement. 

Our in home training includes analysts: 

USA, 
Canada, 
England,
Ireland 
Spain
Scotland
Germany
Austria
Russia
Switzerland
Norway 
Denmark
Greece
Australia 
Bulgaria 
New Zealand



For specific questions contact hyattanalysis@gmail.com 

Tuesday, January 23, 2018

Jordan Peterson Channel Four Interview for Analysis


Question:  How many questions did the Interviewer begin with the word,  "you said..." in this interview in which the subject (Jordan Peterson) did not say?

Analytical Interviewing is the legally sound and most thorough way in which information is obtained, truth is discerned from deception and a profile of the speakers may be observed. 

The Psycho-Linguistic profile is made up of four basic elements:

1.  The subjects's Background
2.  The subject's Experiences 
3.  The subject's priorities and motive
4.  The subject's dominant personality traits 

When these four elements are carefully noted, anonymous authors of threatening letters are identified. 

Jordan Peterson Channel Four News 

This is a fascinating insight into deception techniques. 

 The interview has been reclassified as a "debate" by some as it is not an "interview" that seeks to obtain information. But even as a debate: 

Debates employ deceptive techniques as well as interviews and open statements. 

The journalist is agenda -driven and it is not:

a.  to obtain information 
b.  to allow the public to hear from the subject 

Keep in mind, an inconsistency may not be deceptive unless the speaker is aware of the inconsistency and counters it deliberately.  Being mistaken is not being deceptive.  One must intend to deceive, in order to be seen, linguistically, as deceptive. 

The overwhelming amount of deception is found in withheld or missing information. 

When one lies outwardly, it is insight into one's history, priority and personality traits.  

This is not "how not to conduct an interview" as the theme would be overly simplistic, however, it is still of value in Analytical Interview training to spot the errors she makes.  Errors will not only pervert meaning, it will cause some questions to be deemed as legally unsound. 


There are several questions to consider within this recorded interview, with the last being the most challenging for the listener. 

1.  What are the techniques she employs to accomplish her level of deception?

2.  Were any effective?

3.  How many accusations did she make that were falsely ascribed to him?

4.  Does she affirm knowing she is making a false accusation?  If so, what do you offer as evidence? 

For the analyst or student analysts, are there topics, words, phrases, or even body language that provokes emotion within you?  Can you identify which points, which emotions and how this might impact your analysis?  This is not easy for us to do, but it is important. 

This is the most challenging:  

What does the language of the Interviewer reveal about herself?  

At one point, she reveals some  personal information that she did not knowingly yield. 

Can you spot it? 



Monday, January 22, 2018

Missing 3 Year Child Emergency Police Call Analyzed




Ever wonder how much information a person gives away in just 2 minutes?


This is analysis posted in 2012 with the Analysis Conclusion:


Lena Lunsford is being deceptive by withholding information, and the searching, timeline and topic of her husband should all be considered  sensitive areas for her. 

5 years later, Lena Lunsford was indicted in the murder of her daughter. 

Due to the passage of time without an arrest, some readers questioned the analysis' accuracy. 

Words do not lie.   

Criminal Analysis of deception  shouldn't be subjective, or "iffy" when the language is definitive. If there are concerns without a concrete conclusion, it is best to either state this plainly, or to refrain from a conclusion, stating "more sample needed."

In this call, however, the mother's own words brought us to the conclusion.  I have added some short elements of psycho-linguistic profiling as an example of what one may expect in formal training. 



In just a short few minutes of time, carefully note the great deal of personal information this caller gives, while avoiding telling any direct lies. 


911 What is your emergency?
My baby’s missing. 

Note that this is the first thing mentioned. It speaks to priority and it is what we expect to hear. 

In each interview, whether it be a 911 or 999 call in an emergency or in an employment interview, the Interviewer will generally have one of two impressions:

1.  Either the subject (caller) is working with me to facilitate the flow of information; or
2.  The subject is not. 

This is a good start the to call.  

With a child missing, we would not want to hear a polite greeting, nor would we want to hear someone establish an alibi first, such as:

"Uh, yes, hello, I was asleep, and when I woke up the door was open and our step daughter is missing."

Here we note that in the context of an emergency, the caller began with a pause, which means the question, "What is the emergency?" requires more thought. 

Then we note the greeting which is not expected in the urgent contact. (2)

Then we note the order of information:

1. I was sleeping
2. The door was open 
3.  child missing

Order speaks to priority.  Here, the caller's focus is upon self first.  

It is to say, "Hey, police!  Make sure that when you investigate this child's disappearance, you know that I could not possibly be involved because I was sleeping and sleeping people can't do what you are going to say was done to this child..."
What is your address?
(address given)   I was out looking for her for over an hour.

In 911 calls, it is common to find over-talking, so it may be that one interrupts the other. 

Good Guys versus Bad Guys 

Here, we have the caller portraying herself in a positive light, adding in the time she has invested.  

In DAB cases (drug affected baby), we routinely find that mothers of babies who suffered acute withdrawal symptoms will portray themselves as "good" or even "great" mothers. 

It is the need of portrayal that often links them to official child abuse/neglect investigations in their history. 

Note that after answering the question that she provides additional information.  When an answer goes beyond the scope of the question, every word is critical.  

What is it that is a priority to the caller that she goes beyond the address alone? It began well with "my baby's missing" but without listening, she has a message for police. 

The subject wants police to know that she has been out looking for over an hour. 

She has now made not only a presentation of "Good Guy" for herself, but she has, in deeper analysis, given an indication of Neglect, within her psycho-linguistic profile.  

It is an indication; not conclusion.  

If a single hour seems long to a mother in this context, one may question what else is taxing to the mother.

Objection:  the hour must feel like an eternity to a mother's pain.

Answer:  Agreed.  This is why one may only "question" and not conclude. 

Remember, the profile must emerge naturally.  Therefore, the analyst is aware of the possibility of chronic Neglect (the "easiest" and most popular form of child abuse since it requires little effort) in the language to come. 

If the subject does not give indication of such, it is put aside.  We let the subject guide us to:

a.  Affirm Neglect
b.  Deny Neglect 
c.  Not address Neglect 

Please note that she does not say "I was looking for her" but "out" looking for her for "over an hour".  This is important as it is a reference to time; as all time references are significant. 

Did she look within the house? 

For latter consideration by child abuse investigators: Where does the mother spend most of her time?

Operator:  How old?  I need you to calm down.
Mother:  I’m sorry she’s she’s only three.
Please note "I'm sorry"has entered into the subject's language.  This is always noted regardless of why the subject is using these words (see Casey Anthony's 911 call) 

We red flag it because it enters the language of the guilty.  

It does not conclude guilt (we do not make conclusions on a single indicator) but is part of an overall view.  
We wonder if there is guilt within the caller that causes the words, "I'm sorry" to enter the language.  

After expressing "sorry" with the pronoun "I", we note that she stutters or repeats the pronoun "she."

Linguistic Disposition Towards Victim 

Her call began with "my baby's missing", so we know that, while missing, the victim is her "baby", but we seek to establish the linguistic disposition of the caller to the victim. 

This tells us what the caller thinks of the victim within the context of this call.  

She is now "she, she" as we await for her to use the victim's name. 

The analyst should consider that the victim is "only" three.  The word "only" is flagged as a dependent word meaning it only is appropriately used when the subject is comparing this thought ("only three") to another thought. 

She was out for "over" an hour and the victim, her "baby" is "only" three years of age. 

We do not know why, at this time, she used these words but we know that one who is "only three" is to compare her to another age.  

Being three, one is incapable of self protection.  

In neglectful households, neglectful parents often boast of the accomplishments of very young children, which sometimes include dangerously operating toasters or ovens.  

What else do we know about neglectful parents?





911:  When was the last time you saw him?

It’s a girl.  This morning. Real early.  I went in and checked on her because she’s been sick with the flu. 

"It's a girl" is the language of a new born, which is consistent with "my baby's missing" of the opening words. 

Neglectful parents often sleep late. Her child is missing and this is what is in her mind:

"This morning" answers the question, yet the caller feels the need to go beyond what "this morning" means and now emphasizes to the police (authority) that it was "real early."  

This is something that warrants a reference point. In her subjective dictionary, what is "early" and what is "real" early?

Next we have words that are 3 "red flags" of warning in the context of a missing child: 

1.  Anticipation of questioning by police 
2.  Further linguistic disposition 
3.  The "good mother" theme 

I went in and checked on her because she’s been sick with the flu. 


1.  Note that "because" tells us why, rather than simply answering the question.  This goes beyond the realm of the question of what happened and goes to why something happened.  Here she says that she checked on her "real early" because she was sick.  Note that she "went in" and checked on her.  

Lena (the subject) anticipated being asked, "why did you check on her?" when in reality, it is most unlikely that an investigator would have even thought to ask this question. 

This is why the explanation, in the absence of a question, is deemed "very sensitive" or, "of the highest level of sensitivity in analysis." 

In other words, she feels the need to pre-empt the question and "beat them to it" so that she has to explain why she did something that no mother would have to explain. 

It is another indicator of possible Neglect, which is building in the profile. 

2. Linguistic Disposition: Victim has been sick. 

Question for Analyst:  Does the victim have a name?

Answer:  No, but "she's been" sick with the flu.

Question:  Does she have the flu now?

Answer:  No.  

She does not say "she has the flu." 

A three year old with the flu is an event that is escalated in importance in most minds, but especially for a parent. Remember, she is "only" three years old. 

Mother had to take care of victim, who, without name, has had the flu. 

When was the last time you saw her?  "This morning" would have sufficed, especially with the time.  

3. Mother, in attempting to portray herself as caring and attentive is convincing us of the opposite by her choice of words, emphasis and upon her focus, which is herself. 

This furthers the affirmation of Neglect in the profile. The nameless victim forced the mother to search for "over" an hour and get up early, that is, "real early" because she is not sick but "has been" sick. 

Note that sick with the flu is now mentioned.  The caller feels the need to explain why she checked on a little girl, making her checking on the child very sensitive to the caller.  It is norm for a parent to check on a child, yet here, it is beyond the norm. 
Okay is it a male or female?
It’s a Girl
Note that "it's" is reflective language; entering into the language of the operator.  We might expect, "she's a girl!" or the use of Aliayah's name here, but we only find her using the 911 operator's language.  

A girl?
Yes.

No name given to the victim, while missing, by biological parent.  The mother has a psychological need to distance herself from the victim. 

911:  Ok you saw her this morning around 6:30?

Beyond the scope here, but we literally are given insight into the 911 Operator's psycho-linguistic profile of Lena Lunsford, the mother. 

The operator assumes that "6:30" in the morning is "early, real early" for the mother of a 3 year old.  
Yes
911:  That’s the last time you saw her was at 6:30 this morning?
Lena:  Yes and then she laid back down and went back to sleep.  And we went back to bed.

Note that she "laid back down" would indicate that she would have to be up in order to go back down.  

Q.  Did the mother comfort and lay the victim back down?

A.  No, the victim (who continues to be nameless by a biological mother) is credited with the action. 

Q.  Who got up to check on her because she has been sick with the flu?

A.  "We"


Note that when a sentence begins with "And" the subject has missing information here.  This information is about the time Aliayah got up, and laid down again.  Note that the child laid back down, not that the mother put helped her back to bed.  Given her age, and the fact that Aliayah was apparently awake (laid "back" down), the normal or expected is that she would be up and she would be hungry.  Children have "stomach clocks" that once they go off, they stay on until fed.  We must consider this in light of the "blue" indicator above:  The mother felt the need to explain why she was up checking on her.  This is a critical period of time in the case. 

Note that "we" went back to bed.  Who is "we"?  Is it she and Aliayah?  Since "we" indicates unity or cooperation, was it she and her husband who went back to bed?  She and another child? Who is the other part of the "we"?  
911:  Ok was the doors open or anything?

No the doors weren’t open. 
Note that she uses reflective language (the language of the operator).  She offers no information to help facilitate the flow of information to find the unnamed victim.  

We know that she must be exhausted having been up at 6:30 and searching more than an hour, but what about the victim?

Without a name, she is without familiar status as a human. 

911:  Were they locked?
Lena:  Yes I think. 
911:  (Inuaudible) the residence?

It was difficult to hear the question but it sounded like who lives in the residence, of which the answer is important. as the operator likely heard "we" in her statement. 

Me and my other kids.  

This affirms to us what the question was.  Her answer, however, is very troublesome. 

1.  She lists herself first.  This is an unnecessary statement. 
2.  She uses the dependent word, "other" which now separates the nameless victim from the children in the home. 

We now must ask, "So who was it that got up with you, checked on nameless victim and laid back down again?"

She does not mention husband, boyfriend or step father.  

This is not lost on the 911 operator who then asks: 
911:  Ok do you live with her father?



No.   

At this point, if there is a male present, regardless of his relationship to the nameless victim, a mother of a missing child is going to offer the information. 

We are able to conclude to this point:

The mother is not helpful or working together with the police to find the victim. 

Note that other questions she answers but then adds information.  Note here regarding who else resides there that she does not give additional information and is not bringing up her husband's name.   We note all names that enter the language, especially the victim's name.  

Lena forces the operator to inquire: 
Q.  Who is her father?

Her father is a guy named Eric Harris.  He doesn’t even know that she exists.  

Note that she references the father (male) as a "guy" and gives his full name. 

Compare this to your knowledge:

Who is the victim? 

Your answer, when solely based upon Lena's words,  is the Linguistic Disposition the mother of a missing toddler has towards the victim. 
911:  Ok and you’ve been looking for her for the past hour?

Yes I’ve looked everywhere (inaudible) 

This is alarming. 

1.  The emphasis is upon her effort, again. But more importantly:

2.  There is no hope, according to the mother. 

The nameless victim is not sick.  She "has been" but she is not. 

The victim is not a person.  People have names.  Even pets have names.  

The biological father, who does not know the victim exists, even has a name, to this mother, but not the victim

First, "I've looked" is first person singular, but then she says,
"everywhere".  When someone says that they have looked "everywhere" they have no other places to search.  This is akin to saying, "I've told you everything" therefore, there is nothing more to say.  When someone says "I have looked everywhere" they are saying that there are no more places to look, a strong indication that she has no places to search; hence, out of hope. 
911:  What was she wearing when you put her back in bed?

Lena:  She had a little pair of purple Dora pj’s.  We went up all these streets.  We went up all these streets.  

1.  She answers the question appropriately.  But, as deceptive people are often found to do:  she went further. 

She has an acute need of being portrayed in a positive light.  The deeper the need, the deeper the guilt. 

This is akin to the modern "virtue signaling" that belies guilt beneath the surface. 

2.  She continues the theme of "no hope" for the victim. 

3.  She introduces the pronoun "we" where she early said that she was looking. 



Note:  "we" often shows the desire to share guilt or responsibility.
The pronoun is changed to plural, "we"; which is repeated.  If she is now speaking of herself and her children, please note that it is repeated:

this is sensitive.  

She did not say that they searched or looked for her; only that "we went up" these streets.  We seek to believe what people tell us. 

If she does not tell us that they went up searching, we cannot say that they were searching.  


Also, that she went "up" ; something that is repeated.  Does this mean that she went up, and that she did not find Aliayah, that Aliayah is "down" somewhere?
911:  Have you been outside checking the area?

Please note that she checked "everywhere" but the operator asks this question anyway. 

Lena:  Yes I’ve drove up all the streets around here looking thinking that maybe she went outside or something.  And don’t think my mom would have came and got her because she’d have woke me up and stuff 

Lena has the need to tell the police why she drove up all the streets. 

This tells us:  Lena had a different reason for driving up the streets. 

In hindsight, the reason was clear:  to appear to be searching for the child indicated that she knew where the child was.  

1.  Please note that she uses for the third time the word "up" where Aliayah is not found.  This may indicate that Aliayah will be found "down" somewhere; down in water, buried in a grave, et.c.

2.  "all" the streets; with the same meaning at looking "everywhere".  All the streets "around here" have been looked so even though she has been thorough, she has not been located. 

3.  Note the inclusion of her thinking, even though it wasn't 'correct' thinking. 

4.  Note the inclusion of "or something" which strongly indicates that Aliayah went out "or something"; what is the choice?  It is she went outside "or" something else happened to her.  She is giving police a choice.  If she went out, we won't find her because she has searched "everywhere" and on all the "streets around here" where Aliayah, "only three"could have gone. But since she didn't, we then must conclude "or something" took place with Aliayah that Lena knows and is not sharing.  This sentence is an indiction that Lena Lunsford is deceptively withholding information and would like to limit the searching.  She does not want someone else to find Aliayah.  

5.  Lena introduces, with the word "And" to start the sentence (missing info) her "mom" to the operator.  Her mom is significant to Lena and her mother should be carefully interviewed.  Please also note that she tells us "because" which explains why something, rather than report what happened.  Her mother would have wakened her "and stuff"; what stuff?  Police should seek to learn if there has been any arguments, specifically about child care, between Lena and her own mother.  What other "stuff" would the mother have done, besides woken Lena up?
911:  Ok have you called your mother?

Lena: No I need to do that.  

Did the operator just give Lena the idea that she should have called her mother?  Now she "needs" to do it. 

Please note that she allegedly drove around for an hour and did not call her mother.  If she was searching for her child, would she not, after the first few minutes, called her mother?  Why would she think that her mother could have had Aliayah ?  Is this the type of family that takes a 3 year old without notice?  How could a three year old leave without it being known?

This appears contrived and false. 
Do you have a phone number for her?
Yes its (number).  
What is her name?
Joanne Evans.
Joanne Evans?
Yes
Do you want to just call her real quick and call me right back so I know what’s going on ok?

It is interesting to note that the man who fathered but never met the child has a name and her own mother has a name, but the only use of the victim's name, thus far, is this analyst. In looking back at the analysis from 2012, I noted that the child's name entered my vocabulary rather than the mother's. 

911's Suspicion in Request

This is unusual and may indicate that the 911 operator did not entirely trust the caller and wanted her to check with her mother.  Better would have been to keep Lena on the line, give pauses to allow Lena to choose her own words, while the police were en route to the home.  But it does not answer the question as to why she would need to call her mother when she was out searching "everywhere" (everywhere but...her mothers?  everywhere, but..."down" where Aliayah can be located?)

Ok
911 what is your emergency?
This is Lena Lunsford my mom doesn’t have her.  
ok
She doesn’t have her she’s coming now. Oh my God. 

We have the repetition (which is truthful) but the repetition itself suggests knowledge.  

Note the inclusion of Deity as a basic principle of analysis. 
911:  You don’t know of any place she would have went there in the community?  Is there a friend’s house nearby or somebody that she plays with?


No (crying)
911:  Ok.  Is there any place there in the community, a playground, or does she go to church anywhere there?


No. (crying)  Help me find her.  

The caller specifies her request for help:  "help me find her" yet she has looked "everywhere" (see above) so there is no other place to look.  
911:  I have an officer on the way mam, I need you to calm down ok.  You’ve looked everywhere in the  house

This is interesting:  as the child's name was used by me, so was searching in the house part of the thinking/vocabulary of the 911 operator.  This is the operator's view point  of Neglect by the mother. It is why she made up her own time line, which was a mistake. 
Lena:  Yes

the operator struggles to believe her, so she asks: 
911.  All the closets, under everything?  Under every beds
yes
911:  Do you have a basement?
Lena:  Yes
Its been checked too.

The passive language here suggests concealment.  It is likely that if police asked the children if they searched the basement, they would tell the police that they did not.  Passive language is used to conceal identity often, or when a subject does not want to own a statement with the pronoun, "I" such as "I checked the basement too" especially since she said "I" previously, but then also said "we" drove up the streets...
Ok how about the vehicles outside?

Its been checked that’s what I used to go look for her.

This is not the first time the young victim has gone missing from the mother.  

Neglect affirmed. 


911:  And you said that there’s other children in the residence?
Lena:  Yes.  (Noises)
911:  Is she old enough where she would be able to reach the door handle?

...and to the basement, as well. 



Lena:  Yes she is. 
Oh my God.  Here, please play with your brother for a minute. (talking to child)
What color is her hair?

She has brown hair and brown eyes.  

Here the subject gives the additional info of the color of her eyes which would have been asked next.  

I am curious to learn what was the last thing Lena remembered about the child before the child's death.  
911:  Do you know how much she weighs?

Lena:  She weighs approximately 32 to 35 pounds. 
Maybe a little more. 


911:  Ok.  Do you know how tall she is?
Lena:  Um I’m guessing around three feet I’m, I’m not for sure right now I’m sorry. 

Please note that this is the 2nd time she has said "I'm sorry" to a 911 operator. 
That’s ok.  Was there anybody else in the residence with you this morning, any other adults?
No, umm the only adult that
The tape cut out here.  


911:  Other children in the residence?
Lena:  Umm I have five kids. 
OK so there’s 4 others in the residence? 
There’s three right now. 
Ok. Where is the other one?
My son is at visitation with his father. 

Note:  he is not visiting with his father, but "at visitation" suggests court ordered or supervised. 
Ok.  So you got up at 6:30 this morning with her?

Yes she got sick.  Yes

This should be considered sensitive; via repetition and that the time frame is mentioned and she repeats about being sick.  That the child was sick may prove vital in the investigation. 

She went back to bed, went back to sleep and you laid down on 

Yes
How old are your other children that are in 
Ok did any of them see her this morning? What time did they get up?

The compound question is to be avoided. 

They came in here umm, I’m not sure maybe around 7, 7:30, came in my room with me. 

Please notice that the additional qualifiers are found when asked about timeframe.  
"I'm not sure" is a qualifier
"maybe" is a qualifer
"around" is a qualifier, equally three in one sentence to this point, but then she says "7, 7"30, 
which is the fourth.  Investigators assuming that this is sensitive and deceptive would be correct.  Overall, her time frames are sensitive and she does not appear truthful about them.  
Ok you said 11 year old 9year old and 8 mos?
Yes
Ok can you look outside and see the officer?
Yes Inaudible Oh God.  
In the front.  Oh my god.  Yes I see one out here. 

Please note that in these two calls, she appeared to avoid talking about her husband, Aliayah's step father.  Statement Analysis means not only looking at the words chosen, but what is missing. 

It can be assumed that the following are sensitive to Lena Lunsford:

1.  Time Frame
2.  Actual Searching
3.  "Up" versus "down"
4.   Her husband; Aliayah's step father

Hopelessness is contrary to maternal instinct. 

It appears that she does not want them looking for Aliayah, as she has already told them that she has searched "everywhere" and that being only 3, she could not have walked far, but "we" have been "up" all the streets in the area.  

It should be noted that twice she formed the words "I'm sorry" in this call.  This is often an indicator of a form of regret; for some, they are sorry for what they have done (or failed to do) and for others, they are sorry for being caught.  

It is likely that Lena Lunsford knows more than what she has said to police and may be directly involved, or may be covering up for someone else, including her husband.  Careful interviewing and polygraphs should be conducted also with the grandmother, and from other statements, the aunt. 

Others will weigh in on the crying; those trained in voice recognition, for example; though at times, to my untrained ear, the crying sounded contrived and forced. 

911 Call Analysis Conclusion:




Lena Lunsford is being deceptive by withholding information, and the searching, timeline and topic of her husband should all be considered  sensitive areas for her. 

The caller gives us indication that the child will not be found alive. 

The caller also gives us insight into her own:

a. background
b. experiences
c. priority
d.  personality 

Aliyah was a child who disrupted Lena, who likely lost her temper, harmed the child, but did not seek medical intervention lest she be caught, lose her freedom and the custody (with its welfare benefits) of the five "other" children.  Mother's psycho-linguistic portrayal is one who does not like to be disturbed and who has a strong priority, in spite of a large family, of her own comfort.  The victim did not fit into this life style of neglect. 

By separating Aliyah from the "other" children, in the context, Lena gave indication that Aliyah was dead. 

This is also found in the language of the theme,  "no hope", which is against a mother's natural instinct. Even the language of portraying the victim as sick with the flu furthers this status. This is seen in the mother's refusal to, linguistically commit, to the status, with

"My daughter, Aliyiah has the flu" which would have been the appropriate social introduction and a verbal commitment to the flu. 

She did not. 

At the time of this call, Aliyiah did not "have" the flu, nor any status. 

At no time did she tell us what Aliayah was going through, capable of, or even the use of the language of empathy.  This is similar to the McCann case.  

The mother, for example, was able to talk about her own suffering, but not what Madeleine would have been going through with strangers.  There was no "she needs her pink dolly" or her "blanket." 

The case was "solved" linguistically, in this short emergency call.  We obtained a strong profile of a neglectful mother who was inconvenienced by the child.  The mother went against maternal instinct to not only tell us that there was hope in finding the child, but she psychologically distanced herself and her children, from the deceased victim. 

If you or your department wishes for formal training in Statement Analysis, both home courses and seminars are offered. 

Law Enforcement is eligible for tuition payment plans. 

We offer specialized seminars for:

Child Abuse Investigations
Adults with Developmental Disabilities Investigations 
Sex Crimes Units

Advanced Analysis, including profile and a joint law enforcement seminar with Steve Johnson, of Veritas.  

Please visit Hyatt Analysis Services for more information.

Stay tuned for soon to be released You Tube video lessons in detecting deception and profiling.