Let's look at this statement more closely:
“I ain’t no killer, bro. Chauncy,
We begin with the presupposition of innocence. This is not "judicial innocence" of which we have based our criminal justice system upon. It is a de facto innocence. This is not a moral or ethical posture, but a means of discerning deception.
With our presupposition that he "didn't do it", we are, therefore, in expectation that he will tell us us.
There is a type of psychological "wall of truth" that is generally insurmountable (outside means of coercion such as torture, etc) in which a subject did not do it, cannot abide any acceptance of any possibility of having "done it", and is under a false accusation.
The increase of intensity within the false accusation as well as the scope and the passage of time, the greater will be the sensitivity of the response. A good example can be found under "Kevin Fox", a father who investigators refused to listen to, and was falsely accused.
The subject does not tell us he did not do it. We need him to tell us,
"I did not kill Maleah" while openly and freely choosing his own words.
We discount parroting language (poor interviewing skills make it less stressful for a liar), the word "never", the dropping of the pronoun "I", or an actual alteration of the allegation.
When this is done, the denial is not reliable.
Some analysts will classify an Unreliable Denial as "not reliable" as they await more information from the subject, while some will deem it "Unreliable" due to a stronger conclusion of guilt.
We let the subject guide us in our conclusion. At this point, the lack of denial is "not reliable."
“I ain’t no killer, bro. Chauncy,
Instead of saying, "I didn't kill Maleah", the subject focuses upon a label that appears to come from his own language. He does not tell us what he did not do; but who he is not. This is a deep focus upon self, and, as it unfolds, will show personality driven.
Notice he uses the interviewer's name, and a title with it. This is a form of the "Ingratiation Factor" in which the subject seeks to gain an ally or friend with the interviewer. Often, police will use the Ingratiation Factor appropriately bonding with a subject to obtain an admission or confession. Even without formal training, many are proficient at this from experience alone.
The statement should be seen as "psychologically strong"; that is, there is the subject's psychological presence in this statement.
We should believe him.
This is very important in understanding him.
In his verbalized perception of reality, he is not a "killer."
Therefore, we need to ask:
In his verbalized perception of reality, who is he?
We do not have to wait long for him to tell us.
I loved Maleah so much.
He is someone who loved Maleah "so much."
This leads us to ask, "how much did you love Maleah?"
He answers for us, in one sense, yet we consider his answer on another level: absent a reliable denial.
These must be taken together and in context.
Believe the subject's words and let him speak for himself.
I did for her more than her own parents.
He doesn't say he didn't kill her, but that he did more for her than her own parents.
He "aint no killer" (plus, IF, or "like me, please..." which is a signal of a manipulative personality); he is one who loved the victim so much that he did more for the victim than her own parents.
He elevates himself above the parents.
Since they are the "parents", he adds the comparison:
"her own parents."
He denigrates them by comparison.
He is not done, yet, elevating himself while not denying killing her.
He ain't no killer.
He did things for Maleah, in "love" and more than what her parents did, in spite of a personal handicap:
I never had a biological daughter.
He wants his actions to be seen as morally superior.
He sits in jail accused of murdering Maleah, and he is promoting himself as not a killer, but one who "loved" the victim more than the victim's own parents (comparison) and from the position of unnatural ("never had a biological daughter") employing "biological" in his statement.
We should consider the possible connection of this language of demarcation in the context of sexual abuse.
He does not tell us he treated her like a biological daughter, but what he, himself, never had.
He was deprived of such and he loved her more than her own parents.
Listen to him.
I would never do anything to hurt her.
Here is an example of what makes an unreliable denial able to guide us to a conclusion.
He avoids the psychological commitment of "I did not..." in his sentence, but only "would never", which:
a. is future/conditional
b. expanse of time with "never."
This is to avoid, in his mind, going back to the specific allegation of a specific event, that took place on a specific date and time, and had a specific outcome.
It is, psychologically, to "muddy the waters" and reduce the intensity of guilt by increasing vagueness of time.
Next, note the child is not "hurt";
she is dead.
What "love" he showed, was, therefore, in his verbalized perception of reality, to keep her from being "hurt."
This is very likely a reference to her "own" parents.
He did what was "best interest" for the victim.
He then disassociates from the action:
That’s not me.
This is a type of "gnosticism" where one mitigates guilt by having a strong opinion of self, and separating the actor of guilt from this strong opinion.
It is the proverbial "good person inside of me" as a means of justification through separation.
The weakness of this assertion calls for others to buttress or strengthen it:
Ask anyone who knows me, and they’ll tell you I’m not that type of dude and I was good with the kids.”
He cannot stand upon his own assertion of "who" he is---remember how he started, "I ain't no killer"...he needs others to step in for him.
The subject is incapable of a Reliable Denial, and strengthens this conclusion by ingratiation, disassociation and a claim of moral high ground.
The subject is using what he did as her best interest very likely to cover what he did for her.
This is the report which affirms his words. Note "nothing bad" and that she did not suffer.
His claim to have "loved" her is likely to save her from some form of suffering or neglect from her "own" parents.
The "moral supremacy" argument may end up proving to be a cloak over sexual abuse and/or a form of revenge upon Maleah's mother.
The subject's empathy lies with himself.