Friday, September 20, 2019

Accused Mom Denies Rubbing Heroin on Daughter's Gums


A mother is accused of rubbing heroin on her daughter's gums, leading to the baby's death.  The news report, unusually, included more direct quotes. 

Statement Analysis is the study of words for the purpose of discerning deception from truth.  Training is done for law enforcement, military intelligence, business, journalism, social sciences and private citizens. 

Our expectation is innocence. Therefore, we expect the accused to say, "I did not put heroin (laced with fentanyl) on my daughter's gums.

This would be a very strong denial:

1.  She uses the pronoun "I" meaning she is psychologically connected to the denial

2. She uses the past tense verb, "did not" ("didn't")

3. She answers the allegation specifically. 

This would be a "Reliable Denial", with a 90% likeliness of being accurate.  Should she then be challenged as to why she should be believed and looking upon her denial saying,

"Because I told the truth", it would be 99% reliable.  

Let's examine her statements: 

1. The Good Mother 


"Jordynn loved me more than she loved anybody in the world," 



Kimberly Nelligan's daughter Jordynn, 1, passed away in October 2018 from acute fentanyl intoxication, according to the state medical examiner's office.

Here, the mother has the need to be portrayed as a good mother; one whom the infant "loved" more than anyone "in the world."

We have the "Good Mother" principle where we consider the need to persuade that one is a good mother; often indicative to the contrary.  When asserted under criminal context, an investigator should immediately consider that the subject has been accused of child abuse or neglect, or may have been investigated by child protective services. 

For an example of the "Good Mother" principle, see the murder of Hailey Dunn

According to court documents, the medical examiner further found Jordynn's death was caused by the toddler somehow ingesting the lethal drug.

Jordynn's father, Shane Smith, told investigators Nelligan routinely rubbed heroin residue on their daughter's gums to help the toddler sleep.

She issued her first denial: 

"I never rubbed anything, any type of heroin, fentanyl, whatever, on my daughter's gums," Nelligan said.

The word "never" avoids a specific time frame. The victim died allegedly after the last overdose of the opioids.  A mother stands accused of this specific act and her daughter's death should be a specific memorial event, with attendant hormonal consequence, where the denial should be aimed at. 

"Never" is not reliable. 

This could be due to the reporter's question -- if the reporter accused her of doing it repeatedly, "never" may be expected.  

Thus far, we have the need to be seen as a "good mother", and an unreliable denial.  

Child protective workers and law enforcement officials know that sedating a child for sleep is more common than the public realizes. 

This is the conclusion of the analysis of the death of Madeleine McCann.  

News of the toddler's death and Smith's testimony to police, coming out in those court documents, quickly led to public outrage on social media.

"I don't blame anybody for the way they feel, not at all. I don't think any of you are wrong for how you feel. I just think you're wrong to think that I actually did that because I didn't do that to my little girl. I did not do that to her. I can't. I wish I could look at you all in your face and tell you I know exactly what happened to her."

The subject does not blame anybody for the way they feel about her--

This is the "Ingratiation Factor" -- it is where she allows for those angry at her to be angry at her. The allegation is that she killed her daughter. There is no "agreement" or peace between innocence of such an accusation and acceptance (anger). The "psychological wall of truth" should be present in the language. 

It isn't.  

Did you notice that she only "thinks" they are wrong?

This is a weak assertion. When we "think" something, it allows for others to "think" differently. 

"I locked my keys in the car" is very strong. 

"I think I locked my keys in the car" is a weaker statement.  

We then judge the quality of the weakness. 

"I think I locked my keys in the car" is appropriately weak if the subject lacks certainty.

Putting drugs on your daughter's gums is not something you might assert with appropriate weakness. 

If she did not put drugs on her daughter's gums, there is no allowance for anger, nor for difference of opinion with "think." 


Jordynn, 1, Kimberly Nelligan's deceased daughter

We continue with this statement:

I just think you're wrong to think that I actually did that because I didn't do that to my little girl. I did not do that to her. I can't. I wish I could look at you all in your face and tell you I know exactly what happened to her."

a. actually is a dependent word. It means she is comparing rubbing drugs on her daughter's gums with something else. 

b. I didn't do that to my little girl. 

Recall that our Reliable Denial must answer the accusation. This avoids it. 

c. I did not do that to her. This continues to avoid the accusation. This is a form of psychological distancing from the victim, of whom she claimed, as a 1 year old, loved her more than anybody in the world.

Please note that "Ingratiation Factor" is also noted as a possible dominant personalty trait common to drug abusers;

manipulative personalities. 

Surviving on their wits, manipulative personalities prefer in person, face to face, in order to persuade. 

Note her next words:  I wish I could look at you all in your face and tell you I know exactly what happened to her."

Did you also notice the short sentence, "I can't"

This is called the "Gnostic Split" where one considers herself a good person "in my heart", which is often an indicator of a refusal to accept responsibility for one's actions. 

It is, in this sense, to disassociate--to create a new being who would not do such a thing.  It is often an indicator that the subject did the very thing accused. 

She then expands her denial: 


"I did nothing to either one of them at all. I am at fault for allowing her [Jordynn's] dad around her and I shouldn't have. I know that."

Nelligan believes Smith's drug use is to blame for their daughter's death, not her own past use.

She avoids her daughter's name and now offers that she did "nothing" to the victim's father. 

What might cause this?

The false allegation made against him is the likely context. 

The subject now embeds her admission. I have highlighted the embedded admission in red, as well as the other indicators of contextual deception:

"I should have never let her father around her and believe me, I regret that for the rest of my life. I will never forgive myself for that, ever, but I can promise the world that if I hurt her, I would've killed myself that night. I hate saying those words because I don't want my kids to ever think I'm going to do that but I would've killed myself because I could never live with myself if I did something like that."

She is likely telling the truth about suicidal ideation and likely has threatened it. She needs to be seen as someone who "wouldn't" do that to her children.  Collateral interviews likely showed that she did threaten suicide to those near her, including the children.   

It is interesting to note that she uses subtle disassociation rather than issue a simple denial. 

Analysis Conclusion


Deception Indicated.

The subject indicates deception and guilt, with the ability to blame another.  She distances herself from her daughter, and her words reveal a manipulative personality.  

To schedule training or enroll in Complete Statement Analysis Course, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services

Sunday, September 15, 2019

The Murder of Ana Kriegel: Boy B Statement




Ana Kriegel, 14,  was found murdered in 2018 after she went for a walk with two boys known to her.  The following are two statements made by the boys (13) and read in court. 

Statement Analysis is the study of words for the purpose of discerning deception from truth.  

Can we know if guilty knowledge is indicated by their words? 

Boy B statement  by Analyst Luke Kukovica


Statement of Boy B:

I called to a girl called Ana Kriégel at the request of my friend Boy A. He had asked me to call to her and bring her to the park to meet with him there. He told me he wanted to sort out some relationship issues with her.
So I called and got Ana and we walked through the pedestrian entrance on to the park.
Ana was very chatty. Ana wanted to know why Boy A wanted to meet her and I told her I would tell her when we got there.
We met him at the overflow car park then, we walked towards the changing rooms. I stayed behind them so they could talk. I could not really hear what they were saying, but I could hear their voices.
I let them continue on walking. I know that Boy A wanted to be clear to her that she was not of interest to him.
I turned back and went to the rear of the changing rooms. There is a water tap where I got a drink of water. I waited there a while as I was a little tired.
After I got the water, I came back around to the rear of the changing rooms and then walked across the car park and I noticed Ana was walking along the park toward where we had come from.
There were other people in the car park out walking but I did not see anyone else I recognised.
When I saw Ana this time I said “hey” but she didn’t really say anything, she looked really down, she seemed upset and she had her head down. I walked on in front of her but we did not really talk.
I did not see her or speak to her after that.
I am not sure where she went but it looked as if she went back towards the changing rooms. This was about 5.30pm or 5.40pm.
I know Ana had her phone on her and it was switched on because I saw her checking it once or twice and she also told me the time at one stage.
I did not see Ana or Boy A after that. I went straight home and did my homework. My father was home when I got back.
The first I heard there was a problem with Ana was when the gardaí called to our house asking about her.

I have no clue what happened to her.


Analysis 




Statement of Boy B:

I called to a girl called Ana Kriégel at the request of my friend Boy A. He had asked me to call to her and bring her to the park to meet with him there

  1. I called to a girl called Ana Kriégel at the request of my friend Boy A. The subject begins with the pronoun “I”. This indicates the subject is present in the statement and shows commitment. We can expect to find reliable information even if the subject is deceptive. 
  2. “a girl” the subject gives an incomplete social introduction. He gives first and second name but no indication of his relationship with her. The use of “a girl” would indicate that she was not known to him and in statement analysis we would say she is a stranger by way of the subject’s linguistic reality. This is distancing language if he knew who she was.
  3. “… at the request of my friend Boy A.” “Boy A” gets a complete social introduction, relationship, “my friend” and full name and indicates a good relationship between the two at the time of writing. 
  4. “… at the request of my friend Boy A.” The opening lines in an open statement given in the free editing process (FEP) will often give the priority and often the reason for writing the statement. While we do not have the question posed to the subject it has the appearance of “tell us what happened on the afternoon of …date”. 
  5. Boy B is subservient to Boy A as indicated by Boy B taking direction from Boy A. Boy B the subject here gives this as his priority in this statement. To get “Ana Kreigel” to meet his friend Boy B. 
  6. “… at the request …” the subject uses the word “request” which is formal and unexpected from a 13 year old. It seems contrived or rehearsed. Expected would be “asked”.  
  7. “He had asked me to call to her and bring her to the park to meet with him there.” This second line supports the indication that the subject’s priority is indeed getting Ana to meet Boy A. 
  8. “to call to herThis is a strange way to say “call her”. The addition of the article “to” maybe a form of speech in the area as both boys use it. If it is abnormal speech then it would indicate the boys coordinated their stories. 
  9. “He had asked me to call to her and bring her to the park to meet with him there.” The language of the sentence is reliable in form and most likely true. The addition of the word “there” at the end of the sentence is unnecessary. It could be a need to persuade (NTP) that they were meeting at the park. It should be considered that they meet elsewhere. 
  10. “.. to meet with him there.” This part is also breaking the rule of economy, where a person will use the clearest shortest way to pass on one’s thoughts. “to meet him” would fill the requirement and what the subject said requires more effort. 

He told me he wanted to sort out some relationship issues with her.

  1. The subject uses the communicative word “told me”. This supports the subservient nature of Boy B to Boy A. “told” indicates a one-way authoritative communication. 
  2. “He told me he wanted to sort out some relationship issues with her.” This line also supports that the priority is Boy B and Ana meeting. 
  3. “He told me he wanted to sort out some relationship issues with her.” Here we see a disparity between the social introduction and that there is a relationship between at least Boy A and Ana. We should consider that Boy B also knows Ana is some capacity which he linguistically distances himself from
  4. “… to sort out some relationship issues …” The subject uses passive language, he does not tell us what manner of “relationship issue” or what “sorting out” might entail. The term “issues” already indicates a negative connotation. Passivity is used to conceal identity and or responsibility. 

So I called and got Ana and we walked through the pedestrian entrance on to the park.

  1. This line carries on with the priority of the subject. His part was to get Ana to meet with Boy A. 
  2. The subject remains with passive language. He does not say where he called or where he “got Ana”. Passivity is used to conceal identity and or responsibility.
  3. The subject uses “we” referring to himself and Ana, thus indicating unity between them at this point in the statement. 
  4. “… and we walked through the pedestrian entrance on to the park.” To a dulled listener this line would seem appropriate. Yet it breaks the rule of economy that a person will use the easiest shortest ways and fewest words to complete the intended idea or thought. When this rule is violated, we should look for why. The extra words seem unnecessary to the listener but they are important to the subject and therefore they are important to the analyst. All that would be required and expected is “we walked to the park”. Why add the words “through”, “pedestrian” and “entrance”?  What would cause the subject to add these words? Does the subject expect that he will be asked? And if so why? It becomes a need to persuade (NTP) on the part of the subject. Did they go to the park?


Ana was very chatty. Ana wanted to know why Boy A wanted to meet her and I told her I would tell her when we got there.

  1. “Ana was very chatty.” The subject uses the word “chatty”. It would be good to ask him what that word means to him. She is not only “chatty” but “very chatty”. This is not supported by what the subject says next, “Ana wanted to know why Boy A wanted to meet her …”. This would make her “very curious” not “very chatty”. Also, it seems to be a short one-sided conversation, with “I told her I would tell her when we got there.” “told” being authoritative one-sided communicative language. Another question would be “What did you talk about besides “Ana wanted to know why Boy A wanted to meet her …”?
  2. “… and I told her I would tell her when we got there.” The subject knows what is planned and he tells us in this line. I believe him, it is presented in reliable fashion without qualifiers. 


We met him at the overflow car park then, we walked towards the changing rooms. 

  1. “We met him ...” “we” is used again maintaining the previous unity between the subject and Ana. 
  2. “we walked towards the changing rooms.” The pronoun “we” now extends to include Boy A, indicating unity at this point in time. 



I stayed behind them so they could talk. I could not really hear what they were saying, but I could hear their voices.

  1. “I stayed behind them so they could talk.” When a person tells us “why” something occurred it is flagged as one of the highest indicators of sensitivity hence the blue highlighting. We expect the subject to tell us “what” happened not “why”. Often the subject has a need to pre-empt a question that may only be in the mind of the subject. It is the need to explain that makes it sensitive. It does not mean there is deception in the explanation although it can be.  
  2. “I stayed behind them so they could talk.” This may also indicate distancing from the issue/event. 
  3. “I could not really hear what they were saying, but I could hear their voices.” The subject tells us in the negative what he “could not” heightening the sensitivity to himself. We expect people to tells us what the saw, heard or know. The addition of the qualifier “really” is unnecessary and a sensitivity indicator. It should be considered he did hear what they were saying.  “… but I could hear their voices.”  The word “but” is used to refute or minimize by comparison what came before. This support the possibility that he could hear what they were saying in the subject’s need to persuade otherwise




I let them continue on walking. I know that Boy A wanted to be clear to her that she was not of interest to him.

  1. “I let them continue on walking.” Why does the subject say “I let them continue…” did he have the power to stop whatever was happening? 
  2. “I know that Boy A wanted to be clear to her that she was not of interest to him.” The subject uses the passivity “I know that Boy A wanted to be clear …” Why is it important for the subject to tell us this point? And why is the wording convoluted? Why is it done violating the rule of economy? It takes the subject many more words to say “he wasn’t interested in her”. 
  3. “… wanted to be clear to her that she was not of interest to him.” Why did this require two boys and an excursion to a park? NOTE; both boys have made a point of saying Boy A was not interested in her. This is one of many points that indicate coordination in the narrative.  

I turned back and went to the rear of the changing rooms. There is a water tap where I got a drink of water. I waited there a while as I was a little tired.

  1. “I turned back and went to the rear of the changing rooms.” The subject continues to break the rule of economy. This may indicate fabrication/deception. The language has a need to persuade that this is what the subject did, often indicating the opposite. 
  2. “There is a water tap where I got a drink of water.” As in the previous sentence the need to persuade and the description are unnecessary. Why does the subject tell us there is a “water tap” there? Is it to prove he was there? Who would need to prove he was there? Someone who wasn’t? It is the unnecessary language that draws attention to the point and makes the narrative sound contrived.
  3. In statement analysis references to “water” or washing/cleaning link to sexual abuse. While one does not conclude the other there is often a link between the two. Here we have the word twice in one sentence and a third in the coming sentence. 
  4. “I waited there a while as I was a little tired.The subject has a need to explain “why” he “waited a while”. This is one of the highest forms of sensitivity, the need to explain why and not simply state what happened. Not that the subject didn’t “wait a while” but that he needed to tell us why. He could have left the “why” out and it is unlikely anyone would question him on it. In his linguistical reality he needed to tell us. 


After I got the water, I came back around to the rear of the changing rooms and then walked across the car park and I noticed Ana was walking along the park toward where we had come from.

  1. “After I got the water,” The subject has mentioned “water” a third time. It is also unnecessary to the narrative. Meaning unnecessary to the listener but necessary to the subject. It included the element of time with the word “after”. It contradicts his earlier “I waited there a while …” When we see such inconsistencies in the narrative, we should consider story telling (fabrication) and deception. “after I got the water” would mean he did not “wait a while”. 
  2.  NOTE; the subject mentions “water” after he left Boy A and Ana alone, is this the time of the assault? 
  3. “I came back around to the rear of the changing rooms and then walked across the car park …” The subject repeats the words “back” and “to the rear of the changing rooms” from the line before.  Repeated word and phrases indicate that those words are sensitive to the speaker. This makes the narrative seem rehearsed. The language is also unnecessary and slowing the pace. Guilty people often add unimportant information to bulk up the narrative while avoiding the events that cause them internal stress while trying to appear helpful by providing information. 
  4. “… and I noticed Ana was walking along the park toward where we had come from.” The wordnoticedin an open statement in the free editing process is an indicator that the subject is passing off as happenstance what wasn’t looked for. In other words when used in an open statement it is the opposite, it is an indication of deliberate action or expectation. It is expected that he would say “I saw Ana walking …”. 
  5. “… toward where we had come from …”.  The subject still uses the pronoun “we” showing unity.
    Does the subject include “Ana” in the “we”? We should consider he is referring only to himself and Boy A as he has separated “Ana” out by mentioning her. This unity indicates cooperation with Boy A and distancing from the victim. 
  6. “… toward where we had come from …”.  The language is similar to Boy A’s statement where he refers to where they or one another came from when walking in the park. This raises the question if they had discussed or coordinate a narrative. 


There were other people in the car park out walking but I did not see anyone else I recognised.

  1. “There were other people in the car park out walking …” This line is unnecessary. It is a need to persuade and possibly alibi building. It follows the pervious need to persuade issue of them being in the park. Why the need to tell us there were “other people” “out walking”? 
  2. “… but I did not see anyone else I recognised.”  The word “but” is used to refute or minimize by comparison what was said before. 
  3. “… but I did not see anyone else I recognized.” As in point one above we have the unnecessary “anyone else I recognized”. This supports alibi building as no one would recognize them as being there thus making the unnecessary words necessary to the subject. It is this need that makes it sensitive, if the subject was really there would he care and find it necessary to prove it? 
  4. “… anyone else I recognized”. This line implies there was someone he did recognize but is withholding that information. “anyone elseprecludes he did recognize at least one other person, possibly more. It could also indicate fabrication. 

When I saw Ana this time I said “hey” but she didn’t really say anything, she looked really down, she seemed upset and she had her head down. I walked on in front of her but we did not really talk.

  1. “When I saw Ana this time I said “hey” but she didn’t really say anything, …” The subject has jumped over timewhen I saw Ana this time”, what happened between these times? The element of time is prominent in this line. Is this when he witnessed the assault?  
  2. “I said “hey” but she didn’t really say anything, she looked really down, she seemed upset and she had her head down.” Is the subject reliving the assault? The subject repeats the word “down” twice and the qualifier “really” twice. The repeating of words indicates the words are sensitive to the speaker. 
  3. “I said “hey” but she didn’t really say anything, …” The word “but” refutes or minimizes what came before. Is the subject refuting that he said “hey”? The subject has the word in quotes. Did he say anything to her?  
  4. “… but she didn’t really say anything, …” Why add the qualifier “really”? Was she screaming or yelling? 
  5. “… she looked really down, she seemed upset and she had her head down.”  When people mention body posture, “she had her head down”, in an open statement it is an indicator of tension on the part of the speaker. Was she “down” on the ground? Is this the point where she has been beaten unconscious or dead? The subject’s words must come from somewhere in his mind even if he is deceptive. 
  6. “I walked on in front of her but we did not really talk.” The subject elongates time with the words, “I walked on …”. Is the subject reliving the event?
  7. “… in front of her but we did not really talk.” The subject places himself “in front of her” then uses the word “but” which refutes or minimizes what came before. Hence “we did not really talk.” refutes or minimizes “I walked on in front of her …” and it is presented in the negative, “did not really talk”. What did he “really” do?


I did not see her or speak to her after that.

  1. “I did not see her or speak to her after that.” If the subject did not see her then he could not speak to her making half of this sentence unnecessary. This is distancing language. This supports point 5 above that the sentence above may have been the point that she assaulted, that she was “down” and this sentence is post assault / murder.?
  2. This sentence is given in reliable language and is in the negative indicating sensitivity. 



I am not sure where she went but it looked as if she went back towards the changing rooms. This was about 5.30pm or 5.40pm.

  1. “I am not sure where she went but it looked as if she went back towards the changing rooms.” With the words, “I am not sure …” the subject allows for other possibilities and that what occurred is not as he is presenting. It is presented in the negative indicating sensitivity. 
  2. “… but it looked as if she went back towards the changing rooms.” The word “but” refutes or minimizes by comparison what came before. What is he refuting or minimizing? That he doesn’t know “where she went”?

  1. The subject has now given us two pieces of language that present as deception, “I am not sure …” “… but it looked as if…” The word “but” refutes that he does not know and “it looked as if” avoids an outright lie. If you consider how one might expect the language to look like, the point of deception becomes clearer. Expected would be “I think she went towards the changing rooms” or “I saw her heading towards the changing rooms”. The subject does not say either of these things rather the language is left in passive voice with the hope that the recipient audience makes that conclusion. Lying is stressful and people generally try to avoid outright lies. 
  2.  “but it looked as if she went back towards the changing rooms.” The word “looked” is incongruent in context. How did it look to the subject? NOTE; he didn’t say he saw her walk “toward the changing rooms” yet it indicates he “looked” at her. It should be considered that he did watch the assault. 
  3. This was about 5.30pm or 5.40pm.” Is this the time that Ana was assaulted and killed? Is this an attempt to provide an alibi? If the boys were in the park with Ana then they could not have been involved? Remember the subject told us, “There were other people in the car park out walking but I did not see anyone else I recognised.



I know Ana had her phone on her and it was switched on because I saw her checking it once or twice and she also told me the time at one stage.

  1. “I know Ana had her phone on her and it was switched on …”  The subject relates something that is unnecessary. It is presented in an unexpected manner, as if answering a question, “I know Ana had her phone on her …” Why is the “phone” even mentioned? Why say “I know …” Why add the words “on her”? Why remark that “it was switched on”? Why tell us “I saw her checking it”?  This becomes an extreme need to persuade (NPT) that which is often indicates the opposite. 
  2. “… and it was switched on because I saw her checking it once or twice and she also told me the time at one stage.” The subject again tells us the “why” to explain what he said. This is the highest form of sensitivity and therefore highlighted in blue for quick reference. Why does the subject need to tell us “I know Ana had her phone on her and it was switched on …” The need to explain why is often to pre-empt a possible question that may only exist in the mind of the subject. Would anyone think to ask “was Ana’s phone switched on?” That the matter is sensitive to the subject allows the analyst to now question things that might not otherwise come to mind. If the analyst or detective was not sure whether to question if the phone was on or off before the subject’s language makes the question paramount. 
  3. “I saw her checking it once or twice and she also told me the time at one stage.” The addition of the unnecessary words “once or twice” seems contrived in a need to persuade. Expected would be “I saw her checking her phone” or simply “she checked her phone”. The analyst should be asking why the phone is important to the subject.  Was the phone “switched on”? now becomes an important question. It should be considered that the phone was not on. 
  4.  “… and she also told me the time at one stage.” The subject uses passivity to tell us “she also told me the time” the word “also” supports the need to persuade. Did he ask her for the time? Why did she tell him the time? He brings up “she also told me the time” but does not tell us when that time was. Is the subject trying to build an alibi?
  1. “… at one stage.” Boy A used this same phrase. There are several points made in both statements that show the boys had possibly coordinated their statements. NOTE; this reference to the phone and “time” come directly after the subject stated,This was about 5.30pm or 5.40pm.” Is this the subject trying to convince us that Ana told him the time? NOTE; the subject does not say Ana told him it was “5.30pm or 5.40pm”. Does he want us to come to this conclusion? 
  1. The phone should have no bearing on the statement and therefore it is unexpected to find it prominently in the statement. NOTE: Boy A also made an unnecessary reference to Ana having a phone with her. That the two make unnecessary references the listener should consider coordination and planning between the two subjects regarding what to say and that the “phone” figures into the event. Deception indicated. 

I did not see Ana or Boy A after that. 

  1. “I did not see Ana or Boy A after that.” NOTE; the subject says he did not see either “Ana or Boy B after that.” This is distancing from both. I do not doubt he did not see Ana after that, but why does he add Boy B? The context of the statement is the missing girl not Boy B. 
  2. The subject tells us in the negative what he, “did not” see. We expect people to tell what they did see, did do, not what they didn’t thus making statements in the negative a sensitivity indicator. 


I went straight home and did my homework

  1. “I went straight home …” The subject adds the unnecessary word “straight”. In an open statement the need to add this qualifier makes the item a need to persuade (NTP). The need is to stress he went “straight” home. If he has said “I went home.” Who would question that it wasn’t directly? It implies that, so the NTP is an indication of the opposite. 
  2. “… and did my homework.” Why does the subject add this line? Is he trying to portray himself as a good guy? Question, who needs to portray himself as a “good guy”? Answer, someone who isn’t. 

My father was home when I got back

  1. My father was home when I got back.” This line is incongruent in context of the statement for a missing girl. Is the subject hiding behind his father? Is the subject looking for support from his father? Does the subject “Boy B” need an alibi? It would be interesting to view/study the relationship between the father and his son. 


The first I heard there was a problem with Ana was when the gardaí called to our house asking about her.

  1. “The first I heard there was a problem with Ana …” The subject says “the first I heard …” this is a need to persuade. NOTE; it doesn’t mean he didn’t know “there was a problem with Ana” and it indicates he is trying to persuade us of that with NTP that which is often the opposite. The subject does not tell us he did not know there was a “problem”.  
  2. The subject applies the word “problem” with Ana. This is distancing and possible guilty knowledge when the context is a missing girl. How does he know there is a “problem with Ana”? 
  3. “… was when the gardaí called to our house asking about her.” The subject distances himself from the event saying “… the gardai called to our house …”. The subject was the one who collected Ana from her home before she went missing, the gardai were not questioning “our house” they were there to “question him”. 


I have no clue what happened to her.

  1. I have no clue …”. Everyone has a “clue” or idea therefore to state this is often an indicator that the person wishes to distance themselves from the event and that they maybe withholding information. 
  2. The subject has the opportunity to say he has nothing to do with her disappearance. In context that he was the one who was with her just before she disappeared this is unexpected. The subject never even makes a reference to her being missing. This is distancing. 
  3. The subject shows no empathy for the victim, especially in context of his being with her before she disappeared. This is unexpected negative linguistic disposition. Throughout the statement the linguistic disposition toward the victim has been neutral to negative. Neutral in context is also negative.  

* The statements have been edited to preserve the boys’ legal right to anonymity.


CONCLUSION:
Deception indicated. The subject uses need to persuade, distancing language, passivity and probable fabrication. 
The linguistic disposition toward the victim is negative while positive toward Boy A.
There is unity with Boy B in the use of language and pronouns. 
The subject does not give a denial of involvement.
The subject is withholding pertinent information.
There are several indicators of coordination of narrative between Boy A and the subject Boy B. 
There is the language of a person needing an alibi.
There are inconsistencies in relating his narrative as to the sequence of action and actions. 
The subject indicates for guilty knowledge. 
There are items that appear to be leakage of the event embedded in the narrative.