Friday, November 22, 2019

Baby Ayla: The 911 Call Analyzed

What is expected in the dire emergency of a baby missing?

1. The caller will be in earnest to find his child. As such, he will be under pressure, frightened and concerned for the child. 

2. The caller's priority will be the child.  

3. The caller will give the 911 operator a distinct impression of not only urgency, but that the caller is working to facilitate the flow of information to help find the chid. 

The Baby Ayla case has been covered extensively with the conclusion that the biological father, Justin DiPietro, has been found "deception indicated" regarding what happened to his daughter. 

The information contained here is from media reports, including video.  
DiPietro originally claimed the child was kidnapped. 

When a child is kidnapped, the parent calls out to the child and to the kidnapper. This is an instinctive reaction, often with police providing the outlet. The parent(s) begins a desperate search.  The linguistic focus is what the child victim is now experiencing. This, too, is intuitive within a parent. 

DiPietro refused to speak to media, or to search for the child. Concern was not expressed for the child, rather for his own comfort.  

When asked, "Did you pass your polygraph?" he said "I smoked it." 

This was not only an avoidance of a yes or no question, but one in which reveals he both considered it as a  contest of sorts, rather than a tool to help locate his daughter, and it revealed wording familiar and comfortable to him. 

 This likely reflects drug abuse. 
We also saw his mother, Phoebe DiPietro, report in a televised interview that she "heard nothing"and there was "no party" at her home the night Ayla was alleged to have been kidnapped.

 It was later learned that she was not in her home that night to be capable of "hearing nothing", which reveals her own need to deceive the public. 
We have also seen deception on the part of DiPietro's sister, Elisha,  in response to a question about her polygraph, as well as learning that the baby had a broken arm in which DiPietro did not seek medical intervention for 24 hours.  This, along with a report of injuries  is consistent with ongoing child abuse. As to bruises, DiPietro also revealed his own background when he claimed the toddler "got into a fight" with another child at a Chuck E Cheese ball pit. 

Finally, police announced that the father, his girlfriend and his sister, all in the home when Baby Ayla was reported missing, were deceptively withholding information from police regarding what happened to the child.  
Behavioral Analysis
When a child goes missing, the parents' behavior will indicate one of two positions:
1. The parents will do what it takes to regain the child
2 The parents will do what it takes to conceal what happened to the child. 
The case does not present a mystery; as the father's behavior was to refuse to call out to the child or the "kidnappers" as he claimed he was not "emotionally capable" of doing so.  His emotional comfort trumped the negotiation with the alleged kidnappers. 
He and his family did not give linguistic indications of empathy for what the "kidnapped" child was experiencing. This, along with linguistic indicators, showed knowledge that the child was deceased. 
DiPietro had, prior to the disappearance, taken out an insurance policy not for his child, but against her life, and only her life, though he has another child which he did not take out a policy. 

As deception progresses, the DiPietro family used deflection attempts to remove scrutiny from themselves and falsely accuse others. 

This is the 911 he call made.

Call #1
 December 17, 2011

ECS1 911, where is your emergency?

C1 (Justin) xxx, Waterville, Maine.

ECS1 xxx?

C1 (Justin) Yes sir.

ECS1 Spell the name of the road just so I have it right.
C1 (Justin) xxx.

ECS1 xxx, what’s going on there?
This is the general question asking what happened. It is an open ended question which allows for the subject to begin his statement where he thinks it is most important to him. Where one begins a statement indicates priority and is sometimes even the reason for the statement. 

C1 (Justin) Ah, I woke up this morning, my daughter is not here.
The subject begins with a pause. This indicates the question, "What happened?" or "Why do you need police?" is sensitive to him. It means he needs time to think of what to say. 
The first thing he wants police to know is that he was sleeping. 
Alibi Establishment 
"I just work up."
This is to indicate the priority of alibi establishment.  He could not possibly be involved because he was not awake.  This is found in guilty statements including in many "fake hate" claims that move on to exploitation (Go Fund Me) where the subject has a need to first clear oneself, before reporting what happened. 
The priority is:  alibi building.
It is to give the very first information after pausing to think of what to say---- he could not possibly be involved because he must have been sleeping because he "just woke up"--- 
Next, he said, "my daughter is not here."
This is a truthful statement. He did not say she was kidnapped, or that she died, but only the technical truth: "my daughter is not here" as to the location (address) he just gave. 

ECS1 Okay, how old is she?

C1 (Justin) She is an infant she’s only twenty months years old.

ECS1 She is how old?

C1 (Justin) Twenty months old.

ECS1 Twenty months old?

C1 (Justin) She’s not even two – twenty months old.

ECS1 Was there anybody else with you overnight?

C1 (Justin) My sister’s here, her daughter and my girlfriend and her son are here.

ECS1 Hang on, I’m putting you through – this is in Waterville?
C1 (Justin) Yes sir.

ECS1 What number are you calling me from case I lose you?
C1 (Justin) (Sigh) – xxx

ECS1 Okay hang on, I’m putting you through, do not hang up.
(Transcribers note: dial tone / telephone ringing)
WCC Waterville Communications Center, what’s the address of emergency?

ECS1 DPS, Augusta. I’m putting through a report of a missing child from a residence at xxx .
WCC Okay.
ECS1 Sir, go ahead.

WCC Hello.
C1 (Justin) Hello.

WCC Hi, how long ago did you see your child?
C1 (Justin) When I put her to –

AV December 17, 2011

ECS1 911, where is your emergency?

C1 (Justin) Yeah, I, I was just, I’d called, my phone just died and I have another cell phone now, so.

ECS1 Okay, where are you located?
C1 (Justin) xxx.
ECS1 xxx, is this regarding the juvenile?
C1 (Justin) It is, yes sir.
ECS1 Hang on, I’ll put you back through Waterville Com.
(Transcribers note: dial tone / telephone ringing)
WCC Waterville Communication Center, what is the address of your emergency?
ECS1 DPS, putting through –
C1 (Justin) Yes ma’am, I was just on the phone with you and my cell phone died.
WCC Okay, yep, I tried calling you back it went right to voice mail. What is your daughter’s name sir?
Call #2
ECS1: Emergency Communications Specialist
C1: Caller /
WCC: Waterville Communication Center
EP: Elisha Dipietro
WPO: Waterville police officer
WCC Waterville Communication Center, what’s the address of your emergency?
ECS1 DPS Augusta – putting through a report of a missing child from a residence at xxx .
WCC Okay.
ECS1 Sir, go ahead.
WCC Hello.
C1 (Justin) Hello.

WCC Hi, how long ago did you see your child?

C1 (Justin) When I put her to bed last night. My sister had checked on her. Um, woke up this morning, went to her room and she’s not there.

"My sister had checked on her" is to offer information not sought, nor useful in identifying the alleged kidnappers (though he has not yet alleged this), but to link him to his sister. This is vital information. 

a. He is not the "last" person to see Ayla---his sister is.  Like the assumption of being asleep ("I just woke up"), he now further protects himself from guilt. 

b. He reveals that putting the burden of being the last to see Ayla upon someone else. 

This is something seasoned prosecutors take note of while offering immunity (to his sister or girlfriend) in exchange for the truth of what happened to the victim. 

WCC Okay, how old is she?
C1 (Justin) Twenty months old.
WCC Twenty months?
C1 (Justin) Yes ma’am.

WCC All right. So you saw her last sometime in the evening?

C1 (Justin) Yeah, yeah, I put her to bed (Inaudible) at eight o’clock (8:00).

WCC All right, hold on just one second while I get somebody started right over there okay, don’t hang up the line.

(Transcriber’s note: brief pause)

WCC Sir.
C1 (Justin) Yes ma’am.
WCC Hi, I’ve got officers on the way over there. What is your name sir?
C1 (Justin) xxx.
WCC xxx?
C1 (Justin) Yes ma’am.
WCC And you said xxx or xxx , sir?
C1 (Justin) xxx.
WCC All right. What was she wearing the last time you saw her?
C1 (Justin) Um, she had some pajamas on, um, they were green pajamas.
WCC Green pajamas?
C1 (Justin) Yeah.

WCC Okay, can you remember the exact time that you saw her last or somebody saw her last in her crib?

Compound questions should be avoided. This allows the subject to choose to avoid answering what he did: 

(Transcriber’s note: C1 refers to Alicia in background)

C1 (Justin) Um, Elisha, when was the last, when is last time you went in her room last night when you saw her?

Did you notice that several times the subject said "hello"---this is something not expected in a distress call of urgency.  

Yet, it was not flagged for sensitivity because it was parroted back during the exchange. 

Parroting back is natural in language.  

"Did you steal the missing wallet?"
"I didn't steal the missing wallet..." 

When parroting is disrupted in a change of language, the information is vital. 

The question to him or "somebody" else is when they "saw" Ayla. 

Now look at the answer:

Um, Elisha, when was the last, when is last time you went in her room last night when you saw her?

Not, "when was the last time you saw her" but the unnecessary repetition of the earlier statement (which requires more effort) --this is an example of "scripting" a response. 

The subject needs to control the flow of information and reminds his sister of going into the room before she could say she "saw" Ayla.  

Scripted language reveals the necessity of scripting.  

EP Ten o’clock (10:00).

C1 (Justin) Ten o’clock (10:00), ten o’clock (10:00).

WCC Ten o’clock (10:00), okay.

(Transcriber’s note: radio communication)

WCC (Inaudible) units responding, she was last seen in her crib wearing green PJs approximately 2200 hours last night.

(Transcriber’s note: radio communication ends)

WCC What’s a good phone number for you sir?
C1 (Justin) – xxx.
WCC xxx, okay. I’ve got officers on the way over there right now sir and we’ll help you, okay?

(Transcriber’s note: disconnect / return call)

WCC Waterville Communication Center, what is the address of your emergency?

ECS1 DPS, putting through –

C1 (Justin) Yes ma’am. I was just on the phone with you and my cell phone died.

WCC Okay yeah, I tried calling you back it went right to voice 

mail. What is your daughter’s name sir?

C1 (Justin) Ayla Reynolds.

WCC I’m sorry, Ava Reynolds?
C1 (Justin) A-y-l-a.
WCC E-y-l-a, okay.
(Transcriber’s note: radio communication in background)
WPO What number xxx?
WCC1 xxx . . 10-3.
(Transcriber’s note: WCC communicates with C1)

WCC Okay, and you’ve checked all through the house, is there any way she could have climbed out of her crib?

C1 (Justin) No, ma’am, she, there is no way she could a got, there’s no way she could.

The father remains polite in a call where impoliteness and urgency are the expected.  

This is a form of "ingratiation" into law enforcement - a psychological making of "peace" between them. 

WCC Okay.

(Transcriber’s note: radio communication)
WCC 10-4.
(Transcriber’s note: WCC communicates with C1)
WCC Okay, the officer is there with you right now. I want you to go out and speak with her, okay?
C1 (Justin) Okay.
WCC All right, bye-bye.

Analysis Conclusion:

The subject's priority is to establish his own alibi. 

He yields as little information as possible while maintaining an appearance of cooperation. He answers the questions in brevity; that is, in caution (see pause). 

He does not express concern for Ayla. 

He does not ask for (or demand) that Ayla be found. 

At this time, he does not assert that she was "kidnapped" ---the father of a missing toddler offered no assistance in helping police decide what happened. 

He only offered information once--- and this was to further buttress his alibi establishment --- that someone else can "verify" that he put the victim to bed at 8 because she (sister) checked on the victim two hours later. 

The lack of urgency and the void of concern for Ayla, along with the absence of asking for help finding her from a biological father is indicative of the child's death---she is beyond the parental capacity of protection. 

The claim of kidnapping came later, with eventually the family expressing concern for themselves, while not orchestrating searches, nor addressing the "kidnappers", nor even the child, lest prompted by media.  

Statement Analysis reveals deception with Behavioral Analysis consistent with guilty knowledge of Ayla's death. 

To study deception detection, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services.  

Thursday, November 21, 2019

Fraudulent Email for Analysis

How many indicators of sensitivity can you spot in order to indicate deception? 


I am writing you this email in good faith but considering the content, I know you will be apprehensive and worried but I am assuring you that, it is made in good faith.

I am Maj. Sethia DAIGRE, female Army officer with the USA Military and currently in Baghdad with the Combat Support Squad, US Base Camp, Speicher - Baghdad, Iraq. I need you to help receive some funds in 2 trunk boxes that's awaiting shipment proceedings with a diplomatic cargo delivery company here in Baghdad.

Kindly review the below links as proof of source of funds:

I do hope you are going to give me your trust in carrying out this project which will be of mutual benefit to both of us.

I will provide you with more details upon receipt of this email on how we'll realize the safe shipment of these boxes via a Prioritized Private Delivery channel without the breach of the law. It's 100% risk free venture. I'm not soliciting for money whatsoever, I do not need your money, rather, I will handle all necessary shipment cost from here for a safe delivery to your location as would be designated by you.

I look forward to hear from you at your convenience.

Maj. Sethia DAIGRE
Baghdad, Iraq.

Sunday, November 17, 2019

Statement Analysis: Prince Andrew Interview

Prince Andrew interviewed by Emily Maitlis. 

We hold to the expectation that the subject (Prince Andrew) will address and deny the allegation of sexual contact with a minor.  This should include the pronoun "I", as it is he who is accused. It should also include a simple past tense verb ("didn't" or "did not") and it should be clearly answering the allegation.  

Since this is the purpose of the interview, it is expected to be a priority for the subject. 

If he did not engage in sexual contact with the accuser, it should not be difficult to state. 

The context is important, and it comes in light of his friendship with serial exploiter and now deceased Jeffrey Epstein. 

There is within the context an expected sensitivity due to the public spotlight of this accusation. 

Analysts must also keep in mind "attendant guilt"--this is where the subject "did not do it", yet committed similar offenses of which become part of his overall defensive denial, unnecessarily. 

For those unfamiliar with Statement Analysis, the red highlighting calls your attention to words that may indicate deception.  The blue highlighting is to call your attention to an explanation of "why", when one is not sought. If this information is both unsought and unnecessary, it is the  highest level of sensitivity to the subject. 

The "Psychological Wall of Truth" is where the subject did not "do it" and is behind this level of protection, even under pressure, where he is psychologically grounded. It matters now what another says, as he looks into his memory, he did not "do it" and is "telling the truth"---

it makes for a dull interview because there is not much to talk about. There is no need of persuasion, no need to moralize, blame others or to portray oneself as "the good guy."

The de facto innocence is a protection for the subject that we expect to hear. 

EM: Your Royal Highness, we’ve come to Buckingham Palace in  highly unusual circumstances. Normally we’d be discussing your work, your duty, we’ll come onto  but today you’ve chosen   Why have you decided to talk now?

The question is "why now?" -- the interviewer does not identify Jeffrey Epstein here. This allows the subject to choose how to identify him: 

Andrew:  Because uh there is no good time to talk about, um, Mr Epstein and all things associated, um and um we’ve been talking uh to Newsnight for about six months about doing something around the work that I was doing, um, and unfortunately we’ve just not been able to fit it into either your schedule or my schedule, um until now, and actually it’s a very good opportunity and I’m delighted to be able to see you today

Follow his pronouns ---

When talking to Newsnight for 6 months, he does not want to be psychologically alone ("we")

When addressing his work, he is comfortable ("I") 

When talking directly to the interviewer, he is not only alone ("I") but "delighted."

Given the context of the allegation, one should consider this to be a form of ingratiation --- that is, seeking to be "friends" with the one who is to question him.  

Linguistic Disposition 

"Mr. Epstein" is formal, polite and may be a way for the subject to distance himself from the personal or friendly use of Epstein's full name, which would include his first.  

EM:   As you say, all of this goes back to your friendship with Jeffrey Epstein.

She now uses "Jeffrey Epstein

EM:  How did you first become friends, how did you meet?  

Andrew: Well I met through his girlfriend uh, back in 1999, who um  - and I’d known her since uh she was at university in the UK.  Um, and it would be to some extent a stretch to stay that that um, uh, as it were, we were close friends uh w-we were friends because of other people, um, and I had a lot of opportunity to um, go the United States, um, but I didn’t have much time with him.  I suppose I saw him once or twice a year, perhaps, maybe a maximum of three times a year, um, um quite often, if I was in the United States and doing things, and if he wasn’t there, he would say well, why don’t you come and use my houses? So I said that’s very kind, thank you very much indeed. Um, but it would be, um, uh-h-h-h a considerable stretch to say that he was a very, very close friend, but he had the most extraordinary uh, ability to bring um, extraordinary people together.  Uh, and that’s the bit that I remember is going to the dinner parties where you would meet academics, politicians, people from the United Nations, I mean it was, it was a cosmopolitan group of what I would describe as as US um, eminence.

Going back to 1999 has produced high sensitivity. 

Pronouns are reliable and instinctive. 

He uses the pronoun "we" to unite himself ("we were close friends") yet the need to explain why without being asked (see blue highlight).  He puts the burden of responsibility upon someone else rather than himself. This is very important, particularly to investigators as it can help guide the interview strategy, including leading to an admission. 

He immediately moves to minimize the time spent with Epstein and calls is a "considerable stretch to say  that he was a very very close friend"--- 

The theme of shifting blame continues here with the burden placed upon the deceased:

he had the most extraordinary uh, ability to bring um, extraordinary people together. 

The subject considers himself, via association, as "extraordinary." This, too, would be vital to a skilled interviewer/investigator profiling his personality traits. This would factor into the approach or overall strategy of the interview. 

EM: Was that his appeal, then?  Is that what -

Andrew:  Yeah.

EM:  - because you were perceived by the public as being the party prince.  Was that something you shared?

She feeds him an answer.  We reflect upon the ingratiation of him being "delighted"---

He has been supplied a ready to use excuse or being the "party prince" -- 

What will 'partying' produce in his response? 

Andrew: Well, I think that’s, um, also um, a bit of a stretch. Um, I don’t know why I’ve, I’ve, I’ve  um, collected that title because I don’t, I never have really partied.  Um, uh, I was single for quite a long time -um, in the early eighties. Um, uh, but then, after I got married I was um, very happy, um an’an’an’ I’ve never really felt the need to go and party and certainly going to um, Jeffrey’s was not about partying, absolutely not.

a. "I think" is a weak assertion --given the context, this is not appropriate weakness 

b. "a bit" qualifies the word "stretch"

c. "really" further weakens the weak assertion 

d. He moves the chronology away from the accusation (before meeting Epstein)

e.  The deceased is now "Jeffrey" 

f.  "I've, I've, I've" with the halting on the pronoun "I" (something we have used millions of times) is a signal of increased stress here. 

g.  He was "married" and "very happy"--- this is a hina clause --that is, a need to explain "why", without being asked, that he was not a party prince.  This is to normalize himself---- it indicates guilt but we are not able to identify if the guilt is due to the accuser being truthful or attendant guilt.  (See Alan Dershowitz statement) 

This is where being married and very happy precludes guilty behavior. 

Child molesters will sometimes say, "I am a happily married man!" rather than "I didn't molest...

It is a tangent; not a denial. 

Q. Why not simply address the allegation?

EM: You said you weren’t very good friends but would you describe him as a good friend - did you trust him?

A somewhat clever question given the context of needing to conceal illicit sexual activity. 

Andrew: Uh, yes, I think I probably did, but a-again, um, I mean - I don’t go into um, a friendship looking for the wrong thing if you understand what I  mean. 

Here he goes to motive---he did not go into a friendship (he used present tense language; not past tense) looking for the "wrong thing"--that is, motive.  

His lack of commitment (present tense, "don't") is used to address motive, is followed by the expectation of ingratiation ("...if you understand what I mean") to make this interview friendly to him. 

Personality Trait

In the psycho-lingusitc profile, we have been given two brief examples that suggest the need to explore the personality trait of not taking personal responsibility, but rather a willingness to blame others. 

Although his earlier use of "we" could apply to the female that introduced him, he went immediately to Epstein. 

We now listen for the additional information outside the boundary of the question, "did you trust him" as vital, as it is offered of his own accord. 

I’m uh, I’m an engaging person.  I want to be able to engage, I want to find out, I want to learn.  

He was curious. 

This is in context of Jeffrey Epstein and the allegation.  

Um, and so, uh you have to remember that I was transitioning out of the Navy at the time um, and the transition, uh, I wanted to find out more about what was going on because in the Navy um, it’s a pretty isolated business,

He was lonely.  This is something "you", the interviewer (intended recipient) and the television audience (unintended recipient) "have to" remember. 

This is an example of emotional manipulation as he seeks to create sympathy from his audience.  Note that often the "unintended recipient" in analysis is the most important. 

 because you’re out at sea the whole time, um, and I was going to become the Special Representative for International Trade and Investment, so I wanted to know more about what was going on in the international business world, and so that was another reason for going there, and the opportunities that I had to go to Wall Street and other places to learn, uh, whilst I was there, were - were absolutely vital. 

Besides being curious and isolated, becoming friends with Jeffrey Epstein was not his fault.  He was going to become the "Special Representative for International Trade and Investment"--an important title, which explains why he wanted to "know more" about "what was going on" --- it is not his fault.  

This is a personality type where one may have grown up with very few consequences.  

EM: He was your guest as well.  In 2000 Epstein was a guest at Windsor Castle, and at Sandringham, he was brought right into the heart 

Andrew:  Yes, but

EM:  - of the royal family at your invitation.

The interviewer puts the burden of responsibility upon the subject with "at your invitation...

Andrew:  but, uh - certainly at my invitation, not at the royal family’s invitation, but remember that it was his girlfriend that was the key element in this.  He was the, as it were, plus one, to some extent, in in in that aspect. 

The word "but" is used to refute or to compare---here, to the statement that he, himself, did the invitation. 

The subject puts the weight of information off of himself and off of Epstein and on to the "girlfriend."

Further affirmation of one who is inclined to blame others. 

EM:  Am I right in thinking you threw a birthday party um, for Epstein’s girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, at Sandringham?

Andrew:  No- it was a shooting weekend. 

EM:  A shooting weekend?

Andrew:  Just a straightforward - straightforward shooting weekend.

Please consider that other times of engagement were not "straightforward" to the subject. 

EM:  But during these times that he was a guest at Windsor Castle, at Sandringham, uh, the shooting weekend-

Andrew:  Yep, yeah, yeah

EM:  - we now know that he was, and had been, procuring young girls for sex trafficking 

She now brings him closer to the allegation.  He might have enjoyed debating the difference between a birthday party and a "straightforward shooting weekend." She wisely moved on from this tangent. 

Andrew:  We now know that. 

"We"--- we cannot conclude that this, at this point, is psychological hiding in a crowd because it reflects the wording used by the interviewer.  She used "we" and "now"--- unwise choices.  

At the time there was no indication to me, or anybody else that that was what he was doing - and certainly when I saw him, either in the United States - when I, when I saw him in the United States or when I was staying in his houses in the United States, there was no indication - absolutely no indication.  And if there was, you have to remember that at the time uh, I was patron of the NSPCC’s Fullstop campaign, so I was close up with what was going on in those, uh um - time about getting rid of abuse to children, so I knew what was -  what the, what the things were to look for, but I never saw them.

a. "there was no indication to me" --he should have stopped there, but he has a need to persuade. He continued "or anybody else"--- which allows us to ask,

"How would you know what "anybody else" perceived?" 

b.  "when I saw him in the United States" speaks to the element of  location and is repeated. 

c. "absolutely" in its follow up denial, is sensitive, yet this may be dismissed as appropriate given the greater context. 

d. "And if there was" allows for the possibility --

He is deceptive about knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein's "procuring young girls for sex trafficking" here. 

He goes further, however, in his moralizing, as one who was active in getting "rid of abuse to children."

This is a very strong indicator of guilt. This is the need to portray oneself as a hero, when faced with an allegation of being the villain, rather than issue a denial.  

This point is alarming. 

It is consistent with child molestation.  

EM:  So you would have made that connection because you stayed with him, were a visitor, a guest on many occasions at his homes, and nothing struck you as suspicious 

Andrew: Nothing.

parroted language 

EM:  During that whole time?

Andrew: Nothing.

The series of "yes or no" questions reduces the stress of the subject choosing his own words.  We note how even a simple question caused him to offer additional, unnecessary information, beyond the boundary of the question, yielding information.  

EM:  Just for the record, you’ve been on his private plane.
Andrew: Yes

EM:  You’ve been to stay on his private island.
Andrew: Yes

EM:  You’ve stayed at his home in Palm Beach,
Andrew: Yes

EM:  You’ve visited Ghislaine Maxwell’s house in Belgravia in London.  
Andrew: Yes

EM: So, in 2006, in May, an arrest warrant was issued for Epstein for sexual assault of a minor,
Andrew: Yes

EM: In July he was invited to Windsor Castle, to your daughter, Princess Beatrice’s, eighteenth birthday.  Why would you do that?

Andrew: Because I was asking Ghislaine.  But even so at the time, I don’t think - I um, certainly I wasn’t aware, when the invitation was issued, of what was going on in the United States, and I wasn’t aware until the media picked up on it, because he never said anything about it.  

EM:  He never discussed with you -

Andrew: ____ Never discussed it.

no pronoun
note also that this was a specific time. 
note that "never" is to expand time, rather than focus in on a specific time. 

it is very likely that investigators could learn that he and Epstein spoke more frequently during this time period than he would wish to admit. 


  • the fact that an arrest warrant had been issued?

Andrew:  No.

EM:  So he came to that party knowing police were investigating him?

Andrew:  Well, I’m not quite sure whether - was it police? - I don’t know, you see - this is the problem.  I don’t know.  But I’m afraid you see, this is the problem, that an awful lot of this was going on in the United States and I wasn’t a party to it and I knew nothing about it.

The problem is not sexual abuse and trafficking but with his own knowledge.  

Another "problem" is social media.

EM:   In 2008 he was convicted
Andrew: Yes

EM:  of soliciting and procuring a minor for prostitution. He was jailed.
Andrew: Yes.

EM:  This was your friend. 
Andrew: Yeah.

EM:  How did you feel about it? 

Andrew: Well, I ceased contact with him after uh I was aware that  he was um under investigation.  And that was later on in in 2006 - and I wasn’t in touch with him again until 2010 - so um, I just - just - it was one of those things that somebody’s going through that sort of thing, well,  I’m terribly sorry I can’t be associated 

The language of guilt.  The expression of being "sorry" is not suppressed by him. 

EM:  So no contact.  When he was serving time -
Andrew: No.

EM:   - there was no call, no letter - 
Andrew: No.

EM:  -nothing there
Andrew: No.

EM:  He was released in July.  Within months, by December of 2010, you went to stay with him at his New York mansion.  Why?  

Why were you staying with a convicted sex offender?

Andrew: Right.  I have always - um ever since this has happened, and since it’s become public knowledge that I was there, I’ve questioned myself as to why did I go, and what was I doing, and was it the right thing to do.  I went there with the sole purpose of saying to him  that because he had been convicted it was n- it was inappropriate for us to be seen together.

He gives indication of guilt and then, again, shifts responsibility to others: 

And I had a number of people counsel me in both directions - either to go and see him, or not to go and see him.  And I took the judgement call that because this was um, serious, um, and I felt that doing it over the telephone was the chicken’s way of doing it. 

Besides blaming others and using language warranted advanced analysis and exploration, he portrays himself as being brave for going to Epstein's mansion.

This portrayal is another indicator of guilt. 

Keep in mind that the pronoun "we" indicates unity. This is why a rape victim will change to "he and I" from "we" once the assault has taken place. 

Here, he instinctively tells us that he is unified with Jeffrey Epstein. 

I had to go and see him and talk to him. Um, and I went to see him, uh, and I was doing a number of other things in New York at the time, um, and we had an opportunity to go for a walk in the park, and that was the conversation um, coincidentally, that was photographed, which was when I said to him, I said, look, because of what has happened, I don’t think it is appropriate that we should remain in contact.  And by mutual agreement, during that walk in the park, we decided that we would part company, and I left, I think it was the next day, and th- to this day, I never had any contact with him from that day forward.

He is lying here. He is revealing two major points:

1. Just how unified he was with his friend
2. He is withholding vital information at this time ("I left") about he and Epstein's discussion. 

EM:  What did he say when you told him that you were breaking up the friendship?

She asked what was said; not what was not said: 

Andrew: He was what I would describe as understanding.
Um, He didn’t go into any great depth, um in the conversation about what I was doing - what he was doing, um, except to say that, that uh, uh, he had accepted whatever it was, a plea bargain, he’d served his time um and uh, he was carrying on with his life, if you see what I mean, and I said yes, but I’m afraid that that - that, that’s as maybe, um, but with all the attendant scrutiny on me, then I don’t think it is a wise thing to do.

no sympathy for the victims.  

EM:  Who advised you, then, that it was a good idea to go and break up the friendship?  Did that come from the Palace -

Andrew: No.

EM:  Was Her Majesty the Queen involved?

Andrew: -  no, no, no, no, no. 

There were a number of people who came fr- who were my staff - some people from friends and family I was talking to, and I took the decision that it was - that I had to show leadership, and I had to go and see him, and had to tell him, that’s it.  

He does not identify the advisor. 

EM:  That was December of 2010

Andrew: Yep.

EM: he threw a party to celebrate his release, and you were invited as the guest of honour.

Andrew: No, I didn’t go.

This is a strong response----rare in the interview.  He immediately changes, however, to reclassifying it as something else. This appears to come natural to him: 

Oh, in two thousand and ten, there wasn’t - there certainly wasn’t a party to celebrate his release in December, because it was a small dinner party.  There were only eight or ten of us, I think, at the dinner.  If there was a party, then I know nothing about that.

EM:  You were invited to that dinner as a guest of honour.

Andrew: Well I was there, so there was a dinner. I don’t think it was quite as you might put it. Okay I was there for,  I was there for a dinner, yeah.

He cannot state that he went to celebrate his friend's release, but that he went there for dinner. 

EM: I was just trying to work this out, because you said you went to break up the relationship and you stayed at that New York mansion several days.  I’m wondering how long -

Andrew: But I was doing a number of other things while I was there

EM: But you were staying at the house of a convicted sex offender.


Hhhh.  It was a convenient place to stay 

The excuse making is personality driven. When one moves to the absurd (the Prince could not obtain a hotel room), it is a lack of self awareness, often from one who has been successful in deceit. 

He had more than dinner. 

I, I, I’ve gone through this issue in my mind so many times.  At the end of the day I’m, with the benefit of all the hindsight that one can have, uh, it  was definitely the wrong thing to do, um, but at the time I felt it was the honourable and right thing to do, and I, I, admit fully that-that that my judgement was probably coloured by my tendency to be too honourable- but that’s just the way it is.  

Increase in stress;

the statement of responsibility ("I, I admit fully") is not to take responsibility, but to state it. Substance abuse should be examined. 

Note the "good guy" principle again--- he was "too honorable"---this is often projected guilt.  

EM:  During that time, those few days, witnesses say they saw many young girls coming and going at the time, and there is video footage of Epstein accompanied by young girls. And you were there, staying in his house, catching up with friends.  

Andrew:  I never, I mean if there were, then um I wasn’t a party to any of that. I never saw them.  I mean,  you have to, you have to understand that, that that that, his house, I’ve described it more as a, as, as a, almost as a railway station, if you know what I mean, in the sense that there were people coming in and out of that house all the time.  Um, what they were doing, and why they were there I had nothing to do with so I - I’m afraid I can’t make any comment on that because I - I really don’t know.

He is deceptive. 

EM:  Another guest was John Brockman, the literary agent, 

Andrew: Really?

EM:  now I he described seeing you there, getting a foot massage from a young Russian woman.  Did that happen?

Andrew: No

EM:  You’re absolutely sure, or you can’t remember,

Andrew: Yeah I’m absolutely sure.

EM:  So John Brockman’s statement is false?

yes or no question: 

Andrew: I wouldn’t - I wouldn’t.  I don’t know Mr Brockman,  so I don’t know what he’s talking about


EM:  But that definitely wasn’t you getting a foot massage from a Russian girl in Jeffrey Epstein’s house?

Andrew: No

EM:  It might seem a funny way to break off a friendship, a four day house party of sorts, with a dinner. It’s an odd way to break up -

Andrew: It’s a difficult way of putting - that’s a very um, stark way of putting it yes, you’re absolutely right, um, but actually, the -the the truth of it is that I actually only saw him for about - what? the part that the dinner party, the walk in the park, and probably passing - um, in the passage.

Ingratiation noted. 

EM:  So let’s go to that Central Park walk -

Andrew: Yeah

EM:  which

  • Yeah

    • EM:  - was snapped.  Friends of yours suggest that Epstein wanted that photo taken, perhaps he’d even set it up.  Do you worry that you were being played? 

The topic of being set up ---this is a form of betrayal of a friendship.  If allegations of sexual abuse and trafficking of teenaged girls was not enough to eject the pronoun "we" from his language, would personal betrayal?

Introduced to the subject, we look at the remaining interview transcript for a change in linguistic disposition ---where he goes negative about Jeffrey Epstein. 

Andrew: Again, um, new information is coming out, um,  since his suicide, um,  has made us reappraise that - uh, walk in the park. We can’t find any evidence, uh - or my staff, and my people, and I can’t find any evidence to suggest that that was what he was doing. I mean, you can look at it in so very many ways but the fact of the matter is that somebody, very cleverly, took that photograph.  It wasn’t, um, as far as I remember, nor do my security people remember anybody being present or close. Um, because there were enough security around - I mean there are even photographs of the security people around in the photograph, So, I. I mean, he could’ve, he could’ve done - but I, I, 

He does not turn negative towards Epstein. 

EM:  Yeah. I guess what I’m asking is do you feel that you were part of Epstein’s public rehabilitation?

Andrew: Oh -  no, funny enough I don’t.  No.I mean - if, if, if he was - if he was doing - if that photograph was taken for that, with that purpose in mind, then it doesn’t - it doesn’t equate to what actually happened.

EM:  So, why wouldn’t you announce this break up when you got back?  Why wouldn’t you publicly explain what you’d done?  Did you worry that he had something that could compromise you? 

compound questions should be avoided. 

Andrew: No. No

EM:  Do you regret that trip?
Andrew: Yes.

EM:  Do you regret the whole friendship with Epstein?

Andrew: Um, uh - now, still not, for- and the reason being is that the people that I met, um,  and the opportunities that I was given to learn, um - either by him or because of him, were actually very useful.  He himself, um, not as it were, as close as you might think, we’re not - we weren’t that close, so therefore, I mean - yes, I would go and stay in his house,  but that was because of his girlfriend, not because of him.

The pronoun "we" is used to unite the subject to Epstein. 

EM:  Was that visit, December of 2010, the only time you saw him after he was convicted?
Andrew: Yes,

EM: Did you see him or speak to him again? 

Andrew: No, no. That was that. Funny enough, two thousand and ten, that was it. That was it. Because I went, first of all I, I,I, I wanted to make sure that that - um, if I was going to go and see him, I had to make sure that - that- that that there was enough time between his release.  Because it - it wasn’t something I was going into in a hurry- But I had to go and see him.  I had to go and see him. I had to tell him.

EM:  And stay with him - and stay in the house of a convicted sex offender.

Andrew: I could easily have gone and stayed somewhere else, bu-but sheer convenience of, of, of being able to get a hold of the man is, was - I mean he was in and out all over the place, so getting him in one place for a,a,a period of time - to actually have a long enough conversation to say look, these are the reasons why I’m not going to - and that happened on the walk. 

EM:  July of this year, Epstein was arrested on charges of sex trafficking and abusing dozens of underage girls.  One of Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Roberts

Andrew: Yes

EM:  has made allegations against you. She says she met you in two thousand and one; she says she dined with you, danced with you at Tramp nightclub in London, she went on to have sex with you in a house in Belgravia, belonging to Ghislaine Maxwell, your friend. Your response?

Andrew: I have no recollection of ever meeting this lady, none whatsoever.

he was not accused of ever "meeting" her, but having sex with her.  

A middle aged man is accused of dancing and having sex with a teenaged girl --this is a "hormonally consequential event" in analysis. 

He is lying. 

He is not able to issue a reliable denial such as "I did not have sex with Virginia Roberts" which could have been followed by "I've never met her, either"-- 

If Prince Andrew is incapable or unwilling to say it, we shall not say it for him. 

EM:  You don’t remember meeting her.

Andrew: No.

EM:  She says she met you in 2001, she dined with you, she danced with you, you bought her drinks, you were in Tramp nightclub in London, and she went on to have sex with you in a house in Belgravia, belonging to Ghislaine Maxwell.

Andrew: Didn’t happen

Here, the subject is removed from his answer. 

"Didn't happen" to whom? by whom? There is no human in this answer to the most pressing allegation made. 

EM:  Do you remember her?

Andrew: No. I-I-I- I have no recollection of ever meeting her, um, 
I’m almost, in fact, I’m convinced, uh, that  I was never inTramps with her.  There are a number of things that are wrong with that story, one of which is that,is that I don’t know where the bar is in uh Tramps.  Um, I don’t drink,um, I don’t think I’ve ever bought a drink in Tramps whenever I was there.

The stuttering "I" now indicates anxiety at this question. 

EM:  Do you remember dancing at Tramp?

Andrew: No.  That couldn’t have happened because the date that is being suggested I was at home with the children. 

EM:  You know that you were at home with the children?  

Andrew:  uhum.

EM:  Was it a memorable night?

Andrew: On that particular day that uh we now understand is the date, which is the tenth of March, I was at home - I was with the children, and I’d taken Beatrice to, uh, a Pizza Express in Woking, for a party, I suppose about four or five in the afternoon, um, and then because the Duchess was away, we have a simple rule in the family, that when one’s away, the other one is there.  I was on terminal leave at the time, um, from the Royal Navy, so therefore, I was at home.

EM:  Why would you remember that so specifically, why would you remember a Pizza Express birthday and being at home?

Andrew: Because going to Pizza Express in Woking is an unusual thing for me to do. A very unusual thing for me to do.  I’ve never been, I’ve only been to Woking a couple of times, um, and I remember it weirdly distinctly. As soon as somebody reminded me of it, I went, oh, yes, I remember that.  

Having sex with a teenaged girl is not "an unusual thing" for the subject.  He has more victims. 

EM:  So -

Andrew: But I have no recollection of ever meeting, or being in the company, or the presence -

No psychological wall of truth to stand behind 

EM:  - So, you’re absolutely sure that you were at home on the tenth of March.

Andrew: Yeah.

EM:  She was very specific about that night.

Andrew:  Uhum

EM: She described dancing with you

Andrew: No.

"I didn't dance with her, nor have sex with her. I never even met her" would be a reliable denial under the pressure of several questions of accusations, in a row. 

EM:  And you profusely sweating, and that she went on to have - baths, possibly -

This is a sensory detail; often from experiential language. Even if a specific date is off, the detail warrants exploration. 

The subject portrays himself as a victim in his question to show why this "never happened"---rather than deny it. 

Direct lies cause more internal stress. This is why we see the unreliable denials as well as tangents and needless explanations (along with portrayals of being "the good guy") 

Andrew: There’s a slight problem with - with - with - with the sweating - um, because I -I - I have a peculiar medical condition which is that I don’t sweat, um, or I didn’t sweat at the time, and that was - oh, was she? - yes, I didn’t sweat at the time because I um, had suffered what I would describe as an overdose of Adrenalin in the Falklands War, when I was shot at, uh, and I simply - it-it was - it was almost impossible for me to sweat.  And it’s only because I have done a number of things in the recent past that I’m starting to be able to - do that again.  So, I’m afraid to say that there’s a medical condition that says I didn’t do it, so therefore..

Note the lack of self awareness in the absurdity of explanation as to "why" he couldn't "sweat"-- 

EM: Is it possible that you met Virginia Roberts, dined with her, danced with her in Tramp, had sex with her, on another date?

Andrew: No

EM: Do you remember meeting her at all? 

Andrew: No

EM:  Do you know you didn’t meet her, or do you just not remember?

Andrew: No I have - I don’t know if I have met. But no, I have no recollection of meeting her

EM:  She was very specific - she described a dance that you had together in Tramp, she described meeting you, she was a seventeen year old girl meeting a senior member of the royal family.

Andrew: Never happened

Psychological ejection of self.  This is to show a lack of ownership.  It is easy to say, "I didn't have sex with Virginia Roberts"--- it is the psychological wall of truth to stand safely behind. This would mean there is no reason for buttressing anything with explanations or qualifications. 

EM:  She provided a photo of the two of you together
Andrew: Yes 

Confronted, he will not go further. 

EM: Your arm was around her waist
Andrew: Yes

Confronted again, he will not go further. She adds in detail. 

EM: You’ve seen the photo
Andrew: I’ve seen the photograph

parroting reduces stress. She is forced to ask: 

EM:  How do you explain that?

Andrew: I can’t. Because I don’t - again I have absolutely no memory of that photograph ever being taken

Listen to him. Of what does he have no memory (not "recollection" here)?  

He has no memory of meeting her?
putting his arm around her?


He has no memory of the photograph being taken. 

EM:  Do you recognise yourself in the photo -
Andrew: Oh, yeah - pretty difficult not to recognise yourself.

He is a manipulator. 

EM: Your friend suggested that the photo is fake.  

She should not have offered this, but allowed him to, even if it means uncomfortable silence before the camera.  Since he is so image driven, he likely would not have let the silence go for long. It defense of the interviewer, this is TV, not an investigatory interview. In the latter, silence is a powerful tool.  

Andrew: I think it’s, from the investigations that we’ve done, you can’t prove whether or not that photograph is uh faked or not, because it is a photograph of a photograph of a photograph, so it’s very difficult to be able to - to um, prove it, but I-I don’t remember that photograph ever being taken 

He is willing to talk about the photograph being taken, but not about meeting or being with  her. 

EM:  But It’s possible that it was you with your arm around-

Andrew: That’s me - but whether that’s my hand, or whether that’s the position - I- I - but I don’t - I have simply no recollection of the photograph ever being taken.

The middle aged man put his arm around a teenaged girl. 

EM:  The world has now seen the photo that Virginia Roberts provided, taken by Epstein, we understand, in Ghislain Maxwell’s house.
Andrew: Here’s the problem. I’ve never seen Epstein with a camera in my life

Yet another addressing of "the problem"--- he employs tangent deception rather than address the evidence. 

EM:  I think it was Virginia Roberts camera, she said a little Kodak one that she lent to Epstein, took a photo, and your arm is round her waist.

Andrew: I don’t remember  - I don’t remember uh that photograph ever being taken.  
I don’t remember going upstairs in the house, because that photograph is taken upstairs. Um, and I’m not entirely convinced -  that is, that is what I would describe as me in that picture, but I can’t - we can’t be certain as to whether or not that’s my hand.   I can’t be certain that’s my hand on, on, on her - whatever it is - left side

he is lying. 

EM:  Because you think -

Andrew: I have no recollection of that photograph ever being taken

Rather than deny putting his arm around her. 

EM:  So why would somebody have put in another hand? You think it is you next to her in the photo

Andrew: Oh, it’s definitely me.. that’s a picture of me.   It’s not a picture of - I don’t believe it’s a picture of me in London, because when I go out in London I wear a suit and a tie. That’s what I would describe as, those are my travelling clothes - if I’m going to go overseas. I’ve got plenty of photographs of me dressed in - in - in those sorts of - that sort of kit, but not there.  

EM:  To clarify, you think that photo has been faked. 

Andrew: Nobody can prove whether or not that photograph has been doctored, but I don’t recollect that photograph ever being taken.

EM:  And you don’t recollect having your hand round her waist?

Andrew: No. 

EM: In Ghislaine Maxwell’s house.

Andrew: No, no.

EM:  On any occasion, even if it was a different date

Andrew: I’m terribly sorry

believe him. 

but if I, as a member of the royal family, and I have a photograph taken and I take very, very few photographs- I am not one to, um, as it were, hug, and um, public displays of affection are not something that, that I do.  So, I - I that’s the best explanation I can give you, and  I’m afraid to say that I don’t believe that photograph was taken in the way that has been suggested.

EM:  Why would people not believe that you were there?

Andrew: I’m sorry, why would?  

EM:  I’m just trying to understand- there’s a photo inside Ghislaine Maxwells house, herself is in the background, why would people not believe that you were there with her that night?

Andrew: Um, they might well wish to believe it, but, but there’s a - the photograph is taken upstairs and I don’t think I ever went upstairs, um, in Ghislaine‘s house.  

EM:  Are you sure of that?

Andrew: Yeah, because - because the dining room and everything was on the, was on the ground floor.  It was, it was as you came in the hall. So I don’t remember ever going up there.  I’m at a loss to explain this particular photograph um, if the, if the original was ever produced, then perhaps we might be able to solve it, but I can’t 

EM:  You can say categorically that you don’t recall meeting Virginia Roberts, dining with her

Interviewers ought not say what the subject will not say 

Andrew: Yep

EM:  Dancing with her at Tramp
Andrew: Yep

EM:  Or going on to have sex with her
Andrew: Yes

EM:  in a bedroom at a house in Belgravia 
Andrew: I can, I can absolutely categorically tell you it never happened.

EM: Do you recall any kind of sexual contact with Virginia Roberts?

Very weak series of questions. She is reducing his stress level. 

Andrew: None

EM: Then or at any other time?
Andrew: None whatsoever 

EM:  Because she said in a legal deposition, a legal court document in 2015, she had sex with you three times.
Andrew: No

EM:  She is not confused about this - she said the first was in London when she was trafficked to you, the second was at Epstein’s mansion in New York, 

Andrew: That is a date in April, I believe,  Is that correct?  

Psychological Wall of Truth:

having not had sexual contact with the accuser, dating should be of little, if any, importance. It would not matter had he not have guilt. This is to slow the pace of information down or to 'run out the clock' of the interview. 

EM: She said it was a month or so later.

Andrew: Yeah. Well I think that the date we have for that uh, uh - uh, shows that I was in Boston, uh, or I was in New York um the previous day and I was at a dinner for the Outward Bound Trust, uh, in New York, and then I flew up to Boston the following day, and then on the day that she says this occurred, she - they’d already left in, uh, to go to the island, before I got back from Boston, so it, it -   I don’t think that could have happened at all

EM:  There was a witness there, Yohanna Stalberg, who said that you did visit the house in that month.

Andrew: I probably did. I don’t think - one of the weirder things - I was staying with the, uh,be cause of what I was doing, I was staying with the consul general, which is further down the street, on, on, on Fifth, so I wasn’t staying there- II may have visited but I, but, but no, definitely didn’t no. - no, no activity

Investigators should explore this period of time for sexual activity that the subject would consider "weird" ---always allowing the subject to define all activity. 

EM:  Because in a legal deposition, 2015, she said she had sex with you three times. once in a London house , she was trafficked to you, in Maxwell’s house,

Here he should deny, not affirm, her words of accusation: 

Andrew: Yes

EM:  Once in New York, a month or so later at Epstein’s mansion, and once on his private island in a group of seven or eight other girls.

Andrew: No

EM:  No to all of it?
Andrew: All of it.. absolutely no to all of it.

EM:  Why would she be saying those things?

Andrew: We wonder exactly the same but I have no idea., absolutely no idea

EM:  She made these claims in a US deposition 

Andrew: Uhum.

EM:  Are you saying you don’t believe her, she’s lying?

Yes.  Unequivocally "yes" is the only appropriate answer to the allegation of having sex with a teenaged girl he had never met. There is no unity, nor "peace" between a false allegation of sexual exploitation and an innocent accused. 

Instead, he avoids condemning her---

this is sometimes seen in the fear of bringing further resolve to a case to prove his guilt. 

It is very simple--- "she is lying"---

Andrew: That’s a very difficult thing to um, answer because I’m not in a position to know um, uh, what, what she’s trying to um, achieve, but I can tell you categorically, 

here comes the denial of "I didn't have sex with her"? 

I don’t remember meeting her, 

at all, 

note the progression and the emphasis 

I do not remember the photograph being taken

 and I’ve said consistently and um, frequently, that we never had any sort of sexual contact whatever.

First, this is an unreliable denial ("never")
Secondly, it is an admission of knowing her by pronoun: "we"-- he unites himself with a lying, false accuser by the pronoun "we" here. 

Thirdly, he does not deny ever having sex with her---listen to him---he self references early things he has "said consistently"-- context: in a live and stressful interview. This indicates he is working from script; not experiential memory. 

EM:  She spoke about you, outside the court in August this year.  She said, “He knows exactly what he’s done and I hope he comes clean about it.”

Andrew: And the answer is nothing

EM:  So if Virginia Roberts is watching this interview, what is your message to her?

Andrew: I don’t have a message for her, because I have to have a thick skin. If somebody is going  to make those sorts of allegations then I just have to have a thick skin and get on with it - but they never happened.

He continues a positive LD towards her in the context of false accusation. 

EM: For the record, is there any way you could have had sex with that young woman, or any young woman trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein, in any of his residences?

Wise to change the language to "young woman" here, yet she should have stopped there, first and let him answer.  It can then be followed up about Epstein and trafficking. He could avoid this additional stress thinking that it was not Epstein trafficking but his assistant.  

Analytical Interviewing---The less words we use in the interview, the greater the free editing process of the subject yields information for us. 

Andrew: No.  Um.  And, and and without putting too fine a point on it, if you’re a man, it is a positive act, to have sex with somebody. You have to take some sort of positive action, and so therefore if you try to forget -it’s very difficult to try and forget positive action, and I do not remember anything. I can’t, I’ve wracked my brain - thinking - oh, when the first allegation, when the allegations came out originally I went, well, that’s a bit strange, I don’t remember this, and then - I’ve been through it, and through it, and through it, over and over and over again, and nup, nothing - doesn’t - never happened. 

There are other victims. 

EM:  Epstein’s housekeeper, also in a Florida court legal deposition, said that you visited the Palm Beach residence, around four times a year you got a daily massage.

Andrew: Four times a year?

EM:  That was what he said, in a Florida court legal deposition.  

Andrew: No

EM: i’m just wondering, when you look back now, is there a chance that those massages might have been the services of someone who was being sexually exploited or trafficked by Epstein?

Andrew: N-no.  I don’t think - I mean I - no, definitely not, definitely not, and I definitely did not visit, uh, his Palm Beach house three or four times a year.  Absolutely not.

he knew they were sexually exploited and/or trafficked 

EM:  How many times would you say you visited?

Andrew: Ah, in total, probably four times.  In total throughout the- the time that I knew,  in fact,  probably that was the place that, that, that, if you see what I mean, he - he was in the house more - more there than than in other places that I was at -

likely other locations that trigger guilt from him.  He slowly reveals himself as a manipulative and serial exploiter; with or without Epstein. 

EM:  So that’s where you’d find him.

Andrew: - um, but it was usually because I was going, I was going through and on somewhere else, so it was a day, it was, it was, that was it.

EM:  You said in your statement, from the Palace, “at no time did I see, witness or suspect any suspicious behaviour.”  Virginia Roberts’ legal team says you could not spend time around Epstein and not know what was going on - you could not spend time around Epstein and not know what was going on.  

Andrew: If you are, um, somebody uh, like me then people behave in a subtly different way. 

he only spots "abuse of children" but not someone who had a life dedicated to sexual exploitation of teenaged girls?

Um, you wouldn’t - first of all I’m not looking for it, that’s the thing, you see - if you are looking for it, then you might have suspected now, with the benefit of a huge amount of hindsight, and a huge amount of analysis, you look back and you can think, well, was that really the way it was, or was it, was I looking at it in the wrong way, but you don’t go into these places, you don’t go to stay with people looking for - for that.

EM:  You could not spend time around him - that’s what they said. You could not spend time around him and not know.

Andrew: Look, the other aspect of this is that, is that um, I live in uh, in an institution, at Buckingham Palace, which has members of staff walking around all the time. And I don’t wish to appear grand, but there were a lot of people who were walking around Jeffrey Epstein’s house. As far as I was aware they were staff, they were people that were working for him, doing things,   I, as it were, I interacted with them in saying good morning, good afternoon, but I didn’t, if you see what I mean, interact with them in a way that was, “What are you doing here? Why are you here?  What’s going on?”

EM:  But you’d notice if there were hundreds of underage girls in Buckingham Palace, wouldn’t you?

Andrew: Oh God - sorry, you'd notice if there were hundreds of underage girls in Jeffrey’s house, it wan’t there - not when I was there.  Now he may have changed his behaviour patterns in order for uh, that not to be obvious to me. So - I don’t -  you’re asking me to speculate on things that I just don’t know about.  

EM:  You seem utterly convinced you’re telling the truth.  Would you be willing to testify or give a statement under oath if you were asked?

Andrew: Well I’m like everybody else and I - I’m, I - and I would have to take uh, all the legal advice, um,  that there was before I was to - to do that sort of of  thing, but if push came to shove and the legal advice was to do so, then I would be duty bound to do so.

His claim to normality ("I'm like everybody else") indicates he is unlike everyone else.  Note the stress this causes. 

EM:  Because you’ve said there are many unanswered questions, everyone effected wants closure, you would help to provide that closure?

Andrew: If there was, if  in the right circumstances, yes, I would because I think there’s just as much um, closure for me as there is for everybody else.  Um, and undoubtedly - some very strange and unpleasant activities have been going on.  I’m afraid to say that I’m not the person that can shed light on it, for a number of reasons, one of which is that I wasn’t there long enough , um, if you go in for a day, two days at a time, uh, it’s quite easy, I’m led to believe, for those sorts of people to hide their activities for that period of time and then carry on when you’re not there.  

EM: Virginia Roberts’ lawyers, legal team, say that they’ve asked for a legal statement from you, there is an active FBI investigation now - would you be willing to provide that?

Andrew: Again, I’m, I’m, I’m bound by what my legal advice is - um, um, and legal advisors, tell me.  

EM:  Epstein was found dead.
Andrew: Yep.

EM:  In prison
Andrew: Yes

EM:  in August of this year.
Andrew: Yep.

EM: What was your response on hearing that he’d died?
Andrew: Shock.  

EM:  Some people think that he didn’t take his own life.

Andrew: There again I’m not one to be able to answer that question.  Um, I believe that centres around something to do with a bone in his neck. Um, so whether or not if you commit suicide that bone breaks, or something.  Um, but I’m afraid to say I’m not an expert. Um, I have to take what the um uh, coroner says, and he has ruled that it was suicide - though -

EM:  He is dead, his girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell, your old friend, was, victims say, complicit in his behaviour.

Andrew: That bit I can’t help you with because I have no idea

EM:  Do you think that she has questions to answer about her role in this?

Andrew: In the same way that I have questions to answer, in the sense of what was I doing, um, and as I say, that - that I was there to - to my mind, be honourable and say to him, look you’ve been convicted, it would be incompatible for me to be seen with you.  Unfortunately somebody was standing around with a camera at the time and got a photograph of us - uh, it’s one of the very few photographs there are of us - but that was - that was the case.  Um, if there are questions that Ghislaine has to answer, that’s her - um, problem,I’m afraid, I’m not in a position to be able to comment one way or the other.

EM: When was your last contact with her?

Andrew: Uh, it was earlier this year, funnily enough, in the summer. In the spring - summer. 

EM: About what?

Andrew: She was here, um doing some rally.

EM:  So, even though he had by then been arrested, and was facing charges of sex trafficking,.

Andrew: No - no, no,  no, no, this was early spring - I think.  It was long - because, when was he arrested?

EM:  July.
Andrew: No, it was before July.  

EM:  And that was the last time.
Andrew: Yeah, yeah.

EM:  Did you discuss Epstein?
No.  Actually, funny enough, no - not at all.  There wasn’t anything to discuss about him because he wasn’t in the news.  He wasn’t - you know, just - we’d moved on.  

EM:  I want to talk about moving on.
Andrew: oh, yeah, yeah, alright, okay.

EM: Epstein is dead.
Andrew: Yes. 

EM:  The women are now being heard.  
Andrew: Quite rightly

EM:  How do you move on from this?

Andrew: Uh, well, that’s an interesting way of putting it. Um, I’m, I’m carrying on with what I do. um I have a number of thIngs I have been doing since two thousand and eleven. Um, they’re pretty well organised, pretty successful, and so I’m, I’m carrying on, trying to improve those things that I’m already doing. 

EM:  I wonder what  effect all this has had on your close family. You’ve got daughters of your own.

Andrew: It has been what I would describe as a constant sore in the family.  Um, We all knew him um - and I think that if we have a conversation about it we are all left with the same thing what on earth happened? How did he get to where he was, what did he do, how did he do it? Um, and so it - it’s just a constant sort of gnaw.  This first came out in two thousand and eleven. And um, it was a surprise to um,  to all of us, um, because the photographs were published at a separate time to when I was there, and there was a sort of question of what on earth’s going on, and as a family we discussed it, and in two thousand and fifteen, when the allegations were made in the deposition, uh - there was a sort of, uh, there was a sort of uh, this is the immediate family - not the wider family, the wider family couldn’t be more supportive - um, but the immediate family, it was - well, what’s all this about?  And we all just - we’re at a loss - so., it’s just -

EM:  Has the episode been damaging to the royal family, to Her Majesty the Queen?

Andrew: I don’t believe it’s been damaging to, uh, the Queen, at all.  It has to me.  

Here is another place where sympathy towards the many victims can be stated. 

Um, um, and it’s been a constant uh drip, if you see what I mean, in the - in the background - that people want to know. 

It has concerned him for years.  Please note that this is beyond the scope of the blog to go into advanced analysis, suffice to say, media may have covered for him in years past. 

If I was in a position to be able to answer all these questions in a way that gave sensible answers other than the ones that I’ve given, that gave closure, then I’d love it, but I’m afraid I can’t. I’m not in a position to be able to do so . I’m just as much in the dark as many people.

EM: How do you reconnect with the public then, now?

Andrew: Uh, by exactly what I’m doing, which is to use um and to continue to work with Pitch, and to continue to work with IDEA, and the things I believe strongly in.

I’m not somebody who does things in competition with people, oddly, I do things in collaboration with people.  So I want people to, to - to work together, to come to, as it were, a solution to a bigger problem, and so I’ve got a number of people working together, particularly in the education field, particularly in - and also in, in, in areas of um, of government,  and what they are doing so that we’re bringing everybody together so that we’re all pushing in the same direction.  And IDEA now does that, we’ve been going properly now for two years.  We’ve got three and a half million  people who’ve got a badge, we’ve got half a million, or just over half a million young people who are using the service. And, I’m trying to think what else we - but  It’s, uh, well, it’s designed for seven to fourteen year olds in the United Kingdom,  and it turns out it’s done from five to ninety-five around the world. So we’re - it’s being done in a hundred countries now.  So we’re slightly on the catch up with this one.

We listen for his linguistic disposition towards the Jeffrey Epstein victims.  

EM:  I know we have to bring this to a close because we’re running out of time. You’ve faced questions today on a very, very raw subject. There has never been an interview like this before.  I wonder what that tells us about the way the royal family now confront these difficult situations. has there been a sea change?

insight into how the interviewer sees herself. 

Andrew: I think the, the problem that um I, I’m - we face in the twenty first century is, um, social media. 

"the problem" is not the sexual abuse and trafficking of teenaged girls, but "social media." It is the expectation that sympathy (linguistic disposition) towards the victims will be stated. 

There is a whole range of um, things that you, you face now that you didn’t face twenty-five years ago because it was just the print media.  Um, and I think that, that to some extent there is a - there is a thick skin that you have to have. Um, and again, I’m not a confrontationalist, myself, um, I would prefer to be able to uh, as it were, resolve things in a way that is sensible, um, and so, choosing to, as it were, get out there  and talk about these things - it’s almost- it’s almost a mental health issue, to some extent, for me

It was not his fault, but he was a victim of a mental health issue. 

Yet, he has worried: 

in the sense that it’s been nagging at my mind for a great many years.  I know that I made the wrong judgement, and I made the wrong decision, uh, but I made the wrong decision and the wrong judgement I believe fundamentally for the right reasons, which is to say to somebody, I’m not going to see you again, and in fact, from that day forth, I was never in contact with him. Um, the subsequent allegations are what I would describe as surprising, shocking, um, and a distraction. Um, but that’s - I mean, there are all sorts of things that are on the internet and out there in the public domain that we just sort of go well, yeah - but I’m afraid this is,  um, it just never happened.

"it just never happened" is passive and avoids stating, "I did not..." which has the psychological strength of his presence.  "It" is not accused of having sexual contact but he is. 

EM:  You’ve talked about a thick skin. I wonder if you have any sense now of guilt, regret, or shame about any of your behaviour in your friendship with Epstein?

Impossible---he did not engage in sexual activity or traffic in teenaged girls for sex, nor did he have any inkling that this was Jeffrey Epstein's principle passion in life?

As such, the psychological wall of truth will be strongly between him and guilt.  

Is it? 

Andrew:  As far as Mr Epstein is concerned, it was the wrong decision to go and see him in two thousand and um, ten.  As far as uh my fr - uh association with him was concerned,  it had um uh some seriously beneficial um outcomes in areas that have nothing to do with, with, with what I would describe as what we are talking about today.  

Note the self censoring. 

Note the justification. 

On balance, could I have avoided ever meeting him? Um, probably not, um, and that’s because of my friendship with Ghelain- 

It was not his fault but "Ghelain" 

Yet, he still uses the pronoun "we" to unite himself to Epstein---after discussing allegations of sexual abuse and trafficking. 

it was, it was inevitable that, that we would have come across each other. Um, do I regret the fact that - that he has quite obviously conducted himself in a manner unbecoming?  Yes.

EM:  Unbecoming? He was a sex offender.

Andrew: Yeah - I’m sorry,  I’m being polite. I mean in the sense that he was a sex offender

Recall his statement about the "abuse of children"

Consider "I'm sorry" to enter his language in the interview consistent with both the guilt and deception indicated. 

But no, um, was I right in, in having him as a friend, um, at the time, and bearing in mind this was some years before he was accused of being um, a sex offender. Um, uh, I don’t think there was anything wrong then. The problem was the fact that once he had been convicted-

EM:  You stayed with him.

error to interrupt. 
error to give him language to use: 

Andrew: I stayed with him.  And that’s - that’s the bit that, that that, um, as it were, I kick myself for on a daily basis, cause it was not something that was becoming of a member of the royal family. And we try and uphold the um, highest standards and practices, and I let the side down. Simple as that. 

Interesting to see him use "becoming" in two settings;

one is the reputation of the royal family and the other is the trafficking and sexual abuse of teenaged girls. 

EM: This interview has been exceptionally rare, you might not speak on this subject again. is there anything you feel has been left unsaid that you would like to say now?  

Was the interviewer allowing him a final opportunity to issue the Reliable Denial?  If so, it was a smart move. 

"I didn't have sexual contact with..." could have been said from the onset, as a priority. 

Andrew: No, I don’t think so. I think you’ve probably dragged out most of, most of what is required , and, um, I’m truly grateful for the opportunity that you’ve given me to be able to discuss this with you.  

EM:  Your Royal Highness, thank you.

Andrew: Thank you very much indeed.

Analysis Conclusion: 

Deception Indicated. 

The subject would have been better off not doing this interview. He has not only shown deception, but there may be attendant guilt that warrants exploration.  By avoiding addressing the allegation, we note that he has a need to avoid it.  

The subject is personality driven to avoid responsibility and to shift guilt or assign blame to others. This is very natural to him.  

It is likely that his privileged upbringing alleviated him from experiencing many consequences in life. 

His use of tangent is skillful. 

He minimizes the sexual abuse and trafficking of teenaged girls equating it to an embarrassment of his family and his own self. 

I believe from this interview that there are more victims. 

It is very likely that he does not believe his behavior to be criminal. It is likely that he cherishes his memories of the sexual exploitation, as well as the memory of the victim. 

As such, he does not express sympathy for the victims. 

He is like a 60 year old petulant child who does not understand why anyone would be bothered by this behavior. 

To study Statement Analysis, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services.