Greg Kelley: Is He Telling the Truth?

Greg Kelley was exonerated from the original conviction of molesting a child.

Is he telling the truth?
First Interview: https://www.kvue.com/video/news/local/raw-greg-kelley-calls-kvue-from-wilco-jail/269-6169

Analysis: Sen. Kelly Loeffler Stock Sale

Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-GA) reported the first sale of stock jointly owned by her and her husband on Jan. 24,  2020 the day that her committee, the Senate Health Committee, hosted a private meeting from administration officials, including the CDC director and Dr. Anthony Fauci, of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, on the Chinese coronavirus. 

3 other senators also now are accused of profiting by using this information from the committee on stock trades. 

This includes Diane Feinstein, Richard Burr and James M. Inhofe. 

It is  illegal for members of Congress to trade on non-public information gleaned through their official duties. 

Are they incredibly lucky, or is there more here? 

It was the first of 29 stock transactions that Loeffler and her husband (CEO of the New York Stock Exchange) made through mid-February, 27 were sales. 

One of Loeffler’s two purchases was stock worth between $100,000 and $250,000 in Citrix, a technology company that offers teleworking software. 

She issued a denial via Twitter and then on televised media. 

Question for Analysis: Did she facilitate the trades on this inside information? 


She needs to say that she did not give information to anyone, including her husband, that  came from the meeting. 

Twitter: 

“This is a ridiculous and baseless attack. I do not make investment decisions for my portfolio. Investment decisions are made by multiple third-party advisors without my or my husband’s knowledge or involvement.

“As confirmed in the periodic transaction report to Senate Ethics, I was informed of these purchases and sales on February 16, 2020—three weeks after they were made.”

Here, she avoided denying the allegation--sharing information that gave her and her husband a distinct advantage.  

Instead, she told us what she "normally does" ----this is often a signal that the subject, while avoiding a denial, wishes to portray her actions as "normal"---indicating to us that it was anything but normal. 

Note the present tense, "I do not..." not, "I did not..."

Next note:

Investment decisions are made by multiple third-party advisors without my or my husband’s knowledge or involvement.

This is truthful, but it avoids reporting plainly that she did not inform anyone of what was about to happen to the US economy. 

I was informed of these purchases and sales on February 16, 2020—three weeks after they were made.”


She was not accused of being informed, or getting a receipt for her transactions.  She is accused of trading on information that she received in her official capacity as a U.S. senator. 

She is accused of "informing" someone else. 



When interviewed live, she did not issue a Reliable Denial but: 

1. Focused on the date of receipt.  This is when the paperwork comes back verifying the trades.  It is not part of a denial. 

2. said she wanted to do the work she was to do for the people of her state. 

This is a tangent away from the accusation. 

3. reported her years of work. 

This is to expand time, a common trait of guilt, rather than allow for the topic to be in the sensitive time period. It allows for a comparison of a small window of time (sensitive) with a larger.  In a sense, it is a common form of dilution or minimization. 

Analysis Conclusion:  

Deception Indicated. 

She avoids the allegation, but then uses tangents in order to move the topic away from the allegation. 

Being a blind trust does not preclude one from informing another what is to come. 

Citing her service to the people of her state is not only an attempt to move the topic away form the allegation, but it is to have a weighted comparison of sorts:

'look at all the good I have done compared to the allegation...' 

If you wish to study deception detection, please visit 

Hyatt Analysis Services for the information. 

Casie Weese, Upstate New York: Missing

37-year-old Casie J. Weese of Glen Aubrey was leaving a party with her husband in Apalachin Sunday morning at approximately 1:20 a.m., but their vehicle ended up getting a flat tire a short distance away from the party.

State police say Weese was last seen by her husband, Ronnie Weese, at that time. 

"Later that morning, she was reported missing by her daughter at the direction of her father when he responded home," said Capt. Erik Dauber

“I can’t speak intellectually to their level of intoxication.” 

What happened to Casie Weese?

We do not have a statement from her husband to analyze.  We have his public Facebook posts, and what media has reported on the case. 

When a woman goes missing, the statistics are such that the husband, ex husband, boyfriend or ex boyfriend is the most likely suspect. 

It is not always the case. 

When a woman goes missing, the man linked to her may even be deceptive yet still not have caused her demise.  

Shane Carey was deceptive about his relationship with Heidi, but he did not give verbal indication that he knew or believed she was dead.  He was statistically the most likely suspect, but did not cause her disappearance. This will be reviewed in an upcoming post. 

In another case, the father of a missing toddler was deceptive about his daughter's disappearance yet he did not kill her. He was under the influence at the time she wandered off. 

Both of these cases had deception and both cases had statistically likelihood but the subjects did not show knowledge (or belief) that the missing loved one was deceased. Neither killed the missing victim. 

             What might have happened to Casie?

Some possible scenarios: 

1. She left due to their dispute and is currently safely hiding out with someone she knows or trusts. 

2. She left due to their dispute and may have been harmed by the elements with possible impairment due to alcohol. 

3. She left in despair and sought to end her life. Casie  was last seen walking east on Main Street, away from the car and away from, and not towards the party they had just left.

 State police do not know exactly where on Main Street the car broke down, but they believe it may have been just east of a bridge near Apalachin Creek.

4. She left due to their dispute and has become a victim of a stranger, including abduction or assault. 

5. She was harmed by her husband with the dispute being a possible psychological trigger for him. 

6. The Unknown 

There are "red flags" in the case which we may examine and some within the language that warrant exploration. 

The "red flags" of warning include the use of alcohol and that they were arguing just prior to her disappearance. 

This is amplified by what the police said about the 911 call. 

The husband directed his daughter to call 911, rather than giving police investigators a first hand account. 

The first hand account would be the most accurate and best, most helpful to facilitate the flow of information in order to find Casie. 

It does not mean he caused her disappearance, but it is very concerning. He may have a reasonable explanation for this, but it is not made public. It is difficult to present one here. 

"Later that morning, she was reported missing by her daughter at the direction of her father when he responded home." police reported 


What caused the delay?

Was he intoxicated and wished to avoid being caught driving? 
Did he expect her to show up at the friend's home?

How did he go there and not go out looking for his wife? 

Mostly: 


Why didn't he call 911, even with a delay, for himself? 

His Facebook page reveals concerns; though none prove he caused her disappearance. 

Posts about violence, alcohol and drugs, in the context (missing Casie)  are concerning. They are not conclusive, but to ignore them is to disengage generalized thought. 

That she left her phone is also concerning. 

We have become very attached to our smart phones. We check them constantly and they are how we communicate in a greater degree than ever before. Most people are uncomfortable putting down their phones. 

It does not mean that he caused her disappearance. 

She could have left in an angry or fearful manner and forgotten it. It is, however, another behavioral point to observe and consider. 

One post allowed for the possibility that she may not be able to see his message, perhaps without her phone:

Casie if u can see this let people know u are ok. love u miss u deeply,

The text-like abbreviations are not unexpected here in social media.  We will take note of any deviation from this pattern. (see below) 


“God please help me I need my wife with me casie come home please. love u.”

Here we see that it is he, here, who needs help.

Why?

Is it because he is seeking Divine assistance in his search for her?

Or, does he, himself, need help?

We see that sometimes a guilty person will reveal that they are the ones in need of help and that the victim (in larger context) is not the one in need of help.  

Where do we look for this to be found in a statement?

 In the 911 (or 999) emergency call to police. We expect to ask for help for the victim. 

Any single point, by itself, may raise suspicion, but it is when all taken together that it invites either suspicion or the willful suspension of reason.  

Another: 

“Casie if u can see this let people know u are ok. ( ) Love u miss u deeply”

Why should she let "people" know, rather than him?

We don't know.

Perhaps it is because of a decidedly negative attitude towards their relationship. Perhaps he has no expectation that she wants to be with him.

Perhaps it is distancing language.

Perhaps it is guilt.

The subject omits the pronoun “I” when he says “Love u miss u deeply”. In doing so he has removed himself psychologically from his words.  This is a social media post so we must look to see if he uses pronouns in his posts. If it is his norm the sensitivity is reduced.

“It’s getting dark out and my wife still isn’t around ( ) starting to get really worried.”

1. The subject owns Cassie with the pronoun “my” and gives her the title of wife.
   The omission of the pronoun "I" continues.
   With as much time that has passed, why now, with "dark" is "starting" to get "really" worried? Was it not worrisome at 1:20am?

“It’s getting dark out and my wife still isn’t around ( ) starting to get really worried.”

1. The subject owns Cassie with the pronoun “my” and gives her the title of wife. This is to take ownership of her (natural-expected) while it is getting "dark out." Is he thinking about the darkness of the previous night?
   
   
   Why did he let her walk off on her own?
   
   
   I read, with interest, the comments on Facebook of which many were decidedly non-politically correct. When in extremis, people often resort back to truth and reality.
   
   
   As a man with a "wife", he let her walk alone, in the dark, perhaps under the influence of alcohol and with a health condition?
   
   
   This can be considered while reviewing his statements including "I need my wife with me."
   
   
   
   
2. He is not wishing her “home safe”. She is not "around" which is without expected affection.  In context his feelings towards her should be elevated. Even if they have argued this should be forgotten and her safety should be paramount in his language.
3. Again, the subject omits the pronoun “I’ from “starting to get worried”. He does not tell us he is getting worried.
4. He qualifies this with “really” weakening his statement.

“Casie Weese ( ) hope u make it home safe tonight ( ) love u”

1. The subject uses her full name. Formal and for the unintended recipients. This is not for Casie.
   
   
2. The subject omits the pronoun “I” for both “hope” and “love u”

God please help me I need my wife with me casie come home please.( ) Love u”

1. The pronoun “I” appears in his post. It is now to elevate its importance in his psychological presence. It is in the context of his needs.  
2. For whom does he ask God to help?  It is for him. Not for "casie." 
   
   
   Casie is with the lower case "c" here.
3. The word “with” indicating distance between them. This is consistent with "around."
4. The “I” disappears again when he tells her he loves her.

The subject’s words are unexpected from the husband of a missing woman.

His concern in this short post is for himself. It does not mean he is not concerned for her; this is limited to the small sample.

His posts appear to be directed towards the unintended recipients. The Police, Family, Media and the public.

He distances himself from his wife, getting her back and his affection towards her.

What is missing from the posts?

What is Casie experiencing while missing?

We know of his need, but what of her needs?

What of the weather' impact upon her?

What of her physical condition?

What of her safety and well being?

Is this only insight into what their relationship is or was like?

Or does it indicate something else?

She is not a child, but his wife and one vulnerable to the elements.

Why didn't he immediately search for her?

Even if selfish, uncaring and in a poor relationship, it still does not mean he is responsible for her going missing. We need more sample to discern.

In Statement Analysis training, we know what a person tells us. 

Here, we do not have enough for a conclusion. We have questions that are yet to be answered.  

We like to hear someone say, "I did not cause her disappearance" in a denial. 

Perhaps he will. 

We sometimes hear the distancing and unreliable, "I would want people to know that I would never ever harm a child..." as we heard from Tecia Stauch using the language of minimization.  

Analysis Conclusion: Inconclusive.  

Should Ronnie Weese grant an interview to media, and media is willing to use his own quotes, it is likely that we will know if he has involvement or not.  

Seeing the "red flags" of the case is concerning.  We have more questions than answers. 

He is, statistically, the most likely suspect but we do not have enough sample of his words to make a conclusion. 

Should he publicly speak, analysis will be posted.