Monday, April 27, 2020

Guest Submission: Greg Kelley: Statement Analysis


by Luke Kukovica

Greg Kelley was arrested and pled guilty to molesting a child. Since that time, he has been exonerated.

Media reported that the interview with the 4 year old alleged victim began with, "tell me what you told your mother"---

This is contamination.

It is very difficult to interview a four year old, even with specific training.

This raises questions:

Q. Could he have "done it", yet should not have been legally convicted due to the contaminated interview? Even with a clean interview of a child, it is difficult to obtain a conviction.

This does not provide justice for the victim, but it protects society overall as a standard of guilt is upheld.

Q. Could he have not "done it" and was just in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Q. Could someone else have sexually assaulted the child?

The analyst allows the reader to draw his or her own conclusion.

Context:

With such an offensive allegation, we look for the subject to plainly tell us that he did not touch the boy---meaning he will
stand behind the psychological "wall of truth" and be, himself, a victim of wrongful imprisonment.

This would be a priority and the basis of de facto innocence: he didn't do it.

When someone speaks in public, there is an expectation that the audience may choose to believe him or not to believe him. This is the freedom of opinion exampled here.



from media reports:


Time Line

Aug. 12, 2013: Kelley is arrested

Greg Kelley is arrested on a charge of sexual assault of a child. He was arrested on campus at Leander High School, where he was a student.

Aug. 29, 2013: Second accuser comes forward

A second 4-year-old boy comes forward with allegations of assault by Kelley.

July 8, 2014: Trial begins

Kelley's trial begins. With no physical evidence, the jury is expected to reach their decision based on the testimony of the two boys.

July 9, 2014: Victims testify, one recants

Both of the alleged victims testify on the second day of trial. One of the boys, testifying via closed circuit TV, denies that Kelley did anything to him.

July 11, 2014: Daycare owner testifies

The woman who owns the daycare where the alleged assault took place testifies in court. She said she believes Kelley is innocent. The detective who interviewed the alleged victim also admits that he asked leading questions during the interview.

July 16, 2014: Kelly found guilty, sentenced to 25 years

After more than 12 hours of deliberations, the jury finds Kelley guilty of two counts of super aggravated sexual assault of a child. He is sentenced to 25 years in prison without the possibility of parole.
RELATED:

Aug. 1, 2014: Kelley speaks to KVUE News

Kelley speaks out for the first time since going to jail in an exclusive interview with KVUE News.

Aug. 13, 2014: Kelley's attorney files motion for retrial

Kelley's attorney files a motion for a new trial.

Aug. 18, 2014: Williamson County responds to Kelley's request for a new trial


Aug. 29, 2014: New judge appointed

A new judge is appointed in Kelley's case after Judge Billy Ray Stubblefield recused himself.

Sept. 23, 2014: Judge denies new trial

A Williamson County judge denies the motion for a new trial for Kelley and canceled his Sept. 29 hearing. The judge's order said in part, "A discretionary hearing on the Motion For New Trial would achieve nothing. Even if the Court believed at hearing that the defendant was actually innocent, the Court would be specifically prohibited from granting the relief sought."

Feb. 11, 2016: Appeals court affirms conviction

A state appeals court rules against Kelley after two years of attempts to overturn his conviction. The defense team says they have evidence showing that Kelley could not have been at the daycare when the alleged abuse took place.


May 25, 2017: Authorities reopen Kelley case and identify new suspect

Williamson County District Attorney Shawn Dick said he received "credible" evidence that prompted Texas Rangers to investigate the case. New evidence indicates that Johnathan McCarty, whose mother operated the in-home daycare, may have been involved in the assault.

May 31, 2017: Kelley discusses case information in first prison sit-down interview

Greg Kelley sat down with KVUE's and the Austin American-Statesman's Tony Plohetski to discuss his relationship to an alternative suspect and the three years he has spent behind bars in his first prison sit-down interview. That alternative suspect was identified as Johnathan McCarty.


June 2, 2017: Judge issues order to return Kelley to Williamson Co. custody

A judge issued an order to return Kelley to Williamson County custody from the Wynne Unit in Huntsville. Plohetski said this move situated him to be better prepared for his hearing scheduled in the first week of August to have his conviction overturned


June 6, 2017: Hearing rescheduled for alternative suspect Johnathan McCarty

The probation revocation for Johnathan McCarty, held in the Williamson County jail on drug charges and allegedly violating his probation, was set for July 28.


June 8, 2017: Affidavits reveal new details in Kelley case

Affidavits revealed that a child who knew both Kelley and McCarty had trouble telling them apart and that McCarty told a second person that it was he who abused the boy. Kelley's defense suggested that it was possible the 4-year-old at the center of the case may have mistakenly identified his abuser based on the similarities between Kelley and McCarty.

June 12, 2017: Juror from Kelley trial says 'He should be exonerated for everything'

In an interview with Plohetski, A juror who said he was the last hold-out before convicting Kelley expressed deep regret that he collapsed under what he described as pressure from fellow jurors to find the former high school football star guilty.


"I was trying to bring up points – were y'all watching the same trial I was?" said the juror, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "I was trying to convince them."

Aug. 2, 2017: Family members, detectives testify on Day 1 of hearing

Kelley's brother testified that Kelley was with him helping the family move on the day the crime is thought to have been committed. Cedar Park Police Detective Chris Dailey testified that he thinks he did a thorough job in the investigation and stands by how he investigated the victim's claims. Prosecutors indicated that Dailey failed to do several things during the investigation he should have, including not going to the house where the child said the assault happened or seizing evidence the boy said was used in the assault.



Aug. 4, 2017: On Day 3, Judge rules Kelley is not to be released on bond

On the third day of Kelley's hearing, a judge ruled that Kelley would not be released on bond as she awaited findings of fact and conclusions of law. Kelley's attorney Keith Hampton and Williamson County District Attorney Shawn Dick spoke on the matter.

Aug. 18, 2017: Kelley's porn, deleted texts deemed 'not relevant' by district attorney

New revelations by the Texas Rangers in the child sexual assault case – including pornography, deleted texts and a reference to a selfie with a child – were deemed "not relevant in the courtroom" by District Attorney Shawn Dick. The DA said the pornography found on Kelley's phone was not child pornography.

Aug. 22, 2017: Greg Kelley released on bond

Three years after he was convicted of sexually assaulting a then-4-year-old boy, Kelley was released on bond.



Sept. 26, 2019: Kelley's attorney questions why appeal is lingering

The attorney for Kelley is questioning why the state's highest criminal court is taking so long with his appeal.
Kelley's attorney, in a court filing the week of Sept. 26, 2019, questioned whether a lawyer appointed by the court has secretly and improperly been working against Kelley.

Nov. 6, 2019: Kelley can move forward with this life after his conviction is overturned

Six years after Kelley was accused of sexually assaulting a boy, the state's highest criminal court has overturned his conviction, marking the end of a long and controversial case.
His case will be sent back to Williamson County, according to court documents obtained by KVUE Nov. 6. District Attorney Shawn Dick has indicated that he has no plans to go forward with the case, meaning Kelley can move forward with his life.


A man considered an alternate suspect in the high profile Greg Kelley sexual assault case will spend four years in prison after pleading guilty Wednesday in a different case.
Johnathan McCarty pleaded guilty to unlawful restraint and drug charges and will spend four years in prison. 
The Williamson County District Attorney’s Office had previously named McCarty as one of three alternate suspects in the 2013 sexual assault of a 4-year-old boy at a Leander daycare.
McCarty’s friend Greg Kelley was convicted of the crime but later freed in 2017 after the victim had trouble telling Kelley and McCarty apart. McCarty was never charged in connection with the boy’s sexual assault and Kelley remains free during the appeals process. 
After McCarty was named an alternate suspect, a woman came forward alleging McCarty had drugged and sexually assaulted her at a frat party in San Marcos in 2015. McCarty was 18 years old at the time and the alleged victim was 15. 
In a 2018 arrest affidavit in connection with the teen girl’s sexual assault, a Texas Ranger wrote that he interviewed several people who told him McCarty had allegedly sexually assaulted women in four different counties. 




(i) STATEMENT

Greg Kelley Telephone Interview July 31, 2014
Interviewer: Tom Miller
TM: Why don’t you fire away with what you wanted to say and after and then, um, maybe after like four or five minutes I’ll ask some questions
GK: OK
TM: OK. So
GK: Um
TM: Go ahead.
GK: Alright, well um, the first thing I wanted to say was...um...that um...during the investigate I was never questioned by police and was the only suspect of interest...uh...during the case...uh...of the charges I had...I’m the only suspect...uh...the other thing I want to come across is the police that investigated the home daycare where (the) assaults took place...um...the Cedar Park Police Department didn’t do a full investigation of all the children in the daycare <pause>...um...Another one is on stand, the detective admitted to erasing emails pertaining to potential evidence of the case. Um...he testified that he deleted over many...probably close to 100 emails...and...um... <unintelligible> investigator of childcare rights had <unintelligible> she testified she deleted emails as well, and they both broke company policy...um...because they weren’t supposed to delete evidence potential evidence of a case.
Um...uh...another one I wanna come across is...uh...mysteriously there was never a time or date...uh...provided that the alleged assault occurred on. Uh, they have an estimate date on April 15th, but they said it could have been...months, two months early and two months after um, couldn’t put down on one date when it occurred, Um…then last thing I would really really wanna poi--...um...point out on with you is the conviction was solely on the convoluted...uh...testimony of a four year-old...kid. Uh...there was no potential evidence...of...me...<pause> doing an assault. There was no eyewitnesses...of an assault...and um, my 25 year conviction was solely on a...on a word of a four year-old boy.
TM: Right. OK. And just because you said you have so little time...I I do just wanna sorta...you know, quickly ask you some questions that I think a lot of people are wondering about. Um...and one of them is just, you know, if you are innocent, why did you go ahead and agree to a 25 year prison sentence without the possibility of parole or an appeal?
GK: <clears throat> The reason why I did that is cuz I was pointed at two options after I was convicted. I was pointed at 25 years...um...without parole if I’d given it to the hands of judge, or if I give it to the jury and waive my right to appeal...um...or if I waive my right and go to a judge I serve 25 years, I give it to a jury and still have my right to appeal they’re gonna convict me between 25 to life without parole and I’ve already rolled the dice on not taking the plea bargain before trial which is my...it’s a probation plea bargain and...to me...in the eyes of a jury they think of me as a monster and they didn’t give me a fair trial at all. And...I’m not gonna roll that dice again….giving...them...my-the fate of my life, so 25 years I’ve got hope to get out when I’m 44 years old. Um...that’s exactly why I took that. Yeah so in my eyes it wasn’t a plea, it was hope for me getting wrongly convicted...and...you know...to see light at the end of the tunnel. Um...so...I’ve, I’ve accepted it because I was guilty I accepted it because I had no other way. I was already...they’d already convicted me.
TM: Why do you think they viewed you as a monster?
GK: Um...Because I’d would never have thought that they would have convicted me. I came in the courtroom...um...came in there with the full heart, um ready to walk out there with my family and my supporters...uh...and my heart was crushed when they convicted me. Um...on such a convoluted trial. Such a washed-up trial. Um...and...to me they just they just...seemed like they a mon--...they tho-- they thought I was a monster.
TM: I--
GK: When Um…that’s when just the Twitters thinkin, otherwise.
TM: I know you, um, you...you know, deny that the char--, that this every happened, but was there any partial truth to any of the accusations against you?
GK: <pause - Inhale> No. There’s no truth at all.
TM: Is there anything that you regret doing or wish you had done differently?
GK: No, not at all. Um, you know people ask me, you know, about taking that not taking that probation plea bargain and I said no...um...my mom told me to take it my my my family told me to...to really think about taking it I say no I’m not gonna do that. I’m I’m gonna...abide by the principal that I was...gown up with and my family taught me and...I’m not gonna accept such a horrible crime when I didn’t do it. That’s not my morals and that’s not my goals...that I’ve wanted to, uh, achieve in my life and that’s not...that’s just not me, so I didn’t take probation as a as an option.
TM: Do you regret that now, though, in hindsight?
GK: Um, I don’t. I don’t regret it. Cuz I’m not...I don’t regret it, no.
TM: Ok, um if if you had an opportunity to speak to the families of these children who accused you, what would you say?
GK: If I had an opportunity to talk to the families...um... first thing I’d say is...I’m sorry that your son is uh...thinking that something’s happened to him…um...but, I think he’s being very untruthful on his testimony and if something did happen to him, you just have the wrong guy. And I’d say, bottom line I’m sorry but you just have the wrong guy. Um…
TM: Were you ever alone with either of these boys?
GK: What was that?
TM: I said--
GK: Was I ever around them?
TM: Were you ever alone with either of these boys?
GK: No. I also testified on the stand that I was never alone...alone with them. <pause> There was always the presence of and adult.
TM: Why do you think they said these things happened?
GK: You know I had these questions asked to me plenty of times and...<pause> any kinda answer I can get in my head is I don’t know. I don’t know. And, we’re trying to find that out...answer...and not let me be in here any longer.
TM: What was your relationship with these two boys? Were you a role model for them? Were you a friend for them? Um…
GK: I felt like I was. I felt like I was, um...Cuz <unintelligible> the only ones that would, uh, interact with them. Uh, when nobody except for the daycare provider would. Uh, when I had free time, like I said on stand...um I would try to be in their lives too. <Unintelligible>, I was around them. I didn’t, I didn’t want them to think of me as a...big stranger...um...you know, I lived there and, I wanted to get to know...everybody that I was around, so...and I believe they looked at me as a role model because uh...they would always wanna high five me and...yeah.
TM: Ok. Um...Is there anything else you you feel like needs to be said...um...in terms of, you know clarifying for people who have a lot of questions? Um, I think a lot of people are are unsure what to think, um...and, you, know. Was there any--- I guess, and you know another question is just...did it, you know was there anything at all that happened? Was there anything that you believe was potentially borderline inappropriate that happened?
GK: No. Not at all. Not at all. As far as me, I was never inappropriate with the boys.
TM: Ok And--
GK: That’s one thing I can say is...in my point of view there is nothing inappropriate going on.
TM: Was there anything potentially inappropriate in...that could have been seen in somebody else’s point of view?
GK: No.
TM: And, um...you know I I had asked you is there anything else you know for people who are who are unsure...um...what would you say to them? People who don’t necessarily know what to think, cuz a lot of people think that something happened they’re just not sure what.
GK: Those people...<pause> they, um...you know...the only thing I can do is...say I, I didn’t do it. I mean, I wish I could reach for a mountain top and say I didn’t do it, and I wish people’d believe me, but apparently it’s, that’s not how this world works. Um...those people…you know, if they’ve, honestly, believe what you want to believe, but if you knew me as a person, if you knew what the things I want to do in my life, I would never have time or even the mindset of doing something that, that uh monstrous, so…
TM: I know--
GK: Uh…
TM: Go ahead.
GK: Oh, I’m I’m done.
TM: OK.
GK: Yeah.
TM: Um, from what I’ve seen, you and your family are people of faith. Why do you think this happened to you?
GK: You know, that’s...that’s an odd question. Uh...I believe it’s in God’s hands. Why it’s happened, the purpose <unintelligible> And now, this is just a speed bump in mine, and...uh...it’s not gonna change me as a man, it can only make me better, so…you know, I believe it’s just a plan for me...uh...you know. Bad things happen...you know...to good people and...uh, all the time.
TM: What are you hoping happens moving forward? Are you looking for a miracle?
GK: Of course, yes. <laughs> I...I pray every night that something something will come out and...show my innocence and...I can get outta here and go back to my everyday life. Um...but yeah I’ve but many supporters tyring to get me outta here cuz they know the true me. They know who I am. They know what I represent. So...yes, I’m hoping for a miracle.
TM: You know, I just wanted to ask you another, one of the questions I asked you earlier, it was sorta un--... hard to hear. You know, again...you know, if you are innocent why would you go ahead and give up 25 years of your life without the possibility of a parole or an appeal?
GK: I didn’t have a choice. I was, I went to trial...fighting, I went to trial to fight for my life. I testified for my life, I testified...to prove my innocence...when it’s not even supposed to be that way, it’s supposed to...it’s supposed to <unintelligible> I had the right to remain silent and I didn’t, and...I fought for my...I fought for my testimony and...um, I took that because I was convicted. I was wrongly convicted, because I didn’t have a choice. In 25 years I saw light outside of a tunnel. I didn’t get the nu--...uh...if I took it to a jury they could convict me to life without parole. <recording states ‘You have 1 minute’> I only have one minute remaining so… Um, I gave it to a jury and, if I woulda gave it to a jury they coulda gave me life and I couldn’t handle that. So...
TM: OK. Um is uh, is there anything you, you wanna say in this last minute?
GK: Um, the only thing is I didn’t do it and...I think, you know...the truth’ll come out, and...um, the truth’ll set me free.

TM: Ok. Alright, Mr. Kelley, um, thank you so much for speaking with me.


(ii) STATEMENT WITH ANALYSIS
This is the statement analysis of Greg Kelley interview shortly after his conviction for sexual assault of a young boy. This interview was conducted over the telephone with Tom Miller. 
The original words are in italics, the colors and underlined text is for emphasis, the analysis is in bold.
This is the link to the interview. 
The subject pauses often and stumbles/repeats words at the start of many sentences.  These can be indicators of sensitivity, a need to think about what to say or it can be the baseline manner of which a subject speaks. 

In the case of needing time to think this can mean the subject is being careful of what to say. A person speaking from memory will not have problems or need to think about what to say, what words to choose, what verb tense or pronoun to use or the sequence of events. An innocent person will generally use less caution in choosing words. 

In Statement Analysis: The term "innocence" is seen in two ways:

Judicial innocence 

De facto innocence. 

The former is legal, while the latter is that the subject did not "do it."

One may be "innocent" in a court of law while still having had committed the offense. 

In an egregious allegation, we listen for the subject to tell us

"I did not sexually touch..." in some form where he uses

1. The pronoun "I"

2. Past tense verb

3. The allegation addressed

but also as a priority. This form of allegation is repugnant and the de facto innocent is being imprisoned for something he did not do. Therefore, the priority should be this psychological "wall of truth" from which he is protected from the false allegation.

In those who did not commit the offense, it is linguistically "front and center" for them--- the priority above all else.


Greg Kelley Telephone Interview July 31, 2014
Interviewer: Tom Miller
TM: Why don’t you fire away with what you wanted to say and after and then, um, maybe after like four or five minutes I’ll ask some questions.
  1. Tom Miller sets up the dialogue. He begins at a point likely after the general introductions and it indicates that some information is missing. There appears to have been a discussion as he indicates that Greg Kelley has previously prepared to say something or has a planned statement to read. Note, Tom Miller uses the words, “what you wanted to say” indicating that the subject may have already told the interviewer he had prepared to say something. 
GK: OK
TM: OK. So
GK: Um
TM: Go ahead.
GK: Alright, well um, the first thing I wanted to say was...um...that um...during the investigate I was never questioned by police and was the only suspect of interest...uh...during the case...uh...of the charges I had...I’m the only suspect...uh...
  1. “Alright, well um, …” The subject stumbles a lot when he speaks (there is another interview which is on camera and the language is similar) so it is unknown if he is reading a prepared statement or not. Giving the remarks of the interviewer and that the interview was scheduled it is likely that it was a prepared statement. Since it seems his pattern the weight given will have to be weighed against the rest of the interview.
  2. The subject does not start his statement with the pronoun “I”. The pronoun “I” indicated the speaker’s commitment to the words that will follow. This does not indicate deception but it does reduce the commitment to the words. When the personal pronoun is present it is an indicates the speaker is linguistically present.
  3. “the first thing I wanted to say was...um...” Often where a person begins is the priority for the subject and can be the reason for the statement. The subject starts with the numeric “the first thing” indicating he is at least thinking of a second or third etc. It also indicates importance to the subject being “first thing” elevating his priority. 
  4. “the first thing I wanted to say was...um...” Note, the subject doesn’t go on to say what is “the first thing” rather he says “the first thing I wanted to say” By including the wordwantedthe subject indicates linguistic reservation to saying what will follow. It indicates that he can’t say but would like to say. Note, the interviewer had said “wanted” in his opening statement, therefore “wanted” maybe parroting while it is also possible the interviewer is parroting the subject as the subject indicated he had something to say at the beginning of conversation and uses it for introducing his various points. 
  5. “the first thing I wanted to say was...um...that um...during the investigate I was never questioned by police …” To support that the words that follow are what he “wanted” to say rather than something he “could say” we note that there is a pause or stumble in his speech, “… um…that um…” followed by the error in grammar using the word “investigate” where it looks that the word should be “investigation”. This could be due to the subject’s knowledge that the information is not as he states. Note, the Cedar Park, Texas Chief of Police Sean Mannix, explains why the subject was not interviewed in a statement, (the reader is encourage to read the statement and draw their own conclusions) linked here, https://watchkeep.blogspot.com/2014/08/cedar-park-police-chief-on-greg-kelley.html
  6. “… during the investigate I was never questioned by police and was the only suspect of interest.” Note, the subject does not state why he was “never” questioned by police. It is confirmed by the Chief of Police which is detailed in the statement linked above. He is telling only part of the truth. The subject then goes on to say, “and was the only suspect of interest”. Note, while grammatically acceptable the pronoun “I” has not been included, “and ( _ ) was the only suspect of interest”. The lack of the pronoun “I” at this point could be distancing, where the subject is linguistically absent. Then we have the unnecessary addition of the words “of interest”, this punctuates the subject’s spotlight on himself. Unnecessary words are only unnecessary to the listener, they are important to very important to the speaker. Would an innocent add the words “of interest”? 
  7. “… the only suspect of interest...uh...during the case...uh...of the charges I had...I’m the only suspect...uh...” Note, the subject pauses repeatedly and appears to self-censor his language, begin with one thought and changing to another, “… of the charges I had...I’m the only suspect …”. Note these lines are the subject’s priority in the statement and important to the subject. They are also very sensitive to the subject. The subject applies ownership with the strong personal pronoun, “I”, “I had … “I’m the only suspect.” This is not an admission to the assault but that he is the “only suspect”. An innocent may not claim the title of “the only suspect”, an innocent would know there exists another suspect because the innocent would know it had to have been someone else. Note, the subject is not attributing the words, “the only suspect” to the police or the media. “the only suspect of interest” vs the expected, “the only person of interestThis is unnecessary language as all “suspects” are of interest whereas not allpersonsare of interest. He also repeats the words, “the only suspect”, making it sensitive to him.
  8.  “I had … “I’m the only suspect.” Note, the subject changes from past tense to present tense “had” to “I’m = I am the only suspect”. Is the subject acknowledging guilty knowledge as “the only suspect”?
  9. The subject began the statement by placing blame at the police investigation. This is unexpected. The expected would be a reliable denial of the charges. A reliable denial requires three elements in the free editing process. The free editing process is the subject’s own words offered freely without a prompt or as an answer to a specific question such as “did you do it?” The three elements are the pronoun “I”, the past tense verb, “I did not” or “I didn’t” and the specific action/crime the person is accused of. If one of the elements is missing the denial is unreliable. That is not to say it is false or the subject is guilty rather that the denial is unreliable. If the subject can’t deny the crime/accusation then the audience/listener should not do it for him. 

the other thing I want to come across is the police that investigated the home daycare where the assault(s) (it is unclear if he said assault or assaults which would make a difference to the analysis) took place...um...the Cedar Park Police Department didn’t do a full investigation of all the children in the daycare <pause>...um...
  1. Continuing the logic from “the first thing”, the subject now comes to point number two, “the other thing”, and again he employs the word “want”. Similar to the “first thing” it is what he “wants” to say but has linguistic reservations. This reservation is supported by the qualifying words “to come across”. This weakens any claim he “wants” to make as it isn’t presented as a statement of fact but something “I want to come across …”.
  2. Does the suspect provide an embedded admission “home daycare where the assault(s) took place”? Again, he is not attributing the statement to the police or the media, he is saying “the assault(s) took place”. Note, his initial defense was that the assaults never occurred. 
  3. “… the Cedar Park Police Department didn’t do a full investigation of all the children in the daycare …” Why does the subject say “all of the children”? To bring “all the children” into his language is troubling. Are there more victims?  
  4. “all of the children”, The subject looks to deflect, blame others, to take the focus off himself instead of saying what he did or didn’t do. As in the “first thing” the subject presents process or procedural items not evidence of innocence. 
  5. In this, “the other thing” the subject has not denied assaulting the boy(s).

Another one is on stand, the detective admitted to erasing emails pertaining to potential evidence of the case. Um...he testified that he deleted over many...probably close to 100 emails...and...um... <unintelligible> investigator of childcare rights had <unintelligible> she testified she deleted emails as well, and they both broke company policy...um...because they weren’t supposed to deleted evidence potential evidence of a case.
  1. The subject brings in point number three, “another one is”. This third one is worded in passive language; passive language is used to conceal identity and or responsibility. “the detective admitted to erasing emails pertaining to potential evidence of the case …” The subject does not say whose emails they are to and from. He minimizes the importance of the emails with the word “potential”. The subject can not say it “was evidence”. Note, lying out right is rare and stressful, people will use words to conceal and deceive. 
  2. “Um...he testified that he deleted over many...probably close to 100 emails...and...um... <unintelligible> investigator of childcare licensing had <unintelligible> she testified she deleted emails as well, and they both broke company policy …” The subject puts possible breach of “company policy” as a means to claim he was not given a fair hearing. What he doesn’t do is outline how this breach of policy impacts his case. He does not say who wrote the emails or who they were between. He does not say what the content of the emails are. Without this information the claim is more a tangent to deflect from himself and the evidence that was presented in his trial. The pauses, self-censoring and stumbling language indicate the subject’s sensitivity to the topic.  
  3. “...um...because they weren’t supposed to delete evidence potential evidence of a case.” Note, after saying “delete evidence” he corrects to “potential evidence” an indication he does not believe it to be evidence. This is also supported by the addition of the words “of a case”, distancing it from “his case”.  
  4. Note the language, “erasing emails pertaining to “potential evidence” / “deleted” (not “erased”) emails / “deleted”? / “evidence”, “potential evidence”. He can only say “potential evidence.” He knows what he is doing. If there was real evidence is it likely his conviction would stand? He corrects himself on “evidence” The emails that were “erased” only pertained to potential evidence – how far back on the starting grid does he wish to be in making an assertion? She however only “deleted” emails. She didn’t delete “potential evidence” which is repeated. He goes from “potential evidence” to “evidence” to “potential evidence.” This is weak.
  5. The subject continues to present process or procedure as evidence without providing a link between the two. 

Um...uh...another one I wanna come across is...uh...mysteriously there was never a time or date...uh...provided that the alleged assault occurred on. Uh, they have an estimate date on April 15th, but they said it could have been...months, two months early and two months after um, couldn’t put down on one date when it occurred,
  1. “Um...uh...another one I wanna come across is...uh...” The subject provides a fourth point, again, qualified with “I wanna come across”. The same linguistic distancing with the word “wanna” and “come across”. 
  2. The subject then adds the word “mysteriously” which is to make the investigation by police suspect and unreliable. 
  3. Note the order, “… mysteriously there was never a time or date...” “time” comes before “date”. This is unexpected as people generally say “date and time” not “time and date”. Unless it is his normal speech it is significant as “time” takes priority over “date” to the subject. “time” in relation to the assaults is something that should be explored. 
  4. “Uh, they have an estimate date on April 15th, but they said it could have been...months, two months early and two months after …” The subject is not denying the accusations rather attempting to put dispersions on the evidence.
  5. “… um, couldn’t put down on one date when it occurred, …” While trying to highlight the lack of a specific “Time or date” the subject linguistically gives credence to the assault happening “when it occurred”. The subject does not provide a qualifier like, “alleged” as he did previously or say when it supposedly occurred”. 
  6. Note, the subject adds “couldn’t” in the negative which is an indication of heightened sensitivity, “couldn’t put down on one date when it occurred”. The subject’s inclusion of “one date” indicates that there could be more than one assault. Note, there was more than “one” event/date that constituted the charges against Greg Kelley. 
Um…then last thing I would really really wanna poi--...um...point out on with you is the conviction was solely on the convoluted...uh...testimony of a four year-old...kid. 
  1. The subject continues with the logic and provides the fifth and “last thing”. This supports the probability that he has prepared his statement, going from “first thing” to “last thing”
  2. The subject adds “really really” which indicates heightened sensitivity to this “last thing”. As well as sensitivity it weakens the strength of the claim. The addition of these qualifiers indicate a lack of linguistic commitment to what will follow. The words, “really really” are his attempt to elevate his claim. Truth does not need qualifiers or boosting, truth stands strong on its own. 
  3. Again, it is something he wants to do, “wanna poi … um … point out”, the same linguistic reservation to plainly stating his case. This linguistic reservation is also supported by his stumbling over the words, pauses and the words themselves. “point out” is not a claim of lack of guilt, it is not evidence of lack of guilt. It is a linguistic tangent to hope the audience interprets it as proof of innocence.  
  4. “… is the conviction was solely on the convoluted...uh...testimony of a four year-old...kid.” The subject tries to make his conviction hinge on a “four year-old … kid.” By using the word “solely”. He does not say the “kid” lied; he saysconvoluted … uh … testimony”. The qualifying word “convoluted” is an attempt to indicate the “testimony” is somehow suspect. It is linguistic manipulation of the audience. He does not say the “kid” is mistaken or wrong. He does not say “I didn’t sexually assault the kid.”  
Uh...there was no potential evidence...of...me...<pause> doing an assault. There was no eyewitnesses...of an assault...and um, my 25 year conviction was solely on a...on a word of a four year-old boy.

  1. “Uh...there was no potential evidence...of...me...<pause> doing an assault.” The subject adds the unnecessary word “potential” to “evidence”. This is unexpected. If innocent the expected would simply be “no evidence”, so the inclusion of the word “potential” suggests there is evidence and it should be explored beyond what the police have. 
  2. “potential evidence” is repeated from a couple of lines previous making it sensitive. The ongoing theme of “potential” evidence might be due to no evidence of innocence exists. The inclusion of this unnecessary word can create doubt in his audience.
  3. “There was no eyewitnesses...of an assault...” Note, the subject says “eyewitnesses” plural not the expected “eyewitness” singular to match the verb “was” singular
  4. How would the subject know there “was no eyewitnesses” why not deny the assault or his involvement? He is stating there were none, not that the police or district attorney didn’t present any. Who would know there “was no eyewitnesses”? 
  5. Note, repeated words and or phrases indicate they are sensitive to the speaker. Here we find “solely”, “conviction” and “assault” all repeated. There are also two changes of language, “kid” becomes “boy” and “testimony” becomes “word”. When there is a change in language there should be a change in the linguistic reality of the subject. If there isn’t such a change consider deception at this point of the statement. The change in reality is often associated with emotion. The change occurs with the introduction of the word “assault”. This indicates veracity of the statement. It does not indicate innocence. It may show the emotional link to the change in language due to the “assault” being real and personal. The subject has not denied the “assault”. The subject has linked it to himself with the pronoun “my”, “my 25 year conviction” to the assault. The expected from an innocent person would be “and um the 25 year conviction was …”. 
  6. The subject uses language that belittles and demeans the four year old boy first with, “was solely on the convoluted...uh...testimony of a four year-old...kid.” then again with,my 25 year conviction was solely on a...on a word of a four year-old boy.” This demeaning and belittling language directed at a four-year-old is victim blaming. Guilty people often will use subtle and non-subtle forms of victim blaming to justify themselves. 

TM: Right. OK. And just because you said you have so little time...I I do just wanna sorta...you know, quickly ask you some questions that I think a lot of people are wondering about. Um...and one of them is just, you know, if you are innocent, why did you go ahead and agree to a 25 year prison sentence without the possibility of parole or an appeal?
GK: <clears throat> The reason why I did that is cuz I was pointed at two options after I was convicted. I was pointed at 25 years...um...without parole if I’d given it to the hands of judge, or if I give it to the jury and waive my right to appeal...um...or if I waive my right and go to a judge I serve 25 years, 
  1. The subject repeats the question in his answer, this parroting gives him time to formulate an answer. It also indicates the question is sensitive, something that is also supported by the pauses. 
  2. The subject repeats the unexpected words “I was pointed” twice heightening the sensitivity to the question. Expected would be “I was given”. “pointed” is peculiar, more like a visual reference provided by someone else. His family or counsel might have “pointed” it out to him given the way the trial unfolded. 
I give it to a jury and still have my right to appeal they’re gonna convict me between 25 to life without parole
  1. The subject would keep his right to appeal if he went with the jury but supposedly not with the plea he took. So why was he given an appeal? The subject says, “they’re gonna convict me between 25 to life without parole …” This shows he had no faith in himself or his case to take this route. 
and I’ve already rolled the dice on not taking the plea bargain before trial which is my...it’s a probation plea bargain and
  1. Note the language of the subject, I’ve already rolled the dice on not taking the plea bargain …” This is unexpected. An innocent would not likely say they were “rolling the dice” in reference to pre-trail plea offer. 
...to me...in the eyes of a jury they think of me as a monster and they didn’t give me a fair trial at all.
  1. The subject in his own words introduces “monster” to describe himself, again, not attributed to others, he himself with the words “to me”,...to me...in the eyes of a jury they think of me as a monster …” The subject does not attribute these words to the “jury”, it is an important distinction. It is his linguistic reality. Has he projected his thoughts on the jury? He does not say how he knows the thoughts of the jury. Using the words, “in the eyes of a jury” supports projection, “eyes” = seeing.
  2. “… and they didn’t give me a fair trial at all.” Note the unnecessary addition of the words “at all” at the end of the sentence. This becomes a need to persuade, to bolster his words and an indication he does not believe his own words. This is seen in the need to add these words. This illustrates how unnecessary words are necessary to the speaker. One would need to ask the subject what “a fair trial” means to him. So far, he has only spoken to process not evidence. This is manipulation.
 And...I’m not gonna roll that dice again….giving...them...my-the fate of my life, so 25 years I’ve got hope to get out when I’m 44 years old. Um...that’s exactly why I took that. Yeah so in my eyes it wasn’t a plea, it was hope for me getting wrongly convicted...and...you know...to be light at the end of the tunnel.
  1. “And...I’m not gonna roll that dice again….giving...them...my-the fate of my life, …” The subject repeats “rolling that dice”, making it sensitive to him. He did not have confidence in himself or the jury, “… giving...them...my-the fate of my life, …” Would an innocent person refer to a jury trial as “rolling the dice”? 
  2. The subject has accepted being incarcerated for 25 years, “so 25 years I’ve got hope to get out when I’m 44 years old.” This is not the expected language of an innocent person.
  3. “Um...that’s exactly why I took that.” The addition of the unnecessary word, “exactly” indicates that there is likely another reason for why he “took that.” The unnecessary word makes it a need to persuade. A need to persuade often indicates the opposite.    
  4. “Yeah so in my eyes it wasn’t a plea, it was hope for me getting wrongly convicted...and...you know...to be light at the end of the tunnel.” The subject uses the words, “in my eyes …” this allows for someone else’s eyes to see it differently. An innocent person does not allow that in their language, they do not have one truth for themselves and allow for a different truth for others. “Yeah so in my eyes it wasn’t a plea, …” The subject also indicates acceptance of incarceration, “it wasn’t a plea”. Does that mean he has accepted that it is justice? The subject has repeated the word “eyes”, he applies subjective reasoning in his language. It is an indication he applies subjectivity in his life view.  Truth is not subjective.
  5. “… for me getting wrongly convicted ...” The words “wrongly convicted” are not the same as “not guilty” nor is it a substitute forI didn’t sexually assault the boy”. “wrongly convicted” speaks to the mechanics of the trial or the prosecution and is subjective. This allows a person to be deceptive without outright lying.  
Um...so...I’ve, I’ve accepted it because I was guilty I accepted it because I had no other way. I was already...they’d already convicted me.
  1. The brain knows what the brain knows. “Um...so...I’ve, I’ve accepted it because I was guilty I accepted it because I had no other way.” This is an admission of guilt, no longer just an embedded admission. The stumbling on the pronoun “I” with “I’ve, I’ve accepted …” indicate sensitivity bordering stress. As in the sentences above where he indicated acceptance here the subject could not hold it in and it comes out. 
  2. “I accepted it because I had no other way.”  The subject adds “I had no other way.” This too is not the language of an innocent person. An innocent person will not accept a guilt as a matter of pragmatism. The person may accept the situation they find themselves in but not the crime. This is the subject telling us the WHY of accepting the plea. The WHY is the highest form of sensitivity in statement analysis. In this sentence the subject gives two reasons WHY. “I had no other way” is his reality because, to use his words, “because I was guilty”.
  3. “Um...so...I’ve, I’ve accepted it because I was guilty I accepted it because I had no other way. I was already... they’d already convicted me.” This is the language of someone who has guilty knowledge, “rolled the dice” and has accepted the outcome.

TM: Why do you think they viewed you as a monster?
GK: Um...Because I’d would never have thought that they would have convicted me. I came in the courtroom...um...came in there with the full heart, um ready to walk out there with my family and my supporters...uh...and my heart was crushed when they convicted me. 
  1. The subject is asked why he thought they viewed him as a monster. He says, “Um...Because I’d would never have thought that they would have convicted me.” The subject is blaming the jury for his thoughts. He is projecting what he perceives on to himself since he has not attributed being a “monster” as something said by them.  
  2. Um...Because I’d would never have thought that they would have convicted me.” Note the language. The future perfect conditional “would never have” and “would have” elongate time looking back from the present. Why did he not say, “I didn’t think they would convict me.” It takes much fewer words and effort. People use the fewest words necessary to convey their thought(s) or intention(s) to others with the intent of being understood. This is referred to in statement analysis as the rule of economy. When this rule is broken, we look to see why.  As stated previously unnecessary words are necessary and often very necessary to the speaker. Could this be why he took the 25 years with no parole or appeal? Does this explain why he “rolled the dice” the first time? 
  3. “I came in the courtroom...um...came in there with the full heart, um ready to walk out there with my family and my supporters...uh...and my heart was crushed when they convicted me.” The subject repeats the word “heart”. Repeated words indicate sensitivity and importance to the speaker. Why does he say “heart”? Why not say “I came in expecting to be acquitted”? This is distancing from self, the “good heart” of someone who does bad things? This is dissociative language.
  4. From the abundance of the “heart” the mouth speaks. This is Biblical reference that what is in the “heart” come forth through the mouth. 

Um...on such a convoluted trial. Such a washed-up trial. Um...and...to me they just they just...seemed like they a mon--...they tho-- they thought I was a monster.
  1. The subject repeats the qualifier “convoluted” and adds “washed -up” to describe the trial. He does not say how they are “convoluted” or “washed-up”. This makes his words a need to persuade. People use the need to persuade when the opposite is often the case. Does he use derogatory qualifiers because he has no argument?
  2. Note the pauses and stumbles as he struggles to form a sentence. This indicates sensitivity and a need to be careful about what he says. 
  3. “they thought I was a monster.” How does he know the thoughts of the jury? These are his words. He does not claim the jury or the media said he was a “monster.”
TM: I--
GK: When Um…that’s when just the Twitters thinkin, otherwise.
  1. “When Um…that’s when just the Twitters thinkin, otherwise.” The subject talks over the interviewer at this point indicating importance to the subject. Note, it includes the element of time, “when” then repeated “that’s when” referring to a specific time with the word “that”. The subject does not tell what “that” time is. He includes the word “just” which is a comparative word, meaning it only works in a sentence when there is a comparison in the mind of the speaker. This means the subject is thinking, comparing in his mind with at least one other thing. 
  2. Note this sentence is in-congruent. It does not make sense. It appears an attempt to shift this to the social media “Twitter”. He does not say he is shifting it to “Twitter”. In deceptive people they word things vaguely to make something look a certain way without saying it themselves. 
TM: I know you, um, you...you know, deny that the char--, that this even happened, but was there any partial truth to any of the accusations against you?
  1. The interviewer poses a yes or no question. Yes or no questions are not good questions for gathering information and they are less stressful for a person to lie when answering.
GK: <pause - Inhale> No. There’s no truth at all.
  1. The pause at the start is an indication that the subject needs time to answer.
  2. The question is a yes or no question. Any word after yes or no indicates sensitivity, the more words use the less reliable the answer becomes. It indicates a need to persuade.
  3. “No” by itself is a good answer, here the subject goes beyond “no” and parrots back part of the question weakening the claim. Adding “at all” is a linguistic shutting down of the question. An indication the subject would like to distance from the topic. 

TM: Is there anything that you regret doing or wish you had done differently?
GK: No, not at all. Um, you know people ask me, you know, about taking that not taking that probation plea bargain and I said no...um...my mom told me to take it my my my family told me to...to really think about taking it I say no I’m not gonna do that. I’m I’m gonna...abide by the principal that I was...gown up with and my family taught me and...I’m not gonna accept such a horrible crime when I didn’t do it. That’s not my morals and that’s not my goals...that I’ve wanted to, uh, achieve in my life and that’s not...that’s just not me, so I didn’t take probation as a as an option.
  1. “No, not at all.” The answer could be a yes or no, the addition here of “not at all.” Weakens the claim and indicates the question is sensitive to the subject. The addition of “at all” could indicate regret.
  2. The subject then goes on at length about what he doesn’t regret. “Um, you know people ask me, you know, about taking that not taking that probation plea bargain and I said no...um...my mom told me to take it my my my family told me to...to really think about taking it I say no I’m not gonna do that.” That is a lot of words for “no, not at all”. The subject says “you know” twice close together. “you know” often indicates sensitivity and an acute awareness of the interviewer. If commonly used it is not given much weight. The subject does not use it often therefore a greater weight towards sensitivity is given. When viewed with the stuttering, pauses and self-censoring it shows heightened sensitivity to the subject.
  3. “… my mom told me to take it my my my family told me to...to really think about taking it …” The subject brings his mother, “my mom” and then his family, “my my my family” into his language in his answer to the “no, not at all” regret and in this he tells us he was advised to take the earlier plea. The triple stutter on “my” for “my my my family” indicates high sensitivity and may indicate stress. Consider he has regret.
  4. “I say no I’m not gonna do that. I’m I’m gonna...abide by the principal that I was...gown up with and my family taught me and...I’m not gonna accept such a horrible crime when I didn’t do it.” The subject continues with the pauses, repeated words and phrases and self-censoring. Note, the subject also tells us what he isn’t “gonna do” two times in these few lines. Language presented in the negative indicates sensitivity to the speaker. We expect people to tell us what happened and what they did. When they tell us what they are not going to do or didn’t do, it tells us the topic is sensitive to them. Note, when he tells us what he is “gonna do”, “I’m, I’m gonna …” he stumbles on “I’m” repeating it, he stumbles on what he is going to do not what he isn’t “gonna do”.
  5. “… abide by the principal that I was...gown up with and my family taught me …” Note the subject does not say what “the principal that …” he grew up with is, nor what his, “my family taught me …”, this is passive language, passivity is often used avoid or conceal responsibility. 
  6. “I’m not gonna accept such a horrible crime when I didn’t do it.” The subject states, in the negative, “not gonna accept such a horrible crime” which is not a denial of the crime. The addition of “such” and “horrible” become a need to persuade they are so bad that he couldn’t have done it. 
  7. “… such a horrible crime when I didn’t do it.” Note, this is not a reliable denial as has been explained earlier. It is further weakened as a denial with the inclusion of the word “when”. The subject introduces the element of time when the expected would be a direct denial of the event using the word “which”. The element of time would allow the appearance of a denial without a direct lie since time nor the actual crime is specified in these lines. “I didn’t do it”, this language is often employed in deceptive people with the hope that the audience will see it as a denial of the charges. By using the word “it” without any reference to the specific crime the subject hopes the audience will consider it to be the specific crime. The crime is not specified once in the entire interview.  
  8. “That’s not my morals and that’s not my goals...that I’ve wanted to, uh, achieve in my life and that’s not...that’s just not me, so I didn’t take probation as a as an option.” Note the subject’s language, again offered in the negative. “not my morals”, “not my goals” “and that’s not (pause)… that’s just not me”. This is continued heightened sensitivity to the question on “regrets”. When people speak in this disassociated manner, “that’s just not me” it indicates they wish to distance themselves from the real person who did bad things. It is an indicator of guilt or guilty knowledge, as in the “real me” wouldn’t do those “horrible crimes”. 
  9. “That’s not my morals and that’s not my goals...that I’ve wanted to, uh, achieve in my life and that’s not...that’s just not me, so I didn’t take probation as a as an option.” An innocent person is unlikely to speak in this dissociative manner as it indicates the speaker is distancing for self. It is how guilt would influence a person’s language.
  10. “so I didn’t take probation as a as an option.” The addition of “as an option” is out of place for someone who is innocent of the crime. To an innocent the only option is truth. A guilty person would consider the plea an option. Note, the subject is discussing a pre-trial option of a plea which would have given him “probation”. He chose to “roll the dice” and ended up convicted, he, in his own words “I’m not gonna roll that dice again”.

TM: Do you regret that now, though, in hindsight?
GK: Um, I don’t. I don’t regret it. Cuz I’m not...I don’t regret it, no.
  1. The interviewer rephrases the question. Possibly because his answer sounded a lot like a lot of “regret” and the answer did not satisfy the interviewer. This can also be seen in the repeated or rephrasing of why he took the judgement of 25 years with no appeal and no parole.  Consider that the interviewer does not believe the subject. 
  2. This is a yes or no question. Any words after “no” or in this case “I don’t” indicate sensitivity. Note, in this short line we see an initial pause, “I don’t.” then repeated with additional words, “I don’t regret it.” Then the beginnings of an explanation or a denial which is not completed, “Cuz I’m not …” followed by a repeat of “I don’t regret it, …” and finally “no”. The subject is deceptive. He took this plea which is much harsher than the first one he was offered. 
  3. “Cuz I’m not …” What was the subject going to say? Was he going to say “Cuz I’m not guilty”? People do not like to lie outright as it is stressful so it is rarer than many people think. People will generally rely on the withholding of information for deception. 
TM: Ok, um if if you had an opportunity to speak to the families of these children who accused you, what would you say?
GK: If I had an opportunity to talk to the families...um... first thing I’d say is...I’m sorry that your son is uh...thinking that something’s happened to him…um...but, I think he’s being very untruthful on his testimony and if something did happen to him, you just have the wrong guy. And I’d say, bottom line I’m sorry but you just have the wrong guy. Um…
  1. The subject parrots back the question, this is because he is not prepared to answer and this gives him time to formulate a reply. It is a verbal pause which is then followed by an actual pause. Then followed by the “first thing”. As before when someone starts with a “first” there needs to be a second third etc. in his mind. 
  2. The “first thing I’d say is (pause) I’m sorry …” In statement analysis the word “sorry” is always flagged. It does not on its own mean deception or guilt. Still it is a word that is frequently found in statements of guilty people and therefore flagged. The addition of the personal pronoun, “I” provides linguistic commitment. I’m sorry could be leakage of both guilt and regret. We do not expect it from one incarcerated falsely.
  3. NOTE, it is in his reply to the question, “if you had an opportunity to speak to the families of these children who accused you, what would you say?” It is significant that “first thing I’d say is … I’m sorry …”
  4. “… first thing I’d say is...I’m sorry that your son is uh...thinking that something’s happened to him …” Note, the subject uses the present continuous tense “thinking” in “thinking that something’s happened to him.” This is unexpected. This is the linguistic reality of the subject. Expected, would be “thought” as in “thought something’s happened to him”, to use the present continuous tells us the subject is “thinking” about it. Is the subject reliving the assault?  
  5. “…um...but, I think he’s being very untruthful on his testimony and if something did happen to him, you just have the wrong guy.” The subject then says “but”. “but” is a word that refutes or minimizes by comparison what came before. This is to refute or minimize, ““… first thing I’d say is...I’m sorry that your son is uh...thinking that something’s happened to him …”.
  6. “…um...but, I think he’s being very untruthful on his testimony and if something did happen to him, you just have the wrong guy.” The subject qualifies his claim that the boy is “very untruthful on his testimony” with the words “I think”. By adding “I think” the subject allows for others to think otherwise. “I think” is unexpected. If he is innocent, he would know and not add “I think” to his claim. NOTE, the subject knows whether the boy is “untruthful” or not making his qualified assertion a deception.
  7. Note, the subject adds the word “very” to “untruthful”, it is an unnecessary word and seeks to persuade.
  8. “… and if something did happen to him, you just have the wrong guy. And I’d say, bottom line I’m sorry but you just have the wrong guy. Um…” The subject repeats “you just have the wrong guy” twice. The subject puts the word “just” which is a comparative word and only works when the speaker has at least one other thought regarding the topic. Here it weakens his claim, his claim about “the wrong guy”. Had he said, “you have the wrong guyillustrates how strong the language is in comparison. The repetition is sensitive on its own and then the second time he said it he adds, also for the second time in this short reply the words “I’m sorry”.
  9. The subject does not continue the logic he began with, “the first” was not followed by a second, so we do not know what else he was thinking about to produce the words “the first”. 
  10. Is it the mentioning of “the families”, the victims, that brings the “I’m sorry” in to the subject’s language?

TM: Were you ever alone with either of these boys?
GK: What was that?
TM: I said--
GK: Was I ever around them?
TM: Were you ever alone with either of these boys?
GK: No. I also testified on the stand that I was never alone...alone with them. <pause> There was always the presence of and adult.
  1. “no” would be a strong reply. The subject responds beyond the yes or no of the question indicating sensitivity. 
  2. Note, the subject goes to self-referencing, “I also testified on the stand that I was never alone...alone with them.” The subject refers back to his own testimony rather that simply say “I was never alone with them”. When a person references back to their previous words it is a distancing or reluctance to say the words (unless they were asked what they said previously which is not the case here). Why this is important is it avoids an outright lie or repeating an outright lie. Lying is stressful and people instinctively avoid it in most cases. While that is not a confirmation of deception it is a tactic of deceptive people
  3. “I also testified on the stand that I was never alone...alone with them.” The subject uses “testified on the stand” as a possible need to persuade validity.
  4. “I also testified on the stand that I was never alone...alone with them.” Note the word “never” is not a substitute for “no” or “not”. The word “never” encompasses time to infinity which can water down an event. The word “never” does not conclude deception, it is an unreliable marker and unreliable does also not conclude deception. Being unreliable means, it warrants further questioning and exploration. 
  5. “No. I also testified on the stand that I was never alone...alone with them.” The subject hesitates and then repeats the word “alone”, this is an indication of heightened sensitivity regarding being “alone” with them. It indicates a need for care regarding the words he uses. 
  6. “There was always the presence of and adult.” Note, the subject does not say “he was” or “we were”, by using the passive “there was” he can qualify as the “adult presence”. Passivity is used to hide identity and or responsibility. This is how a person can deceive without lying.  

TM: Why do you think they said these things happened?
GK: You know I had these questions asked to me plenty of times and...<pause> any kinda answer I can get in my head is I don’t know. I don’t know. And, we’re trying to find that out...answer...and not let me be in here any longer.
  1. “You know I had these questions asked to me plenty of times and ...” Instead of answering the question the subject refers back to the question. This is to allow him time to formulate an answer. This is an indication the question is sensitive. A person who has no agenda to control the words and narrative generally has no problem simply answering the question as best they can, without pauses, without qualifiers and often with the least amount of words necessary.  
  2. “...<pause> any kinda answer I can get in my head is I don’t know. I don’t know.”  After a pause the subject adds “any kinda answer I can get in my head is”. This is a weak and distancing statement. It is a straight forward question. He then adds “I don’t know. I don’t know.” Because it is repeated, we add more weight to the sensitivity of the entire answer. The question could have been answered with “I don’t know.” The words “any kinda” and “get in my head” are both unnecessary words which makes them sensitive to the subject. Why add them? Could it be necessary to add them because he knows the reason why? It would explain the sensitivity he shows to the question. “any kinda of answer I can get in my head” distances him from the words “I don’t know”. This is deception. He did not say the only answer I can give is “I don’t know.”
  3. “And, we’re trying to find that out...answer...and not let me be in here any longer.” The subject then switches to the unexpected pronoun “we” in “we’re trying to find that out …” People often go to the plural “we” to distance themselves from being alone in guilt even when the pronoun “I” is the appropriate or expected pronoun. 
  4. “And, we’re trying to find that out...answer...and not let me be in here any longer.” Why does the subject add the word “that” it is an extra and unnecessary word, therefore extra effort which breaks the rule of economy. The word “that” comes to distinguish between two points, this or “that”. 
TM: What was your relationship with these two boys? Were you a role model for them? Were you a friend for them? Um…
  1. When interviewing a person, it is best not to ask multiple questions or leading questions. It allows the subject to pick and choose what part he will answer. 
  2. These questions also make it easy for a subject to parrot back the words, in effect it makes it easier should a person want to be deceptive or lie. 
GK: I felt like I was. I felt like I was, um...Cuz <unintelligible> only ones that would, uh, interact with them. Uh, when nobody except for the daycare provider would. Uh, when I had free time, like I said on stand...um I would try to be in their lives too. <Unintelligible>, I was around them. I didn’t, I didn’t want them to think of me as a...big stranger...um...you know, I lived there and, I wanted to get to know...everybody that I was around, so...and I believe they looked at me as a role model because uh...they would always wanna high five me and...yeah.
  1. “I felt like I was. I felt like I was, um...” The subject does not tell us he was a “friend” or a “role model”, rather that he “felt like he was”. This is distancing and a lack of commitment. 
  2. “I felt like I was. I felt like I was, um...” The word “felt”, which is repeated, has an emotional and tactile component to it. In the context of a child molestation case is noted.
  3. “Cuz <unintelligible> only ones that would, uh, interact with them. Uh, when nobody except for the daycare provider would.” Note the passive language, “interact with them”, passivity is used to conceal identity and or responsibility. What does he mean by “interact”? They are four years olds. If he played with them why not say so? How does one “interact” with a four-year-old?
  4. “Uh, when nobody except for the daycare provider would. Uh” The subject adds that “nobody” would “interact with them”, this is known in statement analysis as the good guy principal”. It is when a person portrays themselves as “good” to the audience. This need is seen as a need to justify themselves and elevate themselves to the audience. Innocent people don’t have a need to be portrayed as a “good guy” as they rely on truth. 
  5. “… when I had free time, like I said on stand...um I would try to be in their lives too. <Unintelligible>, I was around them. I didn’t, I didn’t want them to think of me as a...big stranger...um...you know,” The subject continues to portray himself as the “good guy”. He also expands his answer beyond what would be required and again refers back to what he said at his trial. To self-reference is to distance oneself from the words used in the present. This distancing or reservation to the language can be a way to lessen the stress of lying.   
  6. “… um I would try to be in their lives too. <Unintelligible>, I was around them. I didn’t, I didn’t want them to think of me as a...big stranger...um...you know,” The language of the subject is unexpected, “I would try to be in their lives too …” This is not expected language of a young man with no familiar relation to young children. 
  7. “… um I would try to be in their lives too. <Unintelligible>, I was around them. I didn’t, I didn’t want them to think of me as a...big stranger...um...you know,” The passivity continues, “I was around them” and then the subject states in the negative what he “didn’t want them to think” making it sensitive, repeating “I didn’t” indicating more sensitivity. 
  8. “I didn’t, I didn’t want them to think of me as a... big stranger...um...you know,” Why does he say “big stranger”? Why does he say what he “didn’t want them” to think of him? The subject is an adult and these are pre-school kids. 
  9. I lived there and, I wanted to get to know...everybody that I was around, so...and I believe they looked at me as a role model because uh...they would always wanna high five me and...yeah.” The subject continues with a need to persuade and justification. The subject then presents the reason why, the reason why something happened in a statement is the highest form of sensitivity. The need is to explain why is often to pre-empt a question the speaker thinks will be asked and often the question would not be considered had the subject not brought it up. The subject goes beyond answering the question with the explanation of why he “wanted to get to know them”.
  10. “so...and I believe they looked at me as a role model …” The subject parrots back one of the questions. This is how interviewers reduce the flow of information. The best questions are open ended so that the subject provides information. These questions refer to specific and introduce language. The words “role model” are such language which can be parroted by the subject even if not true will little stress to the subject. The subject’s addition of the words “I believe” is a weakening of his claim. The subject did not say how he was a “role model” and this would have been a good follow up question.  
  11. “because uh...they would always wanna high five me and...yeah.” To support his belief, that he was a “role model” the subject tells the reason why. This is the one of the highest indicators of of sensitivity. “they would always want to high five me”, it would be good to have follow up questions as to the genesis of this “high five me”. Was it initiated by the subject? How is it an indication of the subject being a “role model”? Was he grooming them?
  12. The entire response to the questions is a need to persuade and portrayal of being a “good guy” indicating heightened sensitivity. Note, this is an adult and the children are four years old. It is one thing to be friendly and helpful it is another to treat them in an adult centric manner/relationship, “… um I would try to be in their lives too. <Unintelligible>, I was around them.”

TM: Ok. Um...Is there anything else you you feel like needs to be said...um...in terms of, you know clarifying for people who have a lot of questions? Um, I think a lot of people are are unsure what to think, um...and, you, know. Was there any--- I guess, and you know another question is just...did it, you know was there anything at all that happened? Was there anything that you believe was potentially borderline inappropriate that happened?
GK: No. Not at all. Not at all. As for as me, I was never inappropriate with the boys.
  1. “No” would be a strong answer. The subject again, goes beyond the necessary answer which indicates the question is sensitive to him. He then repeats “not at all, not at all” adding more sensitivity in the repetition.
  2. “As for as me, I was never inappropriate with the boys.” Why does he add, “as for me” were there more people involved? This is unexpected. Does he mean, “as for me” referring to his outlook or opinion?
  3. “As for as me, I was never inappropriate with the boys.” Again, the subject uses the word “never”. Unless asked specifically “did you ever” the word “never” is not a reliable denial. Nor is it a replacement for “no” or “not”. It does not mean the person is deceptive. It is statistically unreliable as a denial. 
  4. “As for as me, I was never inappropriate with the boys.” The subject’s own definition of what is or is not “inappropriate” and what is “inappropriate with the boys” to the subject should be explored as well as in context why he prefaced it with “as for me”. 

TM: Ok And--
GK: That’s one thing I can say is...in my point of view there is nothing inappropriate going on.
  1. The subject talks over the interviewer, this indicates importance and sensitivity. The question could have been left at “no”. These extra lines become a need to persuade. The need to persuade often indicates that the opposite is true. 
  2. “That’s one thing I can say is...in my point of view there is nothing inappropriate going on.” The subject saying “that’s one thing I can say” is an indication that there are other things he cannot or will not say. Consider the subject to be willfully withholding information on this point. 
  3. “That’s one thing I can say is...in my point of view there is nothing inappropriate going on.” By saying “in my point of view” the subject is allowing that there are other points of view. This goes back to his line above, “as for as me, I was never inappropriate with the boys.” that the subject is applying his own subjective interpretation of what is “inappropriate”. An innocent person does not need to add qualifications such as, “as for me” or “in my point of view” since truth is not subjective.  
  4. “That’s one thing I can say is...in my point of view there is nothing inappropriate going on.” Note, the subject uses the present verb tense, there is” where the expected is the past verb, “there was”. When a person uses the incorrect tense deception should be considered. It avoids an outright lie as it does not address the past where the event occurred. 
  5. “... in my point of view there is nothing inappropriate going on.” That the subject brings up “there is nothing inappropriate going on.” in the present raises the question that this is possible leakage to something “inappropriate going on” at the time of the interview. 

TM: Was there anything potentially inappropriate in...that could have been seen in somebody else’s point of view?
GK: No.
  1. Yes or no questions should be avoided. The subject is the person with the information and you can only get the information if the person speaks. Also, yes or no questions are less stressful to lie on. The addition of the word “potential” also allows the subject to be subjective with his answer. 
  2. Here “no” is a good response to a poorly worded question. By adding the word “potential” the interviewer has made it easy for the subject to say “no” without lying, if there was something “inappropriate”.

TM: And, um...you know I I had asked you is there anything else you know for people who are who are unsure...um...what would you say to them? People who don’t necessarily know what to think, cuz a lot of people think that something happened they’re just not sure what.
GK: Those people...<pause> they, um...you know...the only thing I can do is...say I, I didn’t do it. I mean, I wish I could reach for a mountain top and say I didn’t do it, and I wish people’d believe me, but apparently it’s, that’s not how this world works. Um...those people…you know, if they’ve, honestly, believe what you want to believe, but if you knew me as a person, if you knew what the things I want to do in my life, I would never have time or even the mindset of doing something that, that uh monstrous, so…
  1. The subject struggles to form an answer, he repeatedly pauses and changes track or self-censors. This indicates heightened sensitivity to the question, a question that was previously asked and reworded. This repeating of a question may be due to the interviewer not being satisfied with the previous answer. 
  2. “… the only thing I can do is...say I, I didn’t do it.” Does the subject say he “didn’t do it”? No, he qualifies it as “the only thing I can do …”, not that he is doing it. 
  3. “… the only thing I can do is...say I, I didn’t do it.” The word “only” is a comparative word. That requires the subject to be comparing it with at least one other thing in his mind. 
  4. “… the only thing I can do is...say I, I didn’t do it.” Note the stuttering on the pronoun “I”, in “say I, I didn’t do it.” This is an indicator of sensitivity to what he is saying.
  5. “… the only thing I can do is...say I, I didn’t do it.” In statement analysis this is not considered a reliable denial, “I didn’t do it” as “it” is not defined and has not even been stated once by either party of this interview. This on its own is distancing from the crime/event. 
  6. “I mean, I wish I could reach for a mountain top and say I didn’t do it, and I wish people’d believe me, …”  The words, “I mean …” can indicate the subject is trying to clarify what he had just said. 
  7. “I mean, I wish I could reach for a mountain top and say I didn’t do it, and I wish people’d believe me, …”  The subject repeats the word “wish” twice indicating sensitivity. “wish” means desire or regret. “I wish I could”, desire or regret for not being able to say “I didn’t do it”. He tells us it is what he wants to do but cannot. “and I wish people’d believe me”, this is a subtle acknowledgement that they have reason not to believe him. This is not the language of an innocent person, this is the language of guilty knowledge. 
  8. “I mean, I wish I could reach for a mountain top and say I didn’t do it, and I wish people’d believe me, …”   “I wish I could reach for a mountain top” Is the subject referencing something unattainable to him, a denial of the charge?
  9. “but apparently it’s, that’s not how this world works. Um...those people…you know, if they’ve, honestly, believe what you want to believe, …” The subject struggles to form a coherent thought. This indicates an internal struggle to choose his words carefully, an innocent person does not need to choose his words carefully as truth does not need to be parsed or nuanced. The subject says “if they’ve honestly”, referring to “those people” then changes his thought or self-censors as the words don’t match the rest of the line. Was it the word “honestly” that caused the change in language? This is followed by “believe what you want to believe” which allows for other beliefs. An innocent may not care what others think but is not likely to permit those words, “believe what you want to believe”, to be his words. 
  10. “… but if you knew me as a person, if you knew what the things I want to do in my life, I would never have time or even the mindset of doing something that, that uh monstrous, so…” The subject repeats “but” a word used to refute or minimize by comparison what came before. This is to use the coming words to supersede the previous ones in importance if not more. “if you knew me as a person, if you knew what the things I want to do in my life, …” This is distancing language and similar to the dissociative language he used earlier. “the skinny man inside a fat man’s body” it is like saying “that was the bad me not the good me in front of you.” Note the subject does not tell us what we need to know about him “as a person”, he does not tell us what he “wants to do in my life”. More importantly how would these things make him innocent?
  11. I would never have time or even the mindset of doing something that, that uh monstrous, so…” These words are highlighted in blue to show the importance of the language, they are the reason why not what. The reason why when given unnecessarily is one of the highest indicators of sensitivity. The words “I would never …” is future conditional. They speak to the future; they are words we have heard often from people in the news denying one crime or another later found to be guilty. How many times have we heard “I would never take PED (performance enhancing drugs)” as in the case of Lance Armstrong. 
  12. I would never have time or even the mindset of doing something that, that uh monstrous, so…” This is his need to tell why he could not do “something that that uh monstrous”, a question that wasn’t asked. 
  13. I would never have time or even the mindset of doing something that, that uh monstrous, so…” The subject is telling us why he could not have sexually assaulted the boys, because he “would never have time or even the mindset”. This is disturbing. He has allowed for himself to have perpetrated the sexual assaults if he had “time” and then by bringing “even the mindset” into his language that it is likely on his mind. The word “even” is a comparative word and means he is thinking about at least one other thing in relation to “mindset”. 
  14. I would never have time or even the mindset of doing something that, that uh monstrous, so…” The subject brings the word “monstrous” into his language. This time to define the crime, previously he used it in reference to himself. The interviewer didn’t introduce it the subject did. This is not the language of an innocent person. 

TM: I know--
GK: Uh…
TM: Go ahead.
GK: Oh, I’m I’m done.
TM: OK.
GK: Yeah.
TM: Um, from what I’ve seen, you and your family are people of faith. Why do you think this happened to you?
GK: You know, that’s...that’s an odd question. Uh...I believe it’s in God’s hands. Why it’s happened, there is a purpose I’m very religious … the purpose  I’m being alive …and around and now, this is just <unintelligible> open mind, and...uh...it’s not gonna change me as a man, it can only make me better, so…you know, I believe it’s just a plan for me...uh...you know. Bad things happen...you know...to good people and...uh, all the time.
  1. This question seems to have caught the subject off guard. He stumbles with pauses and stops and restarts of thoughts which do not flow. Note, he says “you know” four times in these few lines. More than he normally does which along with the broken language indicate sensitivity. Is the sensitivity due to the question of religion? 
  2. “… in God’s hands.” The introduction of divinity in statement analysis is always flagged. It does not conclude deception or lack of deception. It is often seen in statements of guilty parties. It is an indication of need of a higher power and as portrayal as a “good person”. In this case not too much weight is given as “people of faith”, religion, was introduced by the interviewer.  
  3. “it’s not gonna change me as a man, …” This line is unexpected given the conviction was for sexual assault of a young boy, in context it is disturbing. It gives some insight into him, he sees himself “as a man” in a reference where “as a person” would be expected. 
TM: What are you hoping happens moving forward? Are you looking for a miracle?
GK: Of course, yes. <laughs> Iike...I pray every night that something something will come out and...show my innocence and...I can get outta here and go back to my everyday life. Um...but yeah I’ve but many supporters tyring to get me outta here cuz they know the true me. They know who I am. They know what I represent. So...yes, I’m hoping for a miracle.
  1. “Of course, yes. <laughs> Iike...I pray every night that something something will come out and...show my innocence …” There are several sensitivity indicators here, the pauses, repeated words, “something something”. Note the passivity, “something something will come out and … show my innocence …” What is “something”? How will “something come out”? Why “show my innocents” and not prove my innocence? 
  2. “… cuz they know the true me. They know who I am. They know what I represent.” The subject goes beyond the question telling us the reason WHY, ...but yeah I’ve but many supporters tyring to get me outta here cuz they know the true me. They know who I am. They know what I represent.” This is the one of the highest indicators of sensitivity in statement analysis. The need to tell “WHY” something happened. Note, he does not say his supporters are trying to get him out because he is not guilty. 
  3. “… cuz they know the true me. They know who I am. They know what I represent.Repeated words indicate sensitivity and importance to the speaker. Here the subject repeats “they know” three times. This is the third time the subject speaks in a dissociative manner in this interview. “they know the true me”, begs the question if there is a true me then is there an untrue me? “they know who I am” begs the question, who is the you we don’t know? “they know what I represent” begs the question, what does he represent? Note, he does not tell us the answer to any of these three questions. 
  4. “So...yes, I’m hoping for a miracle.” Since the subject is parroting the language of the interviewer not much weight should be given to the words “hoping for a miracle”. A guilty person needs a miracle an innocent needs the truth. 

TM: You know, I just wanted to ask you another, one of the questions I asked you earlier, it was sorta un--... hard to hear. You know, again...you know, if you are innocent why would you go ahead and give up 25 years of your life without the possibility of a parole or an appeal?
  1. The interviewer repeats or rewords several questions. It is likely he sees the deception and evasion and passivity in the answers.
GK: I didn’t have a choice. I was, I went to trial...fighting, I went to trial to fight for my life. I testified for my life, I testified...to prove my innocence...when it’s not even supposed to be that way, it’s supposed to...it’s supposed to <unintelligible> I had the right to remain silent and I didn’t, and...I fought for my...I fought for my testimony and...um, I took that because I was convicted. I was wrongly convicted, because I didn’t have a choice. In 25 years I saw light outside of a tunnel. I didn’t get the nu--...uh...if I took it to a jury they could convict me to life without parole. <recording states ‘You have 1 minute’> I only have one minute remaining so… Um, I gave it to a jury and, if I woulda gave it to a jury they coulda gave me life and I couldn’t handle that. So...
  1. I didn’t have a choice.” The subject did have choices, by telling us he “didn’t have a choice” he is potentially leaking guilty knowledge. Remember his words are his reality. So, the question is in his reality “I didn’t have a choice” because he is guilty? Note it is the first thing he says in answer to the question of why he accepted the plea. 
  2. “I was, I went to trial...fighting, I went to trial to fight for my life. I testified for my life, …” I believe him. The subject repeats the words, “trial”, “fighting/fight” and “for my life”, making them important and sensitive to him. What he does not say is “I didn’t sexually assault the boy”. I believe he was “fighting for his life”.
  3. “I testified...to prove my innocence...when it’s not even supposed to be that way, it’s supposed to...it’s supposed to <unintelligible> …” The subject struggles to get this line out and it remains incoherent. He repeats “supposed to” three times, making it very sensitive. I believe him when he says “I testified...to prove my innocence ...” He does not say he was “innocent”.
  4. “I had the right to remain silent and I didn’t, and...I fought for my...I fought for my testimony and...um, …” The subject repeats “fought for my …” indicating sensitivity as are the pauses and broken sentences. I believe he did fight for his “testimony”. Consider he was advised against testifying. 
  5. “I took that because I was convicted.” The word that indicates distancing, where “this” is close and “that” is distant. Understandably he would distance from the plea. It is unpalatable. Otherwise the wording in this sentence is reliably presented. 
  6. “I took that because I was convicted. I was wrongly convicted, because I didn’t have a choice.” He then repeats “I was convicted” and adds the word “wrongly”. The word “wrongly” does not mean innocent or not guilty, it speaks to the proceedings, the trial. One would need to know what “wrongly” means to him. His definition. 
  7. “I took that because I was convicted. I was wrongly convicted, because I didn’t have a choice.” The subject repeats “convicted” and the line, “I didn’t have a choice.” He also tells us WHY he took the plea, “because I was convicted.” And he tells us WHYbecause I didn’t have a choice.” This reaffirms guilt as he repeats his opening line. The word “choice” or lack of, indicates acceptance of the “conviction”. Does his guilt leave him with no “choice”? 
  8. “In 25 years I saw light outside of a tunnel. I didn’t get the nu--...uh...if I took it to a jury they could convict me to life without parole. I only have one minute remaining so… Um, I gave it to a jury and, if I woulda gave it to a jury they coulda gave me life and I couldn’t handle that. So...” This continues on his acceptance of 25 years with no parole and no appeal. He did not want to give it to the jury even if it meant no appeal. This is not expected from an innocent person. 

TM: OK. Um is uh, is there anything you, you wanna say in this last minute?
GK: Um, the only thing is I didn’t do it and...I think, you know...the truth’ll come out, and...um, the truth’ll set me free.
  1. “Um, the only thing is I didn’t do it …” The addition of the comparative word “only” indicates the subject is thinking of at least one other thing in context of “I didn’t do it”. The words “I didn’t do it” is not a reliable denial, it lacks the specific reference to the event, in this case the charge or sexual assault. Throughout the interview neither party mentioned the sexual assault. There is no a reference to the “it” the subject speaks to. Deceptive people often use passive language with the expectation the audience will fill in the words or meaning that the speaker is unable or unwilling to speak.  
  2. “Um, the only thing is I didn’t do it and...I think, you know...the truth’ll come out, and...um, the truth’ll set me free.” The subject adds sensitivity after saying “the only thing is I didn’t do it” by going on saying, “and...I think, you know...the truth’ll come out, and...um, the truth’ll set me free.” The subject knows the truth, the subject can tell the truth if he chooses. He does not. He uses passive language with the hope the audience will conclude what he cannot or will not state in straight forward manner. 

TM: Ok. Alright, Mr. Kelley, um, thank you so much for speaking with me.


Conclusions:

Greg Kelley does not provide a reliable denial here. 
A reliable denial requires three elements. The pronoun “I, second the past tense “did not” or “didn’t” and third the specific event, here we expect to hear, “I did not sexually assault the boy” (did not sexually "touch", etc)

It must be provided in what is called the free editing process where the subject speaks freely without prompt of a question such as “did you sexually assault the boy?' in a parroted response. 

In such an egregious allegation, no such prompt should be necessary.


The subject begins the interview speaking from a possible statement or addressing a number of prepared points. The first part of a statement is usually the subject’s priority and often the reason for the statement. In this first part the subject does not claim innocence nor provide a reliable denial. The subject goes to describing process vs evidence. This is manipulation of the audience to present the “process”, the manner or mechanics of the police work and the trial to undermine the validity of the trial. Note, he does not provide any evidence of innocence, rather he points to possible or “potential” in an attempt to clear himself. He uses “process” hoping the audience equates it for evidence. 


The subject uses words to deflect instead of evidence, he did not bring himself to say the boy is not telling the truth regarding the event. Sometimes there is a pressure to not condemn a young victim. However, after spending so much time in prison, bitterness is expected. There is a sense of outrage from being falsely punished that is generally unreconcilable. 

He hides behind subterfuge in his opening lines where he appears to have a prepared statement listing points which do not prove innocence. This is presented by the subject with the likely hope of producing doubt of his guilt to his audience rather than issue a denial.

The subject’s own language allows for acceptance: “Um...so...I’ve, I’ve accepted it because I was guilty I accepted it because I had no other way. I was already...they’d already convicted me.”
There is nothing in the language of this interview that indicates the jury was incorrect in their original decision.