Statement Analysis ®: August 2021

Tuesday, August 3, 2021

Guest Submission: Nichole Kessinger by Jenny Sarri

NICHOL KESSINGER’S INTERVIEW

CONCLUSION

1. She is deceptive regarding the start of their relationship

2. She is deceptive when denying knowledge of Shannan’s pregnancy

3. She is deceptive regarding the reason she deleted texts.

“I deleted all of his stuff because he lied to me. It was the hurt that made me delete it.”

“No, no, no, no, no, it wasn’t malicious at all. It wasn’t malicious at all. He, he, he lied to me. It just hurt.

- “It was the hurt” is passive language.

- “malicious” is a word she introduced and repeated.

- “just” is used consistently in the interview. She keeps comparing thoughts.

4. She is lying about wanting him to be a good dad.

- Regarding his children in general: She talks about them as if they were puppies. (they’re so cute, they’re so little)

She said she was giving him advice on how to spend more time with them even though she said he was a great dad.

“ I always got the impression that he was a great father to his kids, like always. And so, you know, I was like, and be the dad that you want to be.”

There are numerous references in her interview in which she repeats that she made herself unavailable when he was with his kids, indicating that she indirectly made the kids a burden to their relationship. She planted the idea that they would be an obstacle. Some examples:

And he wanted to see me more. I was the one who wanted my space. I was, like, “Nope. Your kids are home. Go hang out with your kids.”

“Go chill with your kids.”

Um, I was always, like, really respectful of his kids.

I always try to say, you know, like, “When we get to a point where we’ve been together long enough, I would love to meet your children.” Like, I never (discluded) them from anything.

- Her use of the verb “try” is consistent when she talks about her attitude towards Watts’ family. To her, trying equals doing.

In Statement Analysis (and in everyday conversations) trying to do something equals failing to do it.

5. She is lying about not remembering how long Watts stayed in N. Carolina

6. She is lying about not remembering what they talked about on Saturday, the last day they met, had sex and went out for dinner. We would expect that day to be memorable in light of what happened.

7. There is sensitivity about the key or access code to the house.

8. There is sensitivity regarding her actions on Sunday.

9. It is interesting that she changes “life” to “wife” twice when she talks about him leaving his: “li-wife”.

Did she not want him to just leave his wife? Did she want him to leave his life? (including the kids)

“and I remember talking to him about it and that was the first time that I tried to actually say: What do you think about not separating from your li-wife? Like, what if you really try to work on this?”

“…being in that house I was just like, why? Fix this, find a way to fix this, make it work, you know, and I would, I would, I was like, trying to push him to do it, and he seemed pretty reluctant to do it ,he didn’t want to.”

And I was, like, “Don’t say that to me. Like, please go try to fi- and I mean it.” And that might be in the texts, too. Where it’s, like, “Don’t. Don’t. Like, don’t say those words to me and then go try to make peace with you li- wife and lay in bed with another woman.

10. She probably gave him an ultimatum that weekend or even earlier, when he went to N. Carolina.

“ I was just kind of like trying to push him to do that.” (fix things with his wife)

He told me, um, “We’re putting the house up for sale as soon as we get back.” And I was like, “Whoa that was quick.” And he was like, “It’s her, she’s ready to go.” And I was like, “Okay.” And so I left it at that and then, um, he got back and I started askin’ him like, “What are you gonna do? Because the Colorado housing market is fire and you guys are gonna sell this house like real fast,”

- “trying to push him” is repeated. Was it a pattern of her attitude?

- “started asking him”: Does this mark the beginning of a more insistent demand? We note her need to explain why with the use of “because”.

11. There are no evident signs of guilt in her words, only shame, embarrassment and worry about her future.

You know? They’re gonna say, “Oh, you know, you’re the woman that had an affair with this man who took out his whole family.” And I take a step back and it’s just, like, I didn’t know. Like, I - I - uh. It’s - he’s so disgusting. I am so ashamed of him and everything, and I just - oh, those little girls. They’re so little. They’re so little.

12. She is immature, arrogant, self -centered and she lacks any real sense of responsibility.

There is nothing in this interview that indicates direct involvement or guilty knowledge; however, she probably manipulated him into doing something drastic to change his life. It is of particular interest that on page 32 she says she was not affected negatively by her parents’ divorce because she was 3 or 5 years old, while her cousins who were older suffered under the same circumstances.

She knew him well and knew how to manipulate his obsession with her. She has poor judgment though, and probably did not stop to think of the repercussions of her attempts to make him have her as a priority. She did not know he is a psychopath.

People’s obsession with her may have partly to do with her character and immature attitude. She did not appear to be devastated and her priority was her need to be his only priority in life although their relationship was a relatively new one.

She characterizes the atrocious crime as “stuff” or “mess” and minimizes it. She is not capable at the point of the interview to show any empathy about the victims. Her priority is her need.

Her focus in life could be just physical needs, not a moral stance. She characterizes Watts’ actions and him as “disgusting”, which is more of a physical revulsion than a moral repugnance and an emotional response in the context of her pattern of speech.

And he actually had me thinking that he was gonna go look at these places this week before all this sh- stuff...

This whole mess.

“I don’t know. Pawn it, man.” And I was just, like - I was like, “I pawn jewelry all the time.” I was like, “I pawned jewelry a few times.” I was like, “It’s not worth shit though.” (about Shannan’s wedding ring, which she supposedly left behind. At the point of the interview she knows that Watts may have removed it from her body; it is only logical, because she knows he killed his wife.)

“I find it hard to believe that I’m the catalyst for all of this”

“I would never justify what he did. I think it’s fuckin’ disgusting. It’s - ugh. Like, he’s such a fuckin’ pig.”

“Would” is conditional. She does not tell us she is appalled by his behavior, or that she condemns him for his actions. She is not able to consider the gravity his actions had and the fatal consequences on others.

Nichol Kessinger is very talkative. She spoke in great detail about certain things that were not of significance to the case and tried to present herself in a favorable light in relation to her moral attitude. We should note that her father was present during the interview. The investigators conducted a great interview, in which they allowed her to use her own words and reveal her personality. She was deceptive and withheld information guided by her shame and worry about her image; she did not at any point give indications of guilty knowledge of the murders.

Monday, August 2, 2021

Guest Submission: The Murder of Ann-Marie Pomphret by Paul Maillardet

E. Is the patient breathing?

C. Er, nah

· As always, the analysis starts with the presumption of innocence, the call will guide whether this may change. As we hear this in real-time, this is a call to the emergency services late in that evening.

· Asked if the subject is breathing, the caller initially responds with a NLU (non-linguistic utterance), “Er..”

· The use of the NLU here is unexpected in that this is an emergency situation and time is of the essence. “Er” slows down time, and may be to allow the person to think of their answer which can be a signal of deception, it’s important to note but also to keep an open-mind.

· The use of ‘nah’ rather than ‘no’ could be a regional dialect however ‘nah’ and conversely ‘yea’ are not as emphatic nor convey the pointed-ness, urgency or importance as a ‘No’ or ‘Yes’.

· Note that the Caller has offered no additional information to the Dispatcher’s question, they have only answered the basic question. This is unexpected in in emergency scenario.

· It would be expected for a caller to have greater urgency in their call for help and relay the nature of their emergency.

· Just in this extremely brief exchange it has been possible to glean a great deal of information about the caller’s initial lack of commitment to get help.

· This aside, it is still important to keep an open mind and see and listen to see if this changes.

E. Ambulance and Fire…

C. ..No fire, no fire. Police

· The repetition of “no fire, no fire” again lengthens time by the Caller and breaks the Rule of Economy. If the caller is distressed then this could be a factor, this is noted again however.

· The subject then calls for “Police” – the dispatcher has only said ‘Ambulance and Fire…’ at that point. It may be that the Caller has interrupted – this could be urgency and that’s kept in mind, however it is likely the Dispatcher would have said ‘Ambulance, Fire and Police’.

· However, the Caller requests ‘Police’ – they do not answer the question…

· It can’t be discounted that they could consider themselves in danger themselves, however if that were the case this should have been their immediate priority to relay to the emergency services, e.g. “My wife has been killed, I’m in danger, send the police to……”.

· Furthermore, anyone who felt in danger should have told the Dispatcher to alert the police responders. He does not, and this could suggest he is aware there is no threat anymore. He has not described how his wife has been hurt, so again this provides responders with no information as to the type of weapon they may be dealing with. This complete lack of information is unexpected as it would put his life in danger.

· Even more importantly, the subject has confirmed the patient is not breathing, yet they have only asked for the Police, not an ambulance.

· The subject is not calling for any help for the patient, and this has to be marked as the first major flag within the call.

· In excluding ‘Ambulance’ as an option, and dismissing ‘Fire’, we get the Caller’s priority – the Police.

· He has not expressed he is in danger. He has not called for medical assistance for his wife. Yet he wants the police, not an ambulance. He is comfortable asking for the police, but not for an ambulance. Consider he knows his wife is dead, and that he is comfortable in the knowledge the police will be coming to ask about it.

· The subject could believe that the patient is dead, but it is unusual that an ambulance would not be requested for their wife just in case medical intervention is possible to save the patient. An exception could possibly be made here if the caller was a medical professional themselves, that is not known here. If they were medically trained it would still seem likely that they would call for an ambulance and also to relay as much information through in the call to help the responders.

· The lack of the request for medical help suggests that the caller already knows they are dead.

· Most importantly the lack of any request for urgent medical help prevents any chance the patient could be saved.

C. I’ve just found Ann, she’s very dead

· The word ‘just’ in Statement Analysis is known to be a comparison word. Here, rather than telling the Dispatcher he has found his wife dead, instead he tells them he has ‘just’ found her. Hearing the use of ‘just’ at this early point of the call is very concerning.

· We find out the patient is ‘Ann’ – the subject does not give a proper introduction (ISI), we don’t know who she is or the relationship to the caller and they aren’t telling us. Consider this could be significant (see Profiling)

· “she’s very dead” – Four Principles: Rule of Economy, Unnecessary Information and Expected vs Unexpected all come into the fore here. ‘She’s dead’ would be expected.

· ‘Very’ dead is extremely unusual. The fourth Principle here is arguably a Need to Persuade. The caller has not called for an ambulance, has not offered any information or context as to why Ann is dead but wants the dispatcher to know that she is not just dead, but very dead. They confirm Ann is beyond help but in language that is not expected which is not only significant to an Analyst but must also be important to the caller to mention.

· This aside, the use of the adverb ‘very’, to emphasise, is as unnecessary as it is important and provides the first indication of the emotion and state of the caller.

· There is absolutely no need to include the word ‘very’, especially in the context of an emergency call, and where no explanation as to how Ann has died has been offered.

· I will cover the in the Profiling segment, but it is important first to continue to establish the veracity of this call.

C. …my wife came back to the stables, er, a couple of hours ago…

· He tells us his ‘my wife’ came back to the stables – he has not said Ann is his wife, so the dispatcher is left to assume it is, and left to ask further questions.

· We must keep balance and consider that if a person is under stress, for whatever reason, they may not communicate such information as effectively, but Principle would still remain to detect any deception.

· We can potentially make a guess that Ann is his wife for the first time, he has not offered this to the dispatcher before now.

· His tells us his ‘wife’ came back to the stables, but just before he found ‘Ann’.

· ‘Ann’ is very dead by his account - his ‘wife’ came back to the stables.

· It is common for disassociation in statements to be demonstrated by the subject not using the victim’s name. Here we have a more sophisticated example driven more by the psychology of the husband caller.

· Consider now that at this point in the call that the husband has not called for an ambulance, he has not associated or offered that the patient Ann is his wife and most importantly his language subtly but importantly indicates that in his mind he is no longer married to his wife at this point in his call.

· Here we have a subject whose language steers towards anger with ‘very’ dead and whom in death he does not consider to be his wife, which is extremely unexpected.

· “came back to the stables” – The husband says his wife ‘came back’ to the stables, not that she ‘went’to the stables. This is not grammatically correct.

· Even if we consider the husband is under stress and anxiety and has got his words mixed because he is there at the stables when he is talking here, he should be saying that his wife ‘came’/ ‘here’ to the stables, or the ‘stables here’.

· He does not tell us she had to go back to the stables for any reason, so this does not support what is said or make logical sense.

· The only explanation which would support his language is if he himself was at the stables already waiting for her, and she came back there. It is highly likely that this is leakage from the husband, and places him at the stables with her – having either gone there/with her or waited for her there.

· ‘the stables’ – there is no ownership placed on the stables, for example ‘our’ stables. We cannot assume these are his stables, and if they are he does not want to associate himself with them within the call and with his wife lying there murdered.

· He then pauses for thought, using “er” before confirming this happened a couple of hours ago. This pause prior to providing the time should also be considered as another marker for overall final consideration.

C. erm..I’ve not been able to get (her?) on the phone

· His priority here should be to convey what has happened to his wife and her condition.

C. I’ve just come down to the stables and she’s lying on the floor in a pool of blood, erm…

· Here we have a red flag from the caller, with his repetition and use of the word ‘just’ again.

· A moment ago, he needed to confirm he had ‘just’ found Ann, and here shortly afterwards he has a need to persuade again that he has ‘just’ come down to the stables.

· The fact he needs to let the Dispatcher know this speaks to alibi-building.

· The use of ‘just’ is unnecessary as it slows the pace and the urgency of his emergency call. However, putting this aside, the fact it is used twice in short succession indicates a desire by the caller to persuade he has just arrived at the stables and just found his wife.

· He also references his wife as ‘she’ and does not use her name leaving the Dispatcher to have to elicit this information.

E. Who is lying on the floor?

C. My wife.

E. We’re getting that help now

C. Erm….is this…is this…

· Depending on the veracity of the call, the repetition and unfinished utterance here could be panic, or on the other hand could be filling natural breaks, see Profiling.

C. We don’t have an actual address for the stables.

E. Do you have a postcode?

C. Think the nearest one is the pub, erm [Gives address]

C. Jesus

E. What’s your name?

C. David. David Pomphret.

· Note the repetition in his speech which will continue.

E. We’re going to get…

C. Oh Christ

· Repeats deity and interrupts

E. …that help to you, David, ok?

E. So I’ve got [address]

C. [interrupts] Old. Older Lane.

E. Aulder Lane in ….

E. We’re getting that help for you now ok.

C. Oh Christ [breathing]

· More repetition of deity, more prominent in natural breaks in the exchange.

E. And when you say Older Lane, the stables, is it the old stables?

C. Erm…no it’s the other side of the road to that, it’s near the pub.

· It’s clear here that the caller can relay clearly and accurately without stuttering.

E. And what’s the name of the pub?

C. It’s just……we don’t have a name. It’s just a stables…

· He does not answer the question, instead not moving on from the previous question which is about the stables, the murder scene. His mind is still fixated on the stables – and whilst the Dispatcher has moved on with their questions, his mind remains.

· He stutters on the word ‘just’. Unlike his previous repetitions, the word ‘just’ is separated here making this sensitive to him, rather than a nervous utterance we see elsewhere.

· Most importantly not only is the comparison word, ‘just’, sensitive to him by his repetition, he goes on to minimise the stables to the dispatcher by saying ‘it’s just a stables’. It is a murder scene, it is extremely unusual that he would seek to minimise the importance of the stables, and this significant red flag within his call.

C. We don’t, we don’t, we’ve not named it.

· More repetition here clustered together, consider if the caller is not innocent that this could be nervous utterance.

E. It’s not got a name?

C. No.

E. Ok.

C. Christ…

E. What does it look like, what are they looking for when they come down that road?

C. Just two cars parked in the road, mine and my wife’s, mine’s slightly in the road as a car’s blocking the gate.

· The use of ‘just’ here is justified as he is explaining there are only the two cars.

· However, he appears to show more annoyance by mentioning a car blocking the gate than for his wife laying dead in the stables.

E. Ok.

C. Jesus…

E. We’re getting help to you David as quickly as we can, just stay calm for me ok?

C. Ok.

E. I’m going to need to ask you some questions, this is not going to delay any help, ok?

C. Ok.

E. How old is she?

C. She’s 50 this month. She turned (not clear) 27^th November, she’s 50, 49. 49. She’s 49.

· He uses the correct-tenses, past and present, he has not yet processed her death.

· He provides a lot of unnecessary information about her age here – if he is not involved in the death then this could be that he is panicking.

· If he is involved in his wife’s death the additional information is unnecessary and slows the pace and response of the dispatcher and responders. It would also give cause to question whether this is to give the impression of anxiety within the call.

E. Are you there with her now?

C. I’m here, yea.

· Interestingly he doesn’t commit to being with her, but instead confirms he is there at the stables, which suggests he connected to the place but not the person.

· Note ‘yea’ rather than ‘Yes’ as a less formal response.

E. Ok.

C. Oh God (could be ‘gosh’)

C. I can’t go closer. I can’t go near her.

E. Ok David, try and stay calm for me ok, you’re doing a really good job.

· He says, in the negative, that he can’t go closer – this is his wife and the mother of his daughter, and he tells the Dispatcher he does not want to go near her to offer help. This is not consistent with the actions of an innocent caller.

· Next he tells us he ‘can’t go near her’ – this is extremely concerning as he provides no context or reason as to why.

· He wanted to turn the light-off, now he can’t go any closer, he can’t go near her – his wife whom he hasn’t called an ambulance for, now doesn’t want to try to and has provided no information whatsoever about her condition or what may have happened to without being asked. He is limiting his responses.

· Note: He doesn’t want to see her, touch her, help her, be near her. See Profiling.

E. Now David, please tell me why it looks like she is dead?

C. [Shrieks] She’s lying on the floor in a pool of blood

C. There’s just brains here everywhere, it’s like she’s had her head beaten in.

· The transcript shows he shrieks now when describing the scene to the Dispatcher. Whilst it is not possible to know how anyone will react in such circumstances, it seems odd that he shrieks now and not earlier in the call. It should be considered that if the call is assessed to be deceptive, that the shriek here could be an artificial placement of emotion.

· This is given more credence by him not attaching the pronoun ‘her’ to the blood or the brains he describes.

· Given that he has allegedly just found his wife, his language here is graphic to the extreme – ‘pool of blood’; ‘brains here everywhere’ – this is unexpected as he demonstrates no reverence to his wife as I shall explain.

· He does not say ‘her’ brains are everywhere, but ‘just’ brains, and by not attributing the brains he sees to his wife distances himself psychologically from her.

· He does not associate the pool of blood or the brains to being his wife’s.

· This thread develops further – rather than saying she has been attacked to her head (reporting), instead he explains about it looking like her head has been ‘beaten in’ – this is not a passive, respectful language of a caring husband (See Profiling)

E. David tell me that again, there’s what everywhere?

C. Brains. There’s blood

· Again, he distances himself from the brains and blood, which he doesn’t attribute to his wife, or being part of his wife.

E. Ok David we’re getting that help…stay calm

[Silence]

C. [Mumbles appears to say] Maybe…put the light-out.

· Although this wasn’t clear to hear, he appears to want to put the light-out – it is understandable someone would not want to look at a terrible sight, however to want to turn the light-out.

· It’s known that in Statement Analysis, when lights are mentioned sexual relationships should be explored, and in this case please refer to ‘Profiling’ for further information. It is noted he is referring to lights being off here.

· During the interview this should be explored e.g. ‘how were things between you and Ann?’ ; ‘Did you have any problems?’ ; ‘Did you have a healthy sex-life?’

E. David?

C. No

E. David what time did you last see her?

C. What time is it, about half nine?

· He answers a question with question here.

· This could be to bide-time so he can think of an answer.

· Consider here that he offers the time as earlier as a possible alibi for not having called earlier, if he is responsible for the death.

E. It’s about ten to ten, is it today you saw her?

C. Yea, erm. I can’t read the time.

· Whilst it’s possible here to give him the benefit-of-the-doubt that he may not be able to read the time, it could be equally that he may be feigning panic.

· His responses ‘Yea’ remain consistent, however are noted as casual given the circumstances.

C. …. Don’t tell me…

C. It was about an hour and a half, two hours ago.

E. About two hours ago?

C. Yea, we’d been shopping, dropped our daughter off shopping erm…….

· For the first time he relays unity with his wife.

· He repeats ‘shopping’ twice when it is unnecessary – it is possible ‘shopping’ is sensitive to him when he is thinking back?

· In an interview situation, it would be useful to ask if anything happened when they were out shopping, such as an argument.

· Then he uses ‘erm’ once again perhaps as a pause for thought, or a nervous utterance.

C. had some tea and the Mrs, she said ‘I’ve forgotten something’ and she came down to the stables.

· Note that the Dispatcher has not asked ‘what happened’, at this point of the call. The caller now offers information he has not been asked to provide, and this could suggest he needs to convey and explain his version of events so he can control the flow of information on what is the crucial element of the call.

· ( ) ‘had some tea’ – the missing pronoun doesn’t enable who had tea to be established, and again during an interview it would be wise to ask ‘what happened’ when they got back from shopping using an open question to see if he explains this or again is not specific. If he is non-specific, it is possible that he is not speaking from experiential memory and this part of the account is not true.

· Note that tea could be considered normal behaviour and also that he may be painting a picture that at this point both he and his wife were not arguing and simply enjoying a cup-of-tea together. Tea would convey the ‘normal factor’ being an English trait.

· ‘the Mrs’ – In England, in particular southern England, ‘the Mrs’ can be used as a ‘possessive’ sense but also in a derogative sense. Here he says ‘the Mrs’ has forgotten something – consider this could be a derogative use and could provide insight into his thinking then and now.

· Note that ‘the Mrs’ does not have a name.

· Next he tells us ‘the Mrs she said…’ – this is not consistent with the rule of economy, ie. ‘the Mrs said’. His inclusion that ‘she’ said implies a need for him to persuade she said, but consider with his need to include this word that this may not have been the case.

· ‘…I’ve forgotten something’ – so following the apparent NTP he says the Mrs had forgotten ‘something’, which is vague. He doesn’t mention whether he asked what she had forgotten that she needed to leave or that he asked. In an interview it would be interesting to ask what she had forgotten and see if he offers an answer. Given this ‘something’ resulted in her death, it should be anchored in his mind and be extremely sensitive and fresh to him, especially at this very early stage.

· ‘I’ve forgotten..’ here he suggests with the active ‘I’ve’ that she had been to the stables earlier. He has not told the Dispatcher she had returned from the stables. In an interview this should be explored – firstly asking: ‘What happened when you got back from shopping’ to clarify his version of events once again, then if needed a further question could be ‘Tell me more about what happened after tea’ – this way he is not being steered about any specific events and it can be determined if he explains details in the same order or details.

· Consider that he has not been specific about what she had allegedly forgotten, and had she not had to go out for that ‘something’ she could still be alive, by his account here at least. Alfred Hitchcock often referred to a non-specific event or fact as the ‘MacGuffin’, often the catalyst but whose relevance served only the purpose of setting the stage for what was to come.

· With this in mind, consider now that his lack of detail for something so significant to his wife, to him and his daughter and to their lives me be a fabrication, especially in context of multiple flags to-date.

· Also, the the lack of pronoun ‘( ) had some tea’ means he does not commit to the story about them having tea before she forgot ‘something’ - so again by his language there is no commitment either tea or her having forgotten something actually happened.

· “…and she came down to the stables.” – this statement is telling… At this point of his call, he is recounting what happened earlier, so what is expected is that she ‘went’ down to the stables.

· Although he is making the call from the stables, his language should be past-tense ‘went’ inferring she travelled from the house to the stables earlier.

· Instead, he uses the words ‘came down’ – his words imply that he was already there at the stables, and that his wife ‘came down’ where he was waiting for her…

· This changes the dynamic of his account, as he is now placing her ‘the Mrs’ (alive in his language) and places himself at the stables where she ‘came down’.

· This is most likely ‘leakage’ of his involvement in her murder.

C. I walked the dog, did a bit of DIY and I started saying ‘she’s so late’ and I know she, she carries two phones and so I started [unclear] the phone that she got [unclear] it’s a little old one…er…oh Jesus

· It is possible he walked the dog as he takes ownership using the pronoun ‘I’. We can see that it is not inconsistent that he is leaving pronouns out within the call.

· ‘( ) did a bit of DIY’ – the pronoun here could be consistent with the earlier use of ‘I’ so it is not possible to say this did not happen, but it is a weak assertion without the use of timing e.g., ‘then did a bit of DIY’.

· He says he did a ‘bit’ of DIY which is non-committal with the use of ‘bit’ and without providing any detail.

· Consider his mentioning of ‘bit of DIY’ could be latency, for example going to his shed/garage and selecting a DIY tool that may have been used to kill his wife.

· He mentions he was ‘saying’ rather than thinking she was late, could this suggest that in his mind he was angry with his expression of his need to say aloud.

· ‘..she’s so late’ – consider if he is responsible that if he was waiting at the stables that doing this could seem like an eternity in anticipation of what he may be able to do.

· Instead of mentioning that he tried calling her on both of her phones, he says she ‘carries’ two phones, sensitised by his stuttering over the pronoun ‘she’ just before.

· Note she doesn’t ‘have’ two phones but she carries them – he is telling us of his knowledge she has two phones on her and he has a need to highlight it, which indicates his acute awareness she had means of calling for help on her person.

· With the sensitivity around phones, an interview question should look into this, e.g. ‘how did you call Ann?’ & ‘tell me more about your phones’.

· Note also he ‘started’ saying and ‘started’ (presumably calling) her – started does not mean he completed the action. Consider therefore that any thought or call may have been perfunctory.

· He finishes his explanation with irrelevant information about one of the phones.

E. OK David

C. [Interrupts] she [unclear]…horses

E. Do you know what’s happened to her?

C. I have no idea, she’s just lying on the floor

· Finally, he tells us he has ‘no idea’ what happened to her. We know from experience that people in such situations will often want to provide information, no matter how small, for some form of idea as to what may have happened. That he doesn’t offer anything and uses terminology which is often used in deceptive accounts only adds to this being another marker of guilty knowledge.

· Finally he mentions she is just ‘lying on the floor’. The passivity in his words indicate that he is both distancing himself from her death and minimising the severity of the scene to the dispatcher.

[Please note the hyper-link to the actual call can be found at the end of this document].

CALL ENDS

Conclusion

Deception Indicated

· The caller, David Pomphret, does not initially help the Dispatcher by providing any other information other than to say his wife is not breathing.

· When the Dispatcher says ‘Ambulance and Fire…’ he only asks for the Police, and disregards that an ambulance is mentioned.

· If he wasn’t the killer, he should be in fear for himself - but also requesting medical assistance for his wife.

· His Priority is not to call for medical assistance for his wife. He does not, in fact, request any medical help for her throughout the call.

· He does not specify what the ‘something’ was she had to get at the stables.

· His use of ‘came back’ to the stables is extremely concerning, his language suggests he was at the stables when his wife was there.

· He has a need to persuade that he was not with her and had to contact her by phone.

· He mentions that he ‘just’ found Ann and again had ‘just’ come down to the stables – he has a need to convince not convey regarding his actions and the time-line. It is likely that he was at the stables and murdered his wife earlier.

· His language, as analysed in detail above, supports him being the actual killer.

· The language does not support attendant guilt or having guilty knowledge i.e. having knowledge of the murder but not being directly responsible.

· His description of the scene is impersonal and impassive, this is unexpected given his wife has been murdered there.

· He tells the Dispatcher he ‘can’t go closer’ or ‘near her’. His language suggests he neither wants to help her nor wants to be even near her and in fact just wants to turn the light-off.

· Most telling of all, at no point does he mention that ‘Someone has killed my wife!’ – he does not tell us, and we cannot say this for him.

· He simply has ‘no idea’ about his wife and mother of his daughter being dead in their stables…

· The combination of all these things and the analysis here suggests very strongly that the caller is deceptive about that evening.

· David Pomphret likely murdered his wife.

· The Profiling below will suggest some underlying elements within the language of his call to provide further support of this assertion.

· The profiling notes will also serve to aid with interviewing questions, and specifically in the approach to the interview.

Profiling

Finally, before explaining how Statement Analysis could have significantly helped in this case let’s examine David Pomphret’s language and ‘see through his eyes’ and enter into his mental-state at the point he made the call…

1. First he clearly dismisses requesting an ambulance for his wife. Whilst her appearance may be that of someone beyond help, he still does not request medical assistance. The fact he has the option the request an ambulance when asked, but doesn’t, suggests at even though he may know his wife is beyond help, Pomphret is not going to allow for even a remote chance she could be saved.

2. Note that murderers often do not want to administer aid themselves or for others to because they have staged the scene, they do not want the body moved. This correlated with him not offering first aid or wanting to go near her.

3. His use of the word ‘just’, as in ‘just’ found Ann and ‘just’ got to the stables show he shows a need to persuade this has just happened. His awareness confirms that this has not literally just happened, he is in control of what he is saying with an awareness of his audience, and is unlikely to be under the influence of drink or drugs. In the UK guns are far less likely to be a consideration for responders, but had this been a US case, for instance, his language suggests he would be a lower threat for Police Responders to the scene.

4. He only uses ‘Ann’, his wife’s name once throughout the call. Ann’s name is only used when referencing her as dead. In this call, Ann has a name in death, and she is not his wife. Consider that psychologically he considers her in his language as no longer married to her, and also recall that he did not make it clear initially in the call that ‘Ann’ was his wife, and it is likely due to his anger he did not offer this until he had to when asked.

5. He also uses the terms ‘the Mrs’ and ‘wife’ when recounting her as alive, so it may be possible that whilst she was his wife that when recounting his story on the call he may have been annoyed with her and cannot bring himself to use her name when telling his account prior to her death when she then becomes Ann – no longer his wife and no longer a ‘problem’.

6. His use of “she’s very dead” is significant. There is no need for him to include this explainer, however he includes it. The fact he includes it in an emergency call suggests anger towards Ann and that, even now, he is still angry towards her whilst he makes the call next to her in the stables.

7. He language suggests he is so incensed that he does not attribute the brains and blood to his wife. To compound this his description of her head injuries are graphic in the extreme, going as far as them being ‘beaten in’ – this further supports the assertion that he is still unable to control his anger towards her.

8. He cannot ‘go closer’ – he can’t even ‘go near her’. He doesn’t even want to look at her and mentions turning the light-off in the stables, which linguistically he does not own and wants to distance himself from, and that are ‘just the stables’ as he mentions – not a crime scene.

9. This may also be one of the last times he may get to see his wife despite her condition, yet he absolutely does not want anything to do with helping her or even seeing her. Combined with ‘very’ dead this leads towards anger and even rage.

10. Aside from his shriek, Pomphret has nothing in his language suggesting a positive linguistic disposition towards his wife at the point of his call. There is also no emotion towards her, there is no call to get help for his wife.

11. He is comfortable asking for the police. As his language suggests he may be responsible it is likely that he feels that he may get away with her murder. If that is the case, he has had time to clean-up and to dispose of any evidence. This would reinforce the assertion and validation of Principle of his use of ‘just’ is deceptive.

12. His inclusion of irrelevant information is unnecessary and slows the response for help. His use of deity (7 times) occurs at the end of a response and in natural breaks and pause in the call. He uses these to suggest anxiety, as with word repetitions. This is not an experienced liar.

13. Even his description of his wife’s injuries is unexpectedly graphic. If the scene is as he describes then this suggests this was a close-range and frenzied-attack with a heavy instrument capable of cracking the head and causing significant injury.

14. Pomphret’s language supports the possibility he still felt angry towards his wife even when making the call later on. This suggests something may have happened to provoke him.

15. The subject would appear to be well-off financially by having stables.

16. This would suggest one or both have a good job and may well be very intelligent.

17. His language does not support drink or drugs being evident or a factor in the killing.

18. If an intelligent man and financial issues (life insurance) or another person being involved with one or the other of them (crime of passion), marital issues are likely the stressor.

19. Questioning of the daughter may be relevant to establish if there were any major arguments that day or before which could have been the reason for the crime. If any significant argument is found, the subject should also be asked and if denied this could be a potential flash-point and reason for the murder.

20. If no argument is reported by the daughter prior to being dropped-off, questions should be directed as to ‘what happened’ from that point onwards.

21. His mentioning of Lights-off could indicate sexual issues within the marriage, either through inter-personal ‘separation’ or through disfunction or medical issues.

22. His calling for the police suggests he was comfortable doing so – this would mean that he feels confident he can escape prosecution and has disposed of any evidence well.

23. As someone who is unlikely to have murdered before or been in trouble with the police, it is possible he may have some interest or knowledge in forensics.

24. Time to dispose of weapons or clothing may take some time. He references ‘just’ finding his wife and the use of this within the call suggests he killed his wife earlier, and the autopsy should support this.

25. Questioning should focus on time and detail, both of which are missing in the call – the subject has avoided detail and skipped-over time.

26. The fact the daughter was away that night suggests that this is more likely to be an opportunistic crime than a fit of rage.

27. His wife being killed in the stables, rather than in the home, could suggest this was less likely an argument that got out-of-hand, but something more calculated but with a flash-point earlier that day or something of significance that he could not let go of, and that still came-out in his language within the 999 call which even if he is intelligent, he could not suppress.

28. If this was not an argument that got out of hand and the stables were chosen, then without an immediate ‘flash-point’ then it would suggest a calculated murder, albeit not premeditated, but also therefore not ‘temporary insanity’ or loss of control.

29. It may therefore be worth considering interview questions that focus on his emotions, asking if anything annoyed him that day or before then. Asking him about his wife, if they had argued, how their marriage was, if they were having marital difficulties, if they had any other problems affecting their relationship – being specific and going through one-by-one.

30. If this is an intelligent, calculated person it may be possible their responses will be the same. If this was a murder out of character for Pomphret then the catalyst must have been significant for someone like him to ignore his better instincts.

31. Trying to elicit emotion from the subject could be a useful approach to ‘break’ his natural state.

The Case for Statement Analysis in the UK Investigation

My Analysis here is an in-depth one, so takes longer as we know. However, it’s my contention that even with a ‘speed’ analysis there were enough linguistic markers to quickly establish that David Pomphret was being deceptive, and I am confident that had Statement Analysis been used early on in this case, it would have considerably shortened the investigation and saved police time as I shall explain.

So how much would an Analyst charge for this analysis to help the police, if we were engaged by them to do so…?

Before I confirm who murdered Ann, this is the reason I ask the question - consider this….

The Pomphret Police Investigation

· Described as one of the biggest in Cheshire Police’s history.

· CCTV cameras were searched over a 2km radius to find the killer.

· Police visited more than 300 addresses in the vicinity.

· Police checked 1300 people.

· Police reviewed 480 vehicles.

· A 24-day underwater search of nearby lakes and watercourses to locate a murder weapon.

· 5+ Months of investigative time.

· 15 police interviews with Pomphret himself.

· The average salary for a police officer (not a senior detective) is currently £36,402.

· The cost-saving had a Statement Analyst been utilised will have been monumental.

Whilst physical/forensic proof has to be part of the process of convicting a killer, there is no avoiding the huge time-saving, financial savings to the police force, and the drain on resources the investigation here took.

Statement Analysis, had it been used here, would have undoubtedly helped bring the murderer to justice far more quickly and effectively.

In addition, we would also have been able to analyse the police body-cam conversation with which to also work with. I have not provided my analysis of this as part of this submission, however this also serves to underpin the conclusions from my earlier analysis, and I recommend this for ‘on-the-fly’ and in-depth analysis and you will find the link for this below.

Whilst the police considered Pomphret a ‘very, very convincing liar’, it is clear from just reviewing this 999 call alone that a trained Analyst would not take that same view. The science of Statement Analysis helps to separate the ‘man’ from the ‘mouth – by applying the science purely to what is being said (and not said) will provide a solid foundation from which investigators can concentrate their enquiries, and to effectively direct their resources. I have no doubt that had the investigators had an Analysis of this call and the body-cam footage that this would have slashed the enquiry time. Had an Analyst worked with the investigators in their initial interview(s) with Pomphret then it is clear that the science will have separated fact from fiction here and drilled-down to the truth.

The fact there is both an Emergency call and a video-recorded conversation makes this an especially interesting case, and it could be argued, a useful training case example which also underscores the value of Statement Analysis and the investigation time it can save.

Ann Pomphret’s Killer

Ann’s husband, David Pomphret, 51, was convicted of her murder on 15^th October 2019.

Pomphret, a computer specialist for Barclays Bank, enjoyed a well-paid job and lived with Ann and their daughter in a leafy Cheshire town, where they had a large property with stables and horses which Ann entered into shows.

David Pomphret was described as being a quiet man, his daughter describing him as the ‘calmest man on the planet’. Police described him as not showing much emotion and being considered in his responses, and the branded him a ‘very, very convincing liar’. How could the use of a trained Analyst have potentially changed their judgement of him?

Ann Pomphret had recently been diagnosed with Aspergers, a form of autism, and had experienced some mental illness which caused her to have a temper. Prior to her murder, their daughter was staying over at a friends, and after going shopping Ann and David had had an argument at the stables. During this David Pomphret explained she had also told him he was ‘limp and useless’ (‘lights-off’), referring to erectile dysfunction he was experiencing. He says he snapped, and Ann was later found with over 30 blows to her head, although the pathologist was unable to determine how many blows were made to her head due to the severity of her condition. No murder weapon was found at the scene, but a crowbar was found when they drained a pond at the property, and a hammer was found in a rabbit hole.

One of David Pomphret’s favourite programmes was CSI, and the crowbar was found to have been washed, and he had burned his blood-soaked clothes in an incinerator. A speck of blood was found on his sock, which he had not disposed of, and it was this forensic evidence that linked him to the murder, and ultimately convicted him.