Andrew’s wife is reported to have been driving when the teenager rode his bike into the side of their car when they were on their way home from the beach.
The Herald Sun revealed that lawyers for Ryan had launched a Supreme Court Damages claim against Andrews and his wife Catherine. There is also a question of whether Andrews himself may have been the driver of the vehicle at the time of the incident.
Andrews refuses to speak publicly on the incident now, although he did give a radio interview on January 16th 2013, just over a week after the event. This close, the event should be fresh in his mind which should allow for reliable recall.
What can we learn from his words? He is the one who knows what happened and through analysis we can get to the truth.
Dan Andrews 3AW 693 Radio Interview with Justin Smith Jan 16 2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HOhuZBQkrc&list=LL&index=2
Questions for Analysis
1. Is the subject truthful? Is this a reliable account of what happened?
2. Who was driving the car? Does the subject’s language support or negate the theory that he was the driver?
3. Was alcohol consumed?
4. Who was at fault regarding the accident?
5. Has Andrews used his position to influence the Police investigation?
Justin
“The front page of the herald sun this morning is not a good read for Daniel Andrews. The opposition leader and his wife have been accused of cold heartedness after the car they were in, driven by Catherine Andrews was in an accident with a teenager on January 7 at Blairgowrie. Ryan Meuleman is the boy 15 years old was badly hurt and sent to the royal Children's. Internal bleeding broken ribs, punctured lung. His father peter is upset at the silence of the Andrews family. Reading through the story the Andrews family say they called police to check up on the boy's condition. Mr Andrews was not keen to talk about it. He said his wife was a private citizen He's on the line. Daniel Andrews good morning.”
1. Noted this interview is taking place only just over a week after the incident. The details should be clear in the subject’s mind of what happened. We have an expectation of clear reliable language.
2. The accusation from source unknown but likely media at this point is “cold-heartedness”. The interviewer likely has no knowledge at this time of rumours that Andrews was the driver.
3. Ryan’s father is “upset at the silence of the Andrews family”
Andrews
“Good morning, Justin.”
Justin
“How how are you and how is your wife?”
Andrews
“oh look it was a very traumatic incident for everybody involved but our thoughts Justin are obviously with Ryan and we're very pleased that he's out of hospital now and that he's got the best care possible and that he's going to be going to be okay. It was a very nasty incident. He um hit the side of our car very hard um it was very very traumatic for everybody involved.”
1. The subject (Andrews) does not directly answer the question of how he is, or how his wife is. He answers that it was a “very traumatic incident for everybody involved”. He includes everybody involved into this trauma. It avoids saying that he is fine and so is his wife unlike the boy who is in hospital. His answer has the effect of putting them all in the same boat. They are all victims. This is the first thing he says making it a priority for him.
2. The subject uses the name of the interviewer here right from the start. We will watch to when he uses this and when he does not. This may be familiarity with the host, it can be to include the host or sometimes it can be used in a controlling or dominating fashion. The subject’s intention is not clear at this point.
3. The subject reports that Ryan hit the side of our car very hard. There is an “um” which is a slight pause, but the sentence is otherwise reliable.
4. This is an “incident” rather than an accident. Andrews linguistically lays the blame of this incident at the feet of the boy. “He um hit the side of our car very hard”.
5. The subject (Andrews) repeats his previous statement that it was traumatic for everybody involved. He qualifies this for emphasis with the inclusion of the word “very” twice. We must consider that he has a need to persuade us that he and his wife should be included in the status of victim in this incident. This in turn raises the question of whether he is harbouring guilt in this.
6. Within his first response to a question that he does not answer the subject (Andrews), has revealed two things he wants us to know as his priorities.
1. Everyone is a victim here. Him included.
2. The fault for the “incident” lays at the feet of Ryan (the boy)
Justin
“Were you move just so people have an understanding of what happened, were you moving at the time?”
1. This is not a good question from the interviewer. This question has removed much information that would have been gleaned from the subject had he simply asked, “what happened”. When a subject is asked “what happened” they have to go into their memory and will begin wherever the incident starts for them. This can be anywhere. This direct question about the subject status regarding movement denies us this important information.
Andrews
“yeah we were we’d turned right from a standing start into a, into a side street um there's a bike path that runs parallel to the street we’d turned from and you know the next thing we knew he was in the uh in in the windscreen having hit hit us if you like at a sort of perfect 90 90 degree angle to the side of the car so it was a very nasty accident.
1. “Yeah” is casual but reliable in context.
2. The subject speaks for them all again here. “we’d turned right”. They were not all or both driving. The subject unifies himself with his wife. Is this appropriate? We like people to speak for themselves. They were both in the car and the subject may feel protective of this wife’s actions or there could be another reason for this use of “we”. The subject is answering the question of “were you moving?” which could also provoke the unified answer.
3. “from a standing start” To turn right the subjects car will have crossed over the oncoming traffic lane. This is an indication there was traffic on the road they turned from, and they had to wait for a gap to turn.
4. Why the need to tell us “from a standing start”? Unnecessary wording is always important. Does the subject want us to believe they couldn’t have been going fast as they were not moving moments before? This may be an indication of the opposite. Did the driver of the car have to pull into the side street quickly due to traffic on the main road where they were at a “standing start”
5. A “standing start” is a phrase often used in reference to the start of a race.
6. The subject does not tell us that Ryan came out of the bike path. We cannot say it for him. It may be the case, but it is not reliably reported by Andrews.
7. “the next thing we knew” is a Temporal lacunae or a jump over time. There is missing information here. What happened here?
8. Again, the subject is speaking for them both. An account should be what you did. What you saw. Here the subject is telling us the next thing they both knew.
9. Is the missing information that they were going fast into the side street?
10. The use of “In” for “in the windscreen” tells us that Ryan was through where the windscreen would usually be either fully or indented inside the driver’s area. This was a hard hit into the windscreen.
11. “the next thing we knew he was in the uh in in the windscreen having hit hit us if you like”. He was in the windscreen is passive which conceals responsibility. It does not tell us who put him there or how he got there. This passivity is then immediately followed by a weak assertion that it was Ryan’s fault. “having hit us”.
12. “Having hit us” is a weak assertion. The addition of “if you like” weakens this assertion to a preference.
13. A “sort of perfect 90 degree angle” is not a 90 degree angle. “Sort of” and “perfect” are contradictory.
14. Should the subject be pressing that his wife did the right thing rather than hiding her in the overuse of “we”. Why would he do this? Should he be telling us that “she pulled into the street. There was no way she could have seen him or got out of the way”
15. This entire sentence is then made even more sensitive to the subject as he makes it an unnecessary reason why it was a very nasty accident.
16. There is a lot of sensitivity and unreliability about this part of the interview from Andrews. There is in fact, enough to conclude that Andrews is withholding information about the incident from this sentence alone.
“ it was a very heavy hit and we're just all very grateful and and very pleased that he's been able to be treated properly and that he's come through it.”
1. Does the subject wish to move away from the topic of what happened? He has removed everything that happened between “having hit us if you like at a sort of perfect 90 degree angle” and “he’s been able to be treated properly and come through it”
2. By whom was the heavy hit?
3. The subject continues with his unity of “we, we’re”
4. It is interesting he uses the phrase “come through it” after the boy was through the windscreen. The brain knows what it knows..
5. Why would Ryan (the boy) not have been able to be treated properly? Is the subject going to claim that he helped get good treatment for the Ryan?
Justin
“yeah should you have given way to him or is it the other way around?”
Andrews
“well look I don't want to get I don't want to be you know finding fault with him but he struck the righthand side of our car. We didn't see him. He was not visible on the road or anything like that um you know he then went over the car after having gone into the wind screen. It was a very nasty incident and one that you wouldn't wish on anybody”
1. The subject does not want to answer the question here making it sensitive to him.
2. He tells us in the negative what he doesn’t want to do which is finding fault with Ryan. Anything in the negative is important to the subject.
3. The word “but” refutes or minimises what came before. In this case that the subject does not want to find fault with Ryan
4. “We didn’t see him”. The overuse of speaking for them both continues. If the subject’s unity with his wife is protective, then he should be telling us what she did. He could have said “Ryan came out of nowhere. There was no way my wife could have seen him or avoided him”. He does not. This overuse of “we” is often used by those who wish to hide in the crowd. At this point in the statement, the question for analysis of who was driving remains open and unanswered. We cannot say who was driving. The subject has not told us that his wife was driving. He has not used her name which may be an indication of a strained relationship at this point in the statement and his continual overuse of the pronoun “we” is concerning.
5. “One that you wouldn’t wish on anybody” This is unnecessary to say and may be to portray himself as the good guy often an indication of the opposite.
Justin
“yeah the windscreen broke I believe”
Andrews
“yeah so we”
Justin
“and your wife your wife sustained some some cuts”
Andrews
“oh some very minor cuts we had our three little kids in the car and they were sort of there was glass showered everywhere and it was very nasty and I I I can only imagine um what it must have been like for Ryan's father. I'm obviously a father and no parent would want to get that call to say that their son that their child had been involved in an accident”
Justin
“what was it what was it like at that time when you you both realized what had happened and you got out of the car? what condition was Ryan in at that time was he was he conscious at all?”
Andrews
“He was conscious. Yeah he was conscious at all times. He was lying on the road just behind the car. We'd stopped the car. ( ) Got out. I rang triple o immediately and my wife then you know sat sat beside him and tried to comfort him.”
1. The overuse of “we” continues. This time it was them both that stopped the car. This is not an action that can be shared unless he pulled up the handbrake from the passenger seat which is unlikely. If he is not willing to say his wife stopped the car, we cannot say it for him. Why would he linguistically share this action? We must consider he is concealing who was driving the car?
2. This overuse is not appropriate. It is sometimes used when subjects are unified in deception or as a way of crowd sourcing guilt. The subject does not want to be alone in this statement.
3. The subject has still not said that his wife, (who remains unnamed) was driving the car. He has not assigned linguistically any actions to her relating to the car. Now however, for the first time he tells us of his wife’s action. He tells us that she “sat, sat beside him” presumably on the ground. Andrews allocates no actions to his wife regarding the car.
4. The argument that Andrews is defending his wife with his overuse and unity of the pronoun “we” is becoming a stretch. He has not linguistically defended her actions as the driver of the car in any way.
5. Andrew’s wife who remains nameless in his verbalised perception of reality has only been allocated an action by herself when sitting on the ground next to the boy whilst Andrews is taking control on the phone. All actions previous to this, even though she is supposed to be the one driving have been allocated the pronoun “we” by Andrews.
6. “Got out”. What has caused this missing pronoun? This is one place where the pronoun “we” is expected as it is an action that they both would have taken and yet there is no pronoun for this brief sentence. I believe the subject and his wife got out of the car, but something has caused his brain to omit the pronoun. This is a lack of psychological commitment to the act of getting out of the car. Was there a delay in getting out? Some conversation between the subject and his wife? What was it?
7. “Got out” is unnecessary to say. It slows down the pace avoiding getting to what happened next.
8. Finally, we have “I”, entering the statement, in the context of what happened from the subject. This makes this sentence very important to him. “I rang triple O” is reliable. The need to portray it as immediate raises the question of whether there was a delay in doing so. People who do things straight away don’t have this need to say they did it immediately. They simply state what happened, what they did etc. There was likely a delay here. This comes immediately after the subject omits the pronoun when telling us unnecessarily that they got out of the car. This may be where the delay happened. Was there discussion in the car before getting out?
9. We still do not know the subject’s wife’s name. He has not said it. He takes possession of her with the pronoun “my” and gives her the title of wife but without a name. This can be an indication of a poor relationship between them at this point. This sort of language can indicate that the spouse is more of a possession than a person.
10. “then” is another indication of a delay or missing information. It is also telling us that the subject’s wife did not sit down and try to comfort Ryan until after there had likely been a delay for some reason and then also after the subject rang triple zero. What was happening in these time delays? The incomplete social introduction from the subject for his wife may give us insight into this. Were they arguing about something or trying to decide what they were going to do? What could they have to discuss or argue about that is more important than a 15-year-old boy injured and lying in the road?
11. “Sat” is repeated. The inclusion of body posture in a statement is an indication of tension.
12. Why the delay in calling triple O and the tension with “sat” repeated and stuttered over? What did the subject and his wife do here? Where was the subject when his wife was sitting next to Ryan?
“There's not much you can do really other than try and offer some sort of reassuring words. um and I impressed upon the triple O operator that it was a serious issue and we needed an ambulance here as soon as we could.”
1. The subject is portraying himself as the good guy again reinforcing the opposite assumption. Again, he uses the pronoun “I”. Again, the pronoun “I” is used to portray himself as the “Good Guy”. The need to portray yourself as the good guy is often an indication of the opposite.
2. Anything reported in the negative is important. The subject tells us there is not much you can do. What did he do? We want to him to speak for himself. You could check the injured boy’s injuries. You could try to make him comfortable. The subject is telling us he did not do this, and he doesn’t tell us reliably that he gave “some sort of reassuring words”. Did he? We cannot say but he wants us to believe he is the good guy likely indicating the opposite.
3. For whom is this a serious issue? For the boy it was a serious injury. For the subject it is an issue. Who is the priority here for the subject?
Justin
“all right well the herald sun is accusing you of cold-heartedness here and so is is the family. Is the story fair?”
Andrews
“Well look I’m I'm not here to bag journalists off that's never been my way. What I want to make very clear though is um we did not contact Ryan. We did not contact his father um and the reason I didn't do that the reason we didn't do that is that the police have not as I understand it, has still not interviewed him.
1. The subject avoids the question and is unwilling or unable to say “No. It is not fair”. He tells us in the negative what has never been his way. The good guy narrative continues.
2. The subject continues with the “we” format but slips into “I” revealing it is he who would have contacted Ryan’s family if it were going to happen. He is running things even though we are led to believe it was his wife who was the driver.
He's obviously a witness to the incident the police have got an important job to do um and I'm not after any special treatment. I'm certainly not after uh I'm certainly not going to interfere with the police doing their important work and I made the judgment yeah and the police the police confirmed that judgment Justin that it would be inappropriate for me to be contacting a minor uh before the police had spoken to him.
1. The subject tells us in the negative making it doubly important what he is not after and what he is not going to do. He qualifies this with the word “certainly” which weakens an already sensitive negative assertion.
2. The subject self-censors and changes “certainly not being after” to “certainly not going to interfere”. This change of language leaves it to the police if there is to be special treatment. It is also in the future. Has he obtained special treatment or interfered already enough to influence police actions? Is he confident that with his position he will not need to interfere, in order to get special treatment?
3. He ingratiates himself to police with flattery. “Their important work”
4. It is him that made the “judgement” to not contact Ryan
5. He does not say he intends to make contact with the family after they have spoken to Police.
Now we've just been really clear about this my wife on the night only a few hours after the incident spoke with police. She spoke with the royal children's hospital um they couldn't tell her much but directed her back to police.
1. “spoke with police” is not interviewed. Did the police not conduct a formal interview?
2. “my wife” Possession again without her name still. This is not a good relationship at this time.
She's I think had five conversations with police in less than a week getting an update each time um on his condition so we've been well informed and perhaps Ryan's father doesn't know that we've made those calls and maybe that's why he's angry. Maybe he thinks that we haven't been interested, far from it. Nothing could be further from the truth.”
1. “spoke” is now “conversations”. Both are informal and casual. Did she make a statement on the accident? If not, is this the special treatment which the subject is no longer after by his words.
Justin
“As you know it is there has there been any attempt by by him to make contact with you?”
Andrews
“uh not that I’m aware of um there may have been but he certainly hasn't uh I I’m not I’m not I I don't know about that.
1. When a subject who does not normally stutter, stutters on the pronoun “I” it is a clear indication of anxiety.
2. Continuous negatives and the subject shuts down this question. This was a stressful question for the subject.
3. The subject’s language is indicative of someone who knows of attempts to contact him by Ryan’s father and has ignored and avoided the contact.
um what I do know is that you know there's a there's a comment in the paper today that this doesn't look good for me. Well you know, I've not been at all concerned with how this looks. I've been concerned with the welfare of Ryan and I’ve been concerned to make sure that I didn't at any stage interfere in the police's investigation that's that important process that they should go through you know whether it looks good or bad that's not been my concern and it's not my concern now.”
1. The subject has moved from the uncomfortable question of whether Ryan’s father has tried to contact him to where he portrays himself as a victim of the media. He is the victim now.
2. As well as a victim he continues to portray himself as the good guy. When a subject has the need to portray themselves in this way it is indicative of the opposite.
3. Why would you be concerned that you would interfere in the police investigation? The subject doesn’t mention the receiving of special treatment.
4. The subject is sermonising about the importance of the police investigation. Sermons are often included in the statements of those harbouring guilt.
Justin
“all right well just a couple of questions that I had off air to people people asking me so please don't take these as uh as trying to lead into anything else. Was your wife breath tested?”
Andrews
“the police did not breath test her no.”
1. Reliably stated information
Justin
“okay do you would you consider that to be unusual”
Andrews
“well, I've not been involved in an accident like that before. I don't know how how usual or unusual that is. Now this was one o'clock in the afternoon um we had three little kids in the car um you know she spent quite a lot of time with the victoria police they were on scene before the ambulance. she's cooperated with police. She spent you know there was every opportunity and she would have had no difficulty in in uh in being breath-tested if they asked her to. they didn't raise it you know.”
1. The subject has used a lot of words to answer a yes or no question. “Well” is a slight pause to think.
2. The subject then tells us why he doesn’t know if not being breath tested after an accident is usual
3. The subject also floats three reasons why he doesn’t know if it is unusual to not be breath tested after a car accident. He has not been involved in an accident like that before. The time of day and “3 little kids” being present in the car. This is to avoid telling us that his wife (who still remains unnamed) had not been drinking.
4. Is it difficult being breath tested if you have been drinking? Would she have had difficulty passing a breath test?
5. Did the police breath test him? If he were the driver they would have no need to breath test his wife who remains unnamed.
Justin
“Had she had a drink at all?”
Andrews
“absolutely no, no no way at all we've been at the we've been at the beach. I want to be very clear about that absolutely no alcohol whatsoever.”
1. Who is the subject speaking about here? He does not tell us that he is talking about his wife. He could be answering for himself as well as his wife. He uses no pronouns or names.
2. “No” would be reliable language. “No My wife had not had a drink” would also be reliable. Using her name would be better.
3. The addition of “absolutely” weakens his denial.
4. Stuttering on the word “no” and “we’ve” is an indication of stress at this question.
5. “no way at all” weakens the denial further.
6. A hina claus is where a subject has the need to tell us why something happened or didn’t happen without us asking. The subject needs reinforcement for his words. It is like he is telling us someone did not drink because they had been at the beach. This is a need to persuade.
7. He then tells us what he wants to be very clear about. This is not to tell us what is true. It is simply an intention of clarity which has no bearing on truth. It adds to the need to persuade.
8. More additional unnecessary words. “absolutely and whatsoever”. The subject has demonstrated an excessive need to persuade that no alcohol was involved whilst being unable to say who he is talking about, and without telling us reliably that there was no alcohol.
Justin
“was ryan wearing a helmet?”
Andrews
“he was yes, and I and I'm very thankful that he was.”
1. This is a reliable sentence from the subject.
2. It tells us that he, when not having the need to persuade and deceive will give reliable language. The contrast is evident.
Justin
“ all right and look the last one uh is that uh why do do we need a four-wheel drive is that as your as your taxpayer car?”
Andrews
“well it's not a four-wheel drive it's a it's a ford territory like it's a large vehicle it's a family vehicle um it's not on a four-wheel drive as it's as it's as described in the paper it's just a normal ford territory”
Justin
“that seems fair you've got three children so that seems fair oh well yeah yeah”
Andrews
“ So, look Justin I want to be really clear about this you know our thoughts have always been right from the moment the incident occurred, have been with Ryan to to give him whatever support we could um and to make sure that we were kept informed and we have been regularly uh I was never going to interfere with a police investigation. If people mark me down for that well then I can't help that but the the last thing I was ever going to do was try and speak to him before the police had spoken to him. That would just not be right. I'm just very grateful that very grateful that he's been able to get the best care possible at the royal children's hospital. That he's going to be going to be okay.”
1. What is this support for Ryan that the subject speaks of? He has not contacted him or his family.
Justin
“ i mean this is something that not everyone is obviously going to care about but but would it have been better for you if you had have been not not so much up front but you had disclosed straight away look my family and i've been in an accident it's under police investigation early on?”
Andrews
“Well some people might come to that judgment you know i think a one or two line statement that probably would have posed more questions than it answered or wouldn't have done much good i think it's more fulsome statement that would have seen us putting our version of events out there into the public domain before the police had an opportunity to speak with the other party you know I don't think that would have been appropriate um you know people will make their own judgments on that but I I just make the point again that Ryan's welfare has been foremost in our minds and second to that I've been absolutely determined not to be interfering with Victoria police investigating what was a very serious incident. Thankfully he's going to be okay thankfully his injuries weren't more serious. i wouldn't wish it on anyone and my my thoughts and my best wishes are for him for his family”
1. The subject is the “good guy”
2. What does being absolutely determined with not interfering with Victoria Police’s investigation look like?
3. Being “absolutely determined” is to be committed. Being committed takes effort and work.
4. “I’m certainly not going to interfere with the police” is now “I’ve been absolutely determined not to be interfering with Victoria Police”. A change of language indicates a change in reality.
5. We do not have to be determined to not do something we do not desire to do. The additional word “absolutely” weakens this.
6. Is there an unintentional recipient to this statement? Is Victoria Police the unintentional recipient?
7. What is the difference between “Police” and “Victoria Police”? Is “Police”, rank and file officers and “Victoria Police” Higher up the ranks in charge?
8. If the subject does not get the “special treatment” will he then submit to his desire to interfere with the Victoria Police higher up officers?
Andrews
“uh you wouldn't wish it on anyone Justin”
Justin
“yeah no absolutely and, and also to your family too I hope your wife is fine and your children are okay and yourself. Thank you very much all. Right thank you Daniel Andrews State opposition leader”
Conclusions
1. Is the subject truthful? Is this a reliable account of what happened?
This is not a reliable account of what happened on the day of the accident between the Andrews vehicle and Ryan Meuleman. There are many indicators of sensitivity and missing information about what happened.
2. Who was driving the car?
The subject had and created many opportunities to say his wife was driving the car at the time of the accident. He consistently used the pronoun “we”, for all actions involving the car which served to conceal the identity of the driver.
An argument could be made to say he is protective about his wife and so unified them in the accident. However if he wished to buttress his statement in protection of her, we would expect to hear more reliable language saying what she did, and what she would have been unable to do in avoiding the accident. For example, “My wife could not have seen Ryan or avoided colliding with him”. He did not do this. Instead, he used the pronoun “we” to hide in the collectiveness of them both.
He did not linguistically defend her actions as the driver of the car. In all actions involving the car the subject used the pronoun “we” unifying himself and his wife in the control of the vehicle.
In a casual conversation we may say “we went for a drive, and we stopped at a café” showing unity in the actions involving a car. Context is key. The context in this café example shows the unity of a recreational drive and visit to a café. The context of the radio interview with Andrews is not the same. The actions of each individual had consequences, which should lead the subject to speak for themselves and to say who did what and when. In this context repeated use of the pronoun “we” is not appropriate.
The language used by the subject leaves the question of who was driving suspiciously open. As the question of who was driving, was not addressed by either the interviewer or Andrews further questioning is required to make a solid conclusion. It is noted however that the language used by Andrews is consistent with him being the driver although not conclusive.
3. Was alcohol consumed?
The subject does not tell us reliably that alcohol was not consumed by either his wife or himself.
4. Who was at fault regarding the accident?
From the statement the subject has a need to persuade us that Ryan was at fault for the accident making it likely that either some or all of the blame lies with the driver of the Andrews vehicle.
5. Has Andrews used his position to influence the Police investigation?
Whether directly or indirectly the language is consistent with the use of position to gain favour with both Police and Victoria Police. He is likely aware they will listen to this interview.
There is a call now (June 2023) for the Triple Zero Emergency call from Andrews to Police to be made public. If this happens it will provide us with a valuable sample for analysis. Emergency calls are an excellent source of information usually free from contamination. They have helped solve many cases in the past. Emergency call operators job is to gain information free from outside concerns such as keeping their interview subjects happy, entertaining the public or ratings figures. All things that radio hosts have as concerns.
