Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Kyron Horman New Flyer

As June approaches, I often think of Kyron, and of course, his step mother, Terri, of whom deception was indicated with regard to his disappearance, leaving his mother, Desiree Young, bereft of all comfort and closure. 

In the very least, Terri could have mercy upon the family and anonymously communicate where Kyron's remains can be recovered.  

Terri Horman failed her polygraph.  

PORTLAND -- A sign posted outside of Terri Horman's home in Roseburg is raising questions.  The flier suggests an "unknown man" may be connected to her stepson's disappearance.
The flier title, "Find Kyron First" includes an age progression photo of Kyron Horman and the missing boy's description.
It also includes the following statement: "Kyron Horman was last seen at a public invited Science Fair at Skyline School in Portland OR by witnesses who saw him with an unknown man."
Investigators believe Terri Horman was the last one to see her stepson before he disappeared from Skyline School on June 4, 2010. She has not been charged in the case.
Terri Horman was not available for comment. It's not clear who created the flier.
The Multnomah County Sheriff's Office declined to comment on the new flier.
A spokesman said the public should rely on official law enforcement bulletins from the FBI or local police for information about the case.

Holly Bobo: 2nd Suspect Arrested


Second suspect charged in disappearance of nursing student Holly Bobo

from fox news.com 
Jason Wayne Autry was also charged for his alleged involvement in the disappearance of Tennessee Nursing Student Holly Bobo.TENNESSEE BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Authorities in Tennessee have charged a second person in the case of a Tennessee nursing student abducted from her family's home three years ago.
Jason Wayne Autry was charged with aggravated kidnapping and felony murder by the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, authorities announced Tuesday.
At the same time, Zachary Adams, who previously was charged with murder and aggravated kidnapping in the case, was additionally charged with coercion.
The charges against both Adams and Autry--who has a lengthy criminal history and is currently incarcerated at the Riverbend Maximum Security Facility-- were handed down after evidence was presented to a grand jury.
Autry was charged after sworn witness statements said he was seen with Adams and Bobo after the time of her abduction. Investigatorssaid they anticipate making more arrests in the coming weeks.
“We believe there are others who have information and may have been involved,” TBI Director Mark Gwyn said at a late afternoon press conference. “This sends a clear message that we will be knocking on their door.”
Bobo, a nursing student at the University of Tennessee at Martin, was last seen at her home in Parsons on April 13, 2011, by her older brother, who reported seeing her being taken into the woods by an unidentified man dressed in camouflage.
A small amount of blood was found in the family's carport, where Holly was believed taken from while on her way to school, police sources told FoxNews.com at the time of her disappearance. Despite extensive searches that included bloodhounds and high-resolution underwater imaging, authorities found no trace of the 20-year-old woman, who is presumed dead.
In late February, Adams, 29, was charged with murder and aggravated kidnapping in the case.
"We believe we can prove that she was taken forcefully from her home without her consent," District Attorney General Hansel McAdams said at the time. He said he will consider pursing the death penalty if Adams is convicted. 
Investigators would not get into details about why Adams was charged. His home, however, is about 15 miles from where Bobo lived in Parsons, a small town about 100 miles northeast of Memphis in Decatur County.
He has pleaded not guilty and remains in jail without bond.
Bobo's brother, Clint, reported to police that he saw a man in camouflage clothes leading his sister into the woods behind the family's home. He said he initially thought she was being taken into the woods by her boyfriend, but grew concerned when he saw the man's arm holding onto his sister. He called his mother, who then contacted 911.

Amanda Knox: Italian Court States Stabbed Victim

Knox, roommate argued over money before stabbing: court


Amanda Knox and her tragic roommate bitterly argued over money before “Foxy Knoxy” finished her off with a kitchen knife, according to Italian court documents unsealed Tuesday.
There was ample physical evidence to convict the Seattle co-ed and two others of murdering Meredith Kercher on Nov. 2, 2007, a court in Florence said in a 337-page ruling from January that declared Knox guilty in a retrial.
Kercher, 21, was killed “by multiple aggressors” who forcibly restrained her while stabbing her, the court ruled.
The British co-ed had no defensive wounds, which the court reasoned, showed she was overpowered and didn’t have a chance against knife-wielding killers.
Knox’s co-defendant and then-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito used a small knife to stab the right side of Kercher’s neck and cut off her bra, according to the court.
Co-defendant Rudy Hermann Guede sexually assaulted Kercher before Knox “delivered the only mortal blow,” by butchering her roommate with a kitchen knife, the court said.
Knox, now 26, was originally convicted of Kercher’s murder in Perugia, where both women were exchange students, and spent four years behind bars, before Italy’s high court vacated verdicts against her and Sollecito in 2011.
Knox rushed home to Seattle after she was released and has vowed never to return to Italy.
She was retried in absentia and found guilty again by an appellate court in Florence in January. The court documents released Tuesday detailed that second guilty verdict.
“It is a matter of fact that at a certain point in the evening events accelerated; the English girl was attacked by Amanda Marie Knox, by Raffaele Sollecito, who was backing up his girlfriend, and by Rudy Hermann Guede, and constrained within her own room,” according to the court.
This appellate court backed away from the prosecution’s earlier assertion that Kercher was killed when she declined to have kinky sex with Knox and her boyfriend.
Modal Trigger
An undated photo of British student Meredith Kercher.Photo: AP
It was an earlier argument over money that prompted Knox’s “desire to abuse and humiliate the . . . girl,” according to the court.
Knox was sentenced to 28¹/₂ years in prison in January. She still has avenues to appeal January’s ruling and could string out the process for months, if not years.
And even if Knox loses and runs out of appeals, there’s still no guarantee that US authorities would honor an extradition request by Italy.
Sollecito’s lawyer, Giulia Bongiorno, ridiculed the court’s reasoning.
“Honestly the verdict is so full of errors, illogical elements and contradictions, that I strongly believe it will be overturned [on appeal],” Bongiorno said
.

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Cursing in Statement Analysis



Why do people curse?

Why do we teach children not to curse?

Why is it shocking to hear a child curse?

Why the **** would it make a difference?

How should we view cursing, or swear words, in Statement Analysis?

I. Cursing and Society

"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" from Clark Gable's character, Rhett Butler, in 1939's "Gone With The Wind" was a quote that had to pass censorship.  Today, it does not rise to the level of discussion.

We teach children not to curse for a variety of reasons, including two important ones:

1.  Self restraint
2.  Respect for others
3.  Indulgence

It matters not what the word, itself, is, when we are dealing with self restraint.  It is easier to curse than not to curse; similar to a large sign, in a stone filled lot, where there is an abandoned building with a large sign that says:

                             "DO NOT THROW ROCKS AT WINDOWS"

Every 10 year old boy knows the adrenaline rush he feels when he sees that sign posted just below the targeted windows.  The statement, in the negative, is provocative; that is, it provokes the boy into wanting to throw rocks.  Had it said, "KEEP WINDOWS UNBROKEN" it would not have the same impact written in the positive.

It takes a measure of self restraint for us not to curse and self discipline is critical to responsible adulthood.  The lack of self discipline impacts every area of life from health to safety.

It matters not if the word is "Gobblegook" or any nonsense word:  it takes restraint to not say something.

Self Restraint is something that keeps society safe, and the lack of self restraint is what has led to an abundance of laws, to the point where Caesars from yesteryear would have drooled over the control government exercises today over its citizens.

Self Restraint is good for children to practice, just as it is good for us to practice it.  Where one, for example, refuses to curse in front of women and children, he is, perhaps, using self restraint as a means of respect.  If that self restraint is later put to the test, in a more serious manner, such as domestic violence, the man who, as a boy, was taught to govern his passions and temper, may escape the once unmanly assault of the weaker sex.

 Like it or not, self discipline is critical to society, even though the self-esteem cult has steamrolled past it, where everyone must be first, and the language of humility is as foreign today in a way a few generations ago would have thought impossible.

2.  Respect

a.  Respect for women.
b.  Respect for status or position
c.  Respect for location

This can also be a nonsense word, but its lack of use, in the presence of some, is a sign of respect, sorely lacking from society today.

I taught my sons not to curse in front of women, as it was disrespectful.  Again, it could only be the word "gobbledegook" or something like it, which is not the point:  the point is that if I could teach them, as boys, to take special care around their mother and sisters, one day, they would take special care of their wives, who would, in turn, thank me for teaching them manners.

It is like the kid who gets a new (for him) car and polishes it and cleans it every day.  He is not likely going to be reckless with it:  he has invested too much effort into it.  So it is that young boys can be taught, from an early age, to never hit a female.

We wouldn't have the Domestic Violence industry that we have today if this was still taught.  Sadly, egalitarianism says otherwise, and when my son refuses to hit a female in hockey, he is laughed at.

That's okay with us.  This too, shall pass, as what we embrace today as a society may be gone tomorrow, or the day after, as we grow sickened by the burgeoning jail population of brutish, effeminate men who think it is acceptable to hit women.  Masculinity sacrifices strength; it does not use it to exploit the weak.
b.  Respect for status or position

"Mr. President..." is a term of respect to be used when addressing the man who holds the office; it is appropriate for the office, no matter what you think of the man.  "Salute the rank" military says.

When a child uses foul language to his or her teacher, or coach, it is a signal of disrespect, not only for the person, but for the position the person holds.

It is almost unthinkable that children should stand when speaking to a teacher and say, "Good morning, Mrs. Smith" to start the day.

Tell a child to dress appropriately for school, in a manner that shows respect for the dignity of the learning facility, and the cries of "censorship" and "squelching freedom" are echoed everywhere.

I like to use the term, "Doctor" when addressing someone who has worked hard enough to receive a Phd in whatever profession, even though they may not be a medical doctor.  It shows respect for the hard work they put into their studies.  To hold a doctorate, for example, in history, deserves respect.


c.  Respect for location

Would you walk into the White House and spew out vile cursing?
How about church?
Would you walk into an opera, take your seat and start chanting, "hell yeah!"?
I have had job applicants come in for an interview, not only slovenly dressed, but littering the interview with four letter words.  Talk about first impressions?

We cannot stop people from judging us.  It is naturally done by the brain (as seen through our words) but we can influence that judgement by our appearance and our words.

I wore jeans and a polo shirt visiting Ben + Jerrys, but I would not wear that to the White House, nor would I go to a job interview in shorts.

Location matters.

Think of the great symbolism manifest in a Christian wedding, including the colors, and the high view of marriage as displayed in symbolism.  An American flag might be but a few square inches, as a symbol, but the reality is almost 300 million people and hundreds of years of history the symbol represents.

Language can be seen the same way:  in the reality it represents.

Statement Analysis seeks to enter into the reality of the subject's perception, through the understanding of communication.

Enter the language and learn the truth.  Here is such an example:

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-language-of-mark-redwine-analyzed.html



3.  Indulgence 

Some will simply refuse to self regulate and will indulge in whatever it is he wants to say.

When the LA Clippers owner said he didn't want his mistress bringing her black friends, the backlash was severe, calling for the NBA to remove him from ownership.

I have yet to read of anyone saying, "Hey, it's racist and stupid, but I defend his right to say so" or anything similar to this.  Instead, those who refuse to take personal responsibility in life are calling for laws and more laws.

What would I like to see happen to him?

I'd like to hear people defend his freedom of speech and then boycott the team until he sells off his interest and fades into oblivion.

No firing, no loss of employment forced upon him, but the simple force of him exercising his freedom to say he does not want blacks to come to the game, against the force of people of good will saying that they do not want to buy tickets to his team as long as he is owner, while defending his freedom to be a moron.

He is said to be a man who is so self indulged and so entitled, that he cannot see past his own needs and wants.

The nation now sees him as a moron. He may be said to be "spoiled", that is, rotten, and rotten by means of refusing to govern his mouth or even his heart.  When I looked at his team, I noticed that his money seems to come from the players' skill levels; most of whom appeared to be black.

Wouldn't it be something to see his freedom of speech defended while fans forcing him out by them exercising their freedom of speech?

It would be something to behold.

A child who is not restrained will likely become an adult without restraint.

I recall one day, years ago, in which I was called over to meet a 3 year old boy.  I noted co-workers trying to keep a poker face, so I knew it was something special.

"Who the f*** are you?" the toddler asked me.

I asked the workers, "Did he just drop the f bomb?"  I simply did not believe it. Some three year olds are hard to understand, so I knew I must be wrong.

One of the workers asked him about "Mommy" as a way to get him to talk again.

"Where is my f***ing mommy?", he answered.  He went on to describe his mommy in equally colorful language.

What was his future?

Perhaps his mother wanted to teach him freedom of speech.


II.  Cursing and Emergencies 

"Where the hell are you?  My son needs an ambulance!"

In statement analysis, there are times, like in a 911 call, when we expect to hear cursing within the urgency.

I recall reading a study that showed that some cursing was healthy, in emergency situations, as it released pent up stress.

In my work, I allow staff to come into my office, close the door, and vent.

This vent does, at times, have some pretty colorful words; words I don't normally use.  This same staff, now having vent out frustrations, often leave the office feeling better, and will not take out such frustrations on clients, or co-workers.

There is the expected just as there is the unexpected.

Recently I reviewed a 911 call in which I concluded deception where the perpetrator called with a greeting, and with the victim laying on the floor, not breathing.  "The gentleman", he called the victim.

Hmmm.

That's way too polite.

The victim was not breathing because the 911 caller had assaulted him viciously.

We have even seen some appropriate use of cursing during interviews where the innocent person is accused by the interviewer and the subject becomes frustrated with the interviewer's inability to dicer.

"What would you say if I told you you were lying?"

I expect the innocent person to not take this lightly, and if I continue to push hard enough, I can expect (and have heard) some say "You're an idiot.  You need a new job" and so on.  The anger rises.


UPDATE:  The NBA has banned the racist owner.  I won't get to see the clash of freedoms in action, at least not in this case.  What is in the heart, comes out in the words.

"From the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks."

The heart is the seat of the intellect and the affections; what we know and how we feel about what we know.



Missing: Two Children in South Carolina Park

Crews Scouring for Dad, Two Kids Missing at Congaree Park

Dozens of searchers are scouring a swampy national park in South Carolina for a father and his two children who disappeared Saturday during a hike, officials said.
Congaree National Park in Richland County, S.C., was closed Monday as search crews combed through thousands of acres of parkland in search of Jerry Robert "J.R." Kimbler, his 10-year-old son and his 6-year-old daughter, said National Parks Service spokeswoman Dana Soehn.
Kimbler, 43, and his young children departed for the hike from the Harry Hampton Visitor Center around 5 p.m. Saturday, according to Soehn.
Soehn said the last known contact with the missing trio was a text message Kimbler sent to a friend at 9:30 p.m. Saturday. Kimbler told the friend that he was lost — and the friend quickly reached out to the mother of Kimbler's kids, who alerted park rangers, according to Soehn.
Search teams have already picked through 9,000 acres of the 27,000-acre park on foot, on boats and on helicopters as the frantic search mission came up on the 48-hour mark Monday with no sign of Kimbler and his kids, Soehn said.
JODY BARR VIA WISTV
Searchers gather Monday morning at Congaree National Park in Hopkins, S.C.
"This has been a very difficult search," Soehn said, adding that search crews faced high water, dense vegetation and obstructions like tree limbs topped by the winter's brutal ice storm.
"The terrain has been very difficult for the searchers. Some areas that would've been a 30-minute walk down the trail are turning into a 2-hour scramble over thickets," Soehn said.
The description reveals frustration as does the above.  The "very difficult" search may indicate that the subject expected better results sooner.  Sound does not travel well through thickets.  
In addition to emergency personnel, the missing children's mother, Tammy Ballard, walked the trails early Monday yelling her kids' names, according to NBC affiliate WIS 10 in Columbia, S.C.
"I can't sleep," Ballard told the station. "I can't do anything. I don't know where my babies are."
In context, the 10 year old and 6 year old are "babies"; that is, at risk, vulnerable.  Note ownership.  
Park officials had no idea Monday how the father and his children managed to veer off the park's marked trails.

Monday, April 28, 2014

Statement Analysis on Resumes


Human Resources is the core of a business in that the right employees or the wrong employees can be the difference between success and failure, and sometimes, the only one standing between the two is the human resources professional.

Human resources professional are often well trained in interviewing, and due to the volume of interviewing, often highly skilled at listening.  Statement Analysis only benefits them, especially those who are intuitively "doing" analysis work without having been taught it.

In trainings in the private sector, we have been showing businesses how to use Statement Analysis on resumes (although the shorter ones are difficult) even before they get to the application and interview stage.



One man listed himself as a _______ State Police Academy Instructor.

Impressive!

He instructed police?

This was a surprise.

A simple call to the Police Academy showed that he spoke at the academy on how to deal with a subject who has developmental disabilities; that is, what 800 number to call.

This became a "Police Instructor" on his resume!

He "shared" a few anecdotes on dealing with someone with developmental disabilities, but basically, he was there to give them the state's 800 number.

That was it.

He turned this into a State Police Instructor.

It is important to verify a resume, but it is time consuming, so what can be done is to "flag" certain resumes for the tedious verification process, rather than having to verify each resume submitted.

Look for consistency.

"No pronouns" is fine.

"Dropped pronouns" is different.

We look for patterns, and we recall that the building blocks of principle are made of clay, not cement. We make adjustments for emails, texts, resumes, and even annual reports.  Anywhere there is communication, Statement Analysis can, and should be applied.

If, for example, one uses the pronoun "I" consistently throughout, where it is dropped, becomes important.

If another does not use pronouns, where it suddenly appears now becomes dominant for us.

We need to know if the subject is a liar, and who is making claims that he ought not to be making.  We wish to weed out those who would damage business, or even morale, by being a "problem bringer" rather than a "problem solver."


Sunday, April 27, 2014

Have You Ever Stolen Anything?

Ethan has yet to tell a single lie

by Peter Hyatt


I ask this question, simply to weed out liars. Liars hold the rest of us in contempt and will cause problems for your company, your group, your team, your family, your marriage, and so on.  Liars believe themselves above others and will put their needs first, more times than not.  If this means stealing, so be it.  If it means cheating, it is for them, therefore, it is okay.

Liars for companies means trouble.  Everything from shrinkage to gaming the system to claim disability.

Since this question provokes thoughts of shoplifting at Walmart, I do the "prompts" system, giving prompts to the subject.

It goes something like this:

"Tell me about yourself..."  

This is very open ended and allows the subject to begin where he or she feels most important.  Here we learn anything and everything from childhood abuse to substance abuse, and anything in between.

"What is your favorite movie?"

This is the tangent question.  I secretly root for a Cary Grant movie, but hey, that's me.  Last week I interviewed a young female who talked about dancing.  I said, "Oh, like Fred Astair and Ginger Rogers?" to which she answered, "Who's that?"  


"Have you ever stolen?

Most answer "no."  This is where Prompt Number One enters:

"When I was 16, I worked at McDonald's, and when pretty girls came through the Drive Thru, I gave them free french fries.  It was stealing and it was wrong, but it is what I did. Have you ever stolen?"

This usually brings a signal of understanding and an anecdote of taking something that did not belong to them.  Remember, I am still using the morally charged language of "stolen" and not "taken."

If the answer remains "no", I go to Prompt Number Two:

"Last week I was in the bank and I walked out, inadvertently, with their pen.  You ever taken anything?"

Here is where the morally neutral language of "taken" is introduced.  Now the subject is ready.  Most only need one prompt, but some still need me to move away from "stealing" to "taken."

This produces many comical answers.

Two weeks ago, a subject brought me to Strike Three, I mean, Prompt #3.

"You've never taken anything that did not belong to you?  Never borrowed a book and not returned it to a friend?"

She stood her ground, "No, never. Not once have I ever taken anything that did not belong to me."

She was over 50 years of age.

She had never told a lie and never took anything that did not belong to her.  I was in the presence of deity.

I also did not hire her.

On the job application where I ask about honesty, she dropped pronouns right at the part of her story about never telling a lie.

Later, a worker approached me.

"Did you hire her?" she asked.

I just smiled as it is not something I discuss.  "Why, do you have any concerns?"

"I sure as *(*^ do!  I know her.  She is a walking law suit.  She is constantly filing law suits against anyone she can seeking payouts."

I thanked the worker for his input.




Thursday, April 24, 2014

Bill Gothard Statement


Here is the statement in full:
I have withheld this statement in order to honor the request of the Board of Directors to wait until an initial review has taken place. As the review continues, I now want to make this statement.
God has brought me to a place of greater brokenness than at any other time in my life. It is a grief to realize how my pride and insensitivity have affected so many people. I have asked the Lord to reveal the underlying causes and He is doing this.
For many years I have been building the Institute but losing my first love for the Lord. God warns "I know thy works, and thy labour . . . Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent. . . " (Revelation 2:2, 4, 5). I was finding value and affirmation from the accomplishments of the ministry and those involved in it instead of filling this void in my life with God and His love. I have repented in deep sorrow. However, over the years many people have been offended in different ways because of my lack of genuine love.
I put the Institute and its goals ahead of people and their needs. Standards became more important than relationships. People who didn't "measure up" were cut off and those who were not seen as adding value to the ministry were treated as though they were expendable. The more I have listened to people describe their experiences the more grieved and sorrowful I have become.
My wrong focus produced a further consequence. Families were made to feel that they must "measure up." This resulted in some parents putting undue pressure on their sons and daughters in order for the family to be accepted. When there was a lack of love or consistency, sons and daughters saw this as hypocrisy and rejected it. Also, many felt that the expectations where so high that they could never measure up to them. This resulted in a feeling of deep defeat.
This emphasis on outward appearance was also manifested by bringing selected young people to serve at the Headquarters and causing others to feel rejected and offended by my favoritism. My actions of holding of hands, hugs, and touching of feet or hair with young ladies crossed the boundaries of discretion and were wrong. They demonstrated a double-standard and violated a trust. Because of the claims about me I do want to state that I have never kissed a girl nor have I touched a girl immorally or with sexual intent.
I have failed to live out some of the very things that I have taught. I am committed to learning from my failures by God's grace and mercy, and do what I can to help bring about Biblical reconciliation as Jesus commands: "Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift" (Matthew 5:23-24).
More than anything I want to make right what I have done wrong and deepen my relationship with the Lord. I trust in God's undeserved mercy and pray that those whom I have offended would find grace to forgive me. I know that I do not deserve this. I would certainly appreciate your prayers during this time that God would bring healing to those who have been so deeply affected by my actions. I am grateful for the opportunities I have had thus far to be reconciled with individuals and it is my goal to contact as many others as I can, fully hear them, and do whatever I can to bring about Biblical reconciliation.
My greatest offense has been against God. I have earnestly sought His mercy and forgiveness and have asked Him to allow me to experience more of Him and the power of His resurrection.
Sincerely,
Bill Gothard

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Unreliable But...in Job Applications

                                                                        by Peter Hyatt
Not everything that is "unreliable" is untrue. Sometimes unreliable is noted due to deception, while other times,  it simply means that the statement is not reliable and that more information may be needed, via follow up questions.

The following is from a job application: 

Give me an example of honesty in your life:

"I found an expensive piece of jewelry and returned it to its rightful owner."

Describe a time in life when you made a mistake and how you learned from it:

"Charged in 2011 for an Operating Under the Influence.  Haven't had a drink since."

These two questions were on the same page of a job application designed to weed out liars and hire the truthful.

What has this applicant told you?  What has this applicant not told you?

1.  The applicant has told us that she found jewelry that did not belong to her, recognized it for its value, but returned it to its owner...it's "rightful" owner.

What does this tell you about her?

a. jewelry was "expensive"
b.  She, herself, would be an owner, but not a "rightful" owner.

The shorter way of saying this would have been:  "I found jewelry and returned it to its owner."  Additional words give us additional information.

She recognized its value and likely thought about keeping it, but did not.

Of matter of course in the interview, I will ask, "Did you think about keeping it?" hoping she will say, "yes", and not lie, as I seek to hire people who are honest and learn from their mistakes.

Who would not have thought about keeping it?  Think of this especially in light of how easy it is to pawn something and how expensive it was.  "Finders Keepers; Losers Weepers" some like to say, as a means of excusing the spirit of larceny.

2.  The applicant did not tell us that she was convicted of driving under the influence, nor has she told us that she has not had a drink since.

"Charged in 2011 for an Operating Under the Influence"

You will first note that "charged" does not have a pronoun.
You will next note that "charged" does not say "convicted" or anything like that.

Note "an" Operating Under the Influence and not "Operating Under the Influence", which will lead me to ask some questions:

a.  Who was charged?
b.  Were you convicted?

and most importantly:

c.  Were you ever charged prior to this one?
d.  How about after this one?


Next:

3.  She does not tell us that she has not had a drink since:

"Haven't had a drink since" with the missing pronoun.

Now, since it is "unreliable" information, it is necessary for me to ask these questions and it may be that she has had only one conviction and has not had a drink since, but due to the dropped pronouns and the additional wording, more questions are necessary.

Unreliable is just that, and we are playing percentages.  Sometimes it is unreliable because there is deception present while other times the subject simply needs more prompts.

Playing percentages is wise, as it allows for the most success.

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Brittanee Drexel Disappearance

repost
17 Year Old

Brittanee Drexel disappeared in 2009 while on Spring Break.

In the Dr. Phil Show, Dr. Phil gave Peter Brozowitz an open ended opportunities to say "I didn't do it" and he comes across obnoxious, high minded, and used distancing and calloused language regarding Brittanee, 17.

Is it:  Guilty knowledge, or just an obnoxious 20 year old?

The truly innocent (not just judicially) will say "I didn't do it" early and often.  They will produce the pronoun, "I", along with the past tense verb "did not" or the casual, "didn't" and then address whatever issue is being raised in the interview.

"I didn't cause Brittanee's disappearance" is the simplest and easiest of statements.  A de facto innocent will not hesitate to produce the pronoun "I" in the denial.  He may say "would never" but only in correlation with "didn't" or "did not."


A reliable denial has three (3) components.  If the denial has 2, or more than 3, it is "unreliable."

I.  The use of the pronoun "I"
II.  The past tense verb, "did not" or "didn't"
III.  The specific allegation

Examples of unreliable denials;

"Didn't do it"
"I would never harm her"
"I have no idea"
"I didn't do nothing"

Regarding the statements by Peter Brozowitz, he was unwilling or unable to, during the course of the video, to bring himself to say "I didn't do it" even though Dr. Phil asked him if he wanted to say something to "set the record straight."

Brozowitz did not issue a reliable denial.  It is sometimes difficult to get law enforcement to accept this principle, as it appears too simplistic, which is why Dillingham's research on law enforcement scoring poorly in detecting deception is so well evidenced and exampled.

Typically, a newspaper headline will say "So and So Denies Allegation..." but in the statements, there is no denial.

Statement Analysis does not interpret: it listens.

Statement Analysis Principle:

If someone is unable or unwilling to say "I didn't do it", we are not permitted to say it for him. 

There are not enough statements from him to make a conclusion about guilt or innocence.

1.  He did not issue reliable denial.
2.  He gave insult to the victim "not a babysitter" regarding the 17 year old. Disparaging the victim is a red flag for guilt.  We don't hang our hat on just one indicator, but when taken along with his other statements, particularly avoiding the reliable denial, it is very concerning.






When a denial is parroted from an Interviewer, it is not reliable.  It must come from the Free Editing Process in which the subject is speaking freely, choosing his own words.

If the denial has four components (more than three), it is unreliable.  The innocent leave it alone, simply, as a denial, as they do not feel the need for emphasis.  It is the strength of knowing that something cannot be proven because the subject did not do it.  This is the underlining confidence, that even in the polygraph, the nervous person will not experience fluctuation in results:  they are nervous all the way through, whether answering their address, or the allegation.

Linguistically, it is the same.

Have You Ever Told A Lie?


I ask this question, "Have you ever told a lie?" knowing that anyone who says "no" is not truthful, and I know from both experience and research that one who claims to have never lied, nor ever stolen something, even inadvertently, is going to trouble me, one way or another.

We are fallen creatures and all prone to make mistakes.  What makes us better people is the ability to learn from our mistakes.

What can one learn from a mistake if one never makes a mistake?

"Have you ever stolen anything?" is next up in the job application and interview procedure, as I help companies weed out liars.  (see next article)

Liars trouble companies. Liars put themselves first and foremost, before all, and bring trouble in for companies, in creative ways...ways that most HR have heard, but sometimes feel that upper management will not always believe.

Chiefly, liars put themselves first, and this means...

my back hurts...

I'm being sexually harassed...

So and So is doing such and such...

and on it goes.

The bottom line is that the liar does not hold the company's best interest at heart, and may even think that others exist for his benefit.

Recall the articles (and examples!) of tweaking the pride of the liar?

Call her a murderer, or call her a neglectful mother, and she could care less.

Call her a liar and she will rush down to the police station and take that polygraph, only to utterly fail it!

Liars hold the world in contempt.

They believe, from childhood, that they can pull the wool over the eyes of anyone, hence, the contempt.

This same contempt in the work place leaves the liar believing that the company owes her a living.

Remember the haughty attitude of not only Casey Anthony but her brother?

Remember the ad he put in the newspaper for a "personal assistant"?

It was an unpaid position, but the assistant had to have a college degree.

Something Lee Anthony did not have.

Liars are troublesome in all life.

Have you ever told a lie?

Yes, and I have regretted it. It was selfish and cowardly.


Sunday, April 20, 2014

Ronald Cummings Statement Analysis


Let's use the principles of Statement Analysis to take a look at Ronald Cumming's interview with Geraldo, shortly after Misty reported to police that Haleigh had gone missing.

Misty was deceptive, and Ron was not home when Haleigh was removed from the home.

My analysis has shown that Haliegh was dead when she was brought out of the home, and she was likely a victim of sexual abuse, and her body thrown into water.

As we look back now, we are able to ask:

What did Ron know?
When did Ron know?  Later, Ron covered for his wife/girlfriend Misty Croslin and was part of a conspiracy of silence.

He and Misty were involved in the drug trade and eventually were given long prison sentences for drugs, and did not confess to Haliegh's death.

Haleigh was surrounded by drugs, neglect, sexual abuse and violence.  Her short life was tragic and was part of a culture destroyed by drugs.  Misty had been sexually abused in her childhood and it was part of their culture, something readily accepted. Remember her grandmother, Flora Hollers, on The Nancy Grace Show?  She said if Misty was sexually abused, she "probably enjoyed it" while a child.  This was a snap shot into the culture.  

Geraldo Confronts Haleigh Cummings' Dad
Sunday, February 22, 2009

The following transcript is Geraldo's confrontation with Ronald Cummings, father of missing 5-year-old Haleigh Cummings. In the confrontation, Geraldo asks him about allegations he'd abused Haleigh, her biological mother and drug use.


RIVERA: "Chad and Marcus told me that during the vigil, you told them you were 75 percent sure who took Haleigh."

CUMMINGS: "There is no way — I do not know who took Haleigh. If I had — if I had, uh, five percent of where Haleigh was at, I would be there now and not here."

First he says, "There is no way" but does not finish his sentence and we cannot be certain what he is referencing. "There is no way that I know who did it?" Perhaps, but we do not know.

"I do not know who took Haleigh" in an open statement is quite strong; however, it is reduced in strength because he uses Geraldo's words back to Geraldo; therefore we cannot consider it unprompted.  When someone says, unprompted, "I didn't do it" it is likely to be true; yet when it is in response to "Did you do it?", "No, I didn't do it" as a response, is easier to lie, and not as a trustworthy of a denial.

It is parroted language; not from the free editing process.  

It could be that at this time he doesn't know who took Haleigh; Misty or Tommy Croslin, or he could be saying that he doesn't know the person or persons that took her, or he could be lying. Note also he uses Haleigh's proper name here. It is also noted that Geraldo used Haleigh's name first, so its use is not open but a reflection. Note all language that is independent of a reflection back to the subject of the interview.

"If I had — if I had, uh, five percent of where Haleigh was at, I would be there now and not here."

Here the repetition of "If I had, if I had" is a show that he is under stress. This is to be expected under the circumstances. 2 "I's" in a statement by a non-stutter shows stress. 3 is anxiety. 6 is likley a hospitalization/nervous break down to follow. 9 is only found in homicides.

"...five percent"

Ronald answers Geraldo's charge that he, Ronald, told others he knew who took Haleigh with "75%" certainty.

In Ronald's own language, he now lowers that percentage to "5%"

This use of "%" in language is an indication that Ronald uses percentages as part of his normal speech, since he has offered this to Geraldo. It indicates that when he denied saying "75%" to others, that he was being deceptive. It may be that he did not tell the two specific people named by Geraldo, but that he did likely tell someone that he was "75%" sure he knew who took Haleigh.


This is our first indication of deception in this interview. We do not take a statement and call it unreliable on just one indicator.

"I would be there, not here."

Ronald affirms that if he had even 5% knowledge, far less than 75%, of where Haleigh was, he would be "there" and not "here".

"there" is a specific place; just as "here" is a specific place, where Ronald and Geraldo stood. This may be an indicator that Ronald knew where Haleigh was taken. Ronald says he would be "there" and not that Haleigh would be home. This may be an indication that Ronald knows that Haleigh is deceased.

It would sound more natural to say that if he knew where Haleigh was, she would be brought home where she would be safe; not that Ronald would be with her "there", which represents danger as well as distance.


RIVERA: "Did you tell them that, though? Maybe you weren’t — maybe you were just were just — are they lying?"

Geraldo asks a compound question, a mistake in Interviewing. By asking a compound question, in an investigation, or even a hiring interview, it allows the subject of the interview to pick and choose which question to answer.

CUMMINGS: "Yes, they’re absolutely lying. No, for no reason have I ever told anybody that I have any clue where my child is at. If I had any clue where my child — you know, national TV, they’re a bunch of liars. Chad and whoever told you this are a bunch of liars. I never even spoke with them."

absolutely This is an extra word. Extra words give us extra information and weakens the denial of having told two others that he was 75% sure who had caused Haleigh to go missing. "They're lying" is strong, but the addition of the qualifier weakens the assertion.

"No, for no reason have I ever told anybody that I have any clue where my child is at. "


This is an unusual response. Ronald is upset and this can be likened to the legal term for "excited utterance" where emotions are high. He is now answering the question "why", which was not posed to him. It indicates increased sensitivity. The whereabouts of Haleigh is something that is highly sensitive. Ronald tells us that "for no reason", which is not a denial of "did you tell anybody" but that he had no reason to tell anybody.

"ever" weakens the assertion. It is an extra word and is not necessary to complete the sentence, therefore can be viewed as important to us.

"that I have any clue"

This is different than what was asked. He was asked if he told individuals that he knew, with 75% certainty, who had taken Haleigh. We have already seen that Ronald does speak in percentages, not simply repeating Geraldo, but using a different number, taking ownership of the expression.

"100 percent not guilty" when used in court will statistically point to guilt.

Ronald was not asked if he had "any clue" who took Haleigh. Ronald's own language went from who took Haleigh to location "there", shifting the focus away from who might have taken her, to where she had already been taken.

He is not telling us that he has "no clue" as to who took Haleigh, but that he has "no clue" as to where Haleigh is. Ronald was not asked this question, which makes location central to Ronald's thinking.

"...where my child is."

Note that Ronald uses "my" personal pronoun.

He also uses "child", which is associated with abuse. Parents who are concerned that their child may have been abused, or could be abused will use the word "child". It is not an indication that of who, including Ronald, may have abused Haleigh, only that it indicates that abuse is on the mind. If Haleigh was kidnapped, this would be an expected response for any parent who believes a their son or daughter to be kidnapped would be thinking of abuse.

Ronald states that he does not have a clue where Haleigh is at. The issue is that he was not asked where Haleigh was at, but rather the subject was "who" took Haleigh, and if Ronald knew who took her. At this point, Ronald redirects the interview away from who may have taken Haleigh, and shifted it to where Haleigh was taken to.


"I never even spoke with them."

In Statement Analyis, never does not mean "no". We have the extra, unnecessary word, "even", which adds emphasis. This is likely an indication that Ronald spoke with both of them and is lying.



RIVERA: "They told — they told me that you hit Haleigh. Is that true?"

CUMMINGS: "No. Never, ever have I ever hit my child. Me and my child have an agreement. Daddy, daughter. She has been spanked on her behind the way DCF says that you can take care of disciplining your children."

Statement Analysis: never does not mean "no".

Ronald makes an emphasis with the denial, "no" but then weakens the denial with "never", an extra word. But then he adds "ever" further indicating a weakening of the denial suggesting deception. Haleigh is again referred to as "child" which indicates abuse, or fear of abuse. "my" shows possession. The denial appears weak, and it is likely that he hit Haleigh.

"Me and my child have an agreement."

Notice the order: Ronald comes before his child.

In Statement Analysis, order is always significant.

Note also the absence of Haleigh's name while talking about Haleigh being hit. They have an "agreement" between them. Did 5 year old Haleigh enter into a an agreement with her father? An agreement suggests the cooperation of both parties. > Itis unusual language and weakens Ronald's credibility as he is seeking to show that Haleigh, age 5, approved of this agreement. Had Haleigh never been abused by Ronald, why would such an agreement be necessary.

"Daddy, daughter" repeatsthe word, and emphasizes order again.

He has claimed that Haleigh has never "ever" been hit (repeat emphasis sign of deception) but then says,

"she has been spanked on her behind"

Notice passive language. He does not say by whom Haleigh has been hit. He removes himself from the statement; distancing himself from hitting Haleigh. She has been spanked. Since she likely did not spank herself, and no one else is added, we can only conclude that Ronald did the spanking.

"...the way DCF says that you can take care of disciplining your children."

Ronald says the way DCF says that youcan; not that he can. This reduces commitment and continues to remove himself from responsibility.

He says the spanking is the way DCF says. This means that Ronald may have had another way of disciplining Haleigh.

The inclusion of DCF answers the question, "what agreement?". It is likely that DCF workers confronted Ronald Cummings about hitting his child and that he signed a Family Agreement, that he would no longer do so, but only spank her on the rear end. Haleigh may have been in the room when this "agreement" was reached if the DCF social workers thought it necessary to bind Ronald to the agreement. The reason DCF would put this in writing is that should they receive evidence that Ronald has violated his agreement, they would use this to present to the court in order to remove Haleigh from his custody. For many agencies, having a parent sign a Family Agreement (it is under various names from varying states) is the final step, along with parenting classes, that they take before seeking court ordered protection. The written agreement may have included other issues, common to such documents, as parenting classes, random drug tests, etc. This may be the "agreement" that he and Haleigh had. "Daddy, daughter" is used to establish authority, as Ronald likely felt his authority threatened by the Department of Children and Families consideration to seek court ordered protection for Haleigh.

"disciplining your children"; not Ronald's children. Language shows distancing. He did not say "disciplining my children".

Haleigh was not just spanked, she was spanked by someone. Ronald conceals the identity. Remember this is in response to Geraldo's statement about Ronald hitting Haleigh.

Ronald's answer shows deception, as his claim of "never ever" been hit, to his passive admission that she has been hit, howbeit now "spanked", and that to be on the behind, which most people would assume a spanking means. The added words "on the behind" tell us that Ronald:

a has hit Haleigh before
b. he has hit Haleigh in other places besides the behind, which is not DCF way

and now he is limited to only her behind by the agreement he made with Haleigh.


RIVERA: You never backhanded her to the face?

CUMMINGS: [OVERLAP] Never. Never have I ever backhanded my child in the face, ever.

Never does not mean no. We have a double response, weaking the denial. Ronald does not use her name and reflects back only Geraldo's language. This would lead me to believe that Ronald has hit Haleigh in the face, specifically by use of his backhand. Notice that Ronald puts the first person singular back into the sentence: we have "never", and "never" and "ever" in the same sentence, further indicating deception. Ronald does not call her "Haleigh" here, but only "my child" again, indicating concern over child abuse. The absence of the proper name is an indication, here, that Ronald is again concerned about child abuse. He has been investigate by the State of Florida for child abuse, as he referenced his dealing with DCF.

RIVERA: "Did you hit Crystal when she was pregnant?"


CUMMINGS: "No. I did not. Never."

No, I did not, is a strong denial by itself, but then it is weakened with the additional word "never" and is an indication that Ronald is being deceptive about domestic violence with Crystal. When he says "never" is he referring to only "never while she was pregnant" or is it inclusive of all time?

RIVERA: "You didn’t hit her in the back of the head and kick her?"

CUMMINGS: "No. No. I never have."

3 negatives in one sentence. This is indicative of lying. There is no reflection back to Geraldo of the language that Geraldo used. It is likely that he did hit her in the back of the head and kick her, specifically.

RIVERA: "You swear to God you never hit your pregnant woman?"

CUMMINGS: [OVERLAP] Never. Never, never have I ever hit any woman, period. Never. And I’d like to know where all these allegations are coming from because I would like to talk — talk to law enforcement and have these false allegations, um, known that, um, the false allegations against me, somebody needs criminal charges pressed against them."

In this one sentence, we now have the denial 4 times, indicating deception in even stronger terms. Never. Never. Never. Ever. But before that, we have another principle in Statement Analysis:

If your subject has not answered your question, he has answered your question.

Ronald was asked if he would swear that he never hit his pregnant woman

Ronald does not answer the question ,but instead broadens it to "any" woman, and then adds the unnecessary emphasis, "period". This leads me to believe that Ronald has hit more than just one woman in his life. He introduces the subject of more women, than just Crystal, who Geraldo asked about being hit while pregnant. This investigation would then seek the names of prior girlfriends, and look for past allegations of domestic violence, Protection from Abuse Orders, and the possible intervention of Domestic Violence Shelters or Counselors into the lives of women involved with Ronald Cummings.

RIVERA: What about the allegations of cocaine use, methamphetamine use?

CUMMINGS: There’s nothing. I do not do drugs.

Ronald did not answer the question about allegations, plural, of cocaine and meth use. He said, "there's nothing"; which is not a denial. "There's nothing" may speak to prior arrests without convictions but does not answer the question of the allegations. In Statement Analysis, if the subject has not answered the question, he has answered the question.

This tells me that Ronald has used cocaine and methamphetamine.

"I do not do drugs".

This may be a truthful statement, especially given the time he said it:  in that very moment.  

In investigations where drug use may play a part in domestic violence or child abuse, when a crisis hits, when asked about drugs, many drug users will say "I don't use drugs!" even while flunking a drug test.

Why?

Because when a crisis hits, and this is certainly a crisis, Ronald may have, quietly to himself, or loudly to others, have sworn off drugs, forever.

Sobriety, even if it is just 1 hour old, or 1 day old, is still sobriety. 10 years of sobriety still had its first hour and first day. In fact, he could be sincere, even though drugs may still be in his system, that he does not use drugs, because he has made a promise to himself, or others.

He does not deny the two specific drugs to Geraldo, which would indicate that he has been involved in those two drugs, as well as the pills he was caught on video selling later.

On an investigation, if you ask "Did you smoke pot, last Wednesday night, on your shift?" and you get the response, "I don't use drugs!" you will likely know that last Wednesday on that particular shift, the person used marijuana. Geraldo continues to go after him and the sensitivity runs high:

RIVERA: "You don’t do drugs? All those arrests were all —:

CUMMINGS: No.


Ronald interrupts Geraldo to say "no" to the charge of "you don't use drugs". This interruption is due to increased anxiety and stress: sensitivity. We did not find the same level of anxiety over the identity of who took Haleigh. Why is this, drug use, more sensitive than a missing child?

This would be an indication that Haleigh's demise is linked with drugs.


RIVERA: "Do you work for the police? Are you an informant?"

Geraldo asks another compound question. It is always a mistake and allows Ronald to answer whichever question he wants to. In this case, he addresses both. Geraldo gets a "pass" on this error that someone conducting an Interview, no matter how excited, should do:

CUMMINGS: "No, I am no an informant. I do not work for the police. I work for PDM, which is a, um, bridge building company. That’s who I work for."

"No, I am not an informant" is a strong denial and it should be believed.
 . "I do not work for the police" is also a strong denial. Notice that the straight denial is the most credible. Here, he does not add "no, no, never, never ever". These two statements should be viewed as trustworthy, credible statements.

These are both truthful statements. 

I conclude that Ronald did not, at the time of Haleigh's disappearance, inform or work for the police. He is telling the truth.

"I work for PDM...building bridge company. That's who I work for"

This is not to say that he may have made a deal with police in the past, but he is not working for them as an informant.  

This statement is straight forward. Why the emphasis? His repeat "that's who I work for" is not necessary. Why is it repeated? There are no qualifiers added here; Ronald is not lying. He may have added the repeat due to sensitivity. It may be that part of his "agreement" in terms of custodial issues and the involvement of DCF, that he maintain employment. Ronald feels the need to describe what PDM does as a company. This is an extra detail that is not necessary. The subject of Ronald working is sensitive. Notice it follows after the accusation that he may have worked for the police (which he did not). The extra emphasis may also be an indicator that Ronald has done other things to earn a living that he no longer does; related to his arrests. On face value, he has told us the truth about not informing, not working for the police, and that he has a job with a bridge building company.



RIVERA: And you’ve never been involved in the drug trade?

CUMMINGS: No.

Yes or No questions are the easiest to lie to.  We avoid them when possible.  

Ronald uses no qualifier here; no extra words. Is his simple "no" trustworthy? Geraldo pushes him.

"Yes and no" questions are to be avoided whenever possible. It is easiest to lie in a yes or no question primarily, and then it is easy to lie with a reflection answer; where the subject uses the words of an Interviewer. It is still stressful, but not nearly as stressful as lying in an open statement. A yes or no question reduces stress of lying.

It will be his other answers that will show that the "yes or no" reply credible or not. 

RIVERA: And when they tell me they saw bricks of marijuana that you had in the house, plants all around the house, is that a lie?

CUMMINGS: It is absolutely a lie and I would like to know where the information is coming from so that I can get, um, the proper authorities to take care of this.

Ronald's denial is weak due to "absolutely" added and then he attempts to change the direction of the questioning and asks about where the information came from.

Notice that as to the marijuana plants, specifically, Ronald does not answer the question.

"I would like to know where the information is coming from that I can get,um..."

Ronald stumbles on what he would like to get in order to deal with whoever told Geraldo that marijuana was being housed. He then recovers for an answer. "um" is sometimes used as a stall tactic, to think of an answer. Was he going to get revenge? a gun?

He continued, "the proper authorities to take care of this.

notice: "proper authorities" rather than "authorities". This indicates that there are some, with authority to handle snitches, that may not be considred "proper".

"this" indicates closeness; "that" indicates distance.


RIVERA: You’re — put all this stuff aside. If some associate of yours, some associate that had something to do with drugs and this is not about drugs but if these people are on the dark side of life, don’t you think that you should share that information? Share — tell us about — when you told Marcus and Chad that you were 75 percent sure and you had your gun ready and your — and you had your gun ready and you were gonna go get em, didn’t you say that? Isn’t that a fact, Ron?

Geraldo asks a very long question; one that Ronald nor many others would be able to follow; but conludes with asking if all the details he has laid out is a fact. Notice that Geraldo has now given us additional information about what Ronald was allege to have said to "Marcus and Chad"; not only that he was 75% sure of who took Haleigh, but that Ronald had planned to get his gun to go get those who took Haleigh.

CUMMINGS: No, it is not a fact.

Weak denial, as Ronald reflects back the wording of Geraldo. Geraldo is not conducting a solid interview, but in television interviews, it is often more important that the Interviewer be seen and heard more, as he is building a career, rather than gathering relevant information about the disappearance of Haleigh.

RIVERA: Why would they make that up? Why would they make that up?

CUMMINGS: I don’t know why they would make [OVERLAP] for you. But I — I am fixing [OVERLAP] to have the law called right here, right now because you’re making up things or they’re making up things and you’re getting into —


Ronald's response uses Geraldo's language (reflection) again but then adds in two seemingly unneccessary words: "for you". This may indicate that Ronald believes that Marcus and Chad have given this information because of who Geraldo is; a celebrity and not an investigator formally attached to the case.

then Ronald says that he is preparing to have the law called "right here" and "right now" because "you" Geraldo, is making things up, which would indicate that Ronald does not believe that Marcus and Chad would tell Geraldo these details, but then adds that "they're making up things". He does not specify which things are being made up. The drugs? The abuse of Haleigh? The certainty of who took Haleigh? The domestic violence against Crystal?


RIVERA: I am — I am relating to you what they are saying.

CUMMINGS:  Get out of my face, man. 


Ronald is now escalated and demands respect from Geraldo. The demand for respect in this situation is what often leads to violence.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You need to back off, man. That’s my son.

A man steps forward and tells Geraldo what he "needs" to do, and identifies himself, after this threat, as Ronald's father.

RIVERA: Alright. Well I’m sorry — I am sorry for what has happened.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, you’re not sorry. [OVERLAPPED CONVERSATION]

A woman does not believe that Geraldo is sorry.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You need to go.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We are — [OVERLAPPED CONVERSATION] Listen. You wanna come up here and make [OVERLAP] allegations. Why don’t you go back to —

RIVERA: These are not my allegations, man. These are not my allegations. You have to understand that.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: [OVERLAP] Okay. [OVERLAP] All we care about —

RIVERA: You have to understand this is not my allegation. Don’t touch him, don’t touch him, please. We’re leaving. Come on, let’s go. Let’s go.

CUMMINGS: [OVERLAP]" I wanted you to see that all this is about is my daughter. I love you, baby. [OVERLAP] If you are out there, I want you to know that I love you and I will find you, baby. I love you. And two, whoever — whoever has you, please bring my daughter home to me. I love my daughter. I love you, baby. I will find you."


Ronald said that he wanted Geraldo to know that "this" (this means close; that means far away; this that has been about drugs and domestic violence and child abuse; the subjects asked by Geraldo) is about Haleigh; except Ronald does not use her name.

"If you are out there..," Doesn't Ronald believe that she has been taken? Why the question? A parent who's child is kidnapped does not question whether or not the child is alive. Protective instincts put them firmly in denial. When Christ raised Jairus's daughter, we are told that the parents were stunned. He jolted them out of their denial by directing them to feed the little girl.

"whoever, whoever has you..." The subject of who took Haleigh triggers the repeat; this shows an increase in sensitivity. He repeats his love for her. He calls her "baby" which is a term of endearment, showing affection. Geraldo reacts to this speaking directly to Haleigh and interprets it as Haleigh being alive, and asks:

RIVERA: "You believe she’s alive then?"

CUMMINGS: I’m always gonna believe that my daughter’s alive until they find her.

This is a powerful indication that Ronald Cummins knows that Haleigh is deceased and that when she is found, she will be seen as she is: dead. While she is not found, he is going to believe that she is alive but when they find her, he will then no longer believe that she is alive.

This form of statement is common in cases where it is known that the missing person is dead. OJ Simpson was going to search for Nicole's killer. How long? For the rest of his life. Why did he think it would take that long? John Ramsey and others used similar language.

When someone says that they will search for the rest of their lives, they are likely telling the truth. They likely hope the killer is not found soon; and for good reason, so the search must go on for as long as they are alive.

Ronald did not take the time to think about his words. He just spoke them. In less than a microsecond, the brain tells the tongue what to say, using words and tenses; many instilled within us from a very early age.

It is not a slip, nor a mistake.

In statement analysis, we believe what someone tells us unless we find indicators of deception.

Ronald has told us that he will go on believing that Haleigh is alive but only until they find her.

This is a strong indication that he knows she is deceased.







This represents the opinion of the author only and not that of any organization. The comments posted by users are the expressed opinions of the authors only. All are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon personal interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.