Tuesday, December 18, 2018

Listening for Small Changes




A change of language indicates a change of the subject's perception of reality. 

When a word changes, something has changed. 

If said change is a commonly used phrase, take particular note if the law of economy is reversed. This means that it now takes longer to process the information and speak it. A reversal of the law of economy indicates:

there is more information to what is being said. 

Recently, I heard such a change. 

For many years, Heather has introduced me by saying, 

"This is my husband, Peter. He is from New York." 

This became common and habitual in her language. 

This past week at a charity held by a local Rotary, she said,

"This is my husband, Peter.  He is originally from New York."

Later, I asked her about it. It took but a few questions to learn what caused this change in her language. 

What do you make of the change?



Heather answered the question for us. 

A change of language reflects a change of reality.  If no such reality exists, it may mean the person is lying and has lost track of their own words.  This is something we see when language does not proceed from experiential memory. 

However, it is somewhat rare and most of the time we are looking at a change of reality. 

"Wait, what? Yeah, I checked out the necklace, but I gave the jewelry back to you." 

In theft, "jewelry" can be in the displace case, while "the necklace" was handled personally and is now  in the thief's pocket. The thief did not intentionally change his language, via pausing to consider; he just spoke out. (Someone is bound to leave a comment, "Hey, Peter, did you buy Heather a necklace for Christmas?")

An easy one for analysis, yet one that comes with practice in live listening, or discourse analysis: 

"I saw a car go off the road yesterday.  It was bad and the roads were icy. The driver was okay and left his vehicle in the ditch."

The reality that the subject verbalized was watching a car slip off icy roads.  It was experiential and sensory (sight). The next sentence also comes from experiencing the same road, while driving his own "car."

The driver was okay. 

There is now a change for the subject. 

He was in a car, and so was the driver. The icy roads were experienced, but the driver was "okay." This now allows for a new reality:

The car is abandoned by the driver, turning it from a "car" he and the driver both experienced while driving on icy roads, into a "vehicle" where, once back on the road, will "change" back into being a "car."

We drive our cars. 

For Heather, years ago, New York was a novelty.  

The first time we drove down, she was anxiety struck by the speed and density of traffic. To her surprise, I was comfortable with the higher speed and traffic.  "New York driver!", she said. 

There was a puzzling gap between us. 

She was raised on a farm in rural Maine, and the driving in Maine is much slower.  

Upon moving to Maine, I immediately got speeding tickets in Maine while going 20 years without one in New York.  

I had to make the cultural adjustment. 

It took time and patience. Eventually the kids took Driver's Ed and got their licenses.  They are much more patient drivers than their dad, and I am glad for it. 

I travel for work and enjoy meeting new people and new areas.  The Statement Analysis seminars are dynamic learning experiences and I've met some remarkable law enforcement professionals along the way.  

I love the seminars, especially if she can travel with me. At each locale, we always ask ourselves, "We would like to live here?" This was a deep conversation after the seminar in the "frontier" state of Alaska.  For us, the only draw back was distance to family.  We'd love to live in rural Alaska.  We did not see any bears, but a very special analyst from Kodiak Island will make sure we get the privilege on our next training seminar. 

We make observations and I love to "interview" locals.  I was fascinated by local native Alaskans' life styles and was warmed by their openness and friendliness. 

Port Saint Lucie, Florida, is beautiful, especially when interrupting the late winter cold of Maine and seeing Spring Training baseball. 

Geneva, Switzerland is also beautiful and like many Americans, there is much about European culture we deeply admire. 


Chaminox, FR
Arizona is exhilarating in its dry hot air; and like Florida, very appealing in the winter. The Grand Canyon had me back reading The Genesis Record. It is breathtakingly beautiful. Year after year, I've some very special people of whom I now call "friends." 

The women analysts and investigators, in particular, are sharp, strong and driven. They contribute more than they know to our trainings. Nowhere is this insight more efficacious than in identifying an anonymous author. They operate off the fuel of personal satisfaction in obtaining justice. It's who they are. I am grateful for the people, both in and out of law enforcement that I have just met this past year, trained and also learn from in the team analysis each month.  It is unpredictable, exciting, exhausting and exhilarating.  

Often, however, for seminars,  I travel alone and give Heather quite an account upon returning. 

She said that over recent years, each time I returned I commented how much I love Maine. 

I had not realized it, yet it is true. 

I love its weather as I enjoy four different seasons.  

I love its low crime rate. 

I love coming "home." 

 Due to constitutional carry, it initially surprised me how many citizens, especially women, are armed. For them, it is routine.   It is a safe place to raise a family. When I first moved here, watching someone walk down the street armed was alarming. 

 I recently told my son, "I consider it my civic duty to carry. I also donate blood four times a year.

The attempted humor fell flat. 


Heather and I talk about eventually getting a small log cabin in the middle of the woods.  

It is our dream for tomorrow. 

She said she watched the difficult cultural adjustment from New York to Maine change me over the years.  I did not realize how much resistance I exerted against the difference in pace. 

Without realizing it, she said that more and more I say, "Oh, I love Maine!" upon returning home.  

It took many years, but I was no longer  from New York but now "originally" (note the element of time in this word) from New York. 

In her verbalized perception of reality, I am almost a Mainer. It'll never reach that status, but she's seen a change in me. 

Including in my driving. 

Listen for small changes.  

The possibilities for learning are endless. Consider enrolling in training for 2019.  If you do, take the full 12 months and do not rush. It is insightful for all thinking people, whether or not in law enforcement. Plus, there's no substitute for working with others of likemindedness in growth. 

As to the farm girl trying to sound urban, Heather continues to try to say, "I'm walkin' here!" in a her faux New York accent, but her roots are the farm. 

Heather and I wish Merry Christmas for all, and a blessed, exciting and healthy New Year in 2019.  








Tuesday, December 11, 2018

Training Announcement December 2018



Team Analysis Training for December has been postponed until January 22-24, 2019. 

Subscription 

Those with annual subscription or month to month, please add one month to your membership. 

New enrollment for 2019 is limited. 

Heather and I wish for a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all analysts. 

The work in team analysis has been inspiring. 

We faced some disturbing cases, added some new fresh insightful investigators and challenged one another for excellence. It has been a testament to what it team character may accomplish. 

The learning curve has been steep at times, but both enjoyable and surmountable. 

While enjoying the holiday season, don't stop practicing! 

Best to all,

Peter and Heather 


January 2019 

Tuesday January 22, 2019  9am to 3pm EST 
Wednesday January 23, 2019  10am to 4pm EST 
Thursday, January 24, 2019  12Noon to 6pm EST 

Monday, December 10, 2018

Statement Analysis 101: Change of Language


A change of language indicates a change of the subject's perception of reality. 

When a word changes, something has changed. 

If said change is a commonly used phrase, take particular note if the law of economy is reversed. This means that it now takes longer to process the information and speak it. A reversal of the law of economy indicates:

there is more information to what is being said. 

Recently, I heard such a change. 

For many years, Heather has introduced me by saying, 

"This is my husband, Peter. He is from New York." 

This became common and habitual in her language. 

This past week at a charity held by a local Rotary, she said,

"This is my husband, Peter.  He is originally from New York."

Later, I asked her about it. It took but a few questions to learn what caused this change in her language. 

What do you make of the change?

Post your findings in the comments section. 


Thursday, November 15, 2018

Michael Avenatti Denies Domestic Violence




Michael Avenatti was arrested, charged with felony domestic assault.  

He issued the following statement:

"First of all, I want to thank the hard working men and women of the LAPD for their professionalism and their work today.  They had no option given the allegations.
Secondly, I have Neve struck a women, never will strike I woman. I have been an advocate for women's rights my entire career and I will continue to be an advocate. I am not going to be intimidated stopping what I am doing. I am a father to two beautiful smart daughters. I would never disrespect them by touching a woman inappropriately or striking a woman,. I am looking forward to a full investigation at which point I am confident that I will be fully exonerated.

Lawyers advise their clients to be silent; yet few follow their own counsel. 

Here we are given a great deal of information about the subject. 

Analysis Question: Did he assault the victim?

"First of all, 

He begins with a numeric, not the pronoun "I", which tells us that logic is in play.  This means he has put considerable thought into this statement. With "first", we seek a "second" to affirm this pre thought and care. 


I want to thank the hard working men and women of the LAPD for their professionalism and their work today.  They had no option given the allegations.

Note the "Ingratiation Factor" of statement analysis plain example. He literally thanks those who arrested him.  

He not only thanks them, but specifies gender.  

He ingratiates himself to police;
He ingratiates himself to women.

This is an indication of manipulation as well as a sensitivity indicator for possible guilt. 


Secondly, I have never struck a women, never will I strike a woman. 

Unreliable Denial.

The accusation is singular and it is limited to a specific victim at a specific time. 

"Never" is to avoid saying, "I did not" or "I didn't."  This is "not reliable."

Yet, with "never" in context of a specific allegation, specific victim and specific time, it is "Unreliable" as it uses the time spanning vagueness of "never" in avoidance of the specific details of the allegation. 

This continues with the address of the victim also avoided:

"...a woman" and not "the" woman, or "the alleged victim."

This is why it is "Unreliable" rather than "not reliable."  Had the allegations been of several women over a period of indeterminate time, it would be "not reliable" at this point. 

Yet, he reveals much more about himself and the event as he continued to talk: 


I have been an advocate for women's rights my entire career and I will continue to be an advocate.

"The Good Guy" portrayal, like "the good mother" is a need to portray oneself as "good", often revealing the opposite.  

Instead of being in the right, he has a need to persuade his audience rather than stand upon the strength of "being" a good guy because he did not do this. 

He is "The Good Guy" here, increasing sensitivity of the Unreliable Denial, but he is not finished yet: 


 I am not going to be intimidated stopping what I am doing. 

He is a victim. 

He is being "intimidated" by someone into "stopping what he is doing."

Who stopped him?

Was it the victim?

Was it the police?

He is speaking with intellect engaged (logic from the numerics) and revealing himself as a very highly manipulative personality type. 

In other words, the subject is comfortable manipulating his audience. 

His specific audience is addressed within his statement:  women. 

This is a signal of contempt for women. 


I am a father to two beautiful smart daughters.

He does not "have" two daughters, but is a "father to" them.  He affirms his contempt as a father with "smart" added.  This is an unnecessary part of his statement and only increases the sensitivity of his Unreliable Denial. It indicates distance between himself and his daughters.  

It is here that we learn, perhaps, something unknown about the subject: 


 I would never disrespect them by touching a woman inappropriately or striking a woman. 

The subject has a likely history of "inappropriate" touching, which may prove to be sexual. 

Note he gives his reason why he "would never" do this.  Not that it is wrong and not that it harms victims (human empathy) but it would "disrespect" his daughters. 

This notion of sexual assault may be why the word "full" is now repeated: 

I am looking forward to a full investigation at which point I am confident that I will be fully exonerated.

Analysis Conclusion:

Deception Indicated

The subject issues an Unreliable Denial of the domestic violence. 

He reveals a highly manipulative personalty type with low human empathy. 

He reveals contempt for his audience, specifically women, as those he can most readily manipulate.  

Misogyny is sometimes linguistically evident in "virtue signaling" of guilt.

It is evident here. 

A "full" investigation may bring forth more victims.  Not only does his denial fail, but he reveals more about himself than he likely intended. 

It is why attorneys advise their clients to be silent. 

That he is ego driven is not only from his intellect, but his dominant personality traits.  His contempt for women includes the exploitation of his daughters for his personal protection.  

His guilt is acute and goes beyond this one allegation. 


Tuesday, October 30, 2018

Tyler Tessier Analysis by Det. Steve Johnson

Tyler Tessier


On September 2, 2017, Tyler Tessier took his fiancée, Laura Wallen, on an outing, the destination of which was going to be a surprise for Laura.  At the time, Laura was pregnant with Tyler’s unborn child. Laura was also preparing to start a new school year, as school teacher, a job she dearly loved.  During the outing, Laura sent text messages to her sister to tell her that Tyler was taking her out for a surprise outing. A short time later, Laura sent another message to her sister stating she was in a field and didn’t know what they were doing there.  Along with the text, Laura sent her sister a photo of the field she was in. That was the last time Laura’s family had contact from Laura. On September 5th, Laura did not show up for the 1st day of school.  Her parents reported her missing that day.  When questioned, Tyler said he dropped her off at home after their date, and besides some text messages from her, he had not seen her.

From the onset of the investigation, Laura’s family and police suspected Tyler might be responsible for Laura’s disappearance.   On September 13th, while Laura was still a “missing person,” Montgomery County Police organized a press conference with the cooperation of Laura’s family.  This was a brilliant move by the investigators. The sole purpose of the press conference was to see what Tyler would say.  It was Statement Analysis in action.
The police spoke first.  Their prologue was masterful, as they set the stage and focused on their solid investigation which would surely lead to the arrest of whoever may be responsible for Laura’s disappearance.  Tyler sat next to Mrs. Tessier, holding her hand during the press conference. Mrs. Tessier, later revealed she played the part, but she was shaking so bad, she had to use two hands in order to keep her hand in Tyler’s.  

After police spoke, Laura’s father spoke.  Although he suspected Laura may be dead, he spoke in the positive, reassuring Laura that they were not giving up and they would bring her home.  

The time was then turned over to Laura’s fiancée, Tyler Tessier.  What did they have to glean from Tyler’s statement? Let’s find out… Tyler’s statement is followed by the analysis.  

The question for analysis is: Does Tyler Tessier have guilty knowledge of Laura’s disappearance?
We seek to learn what Tyler’s linguistic disposition is toward his fiancée.  Is he being completely honest, or is he withholding information? Is there other information (Latent Content) that Tyler unknowingly gives away?


T: "Thank you all for coming here, um, Laura, if your listening, it doesn't matter what’s happened, it doesn't matter what type of trouble, there’s nothing we can't fix together – myself and your family. There’s so many people, so many people that miss you, so many people who were out, who haven't slept. We haven't eaten. We are just looking or praying that you’re safe.  I’m asking to just let us know that your safe. If somebody has her, please understand that you've taken away a huge, a huge person in so many people’s lives.  Friends and family, students that she has. I know what she means to me, and I know what she means to everybody else. We just want to know she's OK. We just want her back.  Thank You."


Q: Tyler can you talk about what she’d been like the over the last couple weeks and your interaction with her?
T: Um like Mr. Wallen said, she was uh, super excited for the start of the school year. I know uh, she had talked to some, the principal and her teachers, like her co-workers about um, her being pregnant and how excited she was, and uh, it’s just a complete shock that (pause) I mean I think leading up to the, leading up to the weekend that she’s missing, I mean I don’t, I don’t believe anybody has any inclination to think anything was wrong or...  

Q: Do you remember any of your last conversations with her?
T: I don’t know where she is, that’s all, I don’t know.  I know were all trying to do everything we can to find her and, I just pray that, I pray she’s safe, she comes back. That’s all I care about right now.

Q: How long have you all been together and how long have you been dating her?
T: Laura and I have known each other probably for 10 years now.  Um, we’ve know, any normal relationship, just take one step at a time and ya take the progress that comes with ya, and been to doctor’s meetings, we’ve been sonograms, all the pre-natal care you could ask…sorry.”

Analysis:
"Thank you all for coming here,
Tyler has a need to be seen in a positive light.  It is important to note that Tyler is thanking “you all,” which includes a significant presence from the police department as well as the media.  This press conference took place days after Laura was reported missing.  Laura had not yet been found.  He was thanking the police (and the media), who had not found her.  

um, Laura, if you’re listening,
Every word is important to the analysis.  Here, “um” is important as it is a pause to think, a pause in the speedy process of the brain.     
Tyler addresses Laura personally, using her name, which we note as a positive linguistic disposition (+).  
However, Tyler then utilized extra and unnecessary wording, which is doubly important in analysis.  
We all have an internal subjective dictionary.  On average, most people have about 25,000 words in their internal subjective dictionary.  As humans, we adhere to the law of economy, meaning we are naturally efficient with our energies including our speech.  Expending more energies or using extra & unnecessary words requires deliberate effort. With deliberate effort there is a reason behind it.  This is also true when we recognize that information was deliberately skipped over. There is a reason for it and that is what we learn from a person’s words, the reason why.
When we speak, we choose which words out of those 25,000, will effectively communicate what we want to say.  We choose the verb tenses, order of each word, appropriate pronouns, etc. All this takes place instinctively in a fraction of a second.  It is that miraculously fast processing of the brain that gives Statement Analysts consistent results time after time.
In this case, Tyler utilized the words, “if you’re listening.” The sentence would still make sense and be complete without the use of those words.  The important question we must ask is why did Tyler’s brain choose to send those words to his tongue in a micro-second of time, or perhaps longer since he had the pause (“um”) preceding it. We let his words guide us to the answer.
Tyler introduced doubt into the statement with the word, “if.”  He could have continued speaking directly to Laura, which would be appropriate for a man unwilling to give up hope that the love of his life, his fiancé and the mother of his unborn child, will surely be found.  Parents and other loved ones do not give up hope. They give the police full support and a chance to find their missing loved one. If the police fail, the parents and loved ones still do not give up hope. They continue to post flyers and strive to keep the case alive and in the public’s eye.  There is no doubt heard in their language. There is determination, we will find you!”
One might suggest that Tyler used the word “if” because he really wasn’t sure if Laura would be listening or not.  We note that is a definite possibility. However, in that same context, keep in mind that Tyler’s brain formulated his statement based on all his knowledge, for better or worse.  His language will guide us as we continue on… and he does not make us wait long for the answer.
it doesn't matter what’s happened, it doesn't matter what type of trouble,
Tyler speaks in the negative, twice, furthering the sensitivity of this sentence.  We always note that which is spoken in the negative as sensitive, and what comes after it is going to be important.  Tyler lets us know that something “happened” and that it was “trouble.”  But here he self-censors, interrupting his brain process.  He cut short the thought that was in his mind, as it was a thought he probably did not want verbalized to police and the media.  But there is more… he not only introduced trouble, but “what type” of trouble, suggesting there may have been more than one type of trouble Laura dealt with.
Note: this sentence is also a subtle blaming of the victim.  He is suggesting that Laura got herself into trouble. This is common among the guilty.  They typically shift blame from themselves and onto their victims…’if they had only acted differently, all would be well.’  It is typically subtle, and missed by most, except those with training.
Tyler is suggesting that it doesn’t matter that something happened to Laura, and that it was trouble.  It was her fault. We have to ask ourselves, does this sound like he is speaking to Laura? Remember, Tyler introduced doubt that Laura could be listening to him.  His language tells us that he has already conceded the fight to find her.  The only person that would consider that whatever has happened to Laura does not matter, is Tyler himself.  This is his verbalized perception of reality.

there’s nothing we can't fix together – myself and your family.
Tyler continues to speak in the negative, which continues telegraphing that this topic is sensitive to Tyler.  This wording gives us a good understanding of Tyler’s perception of reality and his priorities. That Tyler chose to use the word “fix” tells us that there is something that needs fixed.   
“fix together”  If Tyler is speaking to Laura, we can safely assume he means that he and Laura can fix anything together, ‘you and I,’ with Laura (you) being the priority.  However, Tyler’s priority is “myself.”  Is he psychologically attached to Laura?  Is she who he has in mind when he used the words we and together?  The answer is, No. After himself, he is thinking of “your family.”  Tyler has just begun speaking, and already his words have revealed that his psychological attachment to Laura has been severed.      

There’s so many people, so many people that miss you, so many people who were out, who haven't slept.
When words are repeated, we note an increase in sensitivity.  Here we have Tyler repeating “so many people” three times. The words “so many people” are not specific to any one person, or group or gender.  What is expected from a grieving fiancé? It is expected that he would take this opportunity to tell his love, that he, himself, misses her. Yet he does not.  It is the non-specific so many people that miss her.  It is this same non-specific and unknown people that were out and haven’t slept.  What were they out doing? He does not say, and we do not interpret his intent. Is he part of this group that was out, or part of the group that haven’t slept?  His words tell us that he was not.
What comes next, is a topic that Tyler psychologically inserts himself into…
We haven't eaten.
Pronouns are powerful in analysis.  They are not subject to interpretation.  Pronouns do not lie. When the pronoun “we” is used, we know the subject is psychologically involved.  We believe him. Tyler is focused on eating. Have you ever heard an innocent, and grief-stricken person mention they haven’t eaten?  In all my 28 years in law enforcement, I haven’t. It goes without saying that the grief stricken will not think about eating and certainly will not tell others they have not eaten.  The opposite is also true…as in this case.
We must also note with the pronoun, “we,” that Tyler feels a need to associate himself with others.  He does not want to be alone in this situation. He can’t bring himself to speak one on one to Laura.  It does not stop there…

We are just looking or praying that you’re safe.  
Tyler could have said, I’m looking for you and I pray you are safe.  Tyler did not say that.  Once again, he associated himself with the crowd, “we.”  We take specific note of the dependent word, “just.” This word tells us that he has an alternate thought in mind, which lessens the commitment of what comes after it, that he and others are looking or praying…but there is more.  Tyler did not finish his thought regarding looking.  He self-censored, and then changed his thought, as if they weren’t looking, but rather, just praying she is safe.  The question to ask, is why he would self-censor regarding looking for Laura?  Does he want her to be found?

I’m asking to just let us know that you’re safe.  
Tyler does not ask for Laura to come home, or to be returned… in fact, Tyler did not say, Laura please let us know you’re safe, in the form of a question.  Rather, Tyler stated that he was asking a question.  Tyler is aware of his audience.  Although he is allegedly speaking to Laura, this sentence was made for the benefit of the audience.    
The use of the dependent word, just, tells us that Tyler has an alternate thought in his mind.

If somebody has her, please understand that you've taken away a huge, a huge person in so many people’s lives.  
Once again, Tyler introduces doubt with the word, if.   We then note that Tyler does not directly address whoever Laura may be with.  He does not say how he feels about Laura, or what she means to him personally.  Rather, he tells us that she is huge (repeated) in so many people’s lives.  He cannot say what she means to himself, so he attempts to persuade that she is “huge” in other lives.  We might ask, what does Tyler mean by “huge” and who is included in so many people?  He answers part of the question next…  

Friends and family, students that she has.  
This is Tyler’s perception of the “so many people” that Laura was huge to.  Note, that it does not include himself.

I know what she means to me, and I know what she means to everybody else.
It is important to note that Tyler has quit using Laura’s name.  His language is akin to a eulogy. Tyler did not say, Laura means everything to me, but instead he stated what he knows.  He knows what she means to him, but he did not say what that is.  
Tyler once again stated what he knows when it comes to everybody else.  He feels the need to be among the crowd.  It is a deceptive tactic…if she means a lot to everybody else, you must accept that she means a lot to me.  
Note that there is actually a distinct division between what “she means to me” and “what she means to everybody else” in Tyler’s verbalized perception of reality. They are two different things… which correlates back to Tyler not including himself among the people that Laura means so much to.

We just want to know she's OK. We just want her back.  Thank You."
Tyler continues to ‘stay in the crowd’ with the pronoun we used twice.  He cannot bring himself to say “I want you back.”  By associating himself with those that do want Laura back safe, Tyler hopes that we will assume he also wants the same.  However, he has not stated that he does and we cannot assume it or state it for him.
Again, Tyler uses the dependent word, “just,” not once, but twice, which lessens the importance of what comes after it and compares the topic to an alternative thought.  
Tyler’s priority is noted as follows:  
  1. To know that she is OK.
  2. We want her back.


At this point in the press conference, Tyler is able to sit down.  It appears that he believes he is done speaking. The detective then spoke for about six minutes, which was plenty of time to put Tyler at ease and let his guard down.  It was a brilliant tactic. The detective then opened it up for questions. A question was asked of Laura’s father, followed by questions directed to Tyler. Here are the questions asked of Tyler with his responses and analysis:  

Q: Tyler can you talk about what she’d been like the over the last couple weeks and your interaction with her?
T: Um like Mr. Wallen said, she was uh, super excited for the start of the school year. I know uh, she had talked to some, the principal and her teachers, like her co-workers about um, her being pregnant and how excited she was, and uh, it’s just a complete shock that (long pause) I mean I think leading up to the, leading up to the weekend that she’s missing, I mean I don’t, I don’t believe anybody has any inclination to think anything was wrong or...  

Note how Tyler referred to Laura’s father, “like Mr. Wallen said…”  This is a referral to a truthful and credible statement.  However, the words did not belong to Tyler, they belonged to Laura’s father.  
Tyler goes on to stumble over his words and even speaks out of order.  Then, at the end of his ramblings, Tyler’s brain cannot set aside what it knows, and Tyler cannot control it.  He did not prepare a response to this question…this is off the cuff. Remember what the question is: what she’d been like over the last couple weeks and his interaction with her?  
“I mean I don’t, I don’t believe anybody has any inclination to think anything was wrong or...   
We note the high sensitivity with the negative language repeated.  We always note negative language as sensitive. We also always note anything repeated as sensitive.
Knowing the heightened sensitivity, we now note that Tyler did NOT say, I did not think anything was wrong or Our relationship was great.  Tyler is thinking about his interactions with Laura leading up to the weekend she disappeared.  What he tells us is not what he thought, nor is it about his interaction with Laura.  Instead, he tells us what he does not believe, which is that anybody has any inclination to think, that anything was wrong.   This is important, given the context of the question: what she’d been like the over the last couple weeks and your interaction with her?  Tyler’s brain cannot withhold what he knows, that something was wrong regarding his interactions with Laura.   
Unfortunately, Tyler was interrupted with another question before he could finish his admission…  Note his answer to this next question.

Q: Do you remember any of your last conversations with her?
T: I don’t know where she is, that’s all, I don’t know.  I know we’re all trying to do everything we can to find her and, I just pray that, I pray she’s safe, she comes back. That’s all I care about right now.  
Keep in mind, the brain will formulate a statement based upon all its knowledge.  Tyler’s brain has given away what is foremost on Tyler’s mind…which is Laura’s location.   Tyler is so nervous at this point, that he cannot even comprehend the question. Instead, he gives an unreliable denial to a question that has not yet been asked.  Why does he do so? Because his brain is telling him that the question will certainly be asked, so he attempts to pre-empt it. He did not believe before, that anybody thought anything was wrong, but he obviously does now as he blurts out:  
“I don’t know where she is, that’s all, I don’t know.”  
If there was any doubt in the investigator’s minds that Tyler has guilty knowledge regarding Laura’s disappearance, there should not be now.  Tyler asserts, “That’s all,” which is extra wording and very unexpected.  Why does he add those words? He really wants us to believe that he cannot have any other information.  For analysts, it is a signal that he does know much more. It is a red flag. Tyler certainly knows more than that.  Remember, he has avoided the original question. Since that is all, there is nothing more to ask about and nothing more for the police to investigate.  It is in essence, a plea from Tyler to stop the questioning. His anxiety is high…the staged press conference has been very effective.
Tyler’s anxiety continues to manifest with, “I don’t know,” repeated twice – showing extreme sensitivity, to a question that was not asked.

Tyler never does answer the actual question asked.  He keeps himself buried in the proverbial crowd with, “I know we’re all trying to do everything we can to find her…”  
We note that it is not him doing everything he can to find her, but it is “were all trying.”  Trying does not mean it is happening.  It is a subtle way of saying it is not actually happening.  It is a lack of commitment.


Q: How long have you all been together and how long have you been dating her?
T: Laura and I have known each other probably for 10 years now.  Um, we’ve know, any normal relationship, just take one step at a time and ya take the progress that comes with ya, and been to doctor’s meetings, we’ve been sonograms, all the pre-natal care you could ask…sorry.”
The question is two pronged, which is not a good way to phrase a question. Tyler begins his answer with a truthful and reliable sentence.  “Laura and I have known each other probably for 10 years now.”   Tyler can easily say how long they have known each other.  He could have stopped there, but he did not. He added extra language, that strayed from the focus of the question.  Why did he do that? Because he has information that he does not want the rest of us to know. He feels the need to keep that information contained in his brain and to steer us in a different direction.  Unfortunately for Tyler, he (nor any of us) cannot formulate a statement without using all the information his brain possesses. That information which is most taxing on his brain at that moment, will manifest in his words.  Let’s look at how this manifested is Tyler’s words:
Um, we’ve know, any normal relationship…”  If a relationship is “normal,” one does not feel the need to express the normalcy to others.  When the word normal appears, we know that the relationship has been viewed as abnormal by either Tyler or someone else. However, in this case, Tyler only refers to a normal relationship.  The same “normal” principle applies, but with the noted sensitivity that Tyler cannot bring himself to say that their relationship was normal.  He wants us to believe it was, without him actually stating it.  
We note that Tyler easily stated a how long he and Laura knew each other.  It was a truthful statement. And as such, it flowed easily off his tongue.  There is a stark difference between Tyler’s truthful statement and what follows…which is a lot of self-censoring, and passive language.  Tyler cannot form one full sentence relating to their relationship or Laura’s pregnancy. He utilizes passive language which distances him from responsibility in the relationship.  His language is such that even the untrained may question the veracity of his statement and whether their relationship was normal or not.  

Laura’s body was found a few days after the press conference.  She was buried in a shallow grave, in the same field she took a picture of and sent to her sister.

Tyler confessed to shooting Laura in the back of her head and burying her in the field during their “surprise outing.”  He is charged with her murder.



Update:  While dressing for trial, Tyler Tessier was left alone in his cell.  He was found deceased a few hours later, after hanging himself. We refer to cases like this as: case adjudicated by a higher authority.

Detective Steve Johnson is a 28-year police veteran (retired).  During his career he obtained certifications as a Certified Voice Stress Analyst (lie detection), Certified Statement Analyst, and Certified Forensic Handwriting Analyst.  He is now a full time Instructor and Analyst for Law Enforcement, Legal and Corporate organizations. His Statement Analysis seminars, and Advanced seminars co-taught with Peter Hyatt, are consistently evaluated by veteran investigators as the most useful investigative training of their careers.  Visit www.Truth2Lies.com for available classes, or contact Steve to host a training for your organization.