Tuesday, May 22, 2018

Jodi Arias Statement: Fabrication of Reality




When a child fabricates reality, rather than be deceptive in a yes or no question, or via withholding information, the parents must take careful corrective steps as this can and will grow with each success. 

This form of deception is rare and it is dangerous. 

Jodi Arias was accused and convicted of  murder of her boyfriend,  Travis.  She claimed that two others did it, and that she escaped with her life. This is a reposting of analysis done years ago.  Det. (ret) Steve Johnson has done excellent work in Arias' handwriting analysis. 



  1. Arias: I heard... ah.... really loud, pop, and the next thing I remember, I was lying next to the bathtub and Travis was, um... screaming.
    She begins with the pronoun "I" indicating that she is, psychologically, committing to the sentence.  We often find much reliable information because of it. 

    "I heard a really loud pop..." is likely to be true. It may not be true here and now, but she has heard a really loud pop before in life. This commitment to audible sensory is immediately followed by missing information: 

    "And the next thing I remember" is an example of Temporal Lacunae, or phrases used to show skipping over time.  It is here that we look for the missing information; that is, information that may be critical to the case, and withheld.  It is a key phrase for interviewers to go back to and ask follow up questions to.   Here, it is not "the next thing that happened" but "remembered" which would suggest deception.  Why?  What is the difference?
It is because in an open statement or open response, someone can only tell us what they remember.  How could they tell us what they don't remember?  

She heard a pop and she was lying next to the bathtub.  This is likely to be true. 

Yet, what is missing is what happened in-between the sound and her position near the bathtub. 

"Travis was screaming" is also likely to be reliable information. 

Thus far, there is the giving of information we can believe.  Follow her sequence of events and trust her: 

a. she heard a noise
b.  she next concealed what happened
c.  she was lying near the bathtub
d.  Travis was screaming 

She has very likely not told a lie here, with a lie defined as the fabrication of reality or a "direct lie." This is in an open statement (answer that is not a "yes or no" question.)

More than 90% of deception comes from withheld information; not from a direct lie .

"I don't remember"  In an Open Statement.

An open statement can be an open ended question in which the subject is now choosing his own words to describe something.  It can be written, verbal, or even part of an interview, as long as the free editing process in is play. 

but in an open statement, the use of the words "I don't remember" is sensitive because a subject can only tell us what they know, what they saw, what was said, and so on.  In fact, anything reported to you, in the negative, in an open answer or statement, should be flagged as very important, and possibly deceptive. 

"I don't remember two guys running across the lawn..."

Who said anything about two guys??  This is how deceptive people often give away valuable information.  In the above, it is not an exaggeration, but an introduction of the topic of two males into the scenario and is highly important. 


This is the reason for many innocuous or easy questions, as it causes a routine of answers which, once begun, will need something to stop it.  This exchange took place and led to valuable information. 

"and I didn't call anyone, finished my shift and went home..." a subject said in response to, "...and then what happened?" as a question. 

When she caught herself, she then denied making a phone call.  In the interview, this obvious deception was ignored.  The subject was then brought back to a series of easy questions which required little thought and the interviewer brought her, carefully, back to the time segment in which this call was made.  In rapid fire question and answer, the subject grew in confidence and the pace picked up considerably. 

The interviewer then said, "what number did you dial?" of which, without missing a beat, the subject said, "555-1212", then followed by another easy question.  

The number matched the phone records of the call she "didn't make" and the interview was successful in solving the crime.  She offered, during her own free editing process, what she did not do, and the interviewer, skilled by practice, did not respond to it until later, after the subject was back "on track" of answering easy, non-threatening questions. 

If you let people talk, they will tell you what you need to know...

only if you are listening. 



 Here, in Jodi Arias' statement,  the word "remember" it is coupled with the Temporal Lacunae.  It is indicative that she may have been telling you what she did not remember.  

Note the body position enters the statement:  "lying"

Please note:  "bathtub"  


When water, in any form, enters a statement, sexual abuse, sexual activity, sexual assault, etc, should be looked into by the interviewer.  She could have worded it in other ways. "I was on the bathroom floor" or even "I was on the floor."  

For her, it was important that we know the word "bathtub" was on her mind and utilized for whatever reason. 

Body positions entering a statement are important as they indicate tension.  
AriasAt that point, I...um...I sort of was just trying to come around and kind of orientate myself to what was going on,"  "And I looked up and I just -- I saw two other individuals in the bathroom. And they were coming towards us.
Note "at that point" is not only distancing language, (that)  but represents a space of time that would also need exploration by the interviewer.   What happened just prior to "that" point?  What happened right after "that" point?  Does this come from experiential memory?  If so, it can be repeated, easily, coming and going, backwards and forwards, and will not need such words as "sort of" and "just" and "kind of".  In Eyes for Lies commentary, she correctly identified the use of these words as odd.  This is the same that we say in analysis:  the unexpected. 


          Also note that she describes herself as making the attempt to "come around" and "kind of" orientate herself to "what was going on" which is soft language for a murder scene.   She places herself in control of cognition. 

         As these things raise suspicion, she then, in speaking of a brutal murderous attack, it is her use of the word "individuals" which alerts the analyst to deception. 

"Individuals" is gender neutral, and a strong indication that she is fabricating, or concealing the identity of the killer (s).  Two "individuals" is neither masculine nor feminine.  Would you know if two killers with guns and knives and murder on their minds were men or women?  Would you know if they were a "couple" rather than "individuals"?  This use of "individuals", like "people" is unexpected.  In fact, it is so unexpected in deceptive statements that it is expected. 

This is a good example of language that "does not proceed from experiential memory."

Police often pick this up intuitively and know to follow up in questions.  Once trained, they know precisely how to discern its usage and where to go with this discernment. 


Expected in deception.  Unexpected expectations?  We begin every statement expecting truth, and it is the unexpected that confronts us as possibly deceptive.  When someone wishes to conceal the identity of the killer, thief, bad guy, etc...

they  go gender-neutral.  

This leads investigators to ask:

Why would she want to conceal the identity of the killer? (or killers?)

We saw this in the Darlie Routier case where she sought to conceal the identity of the killer on her 911 call. 

Words like "kinda, sorta, somewhat..." etc are deliberately vague so that the deceptive person may later on use it as a way of explaining that which did not fit (forensically or logically) and it is the overuse of vague language that calls us to attention:



                      "Jodi says Travis was alive when she fled his house." (48 Hours)
  1. AriasHe was still sort of on his hands and knees, the whole time, until I ran from the room. That's the last that I saw him.
    Note "sort of" is vague, but it is followed by definitive language:  "the whole time", which is then followed by a statement which is often used when a subject wants to stop the flow of information:  "that's the last I saw him."   This is similar to "that's all I know" (in various forms) which seeks to end the information.  In this case, his body posture, which was only "sort of" but for the "whole time" is a sensitive topic to the subject. Jodi was there for the "whole time" of the murder.  She just said so. 
    Arias: He pulled the trigger, and nothing happened with the gun, and sojust grabbed my purse, which was on the floor at that point, and I ran down the stairs and out of there and I left him there. …I pushed past him and - and his gun, and I just didn't look back.

    Lots of deception and principle here.  Let's break it down.

    1.  The individuals are now only singular, and masculine:  "he"   
    This is a good example of what most of us learned very early in life, sometimes through game playing: narrative that does not come from experiential memory is difficult to recall. 

  2. Pronouns are instinctive and flow from us without pre thought.  The change from plural to singular should alert the interviewer that this is not coming from memory.

    2.  "Nothing happened..."  Nothing can't happen, so we are going to question this one (in an open statement) but we do not need to go far because she gives us the answer:


    3.  "with the gun" as if "nothing" could happen with something else.  This is indicative that not only did it not come from memory, but she is making it up as she goes along.  It has that Casey Anthony feel to it:


    "dead squirrels crawled up" and got stuck in her car engine, causing the smell of human decomposition.  Since squirrels that are dead generally don't crawl much, going out of (literal) chronological order indicates deception.  For Arias, "nothing happened" when he pulled the trigger, but in case anyone is wondering, the "nothing" that happened when he pulled the trigger was "with the gun."  It is this awkward additional wording that those untrained in analysis will grab onto, and have that 'smell test' or 'hinky meter' feel to it and cause them to not believe the story.  Instinct tells them, "she is lying" though they are not sure why.


    We are sure why, and apply the same principles statement after statement.


    "So"


    Analysts highlight "so, since, therefore, because, hence, " and all related words, as sensitive in an open statement because the subject is now telling us why they did something; rather than simply reporting what they did.                                             The need to explain "why" without being challenged is a sensitivity in which the subject wants to preempt the question. It is more than just the false piling on of little detail in hopes of being believed; it is anticipation.  She knew it would be challenged so she "beat them to it."  Often this is so unnecessary that investigators would never have even guessed to ask certain questions had not the guilty party projected it through this sensitivity.  
     The sensitivity must be explored; it may be deceptive, or it may not be, but it is sensitive.  "Just" shows reduction and has a casual feel to it.  We label "so" as sensitive, and "just" as reductive.   The additional information about her purse seems totally out of place, yet, only for us:  for her, it was not left behind.  This is a form of an attempt to persuade.  Would you have the presence of mind to get your purse while running from homicidal maniacs (or just one)?  It is like being held up at a convenience store by an armed robber and asking for a receipt.   


Note that she grabbed her purse and ran, but then her last sentence seems to go back in time, just a moment is all it takes to indicate out of chronological order: 

and I ran down the stairs and out of there 

Which works, until she then shows that she is not speaking from memory:

and I left him there. …

In order to get "out of there" she would have to have "left" him there, making "left" an unnecessary word = double importance for us.  It indicates missing information.  What is missing from here is the truth.  

I pushed past him and - and his gun

Note that not only is she out of order, but gives more additional and needless information:

She pushed past him "and his gun", showing (1) unnecessary wording and (2) the word "gun" is sensitive because it is repeated.  

Linguistic Disposition:

Even self loathing people will defend themselves. 

Q. What is Jodi Arias' linguistic disposition towards the killer of her boyfriend?

A.  "Positive" is the Statement Analysis destination due to context. She did not push past the killer, but "him."  This neutral word is "Positive" in the absence of expected animosity, fear, loathing, etc. He is not even the "gunman" but only "him."

This is not coming from experiential memory. 

She has a "positive linguistic disposition" towards the killer: herself. 

Lastly, note that in this open statement, she tells us what she did not do:

and I just didn't look back.

"I just didn't look back." which is flagged as deceptive.   This description has a resemblance to the deceptive statement made by Tiffany Hartley, who had reported her husband shot dead by Mexican "pirates" on Falcon Lake.  This is a form of alibi or excuse building so that she can later attempt to explain inconsistencies.  "I can't remember what he looked like because, like I told you (self reference noted), I didn't look back."
Arias : They were both taller than me, um...they were covered -- their hands, their gloves -- they had long-sleeved shirt on. They were in all black. He was wearing jeans. But they all -- they had ski masks on and I believe they were there to kill him, um...because they didn’t take anything...to my knowledge, there was nothing missing from the house.
Please note that the word "covered" entered her statement in a broken sentence.  Later, "covered" (short, brief) became "ski masks" (longer, detailed) reversing the natural law of economy. This is another indication that her words are not coming from experiential memory. 

Self Censoring


Broken sentences mean missing information. 
Please note that "covered" as well as being covered, blankets covering, towels, clothes, etc, when it enters a statement should lead the investigator to learn if sexual activity or abuse took place, or if PTSD is part of the subject's profile.

Note the description has the feel of story building, 

1.  Taller than me.
2.  Covered
3.  Their hands
4   Their gloves (broken sentence)
5.  They had long sleeves on.
6.  They were dressed in black. 
7.  He, one individual (not a couple) had jeans on.   (note the word "all" as ill-fitting)

It only only the 8th description that the ski masks are mentioned.  This not only gives the feel that it just came to her to add this in, but order represents something; priority, importance, chronology, proximity, and so on:  it has meaning. 

To say ski masks as the 8th thing noticed is, to say the least, unexpected.  Two "individuals" in ski masks would be a striking, frightening image and it is likely that it would be the very first thing you would mention, not the 3rd, or 4th, and certainly not the 8th.  

This is deceptive.

Next, note the word "because" as sensitive (see above).



*note next the qualifyer "to my knowledge" and the sensitivity of repetition about "nothing" missing from the home...it is qualified as such so that later, if need be, she can say, "well, I did say 'to my knowledge' didn't I?"  

Something someone running for her life (while grabbing her purse) from individuals intent on murder, would not likely do:  take inventory of the home's belongings.  

She is lying

Analysis Conclusion:

Deception Indicated. 

She fabricates reality in bringing two actors into her story and the language is useful for study, especially in understanding how difficult it is to tell a lie. 

When information is being fabricated, the recall is not imprinted upon the brain until the story is told over and over. The awkward sense of presentation, including the reversal of the law of economy, is often picked up intuitively.

Beyond the language of fabrication, we have a fascinating psycho-linguisitc profile that emerges; one that may be of surprise to some. 

For training in your own home or for your department or business, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services. 


Thursday, May 17, 2018

Statement Analysis: Darlie Routier Husband Darin


Question for analysis:  Did Darlie Routier have assistance in committing this murder from her husband?

Does Darin Routier show guilty knowledge of the crime?

Did he help her kill the children?

I. The Statement
II. The Statement with Analysis 
III. The Conclusion 



I. The Statement

Read the statement through to get an overall impression of the husband's statement knowing it was given to police after a traumatic event.  Although we don't know what was discussed prior to writing this Statement, we do know he was interviewed first. We then should consider reducing sensitivity indicators, while continuing to look for signals of deception. 

We were watching TV in the Roman Room (Living Room SW Corner of House) watching[illegible] movie on HBO (Satellite). Baby Drake had fallen asleep about 10-10:30. I took him up to bed in parents room. Put blanket on him and turned out lights. I went down stairs to talk to Darlie. We talked about the boys not being able to start base-ball yet because we were so busy with the baby right now. We talked about the business, bills, and how Darlie was having a hard time with taking care of the baby’s (all) today. Darlie said she wanted to sleep on the couch because she would sleep better because the baby would keep her awake. The boys were asleep with pillows and blankets on the floor. Devon was asleep face up in front of TV and Damon was asleep between couch and coffee table by the couch mom was. So I went upstairs to get her a blanket and pillow and came back downstairs to cover her up. We talked a little more
Page 2
about her going to Cancun with some friends across the street and I gave her a kiss goodnight. Told her to dream about me and went upstairs around 1:00am.I went and turned on TV in our room and watched for 10 to 15 min. and took my glasses off and turned TV off. I could not go to sleep for a while but finally I fell asleep. Uncontisly (sic) I heard a noise and then Darlie screaming loud. She was yelling Devon! Devon!! Oh my God Devon! I woke up quickly and grabbed my glasses on the night stand and ran downstairs as fast as I could. Going into the Living Room (Roman) I ran over to Devon laying on the floor where he was when I saw him last and nealed (sic) down over him
Page 3
to see if he was hurt and then looked at the coffee table to see it tipped over on him. When I looked again at his chest there were two holes in his chest with blood and muscle piecing (sic) out. I slapped his face to get him to say or look at me. No response. I started CPR and when I blew into his mouth air came out of his chest. I blew 5 or 6 times and held my hand over the holes on his chest. Then when that didn’t work I blew into one of the holes in his chest. I looked over at Darlie and she was on the phone calling 911. I ran over to Damon laying on floor in hallway between wall and side of couch. He had no pulse but I could not see any injuries. Police came in and I told them that my babys were stabbed and she told them that he went out of the garage. I ran upstairs to put my pants on. I looked over and Drake was crying and I felt [illegible] he was ok.
Page 4
I noticed my wallet left on the floor and all I could think to do was to go [redacted] holler for help. I needed someone to help [illegible] and [illegible] the paramedics when they arrived. I went downstairs ran out the house and ran across the street to [redacted] and[redacted] door. I banged 5-6 times as hard as I could until [redacted] comes to the doors 1st and when I told them that Devon and Damon were stabbed they were in shock and ran over with me to the house and that was when they were putting Damon on a stretcher. I knew that
Devon was dead before I ran across street and Damon had no pulse but the paramedic carried him out in a blanket out the front door. I ran out yelling that we have to find
Page 5
who did this and [redacted] told me that Darlie was cut too! I never knew that she was hurt yet she had blood all over her from the neck down to the bottom of her nightshirt. She was standing in the door way with the paramedics said she needed to go to the hospital. So we helped her onto the stretcher and she said “Darin you have to promise me we will find this man! He killed our babys.” I walked back into house pushed my way through the police and saw the knife on the bar in kitchen w/blood all over it. [illegible] went to garage and door[illegible] to look at the window that the police had said he entered and I went out of the house and walked across the street and neighbors were there to
Page 6
comfort me and ask me about what happened. I sat for a minute on a curb and walked over to the ambulance where Damon was and asked paramedic was he alive and they said no. I was in shock. [redacted] told me to with Darlie in the ambulance. So I got in and they threw me outand said they needed to work. So then they asked me questions (fire dept) (SS# + address + name) and I asked what hospital and no one knew. So found out where Darlie went (Baylor Dallas) and drove over to the hospital. At hospital I was questioned by Det. Frosch for hours.

II. Statement With Analysis



We were watching TV in the Roman Room (Living Room SW Corner of House) watching[illegible] movie on HBO (Satellite). 

The subject begins his statement on the night in question. This is expected. 

We will keep watch of the form of the statement, knowing that reliable statements will have the majority of information being the murder, itself. 

Note the pronoun "we" is used, showing unity between them.  "TV"is often found in a statement when someone is not alone. 


Baby Drake had fallen asleep about 10-10:30. 


It is interesting to note the name used for the child; "Baby Drake" by the father.  This should be seen not only in the Greater Context (murder) but in the lesser contexts of both the sentence and in comparison to Darlie's. 

Note the sentence is short.  Short sentences are often the most reliable. 

I took him up to bed in parents room. 

This is a very strong sentence.  Note it begins with "I" and is also very short. 

It is very likely to be reliable. 

Put blanket on him and turned out lights. 

Notice two things here:
a. reduced commitment to covering the child with a blanket
b.  the turning of the lights out. 

It would be interesting to learn if "lights out" is his normal vernacular instead of "lights off", given the greater context. 

That he includes two unnecessary elements (covering and lights) would warrant exploration of his own background, including possible post trauma. This could be present trauma from the murders, or could be possible childhood abuse in his background.

That he includes "lights out" could also indicate a failed attempt at romance with Darlie. 

This is for exploration, yet not vital to the analytical question of guilty knowledge. It does, however, give us insight into their relationship. 

We note "we" turning to "I" becomes reliably strong and is taken in the lesser context of shorter sentences.  We now note the pronoun missing over a specific action. 

I wonder if he struggled to remember, "did I really cover him?" or "did I use the right blanket?" "Did I cover him completely?", (etc) , due to the dropped pronoun indicating a reduced commitment. 

Consider the "lights" as it might relate to sexual intimacy (in the negative) with what follows: 


I went down stairs to talk to Darlie. 

Here he has the need to explain to us why he went downstairs.  When taken with the "lights out", it may further affirm that he wanted unity and sexual intimacy with Darlie but there was a negative atmosphere he was dealing with.  This would be consistent with her statement about having to do everything while he was out with her sister. 

They seem to address this congruently: 


We talked about the boys not being able to start base-ball yet because we were so busy with the baby right now. We talked about the business, bills, and how Darlie was having a hard time with taking care of the baby’s (all) today. 

The description is of what might cause "lights out" in marital relations; busy, bills, baby, etc. 

Note he recognized her complaint from her statement about having to take care of dinner for "all" (re-read her statement at this point). 

Yet, it is the pronoun "we" which tells us his linguistic disposition towards Darlie at this point of the statement. In his verbalized perception of reality, he saw them as "we", but there may have been an unspoken rejection of amorous activity he sensed.  This can produce the language we see above, as he works from memory of what happened. 

He is reliving or recalling it as it progressed. Thus far, there is no indicator that he has moved away from experiential memory. 

He may have wanted Darlie to come upstairs to bed, hence his need to explain why he came down to talk to her: 


Darlie said she wanted to sleep on the couch because she would sleep better because the baby would keep her awake. 

This was not likely a very heated argument but one in which he accepted her reason for them being apart.  Note the soft communicative language. 

He tells us it was Darlie's decision to sleep on the couch (location of sleep noted) and voiced no objection.  Consider this, again, with the unnecessary detail of him turning the lights off. 

The boys were asleep with pillows and blankets on the floor. Devon was asleep face up in front of TV and Damon was asleep between couch and coffee table by the couch mom was. 

Note the absence of qualifying or unnecessary language.  In the context of the murder, he now gives the positions. The "boys" are given specific names. 

They are now separating (geographically) and she is "mom" in his language. 


So I went upstairs to get her a blanket and pillow and came back downstairs to cover her up.

He is sensitive about coming back to her.  That he would both get her a blanket and cover her is supported by the pronoun to follow: 


 We talked a little more about her going to Cancun with some friends across the street and I gave her a kiss goodnight. 

The conversation still had the pronoun "we" here.  I would have liked to ask him if he has sought to try, one more time, to get her to come upstairs for romance. 


That he gave her a kiss tonight is noted.  This came from the sentence with "we" and it is about her being able to get away for vacation. 

This is following the acknowledgment of her doing for others. He signals that the relationship was not deteriorating to the point of divorce.  Yet, he likely did not get her to come upstairs and "turn on the lights" even with the attention of getting her a blanket, (for the purpose of covering her) and kissing her. 

Failure may be affirmed by the dropped pronoun here, which is not his baseline pattern: 


Told her to dream about me and went upstairs around 1:00am.

This is the language of disappointment. 

He had acknowledged what a tough time she was having as a mother, did not debate her about location of sleep and attempted to be helpful. 

He may not have known at the time of the statement that she was under suspicion as it does not show thus far, yet in telling police that she was having a hard time, and she needed a vacation, he is giving information freely. 

That it went from "said" to "told" may indicate an increase in the tension from disappointment.  He has talked to her as "we" until 1:00am.  He now does give up and go upstairs.  We listen here, in particular, for reliability versus deception as the time of the murder commences: 

I went and turned on TV in our room and watched for 10 to 15 min. 

"TV" is often mentioned in a statement when one is with another person.  Why does he include this when he is alone?  This may be similar to "coffee" in statements (social drink) where one is alone and is actually thinking about being alone.  

He may have hoped to have fallen asleep in her arms rather than using the TV.  He may have preferred to have fallen asleep in the psychological status and safety of "we."  Without, he may struggle. 


and took my glasses off and turned TV off. 

I could not go to sleep for a while but finally I fell asleep. 

Uncontisly (sic) I heard a noise and then Darlie screaming loud. 

The event is critical here. 

If he has guilty knowledge of it, we expect to see a temporal lacuna or skip in time.  

Instead, he "finally" fell asleep. 

Then we have a word (?) with "I heard a noise..."

This is a description of an event that one struggles to perceive due to sleep. 

Those who are deceptive here often use a phrase to skip over time to persuade their audience that they could not have been involved.  Such may be,

"and the next thing I know..."

There is no skip of time for him. 

This is a very strong signal to indicate he was asleep.  

He tells us so, but without persuasion.  

He tells us so without skipping over time.  

Note the verb change here may suggest ongoing impact: 


She was yelling Devon! Devon!! Oh my God Devon! 

What follows in the expectation of truth is a rude awakening and confusion.  

This is our expectation.  

We also want to see the pronoun "I" in his description.  We do not want to see the pronoun "you", as if this is an universal event common to all.  This type of psychological distancing is not expected in a reliable statement. 

I woke up quickly and grabbed my glasses on the night stand and ran downstairs as fast as I could. Going into the Living Room (Roman) I ran over to Devon laying on the floor where he was when I saw him last and nealed (sic) down over him
to see if he was hurt and then looked at the coffee table to see it tipped over on him. 

That he needs to explain why he kneeled down over Devon is contextually reliable.  He woke up "quickly" attempting to gain his bearings, he would not know what had happened to Devon. 


When I looked again at his chest there were two holes in his chest with blood and muscle piecing (sic) out. 

The language indicates experiential memory. 


I slapped his face to get him to say or look at me. 

Here he explains why he slapped a child.  This is appropriate for a father to do.  

Next note the short sentences, past tense commitment and the lack of qualifying anything. 


No response. I started CPR and when I blew into his mouth air came out of his chest. I blew 5 or 6 times and held my hand over the holes on his chest. Then when that didn’t work I blew into one of the holes in his chest. 

There is nothing in the sentence structure to indicate deception. 

The scene is a rude awakening and it is confusing, yet he does not feel the need to make either claim. 

This is very important. 

This is the "psychological wall of truth" that experiential knowledge produces.  

He has no need to persuade that he was sleeping, nor does he have the need to artificially claim shock, surprise, horror, etc.  What he describes is what happened and it is horrible in deed.  It has no need of persuasion to an audience. 


I looked over at Darlie and she was on the phone calling 911. 

I ran over to Damon laying on floor in hallway between wall and side of couch. He had no pulse but I could not see any injuries. Police came in and I told them that my babys were stabbed and she told them that he went out of the garage. I ran upstairs to put my pants on. I looked over and Drake was crying and I felt [illegible] he was ok.

The reliability continues, and the stronger "told" (communicative language) is appropriate in the context. 



I noticed my wallet left on the floor and all I could think to do was to go [redacted] holler for help. 

It is very likely that he looked for his wallet here.  

What does this suggest?

It suggests that he believed an intruder had done this and considered theft. 

He failed to help his children and here he wants help for the paramedics: 

I needed someone to help [illegible] and [illegible] the paramedics when they arrived. I went downstairs ran out the house and ran across the street to [redacted] and[redacted] door. I banged 5-6 times as hard as I could until [redacted] comes to the doors 1st and when I told them that Devon and Damon were stabbed they were in shock and ran over with me to the house and that was when they were putting Damon on a stretcher. 

He wrote, "I told" which is the appropriate stronger communicative language. 

He includes the emotional state of the neighbors here. 

Why?

This should be understood in the lesser context as well as the greater. The lesser context is him "Banging" on the door "as hard as he could", and very likely felt frustration in convincing the neighbors to react.  

This is a description of an event which indicates his own emotion, yet he feels no need to tell us his own "shock" here?

Why not?

Because it is unnecessary.  

Had he included it in the narrative, so soon after what took place, it would appear that he had a need to persuade police he was shocked or surprised, suggestive of the opposite. 

This is a good example of reliable reporting even in a traumatic event. 


I knew that
Devon was dead before I ran across street and Damon had no pulse but the paramedic carried him out in a blanket out the front door. 

The dead victim, to him, is "Devon", which indicates the lack of processing. The need to say "I knew" also indicates a lack of processing. He is still "Devon" to him, even admitting he is dead. 

He had attempted to revive his sons, even in a bizarre manner (blowing into the chest) yet they remain, to him, "Devon and Damon", with Damon not having a pulse. 

I ran out yelling that we have to find who did this and [redacted] told me that Darlie was cut too! 

This comes after asserting one child dead and the other without a pulse.  It comes after "noticing" his wallet.  

There is, in his verbalized perception of reality, a brutal killer on the loose.  This is a natural paternal (protection, provision, procreation) reaction.

Note the psychological closeness of "this" in context:  "this" is the killing; not the killer. 



I never knew that she was hurt yet she had blood all over her from the neck down to the bottom of her nightshirt. 

Recall he was interviewed (see last statement) and at the time of this writing, knew she was cut. 


She was standing in the door way with the paramedics said she needed to go to the hospital. So we helped her 

He sees himself united with paramedics/police/authority. 

This is very different than one who has the need to see himself united to police, via the "Ingratiation Factor" in Statement Analysis. This is his reality.  He does not suspect his wife. 
  




onto the stretcher and she said “Darin you have to promise me we will find this man! He killed our babys.” 

He quotes Darlie.  That the "man" would need to be found is normal (expected) except that in her 911 call, she deliberately concealed both gender and the number of assailants involved. 

Next, we have the unnecessary putting of blame upon "this man" is not expected. 


Note, if the quote is accurate (he was on high hormonal alert), the word "this" is assigned to the "man", with "this" indicating closeness, rather than the disgust of "that killer."


I walked back into house pushed my way through the police and saw the knife on the bar in kitchen w/blood all over it. [illegible] went to garage and door[illegible] to look at the window that the police had said he entered and I went out of the house and walked across the street

At the time of this statement, he does not suspect Darlie but an intruder and quotes police.  His brusk demeanor is the opposite of ingratiation.  



 and neighbors were there to

comfort me and ask me about what happened. 

Comforting neighbors are now "ask me"; that is, they are asking him what happened.  It is here that processing of a traumatic event verbally begins. 

We now look for the location of emotions. 

In reliable statements, the emotions come after the event rather than during the event, as we so often find in artificial editing in which the guilty subject wants to convince us of certain emotions. 

I sat for a minute on a curb and walked over to the ambulance where Damon was and asked paramedic was he alive and they said no. I was in shock. [redacted] told me to with Darlie in the ambulance. So I got in and they threw me outand said they needed to work. So then they asked me questions (fire dept) (SS# + address + name) and I asked what hospital and no one knew. So found out where Darlie went (Baylor Dallas) and drove over to the hospital. At hospital I was questioned by Det. Frosch for hours.

The emotions are in the "after" portion of the statement and were provoked by the "asking" of neighbors. 

Although this is a side note to the analysis, even having to recount what happened to the neighbors could have reduced the ill effects of trauma upon the brain.  This processing, even under the circumstances, could mean that the psychological scarring that he suffers from, could have been worse. 


III.  Analysis Conclusion

Veracity Indicated.

The subject does not show guilty knowledge of the crime. He reports, in spite of the trauma, from experiential knowledge. 

The form dedicates most of the information to what happened to his children; consistent with the formula for reliability.  It is most unlike Darlie's. 


Police were correct in charging Darlie alone, as her statement and her 911 call indicate guilty knowledge of the crime, and her own personal responsibility. 

For training in deception detection, please visit our web site. 

We have seminars for law enforcement listed, as well as seminars for the private sector. 

Our "Complete Statement Analysis Course" is done in your home, at your own pace.