Monday, December 11, 2017

911 Call: Shots Fired


In this case, a man fought to  to "prove" how "racist" police are. From his own cell phone, he called 911 to report shots fired.  
He gave a description of the shooter and made "gun noises."
He said the shooter was a black male wearing a white hooded sweatshirt.  
Note his photo. 
Before police dispatch asked him his name and address, he hung up to keep his call "anonymous." 
He then sat on his front steps, in his white hooded sweatshirt and cell phone in hand, live streaming the "racist police" to the public. 
“All right people, so check this out. I’m chilling’ on my front porch. I ain’t bothering nobody. And see these police, they just just keep riding by. Now I bet you a million dollars that these police is going to come back and say something to me,” 

We note that he began with "chillin'" which is to state:  all was "normal."

In statement analysis, this is the first indication that something "not normal" was about to take place (or had taken place).

This is no different than reading a book to 5 year old kids and starting with, "It was a day just like every other..." (normal) which is to cause them to sit up, pay attention and take notice that something is about to happen.  


“Now I ain’t doing nothing as y’all see. 

Here is the need to portray himself as innocent (alibi establishment), verbally.  His words give him away: 


I’m just sitting here on my front porch, minding my own business. 

His body posture is unnecessarily given to us, which indicates  just what the 5 year old kids feel:  an increase in tension as something is about to happen.

"minding my own business" is also unnecessary information.  This means that we should be on high alert for "someone else's business" is about to be "minded."  It is to also reinforce the "normal" principle. 

How many times can someone say it is "normal" before we recognize it is anything but normal?

He now goes distinctly racial: 


And these white folks done rolled by, 

He has our attention: 

two times already,

the suspense builds with the numeric 

 staring and sh**. 


They are identified by menacing:  "staring" and "sh**" (whatever the latter word is to mean, in context it is with "staring"). 


I bet you anything that they come back,” he told the live audience.

His prediction turned out to be true. 

Police asked neighbors about hearing gun shots, of which all declined so they interviewed the "black male" wearing a "white hoodie" with the cell phone in his hand; the same phone used to make a 911 call.

Had he been the victim of a shooting, he would have been glad to see police respond to risk their lives to protect him.  

28-year-old Michael Duran Havis is under arrest for his  "anonymous" 911 call. 

His statement to his Facebook followers showed deception. 

To enroll in Statement Analysis Training, please visit www.hyattanalysis.com and hit "get trained."




Friday, December 8, 2017

Did John Conyers III Commit Assault against Girlfriend?

John Conyers III, the son of  Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), had been accused of stabbing his ex-girlfriend in a domestic dispute in February, reports say. 

His father  Rep. John Conyers is reported to have paid out many payments to women he sexually assaulted or harassed, with some reports claiming that he used tax payer money, over decades. 

Upon retirement, he stated that he was endorsing his son, John Conyers III, for his elected position. Officially, his 27 year old son is said to be a "portfolio fund manager" and a rap artist. 

Recently, a rap video emerged in which the son raps about his father being a "player" (sexual). 

Media then reported about this assault.  I found two different quotes attributed to him. We will look at them together for comparison. 

In a reliable denial, if one uses the pronoun "I", the past tense verb, and the allegation answered, it is 90% reliable.  If the subject looks upon his reliable denial and says, "I have told the truth", the reliability moves to 99.9% and above.  I have never seen a denial reach this level that was later shown to be false. I know of no other analysts, instructors or investigators who have, either. 

Sophisticated Liars

Those of strong intellect and habitual lying (since childhood) know how to parse words carefully.  The most cited example is how a deceptive person with both intellect and practice, will give a "technically" truthful denial, deliberately parsing.  Among very intellectual liars, this  is often found in an alteration of the accusation.  

The most famous example is former President Bill Clinton would likely have passed a polygraph had he been specifically asked, "Did you have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky?" in the test. 

Having assigned a specific subjective and personal definition to "sexual relations", Clinton showed his employment of intellect in deception at a high level.  He influenced the witness, Monica Lewinsky, to also deceive in this manner.  

Is John Conyers III a sophisticated liar? Or, is he telling the truth?

We let his words guide us. 


Conyers and his son:  No prosecution? 

There have been long standing accusations of nepotism regarding Conyers in the House of Represenatives. These include relatives benefiting by his office, such as job placement, contracts awarded to companies that hire his family and one involving Conyers III in which he had to reimburse the government for illicit use the government issued Cadillac that Conyers Sr. had. 



 Conyers III was arrested but not charged for allegedly stabbing and bodyslamming his then-girlfriend during an argument they had in Los Angeles. 
Conyers III told the NY Times in an interview Wednesday about the encounter as a way to prevent scandal after his father announced his retirement following allegations of sexual harassment. This context should be noted.  
 Conyers III said he and his girlfriend got into an argument at 3 a.m. February 15 that turned into a physical fight. Police later arrested him for domestic violence, but the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office dropped the charges.
Was this due to a lack of evidence?  
Did his girlfriend refuse to cooperate? 
Was it due to political connections?
We may not know the answer, but we can obtain information from what the subject, himself, about the assault. 
His girlfriend successfully secured a restraining order against Conyers III that remains in effect through March 2018.
Conyers III maintained his innocence in the interview with the Times.  We have two statements; one from the Times and one from CNN. Let's analyze the first, seeking insight, to see if it helps with analysis of the second statement he made. 
Allegation:  He stabbed and body slammed his girlfriend. 



“She says I stabbed her, which makes no sense. I didn’t do this. She and I had a verbal altercation, and that escalated. She pulled the knife on me. She was chasing me. I tried to take it from her. There was a struggle. I pinned her to the wall. She kept swinging, and she cut herself.
She says I stabbed her, which makes no sense.
"She"
He began with what "she" says.  We should consider that he is likely not going to use her name publicly, as it is not part of the report, but even with this, we note that he does not use a possessive pronoun, nor a title. She is not "my girlfriend says..."
The lack of social introduction, in spite of confidentiality, should lead us to consider that this is not a positive relationship at the time of the statement.  We then see if the statement will support this or not. 
She says I stabbed her, which makes no sense.
Here he only reports what she "says" and not what happened. 
He tells us that she she said "makes no sense" but in admitting that there was an argument that became a physical "fight" between a male and a female, we do not know why her "saying" this would "make no sense."
This is to avoid issuing a reliable denial and is a tangent moving us away from a denial to the point of indicting her as one without "sense."
What she did "say" is very important:  "stabbing."  Keep this in mind. 
The need to persuade his audience that the victim does not make sense is also noted.  It is to put blame upon the victim.  This is a decidedly weak point, noted for both the need to move the topic away from a denial and to go after the victim's mental status.  
 Embedded confession?  
Question:  Is it an embedded confession for him to say "I stabbed her"?
Answer:  No.  He ascribes this to what she is "saying"
Please consider that "says" is unreliable in the present tense.  She made the claim to police in the past, and she even obtained a protection order.  The latter was in writing.  He did not say "she said", or "she claimed" or "she reported" but "she says." This present tense accusation is possibly something that would be "ongoing" for our subject.  We look to see if it is a habit of speech, as is the wont for some.  We quickly learn:  
I didn’t do this.
Unreliable denial. 
Although he used the pronoun "I" (1) and the past tense verb ("didn't") he violates component number 3:  the accusation. 
It is interesting that he uses the word "this" instead of describing the "stabbing" (not assault, nor something else), which just preceded the statement. 
"stab" is his language that he ascribes to her, but not in the past tense.  
Although some claim that the 27 year old has never held an actual job, the Times reports him as a "fund manager."  He likely knows the difference between present tense and past tense verb usage.  She "says" is present tense but "I didn't" uses the stronger past tense. 
There is an inconsistency here. 
Next, note that he not only avoids using his own wording for the accusation, but chooses to use the word "this", rather than "that."
The word "this" often shows a psychological closeness (it can be geographical, but the context does not support it) to the accusation. 
Readers may find this surprising but at this point, I believe him. 
I believe he didn't stab her.  
Let's see if this assertion of mine is sustainable. 
First, he used the tangent (-), and then maligned the victim as not making sense (-) and then he used the present tense (-) and issued an unreliable denial (-).  He has now given me four indications that should lead me to conclude that he did, in deed, stab her.  
Let's continue to listen to him to guide us.  Remember:  we begin with the presupposition that he did not do it, and in order to believe that he is deceptive, he must talk us out of our position. 
 She and I had a verbal altercation, and that escalated. 
Note "she and I" is not "we", which affirms the negative status of relationship noted from the lack of social introduction. 
Then, note that he admits "verbal altercation", which is then addressed:  escalation. 
When "verbal" escalates, it escalates to physical. 
Note how this escalation is now something he wishes to distance himself from:
"and this escalated" is not what he said. 
"...and that escalated."  
He psychologically brings himself "close" to "stab" but distances himself, immediately afterwards, regarding escalation beyond verbal "altercation."
This does not seem to make sense.  
She pulled the knife on me. 
This is, in its form, reliable.  It does not mean he did not pull a knife on her, but we have no reason to believe that this is not reliable. Note the strong past tense language. 
She pulled the knife on me. 
Did you notice that he used the reliable past tense verb, "pulled" here? 
Yet, the article "the" is used.  It should be "she pulled a knife on me" unless...
it shouldn't be. 
The word "the" tells us that the knife has already been identified by the subject.  
This is why I added that I believe him, even though there may be missing information such as whether he pulled a knife out. 
"The" could indicate that earlier in the interview he mentioned it or it could be because he handled it earlier in the altercation. 
Articles, like pronouns, are instinctive.  They do not warrant pause and pre thought.  
She was chasing me. 
He said "she pulled the knife" but he did not say "she chased me."  He changed the verb tense...
again. 
Regardless of whether one believes he has a shill nepotistic job as a fund manager, the point is that he is intelligent and likely has a formal education. 
I tried to take it from her. 
This means "attempted but failed."
The verb tense change "chasing" me elongates time in the sentence.  Consider that time is passing in the statement. Remember, time must pass (we cannot alter it), therefore it is when the subject feels the need to express the time passing that we consider just how important this is. 
What else happened during this stretching of time?
There was a struggle. 
He immediately moves to passivity in his statement. This means he is now removing both identity and responsibility from the "struggle": who did what to whom.  
This is a need to conceal information.  
Remember the accusation:  attacking her with a knife and body slamming her. 
I pinned her to the wall. 
This is very strong and likely reliable.  Yet it is followed with: 
She kept swinging, 
The change of verb tense and of the element of time. He reports that which began, but he reports it without completion of the activity. "I pinned her to the wall" is an example of reliability in a statement.  There is an action that is both assigned responsibility and completion.  This is what he did.  
Now go back and consider, "there was a struggle" deliberately conceals who did what to whom.  
This is how we know: 
Content Analysis:  at some point, he pinned her to the wall. As we piece this together by our work:  taking the words apart and putting them back together again, we seek a portrait. 
Deception Detection:  we know that this is not all that happened and that he is deceiving us by leaving out information.  

and she cut herself.
Among other things that are left out, this is something that did happen. 
Note that the accusation from her, according to his words, is that she "says I stabbed her."
Now he introduces the word "cut" instead of "stab."
Here is the CNN statement: 
“The DA dismissed the charges, but it’s something that causes me a lot of anguish and now it’s associated with me. I know what happened, and I know I’m innocent.”
"I know what happened" is a red flag statement of knowledge.  
"I know I am innocent " is not "I am innocent."  In both, he asserts what "he" knows; allowing for others to "know" contrary.  This is different than a denial. 
When one tells us what one knows, it is unnecessary information and indicates sensitivity. 
"I know I didn't kill him" will immediately lead to, "So, you know who did kill him?" 
It is an indication of something else that is known.  Listen to him and let his language guide you: 
“I did not stab her. That’s absolutely false. I’m not a violent person; that is not me. There was a verbal altercation and it escalated. I didn’t try to go grab a knife or do anything with a knife.”
"I did not stab her" is very strong. 
He then moves to weaken it by introducing it with "that's absolutely false."
"That", the stabbing, is absolutely false.  "That" is.  But...mothers of small boys are intuitively engaged at this point.  Here is why: 
This is very similar to the comical story where little Johnny comes home from school confronted by mother:
"The teacher said you ran up behind Sally and pulled her hair" to which Johnny says, "I didn't do that!" truthfully.
He was standing right behind her when he pulled her hair.  He didn't run up to her. 
This is why I wrote earlier that I believe he did not "stab" her.  
Yet, the weakening is in the overall context:
I’m not a violent person; that is not me.
Now I know the missing info:  "violence." This is the language of guilt. He has a need to portray himself as different than what happened.  This need is what we note. 
"that is not me" is the ancient gnostic "splitting" that liars have done since time out of mind. 
It is to separate the action from the persona.  It is the language of deception. It is very common in serious allegations including assault, sexual assault, and theft.  It is as if there is a little person living inside the subject who is peaceful, gentle, and giving.  It is the big bad outside person that is giving him all the trouble. 
There was a verbal altercation and it escalated.
Passivity concealing how "it" escalated.  Combined with his need to change verb tenses and elongate time, we are getting insight into him. 
He has a need to tell us the "type" of person he is.  
This is similar to one knowing "in my heart" something that is not able to be denied by the "brain" or by reality. It is human nature. 
So if he didn't "stab" her, what did he do?
 I didn’t try to go grab a knife or do anything with a knife.”
We now know.
Like pronouns, "articles do not lie." 
Yet, I believe him. I believe he did not stab her and she, somehow, "cut herself."  
Why the need to use such deceptive language?
What one tells us in the negative is elevated in importance.  He wants us to know what he did not "try" to do.  Therefore, what he did, "just happened" to him as it was not his intention,  
  He did not "stab" her, but "cut" her. In his verbalized perception of reality: 
The knife presented itself in opportunity, very likely as she waved it around. 
It was her fault that he could turn the knife around while in her hand. This is how he can technically make a truthful statement while wrapping it in deceptive language. Technically, it was her hand that held "a" (not "the" knife here) knife.  
This is how technical truth is used for deception. It is why he had to employ passive voice to this statement.  It is why he changed verb tenses so often. 
In the escalation to violence, the missing information is what he did.  Remember, he is the one who employed passivity in speech.  It is similar to "the gun went off", removing all responsibility for the shooting.  
He did not stab her, but grabbed her arm and guided the knife to cut her.  He did not go out to get a knife, it presented itself.  
This is why there is deception surrounded the physical altercation with a knife.  He was physically stronger than her. 
But what about "body slamming"? 
We can know that he body slammed her too, as he did not deny it but gave us signals of deception of the altercation. 
He is a sophisticated and intelligent liar. We now see why she was granted the protection order.  
He does not take personal responsibility, either, for the "altercation" as he:  
he blames her. 
he blames the knife. 
Without knowing the victim, it is very likely that he was bigger and considerably stronger than her.  It is he who has the need to deceive. 
The subject, John Conyers III has a need to present himself as good person.  This need to present and persuade tells us the opposite.  He goes into detail about what makes him a good person.  This gives us detail into who is actually is.  
Based upon his language, he is likely facing a successful career in politics. 
For training in deception detection, sign up for our course,
It is done in your home, or your department can host a seminar.  The course comes with 12 months of e support, which is necessary as you learn to apply the principles in a disciplined manner. 
Tuition payment plans available for law enforcement. Tuition increase January 1, 2018.  


Wednesday, December 6, 2017

Mariah Woods: Sexual Abuse Allegations



Mariah Woods was reported missing.  Statements by the mother indicated that she was concealing information about the child, including:

a.  Distancing language associated with guilt (avoidance of the child's name repeatedly while missing). 

b.  Using language consistent with known death including "angel"

c.  No concern indicated for Mariah's wellbeing while she was missing.  This is the strongest verbal indicator that the mother knew she was dead.  

The mother's Facebook post was about her own comfort, without mentioning a single thing Mariah might have been going through in the hands of a kidnapper.  

The mother said she did not know where "she's at.

 Generally, this is not a term used to describe a young child.  Where someone is "at" is often an emotional or intellectual disposition. 

We find that in missing child cases, this can indicate possible dumping of the body in water; as it may move and leave the subject not knowing, precisely, where the child is. 

We expect, "I don't know where Mariah is" and not "I don't know where she's at."  It is a small indicator, and not by itself conclusive, but when taken with other points of language, we see the deception. 

Neglect parents also will use age-inappropriate language.  

The mother also said, "she goes by Mariah." 

 Like the above statement, this is not something associated with young children. 3 year olds do not have aliases. 

In deed, Mariah was found dead and in water.  The mother, however, has yet to be charged.  

The mother's lack of concern was stark.  She did not make any statements in the immediate aftermath of reporting Mariah missing about how she needs her blankie, her favorite teddy bear, or any number of vital, mother-knows-best objects that is the norm for parents.  

The lack of concern for what the child was presently experiencing can either indicate sociopathic like neglect and/or knowledge that the child is beyond needing her teddy bear and her things.  The latter is indicated in the language of Kate McCann. When Madeleine first went missing, Kate did not address any of the normal instinctive maternal things expected.  This is because Kate knew that Madeleine was not in need of those things. 


http://newsinonslow.com reports having received copies of Child Protective Service documents in the case of Mariah Wood. 

I cannot verify this as CPS records are confidential and generally not released by CPS.  It is possible that the victim's father released them.  

What follows is not the findings, but allegations and assertions. It is not known if this was an internal report or if it was part of an affidavit in support of a child protective order.  The allegations may have come from an affidavit. 

By itself:  it does not mean any of it was proven in court. 

The question for analysis:

Is there a consistency with that which is alleged here and the language of the mother?

Remember:  we had no statements of the mother's boyfriend of which to analyze. 



The document reads:

“The juvenile (anonymous) states that he witnessed Mr. Kimrey put his penis in the mouth of his sister, Mariah Woods. The juvenile (anonymous) states that his mother knew Mr. Kimrey was sexually abusing the juvenile Mariah. The respondent mother failed to protect the juveniles from exposure to sexual abuse.”

-“The juveniles have disclosed inappropriate discipline by Mr. Kimrey, including Mr. Kimrey hitting both juveniles with a belt, and Mr. Kimrey hitting the juvenile (anonymous) in the face on November 26, 2017, causing the juvenile’s nose to bleed.  The respondent mother failed to protect the juveniles from discipline from Mr. Kimrey.”



-“The respondents mother is aware that Mr. Kimrey abuses substances including pot, heroin, and methamphetamines.”
-“The juvenile (anonymous) indicates that he “hates” his dad, and drew a picture of his father’s girlfriend, drawing lines around the picture and striking through it.”

Here is it again with analysis:   

“The juvenile (anonymous) states that he witnessed Mr. Kimrey put his penis in the mouth of his sister, Mariah Woods. The juvenile (anonymous) states that his mother knew Mr. Kimrey was sexually abusing the juvenile Mariah. The respondent mother failed to protect the juveniles from exposure to sexual abuse.”

The writing is consistent with a child protect caseworker's procedural language.  They are often well educated and highly trained in legally sound interviewing. 

The disclosures are plainly stated.  It is very likely that the interviews were recorded.  This is vital for protection of all and can let us know if the child is working from experiential knowledge or using the language of an adult. 

Here the allegation against the mother is "failure to protect."  Had this been found in court, and the boyfriend did not move out of the home, the children would have been removed from her care.  

The author's own language is to report, in procedural manner, what was disclosed.  By the writing it is very likely that the author believed the disclosure above.  

Next:  

-“The juveniles have disclosed inappropriate discipline by Mr. Kimrey, including Mr. Kimrey hitting both juveniles with a belt, and Mr. Kimrey hitting the juvenile (anonymous) in the face on November 26, 2017, causing the juvenile’s nose to bleed.  The respondent mother failed to protect the juveniles from discipline from Mr. Kimrey.”

This is not "spanking" but "inappropriate discipline" which is not defined outside of "hitting" and "belt."  It is important to learn the details including where the hitting was, what clothing was worn and the results, including marks, bruises etc.  This is routinely documented but not here.  Generally, the worker would be corrected for the lengthy sentence, as well as the missing details.  

In the second allegation, we have "hitting" and specifically "in the face" with the resultant "causing the juvenile's nose to bleed."  This is a stronger assertion.  

The accusation against the mother is "failure to protect."

The back and forth testimony regarding this would likely be such that the mother might claim it did not happen or that she did not know it was happening.  The lack of detail in the first assertion could have weakened the case.  

Also not known:  how the accused reacted to the allegations.  

If the children remained in the home, the allegations may not have been proven, or assertions to mitigate were accepted.  This is not the case in sexual abuse, but only the two here (physical abuse). 

In some cases, dependent upon both State law and the testimony of therapists, if the boyfriend stated that he would never do this again, a child could be left in the home.  


-“The respondents mother is aware that Mr. Kimrey abuses substances including pot, heroin, and methamphetamines.”

-“The juvenile (anonymous) indicates that he “hates” his dad, and drew a picture of his father’s girlfriend, drawing lines around the picture and striking through it.”

Here we get some insight into the complexities of the case. 

Allegations must be proven, not "beyond a reasonable doubt" but by a "preponderance of evidence." 

Allegations must also rise to the level of "professional intervention needed within 24 hours."  The sexual abuse allegation, if proven by a preponderance, will result in a change of the home:  either the boyfriend goes, or the children go.  It is not reasonable to believe a court would find the allegations credible and allow the home life to continue.  

We cannot speak to the allegations against the mother's boyfriend because we do not have statements from which a psycho-linguistic profile may emerge. 

We do, however, see that there is a consistency between the element of Neglect (specifically, "failure to protect") and the language of the mother while her child was missing.

The mother's lack of concern affirms the allegation of Neglect. 

This was an abusive home and the older children, even age dependent, are in a state of jeopardy while living with her. 

Neglect is the most insidious of abuse because it is often difficult to discern, quickly responded to with "promises" or written agreements, including counseling, and come from the nature of laziness.

To be guilty of "Neglect" a parent needs to do nothing.  This will be neglect by default.

Substance abuse and neglect are related.  

Those who abuse substances will neglect children and this neglect can put the children in Immediate Risk of Serious Harm and ongoing Jeopardy.  

As the children learn to fend for themselves, the neglectful parent (s) will often boast of how "advanced" the child or children are. 

This is when we hear age-inappropriate language such as 

"she goes by Mariah." 

She doesn't "go" anywhere in society at age 3.  This statement alone indicates neglect (via distancing) but to employ distancing language while a child is missing is to engage self-protective techniques by distancing oneself from the victim.  

Police and prosecutors wisely separated the mother from the boyfriend.  As several have commented, including attorneys, this is precisely what could have been done in the Hailey Dunn case.  

What may be difficult for the public is the possibility of offering immunity to the mother in exchange for testimony against the boyfriend, or the struggle to prove her knowledge. 

Her words reveal that she knew the child was beyond her care and her guilt was so extreme that she needed to psychologically distance herself from the child, in the very moments where the child would need her most. 

Mother knew the child would not be found alive.  

For training in Deception Detection, consider enrolling in our "Complete Statement Analysis Course" which comes with 12 months of e support.  This course is done entirely in your home.  

Tuition is set to increase 1 January, 2018.  

Hyatt Analysis Services. 

Saturday, December 2, 2017

Mariah's Mother Guilty Knowledge?


The mother's boyfriend is under arrest for concealing Mariah's body, though the body has not yet been found.  I do not have any statements from him to analyze, but the mother's statements, although disjoined by media, give us insight.  

Thanks to an investigator/analyst for these quotes: 



Excerpt #1:
"My last memory with her was feeding her and putting her to bed and telling her I love her.  She said she loves me."  

In a statement regarding personal (domestic) homicide, the statement "I love you" in various forms, may indicate the time of death.  

As the mother recalls this (she may have been asked, "What is your last memory...?") she will choose what is most important to her. When one goes to the "I love you" principle, they often have a "need to persuade" the audience of a good relationship; suggesting otherwise.  This may be the approximate time of the child's death and may have been unintended death, often associated with neglect, substance abuse, etc, such as an accident in which the parents believe that they will face charges, so they move into coverup mode. 

Excerpt #2:

"I got a lot of thoughts and questions that’s unanswered.  I mean it’s just not making sense to me about where she could be at, who she could be with."

I do not like the expression "where she is at" in any form.  It is not to say, "I don't know where she is" and it is found in statements by parents who indicate guilty knowledge of the death.  It also could be technically truthful if the body has been disposed of in water, where it will move.  

Note also that here and in other statements, there is no concern for the current welfare of the "missing child." 

Where one is "at" is often an emotional state, but we've seen this before and may indicate a desire to be "vague" technically about the exact location of the remains.  It is possible that the boyfriend did not tell her exactly, so she would not be able to tell police, but this would not alleviate the guilt of knowing that Mariah was not coming back.  

This next statement is new to me and further leads me to conclusion: 


Excerpt #3: (This is in reference to leg braces that Mariah wears)
"She’s supposed to wear them every day.  Um, We didn’t have them on her fortunately though.  She doesn’t sleep with themUmshe does have..if she would have walked anywhere, I don’t see her making it very far by herself."

She was reported to have gone missing sometime between midnight, when the boyfriend told her to go to bed (she was 3) and 6am when the mother "noticed" she was not there.  

We have already covered the word "noticed" which is an attempt to portray happenstance or chance, which suggests the very opposite.  Some use this revealing deliberation.  

Now consider the time of "disappearance" with these words "unfortunately" used here. 

We note its inclusion in the status of "missing child" and we note the time of disappearance should have been when the child was sleeping in the middle of the night.  (note the statement in the negative as elevated in importance) 

Excerpt #4:
I love her and I’ll never let her go again.  (X) Just want to hold her tight, see her smile, (X) be safe.

We have noted the word "again" used here, indicating that she "let her go" previously.  
Note the missing pronouns here, which psychologically "eject" herself from the statement.  

She spoke frequently without using the child's name.  This is not what mothers of missing children do.  This is psychological distancing from the child in the child's supposed most frightening time:  when she needs her mother. 

This is a signal, along with the lack of concern for Mariah's wellbeing of either extreme neglect, and/or knowledge that Mariah is beyond this mother's help. 

This is where we expect to hear things about Mariah, personally, including her favorite items and need for comfort. Instead, the mother said, "she goes by Mariah" as if a 3 year old child has an alias.  This is, within context, extreme distancing language. 

The extremity of distance is associated with guilt.  

The mother repeatedly spoke of the child without using her name.  The mother expressed concern, late at night, that she, herself, could not sleep, while not giving us a single word about what Mariah may have been going through.  

"Angel"

The mother used the word "angel" in one of her statements. 

We are careful not to interpret. We classify, for example, words normally known with the "afterlife" (Deification, etc) by a parent of missing child as possible signal of knowledge of death. It is a classification. She may mean it this way, or that way; but with classification, this is something different.  

Example 

Like, "I'm sorry", we note its inclusion, and avoid interpreting if it was a signal of politeness, guilt, etc. We note its inclusion like a dispassionate statistic.  

I believe this mother's language fits the category of knowledge of death. If media had not broken her quotes so much, it would be easier to conclude.  The inclusion of the new quote with "unfortunately" affirms the earlier analysis. 


The only tricky aspect here is that the mother's language is also consistent with abuse/neglect parents.  

A chronically abusive parent may not show concern for the child's welfare unless it is for attention. This mother's lack of concern is noted while the child was missing. 

McCanns; interestingly enough,  neglected their child, but the mother does not indicate sociopathic language. She took care of her children in spite of other issues raised in the language; they were normally fed and cared for.  

This makes her verbal lack of concern for the Madeleine's  wellbeing, when reported as kidnapped,  a strong indication of knowledge of death. A caring mother of a missing child is going to have a priority of not defending self, but of what the child is currently experiencing.  It will enflame her maternal instincts to rawness.  


This was not evident because the mother had processed the death of her child.  
Had she been sociopathic, it would be more difficult to conclude from this alone.  


Note, I conclude this only about the mother. 
McCanns, both, gave us lots of indicators of deception; to the point of overwhelming my presupposition of kidnapping. 


Law enforcement now says the child is deceased, and it is a recovery operation. 

They also indicate that the "family" is cooperating.  

The mother's language shows knowledge of the child's death.  It remains to be seen if she will be charged, or if a deal is made, or if the assistant district attorney does not feel he has enough to charge her also. 

This may prove to be unintended death via neglect with a subsequent coverup.  

With this mother's language, it is her norm to not express concern for her children?

Can we elevate this to the point of saying,

"the mother's norm is not only to not care for her children, but it is normal for her to show concern for her own comfort while her child is missing?

This would be an example of sociopathic traits and would  be evident in the complete interview.  

This is where the statements lead us:

Mother either has guilty knowledge of her daughter's death, or she is so acutely abusive (specifically neglect which takes no effort) that she has no concern for her child.  

It will be a hard sell to attempt to show the latter. 

For training in deception detection:  Hyatt Analysis Services.