Thursday, November 26, 2015

Blackburn Murder, What Detectives Think: "No One Is This Lucky!"

          What do experienced detectives think about the murder of     Amanda Blackburn?

What does the average person think about this case?

You have already heard from me in Statement Analysis where I have concluded:

The language of guilt, with the source of guilt not yet known.  

What do detectives who have no association with the case, but have many years of investigation behind them, think about the case?

When someone, anyone, speaks publicly, there is an expectation that the audience will have an opinion about what is said.  Some will believe; some will doubt, and some will disbelieve.  

Every thinking person has an opinion.  When the opinion is expressed, response follows.  

What does the public think?  This is easy to answer.  

We have thousands of comments.  Most comments conclude that police have the shooter and his gang members, but have strong doubt as to whether or not the victim's husband has any connection to the gang.  The public, overwhelmingly, suspects the pastor, and now his mentor wants a public apology as he ridicules those who disagree with his own opinion.  What's next, lawsuits? Comments here, as well as in various news articles, run, perhaps as high as 90% doubtful that the husband has no connection to the case.


Jeanine Shapiro, of Fox News, looked at the  initial statement of the husband and expressed a strong opinion.  She said, "Look at this, it is all about him!"  

She simply saw the emphasis of career while his wife had just been horribly murdered and the killer at large.  

Her judicial background entered into her thinking which thus revealed itself in her verbalized perception.  Several detectives felt it necessary to disclose their own personal backgrounds:  they are professing Christians.  Their backgrounds reference both murder investigations and faith. They recognize that this will influence their own thoughts and words, just as it did for Jeanine Shapiro with her legal background.  Several admitted feelings of shock and disgust at the videos posted with the following:

a.  "performance" obsession with success -some said they could not use the word "sermon" 
b.  Body language of "competition", "distance", "coldness" 
c.  Contempt; he had contempt towards Amanda'--humiliated her modesty (all), interrupted her, minimized her, etc..."like she is a prop" 
d.  Sex is used to sell, even at Amanda's expense-"how could he shame her?" and the "butter" reference produced angry responses 
e.  Descriptions of bad marriage strong, credible 
f.  Shock over using a gun in the performance 
h.  Those who professed Christianity said it is appropriate to preach on sex but "that is not what he was doing" (all) 

Overall, they had a very negative perception of the victim's husband from the videos.  They recognize the influence upon the as they examined the case details.  The analysis was all but impossible to do without outside influence (outside the words) therefore, this had to be repeatedly referenced in reminders.  

"What might we say about this word, if we had not known that...?"

This is what we all do, but for Blackburn's mentor, she should apologize for her opinion though she is paid to publicly give it.  
This is seen in two basic ways:

a.  The opinion frightens the subject so he wishes to silence it
b.  The call for apology is simply free publicity 

Perhaps, it is both.  

Recall the trend of government tyranny today:  If you disagree with me, you are morally unworthy of an opinion ("hate") and you are mentally incapable of reason ("phobia"), which are used to silence difference of opinion.  This is to show the road to losing freedom of speech is now traveled and in progress.  This was unimaginable just a few short years ago in our country but now is the powerful trend in colleges, politics and even now employment where people are terminated for an opinion that their government disagrees with.  It often speaks to the weakness of the policy that says do not question.  

If you speak publicly, not everyone is going to agree with you.  When they don't, do you demand an apology?  Do you sue them into silence?  

What do detectives unrelated to the case think?

Davey Blackburn, husband of murder victim, Amanda Blackburn, was said to be "100%" not involved, in the very first days of the case. This, say experienced detectives, was not an accident.

True, he was on video at the gym at the time of the shooting.  It is extremely rare that anyone close to a murder victim would be cleared this quickly but, as detectives pointed out, the phrase, "100%", if an accurate quote, shows an unnecessary emphasis.  This, some said, may not be as 'foolish' as it first appeared. To know what they are thinking, we listen to what they said.  This is in the present tense as it continues, with some affirming their thoughts with the release of the affidavit.  

What have detectives unrelated to the case said about it?

I.  First, they cite the same statistic Fox News referenced:  When a pregnant woman is murdered, the number one killer is the husband or boyfriend. Steve Doucie even mentioned this in asking the husband how to respond to it, to which Blackburn said,

"For us, we have nothing to hide" which not only is to invite searching into something that is hidden, but retreats to the pronoun "we", confirming it with the pronoun "us":  This is a very strong indication of both guilt of something, and of something thought of at the moment of this statement, that the subject does not wish to reveal.  For detectives without strong Statement Analysis training, "I have nothing to hide" is the same that parents of 7 year olds see:

Detectives:   He has something to hide.  

I ask that those unfamiliar with Statement Analysis view this basic and light analysis of Timothy Madden.  He, too, has nothing to hide.  It is a good, "101" analysis to introduce basic principles that consistently produce results in detecting deception.  Without statement analysis, having "nothing to hide" is, to detectives (and teachers, principals and parents) an "invitation to look."

II.  Next, detectives  step away from the religious setting and recognize that a church is a business, only that it's goals may be different than simply 'the bottom line' and that unless people come to it, bills will not be paid. Even those who may not want to take this view must because it is "imposed upon us" by the language of the victim's husband   

 Therefore, they view it from this perspective:  a business that must have customers to survive.  Many more customers and it does not survive, but it "thrives."  Blackburn came from a "business" that rather than seating 150 customers per week, sees as many as 16,000 customers per week.  His personal reference point is vastly different than the average "neighborhood business" (church) and even the publication of such numbers shows emphasis. 

Blackburn publicly shows his disappointment in failing to reach goal setting numbers but did so in context with what most people would consider a church's calling:  souls.  He used two numbers:  "16" and "400"

While Scripture speaks of rejoicing over 1 soul, he used 16 souls in contextual failure. 

The failure of the number of customers.  

It is easy, they said, to see how obsessed the victim's husband is with success. 

Detectives:   This guys lives for success of numbers.  

He lives for success and he, himself, has defined what "success" means to him, repeatedly.  

III.  Thirdly, they look at the Coincidental Nature of the Crime.  

This was the biggest "hurdle" and something they all repeated throughout and continue to.  

True, they have the statistic to look at the husband and then they have the husband's bizarre selfish initial statement, his subsequent 'corrections' yet even there, he could not stop himself with such things as:

'I'll tell you what to say to media
I'll tell you how to react, come and 'laugh' while the killer is at large
I'll tell you how to dress
and make sure you invite as many customers as possible...

Even under criticism, he adjusts his wording but still cannot conceal his true 'god' or passion:  he must bring in numbers.  

Some said that he is likely driven to bypass the success of his mentor who gets 16,000 customers.  

1.  A man who publicly speaks for a living is driven to success. 
2.  He tells the public that his marriage is bad. 
3.  He tells the public that his marriage went south with pregnancy. 
4.  He tells the public that, in his business, a wife can help bring success, or she can hinder that success. 
5.  When she is brutally murdered, what did he talk about?  Did he worry for himself or his child?  Did he worry about the killer coming back to get him or his neighbors?  Did he express hurt for himself?

No, they said:  he spoke about his business.  

This was repeated:

"No.  Not buying it.  When a guy has an affair and the wife turns up dead, we say he can't be that lucky, but when a guy tells everyone how bad his marriage is, even if he is using it to sell he went as far as to say how bad it was with pregnancy.  C'mon, now.  She is a hinderance to his success, he waves a gun around and she's gone?  Pregnancy is what he, himself told us that made the marriage worse and guess what?  When she's dead, she was pregnant?  No one is this lucky!"

They said:  The coincidental nature of the case is overwhelming.  The odds are as bizarre as his language.  It is like Blackburn just won the lottery. What are the odds?

Door unlocked?
On the phone for 40 minutes while remaining outside...

Why not take the phone inside?

'Just happened to be waving around a gun...not that it was in his mind or anything...just another coincidence, right?'

He tells us how bad his marriage is how pregnancy made it worse, but most of all, how his ministry is everything to him, so much so that he can't control how creepy he sounds with his "the best is yet to come" slogan?  What are the odds of pulling out a gun and then....?  Way too much. It doesn't pass the striaght face test and the *&^%% this guy shovels  and his hiding behind "we", and the constant selling and advertising....a divorce would have ruined his career!  

Detectives:   NO ONE IS THIS LUCKY

Loo, 'she is dead and he is not just not happy, he is in "salesman overdrive" and now he is telling us his plans?  Book?  Movie?  Hollywood?  He is going to beat his mentor!'

Maybe the100% was a clever   playing into his narcissism and letting him go on and on as they continue to seek the connection and make the link...

IV.   The Outcome 

The detectives saw this from a unique perspective.  The public sees it in the "here and now" of breaking news. 

I see it through the lens of the verbalized perception of reality.  

They see it in months and even years. 

Cold case detectives, in particular, sometimes lack camaraderie in general, which is natural.  It is not like internal affairs animosity, but when a case is closed, the cold case detective becomes the de facto critic of his comrade in arms' work.  

When a cold case detective focuses in upon someone that has been officially cleared (which is his job), those who cleared the subject are on edge, which is understandable.  They are also conflicted. 

They want justice but as human nature is, they do not wish to be wrong. 

Honorable investigators will accept this and be glad for justice. 

Others will be a bit defensive. 

Some may even be resistant. 

Some will go to great lengths to cover their own error, as was the case of Sheena Morris where they made the life of Sheena's family a living hell.  Thankfully, they are the exception.  

Amanda Blackburn's murder is a tragedy which we, the public, are going to have before us, quite likely, for some time to come.  Even the "demand for apology" brings free publicity, and the words reveal the intention of the husband to publicize the brutal murder, as he changed the language to "Amanda's Story" even before the killers were caught. 

Detectives stated that it may take months or even years, but all stated that "police are actively investigating" any possible connection to the husband, by any means. 

My conclusion remains the same:

The language of guilt. 

The source of guilt is something powerful enough to elicit the need to 'hide' in the plural, something seen in human language in children, in the Bible, in history, in an abundance of news stories of crime, and within the understanding of human psychology.  

The source of guilt?

I do not know, but it may be that the marriage was as bad as he claimed, and, in his perspective, he is not only relieved, but an extreme opportunist, who can feed the insatiable drive for success with the "story" of the brutal murder.  

Is this 'enough' to produce the intense guilt seen in the language?  

"The Stuttering "I" in Statement Analysis

I don't know.  This is a bizarre case.  It is the first case I have ever seen a public speaker stutter on the pronoun "we"; instead of only the "Stuttering I", with its "scale of anxiety" where the non-stutterer halts upon the pronoun "I", something he has used millions of times, with anxiety level skyrocketing with each "I" stuttered upon, until the highest level is reached:  "9", which is only seen in domestic homicides where the husband killed his wife, during a close relationship, in a physically close violent manner, where, upon stuttering to this extreme, the killer suffers a nervous breakdown and his hospitalized.  

Police will continue to investigate to learn if there exists a connection.  

In spite of the complaints, it was the husband's own statements that brought the public to doubt him.  Experts told me that the language was that of the "anti-social narcissistic' variety which was not lost on Jeanine Shapiro, nor the public at large.  

When asked about involvement, had he said, 

"I didn't kill my wife, and I don't know who did", this strong statement would have been reliable.  Had he then been asked,

"Why should you be believed?" to which the answer,

"Because I am telling the truth" would have meant 99.9% likely truthful.  

I would have closed my analysis with it.   

Instead, he said something else. 

Consider that this man is well above average in intelligence and his friends know it.  Those close to him already know the signals of narcissism in his language, as well as his competitive nature.  They know.  

If the average person has an internal dictionary of, let's say, 25,000 words, it is fair to say that this man is not average. 

Yet, let's say he is average and has about 25,000 words. 

When he was asked to speak to the suspicion that he could be involved, via the statistic of police needing to clear the husband, he would answer by:

a.  Going into the dictionary of 25,000 words
b.  Choose which words to use only
c.  Decide the order of information 
d.  Put the words into sentences, which word going where, to make sense to the listener
e.  Choose which verb tenses to use
f.  Choose which pronoun to use, "I" for himself, or "we" if there is someone else with him who needs to speak to the suspicion that he could be involved;

This entire process takes place in the brain in less than a micro-second in time. 

The speed of transmission is very fast.  Not only is it very fast, but it is something the subject's brain has been doing, every day of his life, for more than 25 years.  The efficiency is powerfully accurate. 

When someone speaks the truth, they will speak from not only memory, but "experiential memory"; that is, memory that they themselves, experienced.  Memory could be:

the memory of what someone told me;
the memory of what I said earlier (self reference)
the memory of something I read or saw...

Or, it could be "experiential memory"; the easiest of all processing. This is powerful because experience means increased hormonal activity to the brain, 'cementing' or solidifying memory. This is why if you experienced something in childhood that frightened you, the memory remains due to the imprint left from the inclusion of elevated brain hormones.   (this is the basic source of PTSD like symptoms, including nightmares) 

Experiential memory, therefore, is not 'taxing' to produce, and it goes in time; that is, like life, living in time, it is in chronological order.  This is where children learn that lying is difficult because it is hard to "keep track of the lies."  Why is this hard?  Because there is no 'emotional' or elevated hormonal connection.  (Teachers use this to help mnemonics.  If I give you bare facts of two individuals' deaths, you will forget them.  If I use "narrative" (emotional connection) and say, "The queen died, and shortly after, from a broken heart, the king also died" you are far more likely to remember this even years later.  By including an emotional connection, the brain experienced a subtle increase in reaction, strengthening memory.  This is why a certain scent can trigger a 30 year old memory)  

Experiential memory is "easy" to recall.  

In order to go into this process and deliberately deceive, withhold, or even outright lie, one must disrupt the speed of transmission. 

This is the source of stress in deception.  

Even if someone has sociopath tendencies, and "do not feel like others feel", such as "Dr. Hannibal Lector", then they "can pass a polygraph because they don't feel guilt like you and me" or

"psychopaths don't have human emotion which makes a polygraph a waste of time."

                                       It is not true. 

It may be interesting or make for good drama, but it is false. 

The source of stress is not conscience (though conscience can contribute to one's stress:  we all have seen some kids so quick to say "I'm sorry!" while others dig in their heels), that we pick up in both linguistic indicators and the polygraph, it is the stress of disrupting the speed of transmission.

This is why in Analytical Interviewing we produce admissions because we use the subject's own language, and his own deceptions. 

This is why a polygrapher who uses the subject's own words and his own moment of disruption, will get results.  

When the subject was asked about police looking at him, as the husband, which is very personal, masculine and with no one else possibly being the husband of Amanda, nor the 'husband' of the statistic, he said,

"For us, we have nothing to hide."

This is both the language of guilt, and the invitation to search for that which is hidden.  

"Crazy Davey"

Interesting that the mentor said that there was something "wrong" with the victim's husband and that he did not feel comfortable with him until he met Amanda. 

Although limited in volume, Amanda's words seem to reveal a genuinely Godly, lovely, chaste mother and wife .


She was probably his single best advertisement for Christianity in his possession. 

She is now gone.  

Wednesday, November 25, 2015

Murder Suspect Timothy Madden

I have been requested to analyze this transcript.  I have not heard of the suspect, nor do I know any details of this case.  It is best to analyze "cold" so that the facts or evidence do not influence my analysis.  Afterwards, I will read about it.  

TRANSCRIPT: Murder suspect Timothy Madden speaks to 

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (WDRB) -- On Friday evening, WDRB's Emily Mieure and photojournalist Jeff Gordon got an exclusive one-on-one interview with Timothy Madden, the man arrested hours earlier for the kidnapping, rape, sodomy and murder of seven-year-old Gabbi Doolin.

The interview took place at the Barren County Jail in Glasgow, Kentucky, and lasted approximately nine minutes.
Below is a transcript of that interview:


MIEURE: I’ll go ahead and have you say and spell your name – first and last.

MADDEN: Timothy Madden. T-I-M-O-T-H-Y. M-A-D-D-E-N.

MIEURE: Okay, Timothy. What do you have to say about the charges you’re facing?

This is actually a good question.  He is now able to tell us that he did not do it. 

A reliable denial, statistically, includes:

1.  The pronoun "I"

2.  The past tense verb "did not" (or "didn't":  statistically both are the same) 

3.  The allegation answered:  kill

If the denial violates anyone of these or adds or subtracts to it, it is deemed an "Unreliable Denial."

For example: 

"Didn't kill him!"  misses the pronoun "I"

"I would never kill him" misses the verb "did not"

"I never killed him" misses the verb "did not" and uses the vague "never", which is something liars sometimes use in replacement. 

*If a person says, "I did not kill him" and when asked, "Why should we believe you?" and answers, "Because I told the truth", it is 99.9% likely to be truthful.  

The Reliable Denial must come in the Free Editing Process, that is, from the subject's own words.  If, for instance, someone gives an interview and does NOT deny, but then reads online about the denial, and goes back to the media and says, "I did not kill her" it is not from the Free Editing Process.  Get this same person talking freely, and the language will once again be his own, reliable, and will guide to the truth.  

Parroting Language is unreliable, which is why we ask legally sound, open ended questions.  

MADDEN: It’s all bogus. I’m a very innocent man. They can ask anybody that knows me.

Here we note that he does not deny the murder. 

He is not only "innocent" but "very" innocent, making his "innocence" sensitive. 

"innocent" speaks to judicial conclusion and not to the act. 

Due to the very plain nature of the question, this answer is not only "Unreliable" but is very likely to be deceptive.  

He "proves" his innocence by not what he believes of himself, but the opinion of others. 

This is a long way from simply saying, "I didn't kill him" and even his "innocency" is sensitive to him.  

This is not the language of one who did not do it. 

People accused of heinous crimes face no legal nor civil consequences for saying I did not do it.  Those who say, "on advice of counsel... are avoiding the question. 

The innocent, disgusted by the allegation and embolden by de facto innocence, will dismiss attorney advice, go to the roof of his home, grab a mic and say, "I did not do it!"

See analysis of Michael Jackson for example.  

MIEURE: Why did they connect you to this murder?

MADDEN: Small-town gossip. They said I fit the suspect.

Here he quotes someone else, therefore it is not an "embedded confession" but the language of another.  

Statement Analysis deals with what one says, and what one does not say. 

Here, I expect him to say, "They say I fit the suspect, but I didn't do it."

He does not. 

Rule:  if a subject is unwilling or unable to tell us that he did not do it, we will not say it for him.  

MIEURE: Do you know what that was?

MADDEN: Six foot tall. Brown coat. Long beard. Pretty much that’s all I knew about it. But then I knew they found the little girl’s body later on that night and then locked the ballgame down.

In the Free Editing Process, in less than a micro-second of time, his brain tells his tongue what to say and here he adds in "pretty much" as additional words, meaning:

It took more effort. 

The 'law of economy' tells us that additional words, born of extra effort, are important.  

Here, he qualifies his knowledge with "pretty much" which tells us:

He knows more about the suspect than he says. 

MIEURE: Do you know the Doolin family?

MADDEN: Yes. I know I went to school with him.

MIEURE: You went to school with her dad?

MADDEN: With her daddy, yes.

MIEURE: Okay. How well did you know them? Are you a family friend?

MADDEN: Yeah. I mean, yeah, I was friends with him all through school. And then we ran around together there after school for a while. And then my little daughter, she plays cheerleading with her – with the little girl.

Always note the language used to address the victim.  
His daughter is "my little daughter" with "daughter" a title following the possessive pronoun.  The same law of economy noted before tells us that consistency is also expected in context. 

He was specifically speaking of his friend.  After school, the relationship produced the pronoun "we", while "ran around together", indicating closeness. 

This tells us he is thinking about the victim's father. 

Expected:  "my little daughter, she plays cheerleading with his little daughter" or "his daughter."

He does not call her "his" daughter.  This is crucial. 

Think:  "we" means unity, cooperation, closeness. He is talking about a friend and it produced this pronoun, "we."  From this context, he went to the murder victim. 

He removed the victim from his friend in the linguistic expression of the relationship.  

She is "the little girl", which is not only to 'divorce' the child from his friend, of whom he just united himself with, via instinctive pronoun, but to then "distance" himself from her. 

She is not "his daughter" but "girl" and the article, "the" furthers the distance. 

"the girl" is, without knowing any details of this case, something that should cause investigators to investigate possible sexual abuse.  "Girl" is gender specific.  "The" is distancing language.  

Statement Analysis:  a man cannot molest his own daughter.  If he is to molest her he must "change the linguistic perception" of her.  This was seen recently in "my daughter" changed into "the girl" when he molested her while his wife was not home.  When his wife returned home, the "girl" was now "safe", and she returned back to the status of "my daughter."

Statement Analysis deals not with reality, but one's linguistic perception of reality.  

MIEURE: If you’re innocent, why would someone accuse you of this?

MADDEN: I have no idea. I have no idea.

The statement "I have no idea" should never be accepted as a "stop sign" in an interview.  It is the bane of the lazy minded, at times, but since we all have some ideas about everything in life, it simply is not true.  If follow up questions are asked, you will learn that he does, in fact, have "ideas" about why he was accused which will prove he was not truthful when he claimed to have "no idea."

In fact, interviewers should take it as a signal to ask another...

That he repeated this, he tells us that it is a sensitive question, and he is likely withholding the answer.  

He very much likely knows exactly why he has been accused.  

MIEURE: You’re from Scottsville?

MIEURE: Okay. Were you at the game that night?

MADDEN: Yup. I was at the game. My son was playing football, and my little daughter was there with us too.

MIEURE: Hm. So now what? I mean, you’re in jail—

MADDEN: I’m in jail, yeah, but I still am innocent. So we'll figure a way out of it. "

Note that this is true:  he is "innocent" in that judicially, he has not been found guilty.  Even those found guilty will use this phrase in place of the Reliable Denial.  

The pronoun "we" here may be him and his lawyer.  We do not interpret, however, and let the subject guide us. 

We believe what one tells us unless they give us strong indicators to the contrary.  Thus far, he has not lied about his judicial innocence.  

MIEURE: How are you going to do that?

This is not such a bad question as it is another opportunity for him to say, "hey, I did not kill her, so they can't prove it.  I don't care how much they look.  I didn't kill her but someone did and they need to find out who killed her!" or anything similar.  

MADDEN: I’ll have a lawyer, I reckon, the only way. Because I have nothing to hide. I’ve cooperated every way that they wanted me to cooperate.

1.  He introduces that he has, indeed, something to hide with "I have nothing to hide."  This means he is thinking of something that he does not want to be learned or "found out"

"I have nothing to hide" is an invitation for investigators.  

Please note that guilty people often point to their cooperation as "proof" that they did not do it, while avoiding saying "I didn't do it."

Truly innocent people will say "I didn't do it" and then point to the cooperation if pressed.  Many do not care because they did not do it.  "The righteous are as bold as a lion."  The Guilty sometimes try to inflate their linguistic muscles.  

MIEURE: Hm. What types of rumors were going around that—

MADDEN: Oh, it’s all over Topix. And then when I do get out of here, I will sue KSP and everybody else that’s slandering my name.

Another sensitive point, though more so for innocent family members:  they hurt too much to care to file suit, they hold little interest in this, as they are grieving.  

This is artificial muscle and threatening.  Remember Billie Jean Dunn's attorney?

To do so would be to put his client on the stand, under oath.  

MIEURE: Do you have any bad blood with the Doolin family?
MADDEN: No. Not at all.

MIEURE: What’s your relationship like with her dad?

MIEURE: Have you talked to him at all today?

MIEURE: What do you want to say to them?
MADDEN: I’m sorry for your loss. I feel sorry for them, but it wasn’t me.

Please note that guilty people often have "sorry" slip out of their tongues, for whatever reason.  It is a word on their minds and it is not a "smoking gun" point; just something we note. 

Here, however, it is repeated.  

What would you say to a friend who's child has been murdered and you are in jail for it?

"You need to find the killer.  I did not kill your daughter. "

He avoids this. 

"...but, it wasn't me" is, in Statement Analysis, "passive voice", which is used to conceal identity or responsibility. 

"The gun went off" is an example of passive voice. 

"A shot was heard" is another example of passive voice. 

If it is not known who caused the shot (like in a crowd), passive voice is appropriately used. 

"it wasn't me" avoids issuing a Reliable Denial.

Think of a murder case you know well. 
Then, search the blog for it.  You will find OJ, Casey, and others did not issue Reliable Denials.  

MIEURE: What do you want to say to the public?

Here, the Interviewer does a good job giving ample opportunity for the denial: 

Will he tell us, using the pronoun "I" that he did not kill or murder the little girl?

We will let him guide us:  

MADDEN: Well, if they find the right person, I will come out and I will, like I said, sue everybody that’s slandering my name and put me where I am at today. Because I am innocent – [INAUDIBLE] know I am. And everybody knows me, knows I am.

He avoids issuing a reliable denial. 

If he is incapable of saying it, I am not permitted to say it for him. 

Given the generous opportunities afforded him by the interviewer, including this simple language,  you should believe the subject's refusal to deny the action. 

He denies the judicial result, but not the action. 

The innocent deny the action. 

In a child murder case, a suspect said, "I did not harm the girl."

This was not a Reliable Denial.  It was a violation of component number three, the specific allegation was murder.  To "harm" is to change "murder" via minimizing language.  It is common in the language of the guilty where children are involved.  

MIEURE: Tell me -- walk me through the day today, from – I mean, they arrested you around 11:30 this morning. Did they just show up at your house—

Far better to get him to enter the Free Editing Process (FEP) would be to have him "take me through the day" she was murdered. 

He would then go into memory and he would very likely tell us what time she died and how she died.  It is very difficult to lie and as he considers what he did, the incredible speed of transmission is disrupted which creates stress. 

For example:

If I asked you, "What did you do this morning?"

If you are of average intelligence, you have a personal dictionary of about 25,000 words. 

As you go to answer you must:
a.  Decide which of these 25,000 words to use
b.  What information to reveal
c.  What order
d.  Where to place each word
e.  What tenses of each word

and all of this takes place in less than a microsecond of time. 

To avoid implicating yourself, you will have to disrupt this process, which causes internal stress which is picked up in the polygraph. 

It is difficult to lie.  

With this 'tangent' question, I will still continue to look for a "confession by pronoun", which is often found by the pronoun "my."

This pronoun actually pre-dates speech in children.  "my da da" is sometimes hand signaled. 

Humans are possessive creatures.  We take ownership of what we want and deny what we do not want. 

Patsy Ramsey said, "my guilt", as did OJ.  

MADDEN: I have no idea. I don’t [INAUDIBLE] time it was. But I seen ‘em driving up and down the road, and I seen this truck driving up and down the road. And it kept circling in the driveway, backing out, going up and down the road, and we’s up at my father-in-law’s house. And then he…and I told him, I said, ‘There’s that truck still up there at the end of the road.’ So he went up there to talk to them and he just waited up there and waited up there, so I figured I would go up there and see what was going on, so I walked up there and got about halfway up there, and they got out of the truck and came down there and said I had a warrant for my arrest.

This is not a pronoun confession but the expected is, 
"They said they had a warrant to arrest me" but here he brings 'closeness' or 'possession' to the arrest.  

Innocent people distance themselves from guilt, arrest, incarceration.  They do not accept it, even over the passage of time.  

This was not a good question as it allowed him to go off on a tangent, but even this gave us a 'hint' by pronoun. 

Every person has a personal, internal subjective dictionary.  Pronouns, articles, and objective time on a clock are the only exceptions.  Pronouns are universal, intuitive and instinctive.  

He is male
She is female
I is one
We is plural 

This is for all of us. 

MIEURE: How did they get a warrant signed in the first place?

He is fishing...

MADDEN: They say they got evidence, but…

MIEURE: What type of evidence do they have against you?

MADDEN: I don’t know. I don’t know. I’ve not seen it.

"I don't know" 
a.  This is the number one deceptive answer in court ("I don't recall"
b.  It is repeated, making it sensitive. 

He knows.  

"I've not seen it" is likely to be true.  It is likely that it was read or told to him.  It is likely that he was told of certain evidence that he has not seen, for himself.  The structure of the sentence suggests reliability.  It is short and direct.  

MIEURE: Did they tell you?


MIEURE: Had they questioned you at all before your arrest?

This is where he may have heard of the evidence; and it is why investigators who are well trained (Analytical Interviewing) do not reveal much in the wording of their questions:  

MADDEN: Oh yeah, several times. Interrogated me, like three or four times. Polygraph. I give ‘em my clothes that night. I think – yeah, they did mention I had blood on my clothes or something, but because I rubbed against a fence – like I said, rubbed against a trash can. That’s the only thing I know where I’d get blood from, but it wasn’t me.

They did not "show" him the evidence but the interview which went to accusations (interrogation) including blood on his clothes.  

Although the reader likely knows at this point that he is guilty of murder, there is very much information here left to glean, that goes outside the scope of a blog article.  Yet, here is an example:

"like I said" is a self reference.  This means he is speaking from memory, not experiential memory of the crime, but memory of what he said earlier:  it is stressful to keep track of lies, while easy to keep track of that which is in memory with experience (due to elevation of hormones). 

That’s the only thing I know where I’d get blood from, but it wasn’t me.
With the simple addition of "I know" he now tells us what should have been 'unnecessary':  the source of the blood.  This is a linguistic signal that he got the blood from something other than rubbing against a trash can.  He is specifically thinking this, and needs to "call in the reinforcement" of that which he himself does not believe.  


"I did not kill my wife" is very strong. 

"I know that I did not kill my wife" is suddenly, and surprising, weaker.  Why the need for reinforcement? This may be due to challenge. 

On the topic of blood, the interviewer did not say anything specific, and the source of the blood is sensitive to him and he likely knows that investigators did not believe the very same thing that he does not believe. 

"I got the blood from the trash can" would have been straight forward and stronger.  

MIEURE: Is there any DNA evidence that they’ve—

MIEURE: Did they said if—

MADDEN: I don’t -- If it is, it ain’t mine, you know, so—


Analytical Interviewing:  NEVER disrupt.  He has info; we do not.  We get it by listening.  The topic is DNA:  

MADDEN: So maybe it will work out, because I’m an innocent man. I shouldn’t be here.

He allows for, in context, the DNA to "not work out" while reiterating his unreliable denial.  

MIEURE: What’s your family thinking right now?

Expectation:  "They are thinking how bad it is for me to be here since I did not kill the girl and the real killer is out there...."

MADDEN: Oh, I have no idea. I’ve not seen then since they put me in the car. I’m sure they’re terrified and upset.

MIEURE: Okay. Anything else you want to say to anyone?

The interviewer is still trying to get the RD.  It is no longer necessary.  

MADDEN: Nope. Just tell my kids I love them. Daddy will be alright.

I would want to tell everyone, especially the prosecutor, that I did not kill the child, and that I want my kids to know that I did not kill her.  It is a terrible thing for children to consider their father as a chid killer.  

MIEURE: So you have kids about the same age as the Doolin kids?

MADDEN: Well, I’ve got – one of them is. I’ve got, scattered out from 20 years old to…he’ll be a four-month-old the 25th.

MIEURE: How are you going to claim your evidence besides…I mean, if you were there that night, is there anyone that will—

This was clever:  he puts the subject at the location in order for the subject to respond. 

Remember how the guilty will go from "I" to "we" to hide their guilt among others?

Listen to what he does.  It is the same in Katelyn Markham where the boyfriend immediately spreads out the potential suspects, though he was not asked:  

MADDEN: Oh yeah, there were several people there. I’ve got all kinds of people to verify that I was there, you know, and seen me. I even took pictures on my phone to prove I was there, you know, to send to my ex-wife because she wasn’t there, and she wanted to see Blake playing football. So, I mean, I’ve got – I believe I’ll be okay.

Yes, 'I was there but so were so many others...' is still avoidance of saying, "I don't care if there were a million people there, I didn't kill her."

MIEURE: Did they ask you questions about, like, you know, ‘Were you in the bleachers when Gabbi went missing?’ and things like that?

It is interesting to hear the name, "Gabbi" used.  Since it is most easy to parrot language back, will the subject use it, or avoid it?

MADDEN: Oh yeah. Several times.

MIEURE: And what’s your – what are you claiming?

This is very good:  he is trying to get the subject to speak for himself and the last time the victim was seen by the subject is critical.  This is why it is always asked:

"What was your last time together like?" in domestic homicides. 

MADDEN: Last time I seen her, I was we was – I was – sitting on the side of the [INAUDIBLE], like I always, watching the…smoking a cigarette. And she walked by. And the other two girls came acro – through there first…I don’t know…a minute before. And then she came over there looking around, and I said, ‘Well, they went that way.’ And that was the last time I saw her.

a.   The change of pronoun is an indicator of guilt.  Pronouns do not lie and pronouns are instinctive.  
b. body posture indicates increase in tension "sitting"

c.  Normal:  any wording to describe "normal" indicates something very 'not normal' is about to take place.  Even first grade children know that when they hear, "It was a day like all others" to pay attention:  something that is very much unlike every day is about to happen. 

"like I always" tells us that he did something that he did not normally do, in relation to the victim; 

Please also note that when a person calls himself "normal" it is a linguistic signal that he, or someone else, has considered him abnormal.  

d.  "And" to begin a sentence tells us that there is missing information between sentences. 

e.  Note "she walked by" and "the other two girls came by first" is out of chronological order. Experiential memory is chronological.  Here, he is editing his statement and it is out of sequence. 

When we learn what he did to her, we will see how the sequence then fits. 

There is missing critical information.  
He tells us that she was "looking around" and he gave direction.  

This is likely where he accompanied her. 

Objection:  how could you possible know?

Answer:  one word.

He does not want to connect himself to her otherwise it could be proven that he killed her. 

He "self censored" in this most sensitive of answers:  that is, he stopped himself and he halted on pronouns. 

Since we use pronouns millions of times, we are never 'wrong' with them. 


Dennis Dechaine murdered 13 year old Sarah Cherry in the woods of Maine.  I was asked to join his team to free him.  I reviewed his testimony. 

He was alone in the woods, high on drugs, and had never even met his victim. 

He said, "I was standing admiring the deciduous trees when we were losing daylight..."

I saw the pronoun "we" and  knew that he was not alone and declined assistance. 

Later, I read the blood evidence, etc.  It was not necessary. 

The subject, Timothy Madden spoke of the last time he saw the victim and said, "I was, we was, I...."

He self censored tying himself to her, even though he admitted speaking to her. 

I  have proven this accuracy to investigators at every seminar of investigators since 2009.  

I ask them to ready themselves to share a true story and ask that it be, in the least, 20 years old or more, depending upon their age.  

"Do you have your story?"
"Is it a true story?  It must be true and it must be very old. Are you read to tell your true story?

They may not remember what they had for breakfast a week ago Tuesday but when they prepare their story, some of them are even 30 years old, each and every investigator knows if their true story will begin with 


or will begin with "we";

that is to say, they know if they were alone, or with someone else even though decades of time has eroded memory.  

Pronouns are powerful, intuitive and 100% accurate.  

He halted or 'stuttered' to censor himself from the plural "we" back to the singular "I."

I have not heard of this case and I do not know details other than he is accused of murdering a child. 

Police have arrested the right man.  Out of the abundance of the heart (the heart is the seat of the intellect and the emotions) the words will come.

Statement Analysis does not interpret, it listens.  

Objection:   you just 'interpreted' body posture as an increase in tension. 

Answer: I believe him.  He said he was "sitting" and I do not reinterpret sitting to mean anything else. 

It is why he felt the need to add body posture as to importance. We believe it, but why the necessity?

"My boss said to be at work at 9."

This is straight forward language, but note the inclusion of body posture and change of communicative language:

"My boss stood and told me to be at work at 9."

We still believe the boss was "standing" but we note the importance of it as included in the language, if unnecessary.  If, for example, he was asked, "Were you seated?", then it would not signify anything, but that he offered it, not only do I believe him, but I have to ask why it entered his language.  It often does in association with a slight up tick in tension...

"My daughter did her homework."
"My daughter sat at the table and did her homework" is a subtle change; perhaps it is challenging to get her to "sit still" so I have both body posture and location added.  Perhaps she listens to music in her bedroom when she should be doing homework.  We do not interpret, we listen and we ask why.  

"Looking around"

Please note that in child abuse cases, the victim is often blamed.  Perpetrators will even ask if we, the investigator or interviewer, know "the look" or "the walk" of a child.  This is to say that the child was "asking" to be abused. 

The ego of the guilty is desperate to justify his action. 

I do not know the details but this phrase, "she was looking around" does not say she was looking for her friends.  THAT was out of chronological order. 

Does the subject believe that the victim was "looking" for him to do something to her?

****Is this subtle blaming of the victim?

Again, sexual abuse should be explored in this case. 

MIEURE: And people were searching at that point?

MADDEN: No. [INAUDIBLE] And then nobody started searching for – I don’t know – 30 or 45 minutes, I guess.

MIEURE: So you saw her go by, back toward –

That is not what he said...she was "looking..."

MADDEN: Well, she came in front of the bleachers to the back of the bleachers. [LONG PAUSE, AS MICROPHONE IS ADJUSTED.] And that’s all I know.

This is a very strong statement of not wanting this line of questioning to continue.  After all, if that is all the subject knows, why bother to ask more questions?

In a missing persons case, it is often a signal that the subject no longer wants to share information as most people are forever thinking of possibilities when one goes missing.  

MIEURE: Okay. I guess, just, if you want to summarize: Why are you so confident that you’re innocent?

This is a rather leading question but the only right answer is:

"Because I did not do it."

MADDEN: Because I know I am. I’ve done nothing wrong.

Please note that he now admits that he did something but what he did was not "wrong."

In my own interviewing, I have a high rate of admissions.  An admission is to admit having done what was alleged.  A "confession" is the same, legally, but includes an acknowledged of what was done was morally wrong.  

He has done something to her, but what he did was not "wrong" in his personal viewpoint. 

This is the language of child molesters.  

MIEURE: And you’re confident police won’t find any DNA evidence against you?


Denies confidence.  

MIEURE: Who do you think did it?

MADDEN: I have no clue.

Not even one of the many at the game?

MIEURE: What do you want to say to that person?

This is also a good question.  People HATE to condemn themselves so they usually soften the blow or exxagerate it to a level that is so far "above" their own selves as to have no emotional connection or "sting" from it.  

MADDEN: [LAUGHS.] Bad individual out there.

Please note no pronoun is produced.  "Bad" is mild language.  

MIEURE: I mean, if someone came—
MADDEN: He’s crazy.

This is to address mental health.  See if the suspect has a mental health history:  he does. 

MIEURE: --if someone came forward, that could mean your freedom.
MADDEN: Right.

MIEURE: Do you have anything you want to say to them?

MADDEN: Well, they need to. Because I know it wasn’t me. And my family knows it ain’t me. And everybody in Scottsville knows it me. If they know me, anyway, you know.

Even within the Unreliable Denial he moves from past tense to present tense.  

MIEURE: Why are people pointing fingers?

MADDEN: I have no idea. I guess ‘cause KSP started the rumors…
At least he finally has an idea. 

MIEURE: Okay, anything—

MADDEN: Because when they showed up at the house, they brought the news cameras with them, so [INAUDIBLE] that’s how it all started.

MADDEN: But I ain’t got nothing else to say.

MIEURE: Okay. Alright. Thank you.

PHOTOJOURNALIST JEFF GORDON: Have you been arrested before?

MADDEN: Years ago.
GORDON: On what?

MADDEN: Cold checks. Traffic tickets.
MIEURE: Just misdemeanors?
GORDON: Are you a sex offender?
MIEURE: Thanks for your time. We appreciate it.
Copyright 2015 by WDRB News. All rights reserved.

Analysis Conclusion:

This subject murdered the child and police should investigate if it was sex related or if he has molested children in his life.  He gave a linguistic signal of sexual intrusion into this case.  The "looking for" may be a subtle blaming of a victim who, in his perverse and evil linguistic perception, was "looking for" him to do to her what he did.  

Soiopathic types  feel the same internal stress of lying that all do:  it is not about conscience, but the disruption in the speed of transmission.