Thursday, October 23, 2014

The Liar in the Presence of the Lie Detector


The Liar in the Presence of the Lie Detector
                                                            by Peter Hyatt

What is the prey like when he meets the predator?

What is the gazelle like when he is staring at the jaws of the lioness, about to pounce?

Even males are known to hunt.

In Analytical Interviewing training, we begin with Statement Analysis, get to the truth, and then construct the interview, based upon the statement, the subject's own language, and then move on to questions based upon collateral contacts and evidence. 

One of the tools used in both corporate training, as well as law enforcement, is to enhance the notion of lie catcher with his prey.

We allow this scenario to develop before the interview.  This is either done through word of mouth, or diplomatic placement of training certificate where the prey, coming in to the interview, will know:

This person is trained to catch me. 

It unnerves the prey.

Unlike nature, where mercifully the prey goes into shock upon being attacked, numbing pain (at least that is what Natgeo says), the liar is unnerved to realize that he is in the presence of one with training in lie detection.

Opening Move:  White, pawn to e4.

The contest has begun with a distinct advantage seemingly with the Lie Catcher, with the strong move of allowing the information of training to be known.

This will, overall, impact workers and put a restraint upon attempts to deceive.  It is a nice psychological advantage in which honest workers will not fret over.

The next move is critical:

Dropping the tension.

The tension was created by the notion that the Interviewer has training in lie detection.  Now, as the interview begins, the Interviewer will immediately drop the air, and begin to set a pace:

"Name.  Address.  Position.  How long have you been here?" and as this progresses, it creates a 'polite' atmosphere in which it becomes 'impolite' not to answer.

Question:  What is the liar like in the presence of the lie catcher?

The answer might surprise you.

By leading the liar into being cautious, the liar will be unable to avoid the trap.  The liar, that is, one who has habitually been deceptive, since childhood, knows no other way.  The caution he seeks to enterprise, works against his own nature.  It is very difficult to break the patterns of nature.

But what of casual conversation?

Will the deceptive one attempt to "tone it down" in the presence of a deception detection expert?

No.

The liar, even when warned, will continue.  

I have even said to some, "You know my training.  You know what I do" only to have them continue to deceive, as if I had not spoken a word.

It is their nature. 

When they get nervous, they rely upon that which has served them well since childhood:  they lie.

This is then combined with the powerful need to control information.  It drives suspects crazy when the police refuse to talk to them, or reveal information.  They pester and pester, and may even use the press to pester police for them.  "They won't tell me anything!  How can we work together when they refuse my calls?"

The liar will go as far as radio and television in an attempt to "convince" the world that they did not "do it", whatever "it" may be.

The prey does not suddenly stop being prey in the presence of the predator.  

The leopard cannot change its spots.

The more instinctive and responsive the interview, the more the liar will go back to his comfort level, and reveal the truth, even while attempting to deceive.  

They do not "turn it off" in the presence of one who can read them. 

They cannot.  

Rene Zellweger Denies Plastic Surgery

Headlines said, "Rene Zellweger Denies Plastic Surgery" and then gives her statement.  In it, there is no denial.  This is common in media today.

She avoids the question, "Did you have plastic surgery?" instead, and media reports it as a "denial."

Although Hollywood stories are tabloid-like, they still highlight principle within Statement Analysis.

If you did not have plastic surgery and were accused of it, what would your brain produce?

"I didn't have plastic surgery. "

Yes, it is that simple!






AP/REUTERS RenĂ©e Zellweger at the 2004 Golden Globes Awards (at left) and on Monday at the ELLE Women In Hollywood Awards (right).
No No 
Here is the Statement:
A reliable denial would be:
"I didn't have plastic surgery."  
"I'm glad folks think I look different! I'm living a 
different, happy, more fulfilling life, and I'm thrilled 
that perhaps it shows. My friends say that I look 
peaceful. I am healthy.  For a long time I wasn't 
doing such a good job with that. I took on a schedule 
that is not realistically sustainable and didn't allow 
for taking care of myself. Rather than stopping to 
recalibrate, I kept running until I was depleted and 
made bad choices about how to conceal the 
exhaustion. I was aware of the chaos and finally 
chose different things.  People don't know me 
healthy for a while. Perhaps I look different. Who 
doesn't as they get older? Ha. But I am different. I'm 
happy."

Renee Zellweger's Latest

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Darlie Routier and Passivity of Language

Darlie Routier is on Death Row, awaiting execution in the State of Texas.

As we have seen in other cases, Darlie has her own 'following' of sorts; those who believe that she did not murder her own children.  They are a small, but vocal group, who protest not so much the death penalty, but her conviction. 

Statement Analysis deals with the "Unexpected" in language; that is, we presume innocence on the part of the subject (speaker), not as a moral or legal issue, but to guide us.

We put ourselves, in innocence, into the shoes of the subject, and ask ourselves,

"What would I say?"

This is "the expected."

If you were shopping in Walmart for groceries and your three year old wandered off, what would you do?

You would likely leave off the grocery shopping, and both look and call out to your child.  This is what is expected.

What is not expected is what Statement Analysis is confronted by. 

We would not expect you to:

a.  finish your grocery shopping
b.  check out
c.  drive home
d.  unpack the groceries
e.  call out to your missing 3 year old.

In fact, Behavioral Analysis of the above would conclude that you are not all that interested in finding your three year old missing child. 

The "Expected" versus the "Unexpected" is no different in 911 calls. 

In an extreme emergency, we expect to hear priority:  

if your child was missing, we would expect you to tell the 911 operator that your child is missing before you say much else.  It would be your priority. You likely wouldn't have the time, or the wherewithal to discuss the weather, or even have the presence of mind to give a polite greeting:  you'd be far too upset and would get to the emergency as quickly as your brain could process the words.  

If you called 911 to report your missing child, and it was not your priority, the language would suggest as much.  

Darlie Lynn Routier (born January 4, 1970, Rowlett, Texas),  was convicted of murdering her young son Damon, and is currently on death row awaiting execution by lethal injection. Two of her three children, Damon and Devon, were stabbed to death in the  home on June 6, 1996. 

Darlie Routier was accused of killing both children but was only prosecuted for the murder of Damon, the younger of the two murdered boys. 

She claimed that an intruder came in and stabbed her, and them.  

Do the words of her 911 call bear this out?

I have been asked to revisit this case and the best place to begin any case is from the beginning:  the initial call to police. 

Put yourself, as reader, into the shoes of Darlie Routier.  You and your children have just been violently attacked by a stranger. 

What would you say?  This is the "Expected."


 When you hear (or read) something that is surprising to you, this is called the "Unexpected."

The unexpected raises red flags.  We do not conclude guilt or deception on a single indicator.  We allow the subject's own words to guide us. When we are confronted with the unexpected, we "red flag" the language. In an emergency call:

 These red flags include:

*the call begins with a greeting.  This is not expected in an emergency, nor is overly polite language expected.  There should be urgency.  For an example of greetings or inappropriate politeness (giggling) in serious 911 calls, see:  Tiffany Hartley, Sergio Celis and Adam Baker.  This may even suggest that, psychologically, the caller wants to be "friends" with law enforcement and appear cooperative. 

*the caller disparages or blames the victim.  See Adam Baker. 
*the caller asks for help for self, and not for victim. See Sergio Celis. 

We note the order of the 911 call as priority.  

For an example, see the 911 call analysis of Misty Croslin's report of Haleigh Cummings (5) being missing.  In the call, Misty Croslin establishes her own alibi before reporting the child missing. 

 911 calls are sometimes labeled  "Excited utterance" as a way of recognizing the Free Editing Process; that is, the person is speaking "extemporaneously"; that is, choosing one's own words, freely, rather than repeating back the words of another.  This makes the order important in the analysis.  
***********************************************************************************************************
Statement Analysis of the call is in bold type with emphasis of italics and underlining added.  The color blue is used to show extreme sensitivity and the color red is used to indicate deception.  

What do Darlie Routier's words tell us?

00:00:00 911 Operator #1 ...Rowlett 911...what is your emergency?

This is the best question. Some departments ask, "Where is your emergency?" still, though the address should come up from the call, but cell phone usage has caused more to have to ask for location instead.  Just that this needs debate shows one thing:  Rush for it is an emergency.

The question allows the subject to report exactly what is wrong.  The subject (Routier) must choose where to begin her account.  It is expected that the victims' needs is first.  In Statement Analysis, we presuppose innocence and truth; therefore, when the "expected" is not heard, we are confronted by the "unexpected" and stop, pausing to take notice. 

00:01:19 Darlie Routier ...somebody came here...they broke in...

00:03:27 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am...
00:05:11 Darlie Routier ...they just stabbed me and my children...

Please note that in a statement, order shows priority.  This is especially evident in a 911 call as the first things reported are the most important.  Here is the order:

1.  Somebody came here
2.  They broke in
3.  They just stabbed me
4.  and my children.

Please note that the most important priority for the caller is that police believe that somebody (singular, gender neutral) came to the caller's home.  The investigator should wonder why the children being stabbed would not be first. 

Someone cannot stab her children unless they first come in.  Listen to her words.  Let her guide you.  For her, it is a priority that she communicate to police that someone entered her home.  This comes even before her own bleeding child. 

We also note that "somebody" being gender neutral may be an attempt to conceal identity.  

Why is it important (a priority) that she first establishes that somebody "came" here?  For someone to stab them, he would have to be there.  

  With bleeding children, why would it matter if they broke in or entered through an unlocked door?  The priority is that someone "came" and that they broke in.  

Unnecessary language:  When language is used that it unnecessary, it is deemed "doubly" important to the analysis.  From the subject's first statement to the operator, we find her priority is to make sure they believe someone "came" there, and broke into the home.  This has, from the beginning, raised suspicion as to why this would be necessary for the subject, since it is utterly unnecessary language.  

If you and your children were bleeding, what would be the first thing you say?

Maternal Instinct:  help for my child.

It would be of no consequence if they came in, or broke in:  your child is bleeding.

For Darlie Routier, the priority is not such.  We listen; we do not interpret.  

1.  Someone came here
2.  Someone broke in
3.  I am stabbed

These three things come before her own child's condition. Before this case was even investigated, something was terribly wrong. 

00:07:16 911 Operator #1 ...what...

00:08:05 Darlie Routier ...they just stabbed me and my kids...my little boys...

Follow the pronouns: 

Please note that pronouns are instinctive and universal.  Children, from the earliest days of speech, learn and use pronouns properly.  As humans, we are experts at using pronouns, which is why we conclude deception most easily from pronoun usage. 

Here, she says "they" just stabbed me (naming herself first) and "my kids".  Please note that she began with "somebody" (singular) and moved to plural ("they").  Pronoun usage should be consistent.  

Why is it not "he" or "this guy" or "this man"?  Even if "they" could be referencing a single person (not plural), why is there no gender attached?

Remember, a stabbing is very personal.  It is up close.  

We already have indications of deception even as the call has just begun.  

Change of language. 

When language changes, there should be a reason found within context. Emotion is the number one impact upon the change of language.  "I heard someone knocking at my door.  I saw a man..."  In this sentence, "someone" changed to "man."  
Question:  What caused the change? 
Answer:     She saw him.   

The change in language is justified by the context.  Here, we do not see any apparent reason to change "my kids" to "my little boys" in the context.  When someone is not working from memory, the language often changes. 

00:09:24 911 Operator #1 ...who...who did...

We may assume that this question, interrupted, would be the natural, "Who stabbed your little boys?"

00:11:12 Darlie Routier ...my little boy is dying...

The question is not answered.  In Statement Analysis, we do not judge the tone or inflection.  We do not need to know if she sounded upset or not.  We need only to know her words.  The teaching from LSI is this:

"The subject is dead; the Statement is alive", meaning that we are only listening to the words she uses, not how they are expressed.  This is not about being persuaded with tone.

The brain is choosing its words in less than a microsecond.  We are listening. 

We note that the subject did not answer the question, making the question "sensitive" to her. 

00:11:25 RADIO ...(unintelligible) clear...
00:13:07 911 Operator #1 ...hang on ...hang on... hang on
00:15:03 Darlie Routier ...hurry... (unintelligible)...
00:16:01 911 Operator #1 ...stand by for medical emergency
00:18:11 Darlie Routier ...ma'am...
00:18:19 911 Operator #1 ...hang on ma'am...
00:21:26 Darlie Routier ...ma'am...
00:23:00 911 Operator #1 ...unknown medical emergency... 5801 Eagle Drive...
00:24:00 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...
00:26:24 Darlie Routier ...ma'am...
00:27:12 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am... I'm trying to get an ambulance to you... hang on a minute...
00:28:20 RADIO ...(siren)...


00:29:13 Darlie Routier ...oh my God ...my babies are dying...

Please note that the language has changed again to "my babies"; We must always note the context.  
"Babies" is associated with death.  "my babies are dying"  
Please note the ability to accept "dying"; rather than maternal denial which would deny such.  If her babies are dying, why did she being the call with:

1.  Someone entered
2.  Someone broke in
3.  Someone stabbed me

and then on to her children. 

This is a very strong indication that Darlie Routier is concealing the identity of the attacker. It is passive language. 

00:30:12 Darin Routier ...(unintelligible)...

00:31:09 911 Operator #1 ...what's going on ma'am...

The question is asked:  "What is going on, ma'am?" while emergency services is en route.

00:32:13 Darlie Routier ...(unintelligible) ...oh my God...
00:33:49 RADIO ...(tone - signal broadcast)...
00:34:01 Background Voice ...(unintelligible)...
00:35:20 Darlie Routier ...(unintelligible) thought he was dead ...oh my God...
00:39:08 Darin Routier ...(unintelligible)...
00:39:29 Darlie Routier ...I don't even know (unintelligible)...

Every word is critical.  Here, she now says she does not "even" know, with the extra word "even" used for emphasis.  Does she not know?  She reported that "somebody" came to her home, and "they broke in" (which is not in chronological order) and "they stabbed me" and "my children"; so she does know what is going on. 

00:40:22 911 Operator #1 ...attention 901 unknown medical emergency 5801...
00:42:23 Darin Routier ...(unintelligible)...
00:43:15 Darlie Routier ...I don't even know (unintelligible)...
00:44:04 911 Operator #1 ...Eagle Drive ...Box 238 ...cross street Linda Vista and Willowbrook ...attention 901 medial emergency...
00:49:28 Darlie Routier ...who was breathing...

"I don't even know...who is breathing" may be the interrupted sentence.  Since it is expected that she would know her son's identity, this does not make sense to us.  

00:40:10 Darin Routier ...(unintelligible)...
00:51:15 Darlie Routier ...(unintelligible) are they still laying there (unintelligible)...

If "they" are her sons, she reports their body posture as "laying there"

00:51:19 911 Operator #1 ...may be possible stabbing ...5801 Eagle Drive ...Box 238 ...cross street Linda Vista and Willowbrook...
00:55:06 Darlie Routier ...oh my God ...what do we do...

The subject has not asked for specific help for her son.  Note what do "we" do, not what she, herself, should do to either stop the bleeding or help with the breathing issue.  We look for instinctive maternal reactions for life; helping, healing, etc.  This is not evidenced here. 

The brain knows what it knows.  Thus far, we have seen that her children are not her priority, but her story is. 

Next we see that she is not asking for help for them, and it is already late in the call.  For mothers, this is the first thing sought. 

00:57:17 911 Operator #1 ...time out 2:32...
00:58:26 Darlie Routier ...oh my God...
00:58:28 911 Operator #1 ...stamp me a card Clint...
01:01:02 911 Operator #1 ...80...
01:01:16 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...
01:02:13 Darlie Routier ...oh my God...
01:03:05 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...
01:04:07 911 Operator #1 ...need units going towards 5801 Eagle Drive ...5801 Eagle Drive

01:04:07 Darlie Routier ...oh my God ...my baby's dead...

Note again that "baby" is associated with death.  Before her "babies" were "dying"; here, her "baby" is dead.  We note the absence of maternal denial again, and she has accepted that at least one "baby" is dead. 

Maternal denial is critical.  In missing child cases, an innocent mother will not reference her child in the past tense, as if dead, even often under the pressure of mounting evidence, early on in the case.  For some mothers, it may take years, if at all.  

Here it is instant. 

01:07:08 Darlie Routier ...Damon ...hold on honey...
01:08:11 Darin Routier ...(unintelligible)...
01:08:22 911 Operator #1 ...hysterical female on the phone...
01:10:03 Darlie Routier ...(unintelligible)...
01:10:10 Darin Routier ...(unintelligible)...
01:10:26 911 Operator #1 ...says her child has been stabbed
01:11:28 Darlie Routier ...I saw them Darin...

The name "Darin" is here introduced.  Thus far, her children have not had their names used.  This is not expected.  Motherhood is highly personal, therefore, we expect to hear the pronoun, "I" often, and we expect to hear a mother use her children's names.  

Please note the complete sentence:  "I saw them Darin; oh my God...came in here" is reiterating that which is unnecessary:  that "they" came in there.  Why does she need to report that she "saw" them since they stabbed her and the children?

This indicates the need to persuade, rather than report. 

In this 911 call, Darlie Routier has the need to persuade police and Darin that people "came" there.  This is a strong indication that no one came there and she is deceptive. 

01:12:21 Darin Routier ...oh my God ...(unintelligible) ...came in here...

01:14:10 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am ...I need you to calm down and talk to me...
01:14:24 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...
01:16:25 Darlie Routier ...ok...
01:16:26 SOUND ...(unintelligible)...
01:17:12 911 Operator #1 ...twice Clint...
01:18:26 Darlie Routier ...didn't you get my address...
01:20:19 911 Operator #1 ...5801 Eagle...


01:22:00 Darlie Routier ...yes ...we need help...

Note help asked for "we" here.  She continues talking to Darin.  She is bleeding and has just reported that she and her sons are bleeding, dying.  Note what is on her mind: 

01:22:03 RADIO ...(unintelligible) will be enroute code...
01:24:20 Darlie Routier ...Darin ...I don't know who it was...

By using Darin's name repeatedly, it is a signal that she wants his attention.  She has not asked for his help with the boys' breathing or bleeding issues, but has focused on "they" who "came" here.  Here she now emphasizes that she doesn't know their identity.  This is what comes out of her mouth rather than talking about how to stop the child's bleeding, or to get her other child, whom she declared dead, to breathe.  This is a strong indicator that her priority is convincing both police and Darin that someone came there.  

Why would a stabbing victim need to persuade police and a person present that someone actually came and did this?  She is attempting to persuade, while being recorded, both police and Darin that someone came there.  It is her priority; not the children.  

"I don't know who it was"

Most mothers would now say, "Who cares who it was!  How do I stop the bleeding?"  The emergency is that children are bleeding.  Yet, even in this most extreme of circumstance, it is important to her that she convince anyone that can hear her that she does not know who did this.  

This leads to the question:  Why?

Why does she use passive language to conceal the identity of the assailant?

Why does she have the need to declare that she does not know the assailant?

Why is her priority not the children?

01:24:23 911 Operator #1 ...2:33 code...
01:26:15 Darlie Routier ...we got to find out who it was...

Repetition indicates sensitivity.  Here, she continues her repetition of "who" the assailant is.  The identity of the killer is more sensitive (important) to Darlie Routier than the condition of her children.  

01:27:12 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am...
01:28:04 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am listen ...listen to me...
01:29:27 Darlie Routier ...yes ...yes ...(unintelligible)...

01:30:23 RADIO ...(unintelligible) I'm clear ...do you need anything...

01:32:08 Darin Routier ...(unintelligible)...
01:32:20 Darlie Routier ...oh my God...
01:34:00 911 Operator #1 ...(unintelligible)...
01:34:22 911 Operator #1 ...do you take the radio Clint...
01:35:23 911 Operator #2 ...yes...
01:36:12 Darlie Routier ...oh my God...
01:36:25 911 Operator #1 ...I...ma'am...
01:38:03 Darlie Routier ...yes...
01:38:17 911 Operator #1 ...I need you to ...
01:38:23 RADIO ...(unintelligible) start that way (unintelligible)... will revise...
01:39:28 911 Operator #1 ...I need you to talk to me...
01:41:21 Darlie Routier ...what ...what ...what...
01:44:25 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...
01:44:28 Darlie Routier ...my babies are dead (unintelligible)...

"Children" and "little boys" were stabbed; but "babies" are dying or are dead.  This should cause investigators, particularly any investigative psychologist, to go into the topic of motherhood with her in the questioning. 


01:46:20 RADIO ...go ahead and start that way ...siren code 4 ...advise...
01:47:10 Darlie Routier ...(unintelligible)...


01:48:03 Darlie Routier ...(unintelligible) do you want honey ...hold on (unintelligible)...

This appears to be directed to one of the children.  She does not use the child's name.  

Guilty parents will sometimes distance themselves from the child by avoiding the child's name.  See the analysis of the Baby Lisa case from St. Louis in which the mother, Deborah Bradley, appeared almost unable to use Lisa's name.  

01:49:17 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am ...I can't understand you...
01:50:21 Darlie Routier ...yes...
01:51:18 911 Operator #1 ...you're going to have to slow down ...calm down ...and talk to me...
01:52:19 Darlie Routier ...I'm talking to my babies ...they're dying...

Consistent use of "babies" with death.  She has declared them both "dying" and "dead"


01:55:03 911 Operator #1 ...what is going on?

The expected response is that her children are bleeding, or having trouble breathing.  The question is posed to her again.  She has been talking to Darin, and to at least one of the children. We expect to hear her ask for guidance or help on how to stop the bleeding, or how to keep the child breathing: 

01:56:29 Darlie Routier ...somebody came in while I was sleeping ...me and my little boys were sleeping downstairs... 

She continues with the sensitive repetition (deception indicated) of the arrival to her home of assailant or assailants.  Now she continues with more detail:  "while I was sleeping"
Please note the singular "somebody" which is also gender neutral. 
By now, she would know if "somebody" (singular) is a man or a woman.  The use of the gender neutral suggests that she is concealing the gender of the assailant.  
Note "little boys" and not "babies";  they are still alive and not associated with death in her account, so they are not "babies"

Please note that as she has continued to attempt to persuade that someone came there, she has indicated that the topic of someone going there is "sensitive"; to the point of deception.  This indicates that no one came there.  

"While I was sleeping" is alibi building.  She could not 'possibly' be involved because she was sleeping. 

Recall the 911 call of Misty Croslin.  Before she reported that 5 year old Haleigh Cummings was missing, she needed to report that she was asleep.  The child was not the priority of the call. 


02:02:00 RADIO ...(unintelligible) I'll be clear...

02:02:20 Darlie Routier ...some man ...came in ...stabbed my babies ...stabbed me ...I woke up ...I was fighting ...he ran out through the garage ...threw the knife down ...my babies are dying ...they're dead ...oh my God...

Note that now she gives us the gender:  "man".  He is "some" man.  This is an indicator of deception: 

The assailant has already been introduced, twice, as "somebody" and now should be "the" man; not "some" man.  This is an indicator of deception
that he is "some man" is deceptive and indicates withholding of the identity of the assailant.  He should be "the" followed by "man" but more likely harsher terms.  

Without knowing the case, the reader should now understand that Darlie Routier does not want police to know who stabbed her children.  

Next, we note the chronological order:  When someone speaks from memory, chronological order flows easily.  

1.  The most important issue to her is found in the repetition of the word "came" as it is used repeatedly.  Since he would have to have "come" there in order to do all these things.  
2.  Now she changes the language and order from "stabbed me and my children" to "stabbed my babies" with the word "babies" associated with death (above) coming before herself.  
3.  She now adds in that she was stabbed and then she "woke up"
This suggests, by her words, that he had already come, broken in, and stabbed the babies as she slept through it all, and was even stabbed before she woke up.  

When someone is lying, it is difficult to keep track of the chronology of the story because it does not come from memory. 
4.  "I was fighting" rather than "I fought"
5.  He ran through the garage
6.  He threw the knife down
7.  my babies are dying
8.  they're dead

The fact that he "came" there is first, and the babies are last.  Note the continued change from "dying" to "dead"; neither are expected in maternal denial.  

Note that the babies being dead is repeated. 

02:14:23 911 Operator #1 ...ok ...stay on the phone with me...
02:16:11 Darin Routier ...(unintelligible)...
02:17:06 Darlie Routier ...oh my God...
02:17:29 911 Operator #1 ...what happened (unintelligible) dispatch 901...
02:20:15 Darlie Routier ...hold on honey ...hold on...

Note that the absence of the children's names. 
Note "hold on" is present tense, as if alive and not dead. 

02:22:01 911 Operator #1 ...(unintelligible) who was on (unintelligible)...
02:22:26 911 Operator #2 ...it was (unintelligible) the white phone...
02:23:08 Darlie Routier ...hold on...
02:25:26 911 Operator #2 ...they were wondering when we need to dispatch ...so I sent a double team...
02:25:28 Darlie Routier ...oh my God ...oh my God...
02:28:08 911 Operator #1 ...ok ...thanks...
02:28:21 Darlie Routier ...oh my God...
02:29:20 SOUND ...(unintelligible)...
02:30:01 Darlie Routier ...oh my God...
02:30:20 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am...
02:31:06 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...
02:31:14 911 Operator #1 ...who's there with you...
02:32:15 Darlie Routier ...Karen ...(unintelligible)...

Note "Darin" was first name introduced, and now "Karen" is introduced into her language.   This was not lost on the operator who will now ask who is in the house: 

02:33:15 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am...
02:34:06 Darlie Routier ...what...
02:38:11 911 Operator #1 ...is there anybody in the house ...besides you and your children...
question asked: 

02:38:11 Darlie Routier ...no ...my husband he just ran downstairs ...he's helping me ...but they're dying ...oh my God ...they're dead...

Note that her first response is "no" since she already said that "somebody" who later became "some man" already "ran" through the garage and dropped the knife. 
Now it is "my husband" (after "no") ran.  
Note that she said he is helping, but again "they're dying" and "they're dead" with acceptance of finality.  

02:43:24 911 Operator #1 ...ok ...ok ...how many little boys ...is it two boys...
02:46:06 Darin Routier ...(unintelligible)...
02:46:25 Darlie Routier ...there's two of 'em ...there's two...
02:48:18 RADIO ...what's the cross street on that address on Eagle...
02:50:15 Darlie Routier ...oh my God ...who would do this...

The subject continues to press the sensitive issue of identity.  She saw "who" did this and the need to continue to repeat herself over and over shows that the sensitivity is due to decepetion. 


02:53:13 911 Operator #1 ...(unintelligible) listen to me ...calm down ...(unintelligible)...

02:53:21 Darlie Routier ...I feel really bad ...I think I'm dying...

This is critical.  She reports how she feels, and it is "bad", qualified by "really".  
But it is her next sentence which shows deception:

"I think I'm dying" shows weakness.  She only "thinks" that she is dying, but knows that the "babies are dying".  This should lead investigators to check her wounds versus the wounds of her "babies", with hers being much less, so much less, in fact, that she would not have the same certainty of death that she had for her babies. 

An innocent mother would not accept her babies "death", even in panic.  This is the maternal instinct in language.  It is the same instinct Solomon appealed to in the Bible when he called for the custodial dispute to end in death, knowing the maternal instinct of the biological mother would prevail.  

Darlie Routier knows that she is not dying.  Darlie Routier knows her children will die, or are dead.  She accepts the unacceptable.  This is an indicator of guilt, just as it is when a child is reported kidnapped or missing and the mother references the child in the past tense, as if dead.  It goes against instinct and is indicative of guilt. 
See Susan Smith, Casey Anthony, Billie Jean Dunn, Rebecca Celis, Deborah Bradley; as well as fathers, Sergio Celis and Justin DiPietro. 


02:55:06 RADIO ...228...
02:56:06 911 Operator #1 ...go ahead...
02:58:12 RADIO ...(unintelligible) address again (unintelligible)...
02:59:12 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...
02:59:22 Darlie Routier ...when are they going to be here...
03:00:22 911 Operator #1 ...5801 Eagle Drive ...5801 Eagle Drive...
03:03:28 Darlie Routier ...when are they going to be here...
03:03:29 911 Operator #1 ...going to be a stabbing...
03:05:20 Darlie Routier ...when are they going to be here...
03:06:20 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am ...they're on their way...
03:08:00 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...

03:08:08 Darlie Routier ...I gotta just sit here forever ...oh my God...

Note body position mentioned.  This is associated with an increase of tension for the subject, herself.  

03:11:14 911 Operator #1 ...2:35...

03:12:05 Darie Routier ...who would do this ...who would do this...

Since she "saw" who did this, she knows the answer.  She repeats the question as a point of sensitivity.  This is yet another indicator that she knows the answer and wants to persuade the police that she does not. 

The greater the need for persuasion, the easier it is to discern deception.  

03:13:09 Darin Routier ...(unintelligible)...
03:14:26 911 Operator #1 ...(sounds of typing on computer keyboard)...
03:16:08 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am ...how old are your boys...
03:18:20 Darin Routier ...what...
03:19:03 911 Operator #1 ...how old are your boys...
03:20:04 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...
03:20:21 911 Operator #1 ...no...
03:21:01 Darlie Routier ...seven and five...

The answer, "seven and five" comes from memory.  Most children will always give the chronological order of their children.  

03:22:17 911 Operator #1 ...ok...
03:23:08 Darlie Routier ...oh my God ...oh my God ...oh ...he's dead...
03:29:02 911 Operator #1 ...calm down ...can you...
03:29:03 Darlie Routier ...oh God ...Devon no ...oh my God...

Note that "Devon" is now mentioned for the first time, in the negative, "no"


03:30:27 SOUND ...(dog barking)...
03:35:02 911 Operator #1 ...is your name Darlie...
03:36:11 Darlie Routier ...yes...
03:36:26 911 Operator #1 ...this is her...
03:37:09 911 Operator #1 ...is your husband's name Darin...
03:38:22 Darlie Routier ...yes ...please hurry ...God they're taking forever...
03:41:20 911 Operator #1 ...there's nobody in your house ...there was ...was...

03:44:05 911 Operator #1 ...you don't know who did this...

Note that the Operator #1 has been listening to her repeat "who did this" over and over 
03:45:19 Police Officer ...look for a rag...
03:46:11 Darlie Routier ...they killed our babies...

Note that the "somebody" (singular, gender neutral) became "some man" (note lack of article, and now introduces gender, and is singular)
now becomes "they"

Deception indicated

She is unable to stay consistent with singular or plural attackers.  Here, they are plural. 

03:48:03 Police Officer ...lay down ...ok ...just sit down ...(unintelligible)
03:51:11 911 Operator #1 ...(sounds of typing on computer keyboard)...

03:52:13 Darlie Routier ...no ...he ran out ...uh ...they ran out in the garage ...I was sleeping...

Note the order:

1.  He ran out
2.  They ran out
3.  I was sleeping

Deception indicated

She is unable to keep her story straight.  Is it one man?  Is it "they", plural?
She is unable to keep her chronological order straight because it does not come from experiential memory.  

03:54:09 911 Operator #1 ...(unintelligible)...
03:56:19 Darlie Routier ...my babies over here already cut ...can I (unintelligible)...
03:59:29 Darin Routier ...(unintelligible) phone is right there...
04:01:28 Darlie Routier ...(unintelligible)...
04:03:01 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...

Darlie Routier has shown her priority is to prove that someone came and did this.  Alibi building is priority.  She now has the presence of mind, while "thinking" that she is dying, to instruct police on how to conduct their investigation:  


04:05:02 Darlie Routier ...ya'll look out in the garage ...look out in the garage ...they left a knife laying on...

Darlie Routier is directing the others on how to proceed with the investigation.  

This is a need to control.

Guilt is often seen by the need to control; especially information.  This is why someone like Billie Jean Dunn went on The Nancy Grace Show so many times, in spite of being roasted by Nancy, and lie after lie unfolding.  There is a desperate need to control, and in this desperation, deception becomes evident. 

She instructs them twice to look in the garage.  This is important to her.  

Note that "They" is plural and note that "some man" left a knife. 

04:08:21 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...
04:09:19 911 Operator #1 ...there's a knife ...don't touch anything...

This would not normally be a non issue, especially since she is "sitting" there and "thinking" she is "dying", but given her repetition, the 911 Operator is acutely aware that something is very wrong with this caller, so the operator says what would not seem necessary:  don't touch the knife. 


04:11:18 Darlie Routier ...I already touched it and picked it up...

This means her DNA will be on the knife. She not only "touched it" but she "picked it up."

This is unnecessary information.  If she "picked it up", she would have had to touch it.  The repetition indicates sensitivity.  She needs police to know:

Not only was I 'sleeping' and am withholding the identity of the assailant, but I already contaminated the crime scene, so don't bother with the DNA testing...

Not very clever. 


04:12:05 RADIO ...10-4...
04:15:20 911 Operator #1 ...who's out there ...is anybody out there...
04:16:07 Police Officer ...(unintelligible)...


04:17:06 Darlie Routier ...I don't know ...I was sleeping...

Ignorance of the attack due to sleeping is part of the alibi building in her story. 

04:18:14 911 Operator #1 ...ok ma'am ...listen ...there's a police officer at your front door ...is your front door unlocked...
04:22:11 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...
04:22:15 Darlie Routier ...yes ma'am ...but where's the ambulance...
04:24:21 911 Operator #1 ...ok...
04:24:23 Darlie Routier ...they're barely breathing...

Note that previously they were "dying" and "dead", but here, they are "barely breathing" but instead of asking for instruction on how to help them breath, or to stop the blood, she kept repeating how she did not know "who" did this.  

04:26:17 Darlie Routier ...if they don't get it here they're gonna be dead ...my God they're (unintelligible) ...hurry ...please hurry...
04:31:13 911 Operator #1 ...ok ...they're ...they're...
04:32:18 Police Officer ...what about you...
04:33:06 911 Operator #1 ...is 82 out on Eagle...
04:34:18 Darlie Routier ...huh...
04:35:12 Darin Routier ...they took (unintelligible) ...they ran (unintelligible)...
04:36:28 911 Operator #2 ...(unintelligible)...
04:37:08 Darlie Routier ...we're at Eagle ...5801 Eagle ...my God and hurry...
04:41:03 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...
04:41:22 911 Operator #1 ...82 ...are you out...
04:42:25 Police Officer ...nothing's gone Mrs. Routier...
04:44:10 Darlie Routier ...oh my God ...oh my God ...why would they do this...
04:48:03 RADIO ...(unintelligible) to advise (unintelligible) 200...
04:50:18 Police Officer ...(unintelligible) the problem Mrs. Routier...
04:50:21 911 Operator #1 ...what'd he say...
04:51:29 Darlie Routier ...why would they do this...
04:53:08 Darlie Routier ...I'm (unintelligible)...
04:54:07 911 Operator #1 ...ok ...listen ma'am ...need to ...need to let the officers in the front door ...ok...
04:59:11 Darlie Routier ...what...
05:00:04 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am..
05:00:22 Darlie Routier ...what ...what...
05:01:15 911 Operator #1 ...need to let the police officers in the front door...

The operator got her attention with "listen, ma'am" and prepared Darlie to know they were coming in the front door.  Darlie said, "what? what?" so the 911 operator repeated that the police were coming in the front door. 

What reaction did this trigger in Darlie Routier?  Please take careful note of what is of concern to her, while her children are "barely breathing":  

05:04:21 Darlie Routier ...(unintelligible) his knife was lying over there and I already picked it up...

She is concerned, not about her children's lives, but upon communicating that evidence is contaminated.  

She does not express concern for her children, but about her fingerprints and DNA being on the knife:  

1.  It is "his" knife.  This gives ownership of the knife to the "somebody" and "some man".  Note that it is singular, even though she has said, "they" did this. 

2.  Note "knife was lying".  This brings us to a basic teaching in Statement Analysis. 

Principle:

When an inanimate object is reported to by "lying, standing, sitting" etc, the passive language suggests that the subject placed it there. 

Knives cannot "lie down", nor "stand" nor "sit"; so when this language is employed, it is a verbal signal that the speaker (subject) is responsible for the placement.  This is commonly seen in murder weapons and in drugs. 

"The drugs were sitting on the cabinet" is an example.  

3.  "already" attempts to shift blame:  it was already touched by her before the operator warned her.  

Did she do this while she was "sleeping" or was this part of the "I was fighting"?

Deception indicated

She has established that when her fingerprints are found on the knife, that it was already addressed.  The mother's instinct should be on the children, which it is not.  This mother's instinct is self preservation and alibi building, and an attempt to persuade all that someone did this, and it was not her. 

The need to deceive is an indicator of guilt. 

05:08:19 911 Operator #1 ...ok ...it's alright ...it's ok...
05:09:20 Darlie Routier ...God ...I bet if we could have gotten the prints maybe ...maybe...

She is dying from being attacked after watching her sons dying from being attacked yet uses the language, "I bet", indicating a disconnect (a linguistic disconnect) from the attack reported. 


05:13:18 Police Officer ...(unintelligible)...
05:14:18 RADIO ...82 ...we'll be (unintelligible)...
05:17:12 Darlie Routier ...ok ...it'll be...
05:18:08 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am ...hang on ...hang on a second...

She next turns to Darin and has the need to attempt to persuade him of the same:  

05:19:09 Darlie Routier ...somebody who did it intentionally walked in here and did it Darin...

1.  "Somebody" returns to the gender neutral.  Deception indicated.  Once someone has been identified by gender ("some man") returning to gender neutral is an indication of attempt to conceal identity. 

2.  "intentionally"  This is an unnecessary word and shows that she knew the killer's intent.  It indicates planning. 

3.  "walked"  the inclusion of the killer's body posture ("walking") indicates an increase in tension for the subject at this part of the story. 

Her willful attempt to persuade that someone came in indicates that the killer was there all the time. 

Her attempt to conceal the identity of the killer indicates knowledge of the killer's identity. 

The identity of the killer causes an increase of tension. 

The mother accepts the children's deaths, even while they were still breathing. 

The mother's concern is her alibi and not the welfare of the children.  Her assertion of them being dead is strong, but of her dying it is weak.  This shows intimate knowledge of the stab wounds' impact upon the victims; something the killer would know.  

The mother knows the intentions of the killer. 

05:20:19 911 Operator #1 ...82 ...10-9...
05:21:23 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...
05:22:28 911 Operator #1 ...received...
05:23:05 Darlie Routier ...there's nothing touched...
05:24:12 911 Operator #1 ...ok ma'am...
05:25:13 Darlie Routier ...there's nothing touched...
05:26:20 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...
05:28:00 Darlie Routier ...oh my God...
05:29:08 Police Officer ...(unintelligible)...
05:29:23 RADIO ...received...
05:31:19 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...
05:33:25 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am ...is the police officer there...
05:35:14 Darlie Routier ...yes (unintelligible)...
05:35:23 911 Operator #1 ...ok ...go talk to him ...ok...
05:38:03 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...

Total length of tape is 5:44:28



The analysis conclusion of the call is now given.  This is without any investigation, nor interest in the evidence, DNA testing, interviews, or anything else about the case.  It is just about the genesis of the case; the initial telephone call placed to police:   

Deception Indicated:  the 911 caller knew the identity of the killer. 

The language of the 911 call shows:

1.  The caller has guilty knowledge of the murder of her children.
2.  The caller has the need to persuade police that someone came to the home, indicating that it is likely that no one came into the home. 
3.  The caller cannot keep her pronouns or articles straight, indicating deception. 
4.  The caller cannot keep the chronology of her story consistent, indicating that it did not come from experiential memory. 
5.  The caller has intimate knowledge of the killer's intentions and thoughts. 
6.  The caller is more concerned with evidence pointing towards her than her children's lives. 
7.  The caller of this 911 call is more concerned with building an alibi than saving her children.  

Deception is indicated in this call by Darlie Routier.  The employment of passivity of speech is used to conceal the identity of the killer. 

The language shows that she, Darlie Routier, is the "somebody" who knifed her children.  The language shows that her wounds were not lethal, but her "babies" wounds would indeed be; that is, known at the time of this call. 

Darlie Routier has guilty knowledge in the 911 call made in this domestic homicide.  

Darlie Router's words reveal that she, herself, is the killer of her own children.  

Monday, October 20, 2014

POLL: Analyzing the Detective



update:   analysis conclusion at bottom of article.

Recently, a man came into a case as a witness.  He was concerned that what information he gave to the two investigating detectives would cause trouble for innocent employees, as well as personal backlash from an unstable suspect.

The two detectives went to his home and interviewed him.  Shortly after, the harassment from the unstable suspect began that suggested to the man, that the information he gave to the two detectives, was shared with the suspect within an hour of leaving his home.

What do you make of the answers?

Put the reason for your conclusion in the comments section.  Name redacted.



Q.  "After you left my house, did you go and speak to _______?"

Det.   "After I left your house, did I go speak with ______?  I have spoken with _____."

Q.  "Ok, because _____ has started a campaign of harassment shortly after you left here and I am wondering if you told her the information we gave you."

Det.  "I would never share information with ______ just as I would not share information with you.


Did the detective share information with the suspect?

if you find he was deceptive, how many signals of deception were present?


Did the Detective Share info with the suspect?






pollcode.com free polls
Update: There are indicators of deception within the language.

1.  He answered a question with a question, indicating sensitivity.  This is a pause in time, showing a need to slow down to think of an answer.

2.  Next, note the passivity of "I have spoken with..." seeks to remove oneself from responsibility or ownership.

3.  Thirdly, he uses "would never" to avoid the outright "did not", which would have been reliable.

Based upon these three indicators:  Deception Indicated.

Sunday, October 19, 2014

Police: Heather Graham's Remains


Police say human remains found Saturday in Virginia could be those of missing University of Virginia student Hannah Graham – who was last seen on Sept. 13.
Further forensic tests are needed to confirm whether the remains are those of Hannah Graham, Charlottesville Police Chief Tim Longo told a news conference. The remains were found on an abandoned property in southern Albemarle County by a search team from the Chesterfield County Sheriff's Office, Longo said. They are being transported to Richmond for identification.
"Right now we have the discovery of human remains and a great deal of work ahead of us," said Col. Steve Sellers, Albemarle County Police chief. "We cannot and will not jump to any conclusions regarding today's discovery. I ask for the public's patience as we move forward and pursue what is now a new, ongoing death investigation."
Authorities are asking anyone who recalls seeing any suspicious activity or vehicles in the area of Old Lynchburg Road in Charlottesville – where the remains were found – to contact the Albemarle County Police Department at 434-296-5807.
Thousands of volunteers had searched for the 18-year-old Graham in the weeks since her disappearance.
Jesse Leroy Matthew Jr., 32, has been charged with abduction with intent to defile Graham. A preliminary hearing is set for Dec. 4 on the charge. In the meantime, Matthew is being held in the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail.
Police officials Saturday afternoon had blocked the road leading to the site where the remains were found.
Surveillance videos captured some of what Graham did the night she vanished. Authorities say she met friends at a restaurant for dinner Sept. 12 before stopping by two parties at off-campus housing units. She left the second party alone and eventually texted a friend saying she was lost, authorities said.
She can be seen walking unsteadily and even running at times, past a pub and a service station and then onto a seven-block pedestrian strip that includes the Tempo Restaurant.
Tempo Restaurant owner Brice Cunningham has said Graham appeared to be incapacitated as she walked away with Matthew. Police have said they have no reason to believe she and Matthew knew each other before their encounter.
Matthew, an operating room technician at the university's hospital who sometimes drives a taxi, had been drinking at the bar earlier that night before he encountered Graham, Cunningham has said.
A week after Graham went missing, Longo publicly described Matthew in detail without naming him, saying investigators wanted to talk to the "person of interest" and had searched his apartment because he was the last person to see her.
Matthew showed up at police headquarters, asked for a lawyer, and then sped away, according to a police account. His exit prompted a warrant for "reckless driving," a charge that Longo cited as he named the suspect and appealed for information from anyone who saw him with Graham the night she disappeared.
Matthew was arrested a few days later in Galveston, Texas.
While Matthew was a fugitive in Texas, Virginia police added a charge of abduction with intent to defile, a violent felony that under Virginia law compels suspects to submit to DNA testing.
Very quickly thereafter, Virginia State Police announced a "forensic link" to Harrington's killing. That case, in turn, has been linked by DNA evidence since 2012 to the rape of a woman in Fairfax, Virginia, who survived after a passer-by startled her attacker, the FBI has said.
Following Matthew's arrest, Christopher Newport University released a statement noting that he had been named in a police file involving a Sept. 7, 2003 sexual assault on the Newport News campus. Matthew was a student there from January 2003 through Oct. 15, 2003.
Matthew had transferred to CNU after three years at Liberty University, where he also was briefly on the football team.
When he was at Liberty University, he was accused of raping a student on campus. That charge was dropped when the person declined to move forward with prosecution, Lynchburg Commonwealth's Attorney Michael Doucette said.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.