Thursday, April 24, 2014

Bill Gothard Statement

Here is the statement in full:
I have withheld this statement in order to honor the request of the Board of Directors to wait until an initial review has taken place. As the review continues, I now want to make this statement.
God has brought me to a place of greater brokenness than at any other time in my life. It is a grief to realize how my pride and insensitivity have affected so many people. I have asked the Lord to reveal the underlying causes and He is doing this.
For many years I have been building the Institute but losing my first love for the Lord. God warns "I know thy works, and thy labour . . . Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent. . . " (Revelation 2:2, 4, 5). I was finding value and affirmation from the accomplishments of the ministry and those involved in it instead of filling this void in my life with God and His love. I have repented in deep sorrow. However, over the years many people have been offended in different ways because of my lack of genuine love.
I put the Institute and its goals ahead of people and their needs. Standards became more important than relationships. People who didn't "measure up" were cut off and those who were not seen as adding value to the ministry were treated as though they were expendable. The more I have listened to people describe their experiences the more grieved and sorrowful I have become.
My wrong focus produced a further consequence. Families were made to feel that they must "measure up." This resulted in some parents putting undue pressure on their sons and daughters in order for the family to be accepted. When there was a lack of love or consistency, sons and daughters saw this as hypocrisy and rejected it. Also, many felt that the expectations where so high that they could never measure up to them. This resulted in a feeling of deep defeat.
This emphasis on outward appearance was also manifested by bringing selected young people to serve at the Headquarters and causing others to feel rejected and offended by my favoritism. My actions of holding of hands, hugs, and touching of feet or hair with young ladies crossed the boundaries of discretion and were wrong. They demonstrated a double-standard and violated a trust. Because of the claims about me I do want to state that I have never kissed a girl nor have I touched a girl immorally or with sexual intent.
I have failed to live out some of the very things that I have taught. I am committed to learning from my failures by God's grace and mercy, and do what I can to help bring about Biblical reconciliation as Jesus commands: "Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift" (Matthew 5:23-24).
More than anything I want to make right what I have done wrong and deepen my relationship with the Lord. I trust in God's undeserved mercy and pray that those whom I have offended would find grace to forgive me. I know that I do not deserve this. I would certainly appreciate your prayers during this time that God would bring healing to those who have been so deeply affected by my actions. I am grateful for the opportunities I have had thus far to be reconciled with individuals and it is my goal to contact as many others as I can, fully hear them, and do whatever I can to bring about Biblical reconciliation.
My greatest offense has been against God. I have earnestly sought His mercy and forgiveness and have asked Him to allow me to experience more of Him and the power of His resurrection.
Bill Gothard

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Unreliable Job Applications

                                                                        by Peter Hyatt
Not everything that is "unreliable" is untrue. Sometimes unreliable is noted due to deception, while other times,  it simply means that the statement is not reliable and that more information may be needed, via follow up questions.

The following is from a job application: 

Give me an example of honesty in your life:

"I found an expensive piece of jewelry and returned it to its rightful owner."

Describe a time in life when you made a mistake and how you learned from it:

"Charged in 2011 for an Operating Under the Influence.  Haven't had a drink since."

These two questions were on the same page of a job application designed to weed out liars and hire the truthful.

What has this applicant told you?  What has this applicant not told you?

1.  The applicant has told us that she found jewelry that did not belong to her, recognized it for its value, but returned it to its's "rightful" owner.

What does this tell you about her?

a. jewelry was "expensive"
b.  She, herself, would be an owner, but not a "rightful" owner.

The shorter way of saying this would have been:  "I found jewelry and returned it to its owner."  Additional words give us additional information.

She recognized its value and likely thought about keeping it, but did not.

Of matter of course in the interview, I will ask, "Did you think about keeping it?" hoping she will say, "yes", and not lie, as I seek to hire people who are honest and learn from their mistakes.

Who would not have thought about keeping it?  Think of this especially in light of how easy it is to pawn something and how expensive it was.  "Finders Keepers; Losers Weepers" some like to say, as a means of excusing the spirit of larceny.

2.  The applicant did not tell us that she was convicted of driving under the influence, nor has she told us that she has not had a drink since.

"Charged in 2011 for an Operating Under the Influence"

You will first note that "charged" does not have a pronoun.
You will next note that "charged" does not say "convicted" or anything like that.

Note "an" Operating Under the Influence and not "Operating Under the Influence", which will lead me to ask some questions:

a.  Who was charged?
b.  Were you convicted?

and most importantly:

c.  Were you ever charged prior to this one?
d.  How about after this one?


3.  She does not tell us that she has not had a drink since:

"Haven't had a drink since" with the missing pronoun.

Now, since it is "unreliable" information, it is necessary for me to ask these questions and it may be that she has had only one conviction and has not had a drink since, but due to the dropped pronouns and the additional wording, more questions are necessary.

Unreliable is just that, and we are playing percentages.  Sometimes it is unreliable because there is deception present while other times the subject simply needs more prompts.

Playing percentages is wise, as it allows for the most success.

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Brittanee Drexel's Mother's Letter

The following is analysis of the letter Dawn Drexel, mother of 17 year old Brittanee, published in 2012.  Underlining, color, and bold type are added for emphasis with Statement Analysis in bold type.  Please note that much of this concerns Behavioral Analysis.  

Please share my announcement in honor of my daughter on what should have been her 21st Birthday….
This letter is being written concerning information that I am aware of that surrounds the disappearance of Brittanee Drexel, whom went missing in Myrtle Beach, SC. The past three years have been a heart wrenching experience, and I know someone has knowledge of what happened to my daughter.

The letter begins with the birthday, which is the occasion for writing, but the subject gives her own reason for writing:  "concerning information that I am aware of..." which is passive.  Passivity here suggests a varied source of information.  This is then shown in the letter, itself. 

On April 25, 2009 I received a call that no mother would ever want to receive, saying that my daughter was in Myrtle Beach and the caller could not find her; this is where my nightmare began. My frantic calls to her cell phone the days that followed went unanswered trailing straight to her voicemail.

Note the heavy use of the personal pronoun "my":

My daughter
My nightmare
My frantic calls

Yet, it is only "a" call, not "my call."  Note the closeness to the daughter, but distance from the call (emotional pain can cause distance). 

Note that she is not "our daughter" as the mother feels no need to 'share'; making this extremely personal and unclose for her. Follow the pronouns.  Compare this to letters by mothers suspected in the disappearance of their children and you will find very different pronoun usage. 
Once learning the identity of the people she went to South Carolina with on spring break, I began to make calls to them beginning first with Peter. I desperately sought any information from him concerning my daughter's whereabouts, and his reply was, and I quote, "I don't know and I am not her babysitter." I then requested if he could go out and search for her, again his response was negative. He refused to participate in anything concerning my daughter. I called Peter at least six or seven times that night, three different stories were told to me and never did I obtain any truth; I gave up.

Please note that "babysitter" is a disparagement of the 17 year old victim. 
Please also note that when the mother confronted Peter about the three different accounts, he did not respond. 

Disparagement of a victim is a red flag for guilt. 
As I found out more additional phone numbers of the people from New York Brittanee traveled with I called to no avail, those people would not answer my calls. In my frustration to get someone who could help, I contacted a friend of our family who was in the military hours away and requested of him to go there look for my daughter and to file a missing child report, and he did, immediately; I was already in route from my home with family and friends. 
Arriving in Myrtle Beach I learned Peter, a club promoter and his friends had left at 1:00 am to head back to Rochester, New York and that they had been asked to leave the hotel for remarks that were made to one of the hotel employees at the Blue Water Resort. He left his belongings and $100 deposit. 

please hear Peter's response about leaving at 1AM as he referenced "check out time" that was coming. 

Peter arrived in Rochester placing pictures on the Internet of him at barbeque and other fun activities, then he hired attorney, John Parinello. Brittanee had known him for five years and he displayed no empathy or concern of my missing daughter.

Dawn is referencing, quite naturally, Behavioral Analysis. 

-disparaged victim
-did not assist in search
-lawyered up immediately 
-showed no concern or empathy (see video)

In his appearance on the Dr. Phil Show, he was unwilling or unable to say he did not do it.  
The others who Brittanee rode with were still there, leaving two days later upon my arrival, but they only stayed that long due to the police questioning them. Not one person that was with my daughter helped me in any way, not one of them ever contacted me with concern or offered to any help, and not any of the  parents of these people to this day have reached out to help or console me in my grief. It was and still remains a hard thing for me to understand, most human beings have compassion for a total stranger, but not this group!
 I began to receive calls from my family and friends back in New York that these same people who were the last ones to see my daughter were posting nasty remarks about my daughter and mad because she ruined their vacation. 

Commentary:  It is difficult to believe that some can be this callous, but it is true. 

Their slanderous lies and horrible actions only aided the pain I was suffering along with all who love Brittanee Drexel

Note the use of the full name in context of defending Brittanee. This is very strong. 

But that is all they did, they have never told what happened or offered any additional help to my daughter's investigation, in my opinion. My daughter made mistakes and one of the largest ones she ever made was when she trusted this group of people with her life.

Brittanee was only 17 years old when she made this mistake; something that many of us, decades older, still make.  
I later found out that the girls in this group of people treated my daughter poorly and by Brittanee's text messages to her then boyfriend revealed how miserable she really was, Brittanee was also packed that day to leave.

Please note the context of contention and discord. 

 My daughter in well lit streets packed with beach vacationers from all over walked from the Bar Harbor to the Blue Water to get a pair of shoes she had left in a vehicle earlier that day. While walking, text messages rung in from Jenn wanting her shorts returned for the outing planned that night.  Then there is the infamous camera shot of my daughter entering the Blue Water and exiting, never to be seen or heard from again. My question is when she entered she went to the right, but the elevators were on the left? That has always bothered me because the only thing to the right is the hotel pool area.
Another item that has me concerned is supposedly my daughter went to the sixth floor to retrieve her shoes and that witnesses advised early in the investigation that they were watching the Red Sox Game and eating, but later I found out the game began at 4:10 pm that day ending at 7:45 pm this was way before my daughter went there. They claimed that was factual because Brittanee grabbed some food off a plate of an individual there. Brittanee was seen on the street camera in route to the Blue Water and the times just do not match up, period.
While my daughter was at the beach, her and this group visited a place called Club Kryptonite (now closed down). I fear only what may have gone on and many rumors over time have sent my imagination to some dark corners throughout my daughter's disappearance. Rumors alone have almost destroyed me at times. The fact that a body has not been found provides me a reasonable strength to press forward.
Did someone pick out my child that night? 

Please note the use of "child" in correlation to risk.  The word "child", (not "daughter") is connected with the risk of child abuse, and in context of mother, sadly, the "child" cannot be "protected", because she is missing.  This is the language of truth. 

Did the wrong person notice my beautiful daughter that night? Did a plan devise that night to take my daughter or a plan prior in place?  You see, this group of people had visited North and South Carolina before, Brittanee, although she wanted to think she was old enough, she was still just a child, not seeing the danger ahead.
How can my daughter arrive to a place and within sixty hours vanish? There were thousands of witnesses, yet not one person saw if she got into a vehicle, was forced against her will or even noticed her for the most part walking down the main road.
So many questions three years later that remain unanswered, leaving me and my family clinging to the hope that maybe after all the searches, all the media pleas and all the awareness campaigns, just maybe she could be alive? I am told to expect the worst, but how does a mother give up and not look for her child or ask the world to help her look.
Could my daughter be the next miracle story rescued from a human trafficking ring, or found by accident while being held captive by some freak or being used in some sort of sex slavery? Could someone with resources have taken my child on a plane or boat far away from the initial area and that is why no one to date knows anything of her whereabouts? These questions and a hundred more flood my late night thought and dreams.
Always note questions within a written statement. The subject may be asking herself this difficult question. 
Over the years I have had to deal with new announcements of what could have happened to my daughter; one year some local persons of interest possibly did something, to a registered sex offender possibility facing a clouded reality that my child may have been murdered.  No one can provide me facts, only possibilities. In any story the fact my daughter is missing is horrifying enough; the unthinkable projections eat at me daily. Some days I feel the need to be rescued!
In closing, I have to acknowledge through this horrible nightmare the one good thing is I have met so many wonderful southern community people, those who endlessly search for my child at the CUE Center for Missing Persons, all law enforcement agencies always giving countless hours in Brittanee's investigations, others that where total strangers, now almost like family (to all I am grateful for). My family and I could have never stayed the coarse with out each little and big act of kindness shown. I have been made aware that "good'' still does exist in the world.
But I want and need my child back, I am broken, my family and friends are broken, we linger in a constant trauma of the ugly "unknown" fate of a missing child, my daughter, Brittanee Marie Drexel.
Dawn Drexel
Mother of Missing, Brittanee Drexel

Note heavy use of the pronoun, "I"
Compare this to other mothers; specifically:
Deborah Bradley
Rebecca Celis
Billie Jean Dunn

These mothers clung to the pronoun "we" as strongly as Dawn clings to the pronoun, "I."

This is a truthful statement.  

Brittanee Drexel Disappearance

17 Year Old

Brittanee Drexel disappeared in 2009 while on Spring Break.

In the Dr. Phil Show, Dr. Phil gave Peter Brozowitz an open ended opportunities to say "I didn't do it" and he comes across obnoxious, high minded, and used distancing and calloused language regarding Brittanee, 17.

Is it:  Guilty knowledge, or just an obnoxious 20 year old?

The truly innocent (not just judicially) will say "I didn't do it" early and often.  They will produce the pronoun, "I", along with the past tense verb "did not" or the casual, "didn't" and then address whatever issue is being raised in the interview.

"I didn't cause Brittanee's disappearance" is the simplest and easiest of statements.  A de facto innocent will not hesitate to produce the pronoun "I" in the denial.  He may say "would never" but only in correlation with "didn't" or "did not."

A reliable denial has three (3) components.  If the denial has 2, or more than 3, it is "unreliable."

I.  The use of the pronoun "I"
II.  The past tense verb, "did not" or "didn't"
III.  The specific allegation

Examples of unreliable denials;

"Didn't do it"
"I would never harm her"
"I have no idea"
"I didn't do nothing"

Regarding the statements by Peter Brozowitz, he was unwilling or unable to, during the course of the video, to bring himself to say "I didn't do it" even though Dr. Phil asked him if he wanted to say something to "set the record straight."

Brozowitz did not issue a reliable denial.  It is sometimes difficult to get law enforcement to accept this principle, as it appears too simplistic, which is why Dillingham's research on law enforcement scoring poorly in detecting deception is so well evidenced and exampled.

Typically, a newspaper headline will say "So and So Denies Allegation..." but in the statements, there is no denial.

Statement Analysis does not interpret: it listens.

Statement Analysis Principle:

If someone is unable or unwilling to say "I didn't do it", we are not permitted to say it for him. 

There are not enough statements from him to make a conclusion about guilt or innocence.

1.  He did not issue reliable denial.
2.  He gave insult to the victim "not a babysitter" regarding the 17 year old. Disparaging the victim is a red flag for guilt.  We don't hang our hat on just one indicator, but when taken along with his other statements, particularly avoiding the reliable denial, it is very concerning.

When a denial is parroted from an Interviewer, it is not reliable.  It must come from the Free Editing Process in which the subject is speaking freely, choosing his own words.

If the denial has four components (more than three), it is unreliable.  The innocent leave it alone, simply, as a denial, as they do not feel the need for emphasis.  It is the strength of knowing that something cannot be proven because the subject did not do it.  This is the underlining confidence, that even in the polygraph, the nervous person will not experience fluctuation in results:  they are nervous all the way through, whether answering their address, or the allegation.

Linguistically, it is the same.

Have You Ever Told A Lie?

I ask this question, "Have you ever told a lie?" knowing that anyone who says "no" is not truthful, and I know from both experience and research that one who claims to have never lied, nor ever stolen something, even inadvertently, is going to trouble me, one way or another.

We are fallen creatures and all prone to make mistakes.  What makes us better people is the ability to learn from our mistakes.

What can one learn from a mistake if one never makes a mistake?

"Have you ever stolen anything?" is next up in the job application and interview procedure, as I help companies weed out liars.  (see next article)

Liars trouble companies. Liars put themselves first and foremost, before all, and bring trouble in for companies, in creative ways...ways that most HR have heard, but sometimes feel that upper management will not always believe.

Chiefly, liars put themselves first, and this means...

my back hurts...

I'm being sexually harassed...

So and So is doing such and such...

and on it goes.

The bottom line is that the liar does not hold the company's best interest at heart, and may even think that others exist for his benefit.

Recall the articles (and examples!) of tweaking the pride of the liar?

Call her a murderer, or call her a neglectful mother, and she could care less.

Call her a liar and she will rush down to the police station and take that polygraph, only to utterly fail it!

Liars hold the world in contempt.

They believe, from childhood, that they can pull the wool over the eyes of anyone, hence, the contempt.

This same contempt in the work place leaves the liar believing that the company owes her a living.

Remember the haughty attitude of not only Casey Anthony but her brother?

Remember the ad he put in the newspaper for a "personal assistant"?

It was an unpaid position, but the assistant had to have a college degree.

Something Lee Anthony did not have.

Liars are troublesome in all life.

Have you ever told a lie?

Yes, and I have regretted it. It was selfish and cowardly.

Monday, April 21, 2014

Haleigh Cummings: Misty Croslin 911 Call

"I loved that little girl like she was my own" said Misty Croslin hours after making the 911 call to report Haleigh Cummings missing.

We note that Haleigh was supposed to be "missing", Misty in speaking to a reporter, already referenced her in the past tense.  Not only did she say "loved", but also used the distancing language of the word "that" with regard to Haliegh.  We saw the same thing from Patsy Ramsey, as guilt can cause one to distance oneself from a child.

As we continue to look at the case, we not only see signals of deception in Misty Croslin's language, but what do you make of Ronald Cummings?  

Statement Analysis: Misty 911 Call
911 transcript for missing Haleigh Cummings .

911: “911, what’s your emergency”

Misty Croslin: “Hi…umm…I just woke up…and our backdoor was wide open and I think…and I can’t find our daughter

Note the call begins with a greeting.  Most guilty callers in homicides begin with a greeting where innocent callers have an urgency that bypasses politeness.

Note the order in which she speaks. Order is important to note. Whether it is the chronological order in which you name your children, your siblings, or even the names of friends, order has reason. It an "excited utterance", order speaks directly of the importance.

Here, Misty tells the 911 operator 3 things:

1. That she was asleep. This is THE single most important element for the caller: that the police know she was asleep and has now just woke up.

2. That "our backdoor was wide open".

Notice that the 2nd most important thing for the police to know is about the backdoor being wide open. Misty says "our" backdoor; not "the" backdoor. Pronoun gives us ownership. "the backdoor" would be a common phrase used by any caller since the caller is from the residence. For Misty, the most important fact for the police to know is that she was sleeping; secondly, that the backdoor was open; not just the backdoor, but "our" backdoor, plural.

3. Thirdly, and lastly, she reports a missing child.

It is commonsense to suppose that if your child was missing, it would be the very first thing out of your mouth. It is a reflex by not only a parent, but a step parent, a relative, a caretaker, a babysitter. In Misty Croslin's mind, it is low on the list of priority.

We deem this 911 call to be deceptive; even from the onset.

Why did Misty say "our daughter"?

When a parent says "our" daughter, or "our" son, this is an indicator that a step parent, (or step caretaker, etc) is likely involved. When biological parents speak, it is not the norm for them to say "our daughter" as they, even when speaking together, still use the natural, "my" daughter.

The exception may be when parents have already discussed divorce and will lead, eventually, to step parenting because one of the parents may have been involved with another love interest.

President Clinton, after the Monica Lewinsky scandal, said he need to repair things with his mother, his wife, and "our daughter"; a strong indication that he and Hillary had discussed divorce. (Another strong indication at that time was the black eye that President Clinton sported after he told the country that his definition of sexual relations was not the same as most others; Hillary included).

Why did Misty rely upon the plural in both "our back door" and "our daughter"?

Had Misty already considered herself a step parent, it makes sense. She said, "them kids loved me like they was my own..." (past tense language noted).

But why "our" door? The norm would not have been "my back door" unless the person lived alone. Even then, the common: "the door".

Note: When someone says I must make the bed, they are likely married. When someone says they must make "my bed" they are likely single. When a married person says, "I must make my bed" they are likely headed for divorce and are already taking ownership. For married couples, "the" is the norm. "The" dog is a family dog, but "my" dog is taken care of by one person more than the others.

Since Misty is in her residence, it is a red flag that she does not use the norm.

This leads to the question: why?

could it be that Misty has been coached? This would explain the plural use here and with "our" daughter.

Misty also began a sentence with "I think..." but did not complete it. Fragmented sentences show stress as they are fragmented thoughts. What did she think? Was an explanation of what she thinks happened about to follow?

911: “you can’t find what?”

Misty Croslin:”our daughter”

Misty revisits the plural language of step parenting, or a prepared or coached call.

911:” OK, what’s your address?

Misty Croslin: “(inaudible)”

911: “OK, what’s the numerical?”

Misty Croslin: “The numerical…what’s that?”

911: “the number…green lane?”

Misty Croslin: “Yes”

911: “OK when did you last see her?”

Misty Croslin: “Um, we like just, you know…it was about 10 o’clock- she was sleeping- I was cleaning…
Here is another indicator of deception. The 911 operator asked about the last time Misty saw Haleigh. This is a sensitive question. Misty was asked when was the last time "you" saw her. Misty is unable to take ownership and begins with "um" stalling to think (a parent on high alert has adrenaline pumping overtime and has VIVID recall) and then weakens her statement with "we like just", "you know" ("you know" is often a phrase, but it is also employed to convince rather than report. This is supposed to be an informative call; not an editorialized story nor a building of an alibi. Misty began the call building her alibi; not reporting)

Misty said she was sleeping, but did not answer the question precisely, but immediatley changed the subject back away from the missing child to herself:

"I was cleaning"

NOTE: cleaning, laundry, bathing, showering, washing of hands: when enter into a statement further exploration for sexual abuse must begin, as these phrases are commonly used in cases where sexual abuse has taken place. In a child's language (or an adult recalling childhood abuse) we often have the mentioning of blankets, coverings, opening of doors, and closing of doors

What would Misty's cleaning have to do with Haleigh's disappearance. This is building of an alibi for Misty, even if it does not appear sensible. Look at the number of sentences that Misty spoke reporting a missing child.

How many sentences were about the missing child?
How many sentences were about Misty?

911: “OK- how old is your daughter?”

Misty Croslin: “She’s five”

911: “Ok…what was she last seen wearing? Maam…”

Misty Croslin: “She was in her pajamas- she was sleeping…”
Misty mentions now, for the 2nd time, that Haleigh was sleeping. The question was answered, but additional information is given. When information appears unimportant, in Statement Analysis, we consider it doubly important. It is vital that the 911 operator understand, from Misty's viewpoint, that Haleigh was sleeping.

I believe from Misty's emphasis that Haleigh was, at this time, not sleeping. For Misty, Haleigh being asleep is too important. I do not believe that Haleigh died in her sleep.

911: “OK…alright…You said your back door was wide open?”

Misty Croslin: “yes- it was bricked- there was a brick on the floor…when I was asleep it was not like that.”
Here, in Misty's language, enters a brick. "it was bricked"; not "it was open" nor even "it was held open by a brick". For Misty, being "bricked" means the brick had control over the door. But as quickly as Misty mentions the door and the brick, she immediatley states again that she, Misty, was alseep, and that at that time, there was nothing "bricked". I believe that this language may suggest the manner in which Haleigh died or was disposed of. It is in Misty's language for good reason.

When Texas Equasearch Tim Miller went to Casey Anthony's home, Cindy would not cooperate with the search, as she insisted Caylee was alive. "George and I don't believe Caylee's in the woods, or anything". Caylee was found less than a half mile from her house, in the woods. "George and I" rather than she, herself, reduces committment to the statement, as she does not wish to own this statement alone. The "woods" was in her mind likely because she knew that Caylee's remains were out in the woods, subject to wild animals and bug life.

911: Ok…the back door…listen to me…your back door was wide open…what are you talking about a brick?”

Misty Croslin: “(inaudible)”

911: “what is a brick?”

Misty Croslin: “it’s almost like– on the stairs- we have a walkway…”

911:” uh huh….and there was a brick laying there?”

Misty Croslin: “yes…it’s still there”
Misty identifies the cinder block for the 911 operator. She now identifies where a block may be found, at the crime scene.

(background) tell them they’ve better come on…

911: “we’ve got em coming- tell him we’ve got them coming”

Misty Croslin: “they’re coming”

911: “Ok what’s the color of your house ma’am?

Misty Croslin: “blue”

911: “blue, OK
OK- what does she look like? How tall is she? Give me some description of her.”

Misty Croslin: “How tall she she? Like long hair like curly…with curls..
Misty answers a question with a question, meaning that this is a senstive question to her and she needs time to think. Even with Turner's Syndrome and doctor appointments, Misty likely does not know Haleigh's height and weight. The parent that brings a child repeatedly to a doctor knows this instantly. Usually one parent knows and the other doesn't, as both generally cannot make regular doctor appointments, but Haleigh was a special needs child and the height and weight is likely taken at every appointment. Misty will struggle if asked for specifics. Misty does not answer how tall she is, nor eye color, or hair color. All she can say is that her hair is curly. This is the excited utterance and reference for Misty: seeing Haleigh's curly hair. Was Haleigh wounded in the head? Was the head used to attach a brick? Was she hit with a brick and "shut up" by someone? Was she face down in the bed with curly hair showing? Curly hair is the answer Misty gives to how tall is Haleigh. This is what was in her mind. 

911: “long curls…what color?”

Misty Croslin: “(inaudible)”

911:” ok- what color hair? Brown hair?”

Misty Croslin: “Yes…oh my gosh….”
The 911 operator struggles to get answers. Misty appears to be in a panic over these questions, but was not in a panic when she first reported Haleigh missing. These are specific questions but they are not difficult questions. The 911 operator is now asking compound questions; likely out of frustration. Compound questions are to be avoided. They allow the subject to answer any question that is easist to answer. It is often done by television hosts who enjoy hearing their own voice more than the answers by the subject. Here, it is a sign of frustration as questions are not being answered in a timely manner.

30 April 2010 UPDATE.

Here are some follow up comments from others:

I think Misty's "I don't wanna. ..." may be "I don't wanna do this..(go along with the lies) or maybe "I don't wanna go to prison for the rest of my life."

The lack of height and the hair issue. Sounds to me the last thing she saw was someone carrying Haleigh out the door in their arms, limp, with her hair hanging down.

Leads me to still think Haleigh ingested something, Misty told Ronald this, she wanted to take the child to the hospital, he said no, then Haleigh died. Maybe Ronald did try to call her and maybe she didn't want to pick up because she didn't know how to tell Ronald his kid was dead.

I wonder if someone was dropping off drugs while Ronald was at work and he blames them for leaving them in the house assessible to Haleigh.

As to the birth date, I don't think Ronald wanted to remember her birth date...if she hadn' been born, then this shit wouldn't have happened to him. F@(K her birthdate..."

Interesting comments!

911: “OK- how tall is she about? Or how much does she weigh…do you know that?”

Misty Croslin: “huh?”

911: “about how tall or how much she weigh?”

Misty Croslin: “24 sounds about right- I don’t know- she’s not that tall….”

911: “OK-wait- tell your husband we’ve got them coming, ok?”

Misty Croslin: “OK”

911: “How much does she weigh- do you know?”
Misty Croslin: “huh?”

The 911 Operator gets it. She understands now that Misty does not know and she must slow down and ask questions in a more simpler fashion. Do you know?? This shows te frustration.

Misty has yet to answer the specific questions about Haleigh, even though the 911 operator has been asking repeatedly. Misty is in a sensitive area. She was able to report the open door, the brick, and sleeping, without a problem. Now the focus is solely upon Haleigh and Misty is stumbling badly. If it was nerves, it would have showed itself from the beginning. Misty's responses are distinctly troubled now.

911: “How much does she weigh?”The 911 operator skillfully goes back to simple questions; one at a time. She is not going to get "she's about 4' tall, 41 lbs, blue eyes and brown hair" from Misty Croslin, as she would have from any parent, step parent, aunt, uncle, friend, or babysitter.

Misty Croslin: “um…like 40-50 pounds- 60 pounds?

911: “40-60 pounds?”

Misty Croslin: “yeah”
This is a huge spread for a 5 year old child, who has Turner's Syndrome, has to be under a doctor's care, and is tiny due to her growth problems. 40 lbs is one answer, but 60 lbs is a large percentage swing. It would be like saying that an adult female is between 120 lbs and 180 lbs. It is not credible, as a parent could attest. For a parent, who's tiny child may be 41 lbs, a jump of 10 percent would be a reason to celebrate; as it is noteworthy, given her condition.

911: “OK- let me get your name and phone number. Spell your last name…

spell your last name?

Was your back door locked do you know?”

Misty Croslin: “Yes…(inaudible)”

Ronald Cummings: “Man, I need somebody to get here now!”

This is a more normal response, "I" first person singular. The first person singular is what we would expect to hear from a biological parent, from the beginning.

911: “OK, let me speak to him…”

Ronald Cummings: “I just got home from work, my five-year-old daughter is gone- I need someone here now.”

Ronald says 3 things also. The order is important. What is first and foremost in the mind of Ronald Cummings that he wishes the police to know?

1. That he was at work ,and just came home.
2. his 5 year old daughter is missing.
3. He (singular) needs someone (unspecified) to come to his home.

911: “OK, listen to me…listen to me…we’ve got two officers…”

Ronald Cummings: “if I find whoever has my daughter before you all do, I’m killing them…I don’t care- I will spend the rest of my life in prison….you can put that on the recording…I don’t care.”

This is understandable for any parent who believes his child is kidnapped; to see vengence. It is only problematic for the reason that we do not know that Haleigh has been kidnapped. How does he not know that she simply walked off? Most kids are found near the home, wandering away. Is it the open door that leads him to believe a kidnapping has occured?

He makes a fatalistic sounding statement: He will spend the rest of his life in prison. Why? For killing? Isn't Florida the death penalty? Does he think a jury might not have mercy on a father who rescued his kidnapped child?


does he have reason to believe that he will spend the rest of his life in prison? Why did this unusual statement cross his mind?

Statistics and studies are done on 911 calls, and in specific, missing children, and domestic homicide. This call has begun with deception. Why does a 911 call to report a missing child NEED to be deceptive?

Is Ronald just beside himself with grief? It would appear that he is aware that the 911 call is being recorded and it is important enough for him to not only think it, but to actually speak it to the 911 operator. Is Ronald Cummings thinking that he is going to get life in prison? Why? Is he wild with anxiety over a missing child, or is he burning with anger?

When a child is reported missing by family who is not involved in the disappearance, the family is reported to be in a state of shock and even denial, for a period of time. The innocent do act like the parents who take polygraphs immediately, answer quesitons quickly and honestly, and then go out and search without delay. They appear to be almost like andrenaline junkies who's survival hormones and protective capacities are on full alert and have all the energy in the world to run and search for their child. They are often coached by law enforcement to sit still while others search, stay near the phone, and provide as much information as possible.

Ronald is not in the shock stage and has moved way past denial and is now seeking vengence. What does he know that he speaks this early in the case, of vengeance?

911: “It’s OK sir, we’ve got them on the way…ok- can you give me…what kind of description of pajamas was she wearing? “

Ronald Cummings: “I don’t f%$ know!”

Cummings:” Hello”

911:” OK sir let me just talk to your wife. Let me get some information from her. “

Misty: (inaudible) crying. “I don’t wanna…(inaudible)”

We don't know what Misty said, but by judging how she did under specific questions, it is not unreasonable for her to say "I don't wanna talk to them again!" meaning the 911 operator. Misty was fine when giving her possibly prepared speech, but when it came to questions, she buckled and couldn't even give a simple, basic and general description of Haleigh. Misty has the exact opposite reaction of a parental rush of adrenaline: she doesn't want to talk; she doesn't want to assist. Misty has a reason not to help locate Haleigh Cummings.

911: “Can I talk to her? OK”

Misty: “inaudible”

Cummings: (inaudible, in background ) “Where my daughter at?”

Is Ronald asking this presupposing that Misty knows where Haleigh is?

911:” Ma’am. OK listen I need you to answer some questions. Does the door look like it was pried open?”

Misty:” Umm… (inaudible)”

911 Operator is frustrated by this point and begins to make mistakes. She is actually coaching Misty on how to answer. This is why we ask open ended questions and seek to NOT introduce language to the subject: let her speak her own words at all times. Direct quesitons teach a subject to lie; as we teach them what WE know, and where WE are going with our questioning.

911: “Does it look like you had to sorta…like someone tried to enter your house.”

Misty: “Umm. Hold On.”

This is a major red flag.

Does she need to check with Ronald to see if this line is where she wants to go? Why would she need affirmation? She already said the back door was "bricked" open.

911:” And another thing, make sure you and your husband don’t touch the door anymore. Don’t mess with the door or anything. “

Misty: “No it doesn’t. “

It isn't what? We don't know. Misty did not answer questions as they were asked, as simple as they were. "it doesn't" what? We don't know the answer. We can guess: "it doesn't look like someone tried to enter?" We do know that Misty appeared to need Ronald's guidance for an answer to another simple question; much like we saw on the TV interview where Misty, unable to answer, just looked up to Ronald for guidance.

911: “it doesn’t look like it is?”

Misty: “No”

911: “Ok, now listen, tell your husband, do not touch anything- because we are going to get a k-9 out there”

Misty: “ok….she said don’t touch anything because they are bringing a k-9 out here”

Ronald Cummings: “they better bring f’ing something out here- because if I get my hands on that mother f’er I’m going to kill him…I don’t give a f%*)@# about prison…mother F’ing prison doesn’t scare me.”

Ronald is a violent man and is speaking his own language. This is his norm; his way of life. He threatens the "whoever" has his daughter, he threatens the police, and reiterates that he is going to prison.

Why would a distraught, disbelieving, shocked father of a five year old child continue to speak about prison?

"Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh"/

It is fair to ask yourself, how would I handle this? Would you be threatening? Would you have the bravado to say that prison doesn't frighten you? Would you even be thinking of prison, or being unafraid, or anything other than your missing child?

When pictures of Casey Anthony partying while her daughter was "missing" surfaced, Jose Baez floated the soon to sink "ugly coping" defense (she celebrated). But Cindy, in defense of Casey said, "there's no book on greiving, you know".

Actually, there is.

There is lots and lots of data collected, including how innocent and how guilty parents react when their children are reported missing. Federal law enforcement articles (the FBI Law Bulletin) and research (LSI) from thousands of polygraphs exist to guide us. There is a "book" response.

For innocent parents who find their children have gone missing? It is shock, and disbelief. Their hope sometimes continues even into denial, when they learn their child is deceased. Then they grieve, but anger is not the initial response.

Ronald is way past shock, disbelief, denial, and energetic searching. He is angry and his mind continues to go back to prison.

911:” ok, we understand- we’ve got them on the way

What’s her name…{redacted}…how do you spell her first name…{redacted}…what’s her middle name? …{redacted}. And the spelling of the last name is? …{redacted}.”

Misty: “well, that’s my last name”

911: “What’s her date of birth?

This question is way too much for Misty Croslin. What every parent would know, immediatley, is not for Misty even though she, on the same day said, "I loved that little girl like she was my own." Not only did she speak of a missing child in the past tense (an indicator that Misty knew already that Haleigh was dead) but that Misty was likely, and sadly, telling the truth. She likely would have raised a child in the manner of neglect that her parents raised her. I wouldn't be stunned to learn that Misty's father didn't know Misty's own date of birth.

Ronald Cummings: “i’m going to f’ing kill somebody”

Ron has made this abundantly clear. He is all about the rage and anger and is actually not convincing people he is a distraught dad, but is speaking the language that may be more familiar to him than loving parental protective instincts:


911:”Tell him we understand- we need to get her date of birth.”

Misty: “what’s her date of birth?”

Ronald Cummings: “F her date of birth- we need to find her- f her date of birth.”

Even in the most vulnerable position of needing help from others, Ronald is hostile and uncooperative with the law. Why would he not cooperate with them? Is he simply running out of patience?

911: ” Ok Listen to me, I’m getting this information- I’m not the officer driving out there ok? - they are coming out there to handle that situation. I need to gather all the information from you over the phone…it has nothing to do with me driving out there…ok? They are coming out there…ok?”

Misty: “ok”

911: “ok, I’m going to stay on the phone with you ok? Until they get there…ok?”

Misty: “ok”
(backgroud noise)

911: “tell him we’ve got them coming, he’s got to calm down a little bit. The officers are going to come out there and do what they can. We can’t have him screaming and yelling at the officers whenever they get there ok?”

By now, the 911 Operator has already warned the officers that they have a violent man, likely high on drugs, and may need to protect themselves. Local responders may already be well familiar with Ronald Cummings.

Misty:” Uh huh…”

Ronald Cummings: “where is my f’ing phone…we’ve got better people to talk to then some mother f’ers who ain’t coming.”

"How you let my daughter get stole, bitch?"
Ronald has the wherewithall to remind Misty of her substatus of "bitch" and is able to still maintain control by fear over her, subordinating her with the common language of domestic violence.

To him, Misty let his daughter get "stole".

Why doesn't he think Haliegh just wandered off? Why "stole"? Why does he blame Misty now, but shortly after, would marry her?

On its whole, the 911 call's intent is to alert police of a missing child.

It is deceptive. It is not only deceptive, but it appears to be setting an alibi and possibly a staged emotional reaction from Ronald.

Ronald's rage may be indicative that he knew his drug dealing had brought trouble to his home; or it could be something worse; that he is actually staging his reaction, after coaching Misty on how to report this to police.

It appears from Misty's pauses that she was being coached by Ronald Cummings.

Why would he coach the person responsible for letting his daughter get "stole"?

Why would he marry her?

Why would he reveal to her that Texas Equasearch had someone speaking to Misty to help find Haleigh?

What motivated Ronald Cummings to protect Misty from revealing the truth about his daughter, who's own name appears so difficult for his lips to frame and say?

Sunday, April 20, 2014

Ronald Cummings Statement Analysis

Let's use the principles of Statement Analysis to take a look at Ronald Cumming's interview with Geraldo, shortly after Misty reported to police that Haleigh had gone missing.

Misty was deceptive, and Ron was not home when Haleigh was removed from the home.

My analysis has shown that Haliegh was dead when she was brought out of the home, and she was likely a victim of sexual abuse, and her body thrown into water.

As we look back now, we are able to ask:

What did Ron know?
When did Ron know?  Later, Ron covered for his wife/girlfriend Misty Croslin and was part of a conspiracy of silence.

He and Misty were involved in the drug trade and eventually were given long prison sentences for drugs, and did not confess to Haliegh's death.

Haleigh was surrounded by drugs, neglect, sexual abuse and violence.  Her short life was tragic and was part of a culture destroyed by drugs.  Misty had been sexually abused in her childhood and it was part of their culture, something readily accepted. Remember her grandmother, Flora Hollers, on The Nancy Grace Show?  She said if Misty was sexually abused, she "probably enjoyed it" while a child.  This was a snap shot into the culture.  

Geraldo Confronts Haleigh Cummings' Dad
Sunday, February 22, 2009

The following transcript is Geraldo's confrontation with Ronald Cummings, father of missing 5-year-old Haleigh Cummings. In the confrontation, Geraldo asks him about allegations he'd abused Haleigh, her biological mother and drug use.

RIVERA: "Chad and Marcus told me that during the vigil, you told them you were 75 percent sure who took Haleigh."

CUMMINGS: "There is no way — I do not know who took Haleigh. If I had — if I had, uh, five percent of where Haleigh was at, I would be there now and not here."

First he says, "There is no way" but does not finish his sentence and we cannot be certain what he is referencing. "There is no way that I know who did it?" Perhaps, but we do not know.

"I do not know who took Haleigh" in an open statement is quite strong; however, it is reduced in strength because he uses Geraldo's words back to Geraldo; therefore we cannot consider it unprompted.  When someone says, unprompted, "I didn't do it" it is likely to be true; yet when it is in response to "Did you do it?", "No, I didn't do it" as a response, is easier to lie, and not as a trustworthy of a denial.

It is parroted language; not from the free editing process.  

It could be that at this time he doesn't know who took Haleigh; Misty or Tommy Croslin, or he could be saying that he doesn't know the person or persons that took her, or he could be lying. Note also he uses Haleigh's proper name here. It is also noted that Geraldo used Haleigh's name first, so its use is not open but a reflection. Note all language that is independent of a reflection back to the subject of the interview.

"If I had — if I had, uh, five percent of where Haleigh was at, I would be there now and not here."

Here the repetition of "If I had, if I had" is a show that he is under stress. This is to be expected under the circumstances. 2 "I's" in a statement by a non-stutter shows stress. 3 is anxiety. 6 is likley a hospitalization/nervous break down to follow. 9 is only found in homicides.

"...five percent"

Ronald answers Geraldo's charge that he, Ronald, told others he knew who took Haleigh with "75%" certainty.

In Ronald's own language, he now lowers that percentage to "5%"

This use of "%" in language is an indication that Ronald uses percentages as part of his normal speech, since he has offered this to Geraldo. It indicates that when he denied saying "75%" to others, that he was being deceptive. It may be that he did not tell the two specific people named by Geraldo, but that he did likely tell someone that he was "75%" sure he knew who took Haleigh.

This is our first indication of deception in this interview. We do not take a statement and call it unreliable on just one indicator.

"I would be there, not here."

Ronald affirms that if he had even 5% knowledge, far less than 75%, of where Haleigh was, he would be "there" and not "here".

"there" is a specific place; just as "here" is a specific place, where Ronald and Geraldo stood. This may be an indicator that Ronald knew where Haleigh was taken. Ronald says he would be "there" and not that Haleigh would be home. This may be an indication that Ronald knows that Haleigh is deceased.

It would sound more natural to say that if he knew where Haleigh was, she would be brought home where she would be safe; not that Ronald would be with her "there", which represents danger as well as distance.

RIVERA: "Did you tell them that, though? Maybe you weren’t — maybe you were just were just — are they lying?"

Geraldo asks a compound question, a mistake in Interviewing. By asking a compound question, in an investigation, or even a hiring interview, it allows the subject of the interview to pick and choose which question to answer.

CUMMINGS: "Yes, they’re absolutely lying. No, for no reason have I ever told anybody that I have any clue where my child is at. If I had any clue where my child — you know, national TV, they’re a bunch of liars. Chad and whoever told you this are a bunch of liars. I never even spoke with them."

absolutely This is an extra word. Extra words give us extra information and weakens the denial of having told two others that he was 75% sure who had caused Haleigh to go missing. "They're lying" is strong, but the addition of the qualifier weakens the assertion.

"No, for no reason have I ever told anybody that I have any clue where my child is at. "

This is an unusual response. Ronald is upset and this can be likened to the legal term for "excited utterance" where emotions are high. He is now answering the question "why", which was not posed to him. It indicates increased sensitivity. The whereabouts of Haleigh is something that is highly sensitive. Ronald tells us that "for no reason", which is not a denial of "did you tell anybody" but that he had no reason to tell anybody.

"ever" weakens the assertion. It is an extra word and is not necessary to complete the sentence, therefore can be viewed as important to us.

"that I have any clue"

This is different than what was asked. He was asked if he told individuals that he knew, with 75% certainty, who had taken Haleigh. We have already seen that Ronald does speak in percentages, not simply repeating Geraldo, but using a different number, taking ownership of the expression.

"100 percent not guilty" when used in court will statistically point to guilt.

Ronald was not asked if he had "any clue" who took Haleigh. Ronald's own language went from who took Haleigh to location "there", shifting the focus away from who might have taken her, to where she had already been taken.

He is not telling us that he has "no clue" as to who took Haleigh, but that he has "no clue" as to where Haleigh is. Ronald was not asked this question, which makes location central to Ronald's thinking.

"...where my child is."

Note that Ronald uses "my" personal pronoun.

He also uses "child", which is associated with abuse. Parents who are concerned that their child may have been abused, or could be abused will use the word "child". It is not an indication that of who, including Ronald, may have abused Haleigh, only that it indicates that abuse is on the mind. If Haleigh was kidnapped, this would be an expected response for any parent who believes a their son or daughter to be kidnapped would be thinking of abuse.

Ronald states that he does not have a clue where Haleigh is at. The issue is that he was not asked where Haleigh was at, but rather the subject was "who" took Haleigh, and if Ronald knew who took her. At this point, Ronald redirects the interview away from who may have taken Haleigh, and shifted it to where Haleigh was taken to.

"I never even spoke with them."

In Statement Analyis, never does not mean "no". We have the extra, unnecessary word, "even", which adds emphasis. This is likely an indication that Ronald spoke with both of them and is lying.

RIVERA: "They told — they told me that you hit Haleigh. Is that true?"

CUMMINGS: "No. Never, ever have I ever hit my child. Me and my child have an agreement. Daddy, daughter. She has been spanked on her behind the way DCF says that you can take care of disciplining your children."

Statement Analysis: never does not mean "no".

Ronald makes an emphasis with the denial, "no" but then weakens the denial with "never", an extra word. But then he adds "ever" further indicating a weakening of the denial suggesting deception. Haleigh is again referred to as "child" which indicates abuse, or fear of abuse. "my" shows possession. The denial appears weak, and it is likely that he hit Haleigh.

"Me and my child have an agreement."

Notice the order: Ronald comes before his child.

In Statement Analysis, order is always significant.

Note also the absence of Haleigh's name while talking about Haleigh being hit. They have an "agreement" between them. Did 5 year old Haleigh enter into a an agreement with her father? An agreement suggests the cooperation of both parties. > Itis unusual language and weakens Ronald's credibility as he is seeking to show that Haleigh, age 5, approved of this agreement. Had Haleigh never been abused by Ronald, why would such an agreement be necessary.

"Daddy, daughter" repeatsthe word, and emphasizes order again.

He has claimed that Haleigh has never "ever" been hit (repeat emphasis sign of deception) but then says,

"she has been spanked on her behind"

Notice passive language. He does not say by whom Haleigh has been hit. He removes himself from the statement; distancing himself from hitting Haleigh. She has been spanked. Since she likely did not spank herself, and no one else is added, we can only conclude that Ronald did the spanking.

"...the way DCF says that you can take care of disciplining your children."

Ronald says the way DCF says that youcan; not that he can. This reduces commitment and continues to remove himself from responsibility.

He says the spanking is the way DCF says. This means that Ronald may have had another way of disciplining Haleigh.

The inclusion of DCF answers the question, "what agreement?". It is likely that DCF workers confronted Ronald Cummings about hitting his child and that he signed a Family Agreement, that he would no longer do so, but only spank her on the rear end. Haleigh may have been in the room when this "agreement" was reached if the DCF social workers thought it necessary to bind Ronald to the agreement. The reason DCF would put this in writing is that should they receive evidence that Ronald has violated his agreement, they would use this to present to the court in order to remove Haleigh from his custody. For many agencies, having a parent sign a Family Agreement (it is under various names from varying states) is the final step, along with parenting classes, that they take before seeking court ordered protection. The written agreement may have included other issues, common to such documents, as parenting classes, random drug tests, etc. This may be the "agreement" that he and Haleigh had. "Daddy, daughter" is used to establish authority, as Ronald likely felt his authority threatened by the Department of Children and Families consideration to seek court ordered protection for Haleigh.

"disciplining your children"; not Ronald's children. Language shows distancing. He did not say "disciplining my children".

Haleigh was not just spanked, she was spanked by someone. Ronald conceals the identity. Remember this is in response to Geraldo's statement about Ronald hitting Haleigh.

Ronald's answer shows deception, as his claim of "never ever" been hit, to his passive admission that she has been hit, howbeit now "spanked", and that to be on the behind, which most people would assume a spanking means. The added words "on the behind" tell us that Ronald:

a has hit Haleigh before
b. he has hit Haleigh in other places besides the behind, which is not DCF way

and now he is limited to only her behind by the agreement he made with Haleigh.

RIVERA: You never backhanded her to the face?

CUMMINGS: [OVERLAP] Never. Never have I ever backhanded my child in the face, ever.

Never does not mean no. We have a double response, weaking the denial. Ronald does not use her name and reflects back only Geraldo's language. This would lead me to believe that Ronald has hit Haleigh in the face, specifically by use of his backhand. Notice that Ronald puts the first person singular back into the sentence: we have "never", and "never" and "ever" in the same sentence, further indicating deception. Ronald does not call her "Haleigh" here, but only "my child" again, indicating concern over child abuse. The absence of the proper name is an indication, here, that Ronald is again concerned about child abuse. He has been investigate by the State of Florida for child abuse, as he referenced his dealing with DCF.

RIVERA: "Did you hit Crystal when she was pregnant?"

CUMMINGS: "No. I did not. Never."

No, I did not, is a strong denial by itself, but then it is weakened with the additional word "never" and is an indication that Ronald is being deceptive about domestic violence with Crystal. When he says "never" is he referring to only "never while she was pregnant" or is it inclusive of all time?

RIVERA: "You didn’t hit her in the back of the head and kick her?"

CUMMINGS: "No. No. I never have."

3 negatives in one sentence. This is indicative of lying. There is no reflection back to Geraldo of the language that Geraldo used. It is likely that he did hit her in the back of the head and kick her, specifically.

RIVERA: "You swear to God you never hit your pregnant woman?"

CUMMINGS: [OVERLAP] Never. Never, never have I ever hit any woman, period. Never. And I’d like to know where all these allegations are coming from because I would like to talk — talk to law enforcement and have these false allegations, um, known that, um, the false allegations against me, somebody needs criminal charges pressed against them."

In this one sentence, we now have the denial 4 times, indicating deception in even stronger terms. Never. Never. Never. Ever. But before that, we have another principle in Statement Analysis:

If your subject has not answered your question, he has answered your question.

Ronald was asked if he would swear that he never hit his pregnant woman

Ronald does not answer the question ,but instead broadens it to "any" woman, and then adds the unnecessary emphasis, "period". This leads me to believe that Ronald has hit more than just one woman in his life. He introduces the subject of more women, than just Crystal, who Geraldo asked about being hit while pregnant. This investigation would then seek the names of prior girlfriends, and look for past allegations of domestic violence, Protection from Abuse Orders, and the possible intervention of Domestic Violence Shelters or Counselors into the lives of women involved with Ronald Cummings.

RIVERA: What about the allegations of cocaine use, methamphetamine use?

CUMMINGS: There’s nothing. I do not do drugs.

Ronald did not answer the question about allegations, plural, of cocaine and meth use. He said, "there's nothing"; which is not a denial. "There's nothing" may speak to prior arrests without convictions but does not answer the question of the allegations. In Statement Analysis, if the subject has not answered the question, he has answered the question.

This tells me that Ronald has used cocaine and methamphetamine.

"I do not do drugs".

This may be a truthful statement, especially given the time he said it:  in that very moment.  

In investigations where drug use may play a part in domestic violence or child abuse, when a crisis hits, when asked about drugs, many drug users will say "I don't use drugs!" even while flunking a drug test.


Because when a crisis hits, and this is certainly a crisis, Ronald may have, quietly to himself, or loudly to others, have sworn off drugs, forever.

Sobriety, even if it is just 1 hour old, or 1 day old, is still sobriety. 10 years of sobriety still had its first hour and first day. In fact, he could be sincere, even though drugs may still be in his system, that he does not use drugs, because he has made a promise to himself, or others.

He does not deny the two specific drugs to Geraldo, which would indicate that he has been involved in those two drugs, as well as the pills he was caught on video selling later.

On an investigation, if you ask "Did you smoke pot, last Wednesday night, on your shift?" and you get the response, "I don't use drugs!" you will likely know that last Wednesday on that particular shift, the person used marijuana. Geraldo continues to go after him and the sensitivity runs high:

RIVERA: "You don’t do drugs? All those arrests were all —:


Ronald interrupts Geraldo to say "no" to the charge of "you don't use drugs". This interruption is due to increased anxiety and stress: sensitivity. We did not find the same level of anxiety over the identity of who took Haleigh. Why is this, drug use, more sensitive than a missing child?

This would be an indication that Haleigh's demise is linked with drugs.

RIVERA: "Do you work for the police? Are you an informant?"

Geraldo asks another compound question. It is always a mistake and allows Ronald to answer whichever question he wants to. In this case, he addresses both. Geraldo gets a "pass" on this error that someone conducting an Interview, no matter how excited, should do:

CUMMINGS: "No, I am no an informant. I do not work for the police. I work for PDM, which is a, um, bridge building company. That’s who I work for."

"No, I am not an informant" is a strong denial and it should be believed.
 . "I do not work for the police" is also a strong denial. Notice that the straight denial is the most credible. Here, he does not add "no, no, never, never ever". These two statements should be viewed as trustworthy, credible statements.

These are both truthful statements. 

I conclude that Ronald did not, at the time of Haleigh's disappearance, inform or work for the police. He is telling the truth.

"I work for PDM...building bridge company. That's who I work for"

This is not to say that he may have made a deal with police in the past, but he is not working for them as an informant.  

This statement is straight forward. Why the emphasis? His repeat "that's who I work for" is not necessary. Why is it repeated? There are no qualifiers added here; Ronald is not lying. He may have added the repeat due to sensitivity. It may be that part of his "agreement" in terms of custodial issues and the involvement of DCF, that he maintain employment. Ronald feels the need to describe what PDM does as a company. This is an extra detail that is not necessary. The subject of Ronald working is sensitive. Notice it follows after the accusation that he may have worked for the police (which he did not). The extra emphasis may also be an indicator that Ronald has done other things to earn a living that he no longer does; related to his arrests. On face value, he has told us the truth about not informing, not working for the police, and that he has a job with a bridge building company.

RIVERA: And you’ve never been involved in the drug trade?


Yes or No questions are the easiest to lie to.  We avoid them when possible.  

Ronald uses no qualifier here; no extra words. Is his simple "no" trustworthy? Geraldo pushes him.

"Yes and no" questions are to be avoided whenever possible. It is easiest to lie in a yes or no question primarily, and then it is easy to lie with a reflection answer; where the subject uses the words of an Interviewer. It is still stressful, but not nearly as stressful as lying in an open statement. A yes or no question reduces stress of lying.

It will be his other answers that will show that the "yes or no" reply credible or not. 

RIVERA: And when they tell me they saw bricks of marijuana that you had in the house, plants all around the house, is that a lie?

CUMMINGS: It is absolutely a lie and I would like to know where the information is coming from so that I can get, um, the proper authorities to take care of this.

Ronald's denial is weak due to "absolutely" added and then he attempts to change the direction of the questioning and asks about where the information came from.

Notice that as to the marijuana plants, specifically, Ronald does not answer the question.

"I would like to know where the information is coming from that I can get,um..."

Ronald stumbles on what he would like to get in order to deal with whoever told Geraldo that marijuana was being housed. He then recovers for an answer. "um" is sometimes used as a stall tactic, to think of an answer. Was he going to get revenge? a gun?

He continued, "the proper authorities to take care of this.

notice: "proper authorities" rather than "authorities". This indicates that there are some, with authority to handle snitches, that may not be considred "proper".

"this" indicates closeness; "that" indicates distance.

RIVERA: You’re — put all this stuff aside. If some associate of yours, some associate that had something to do with drugs and this is not about drugs but if these people are on the dark side of life, don’t you think that you should share that information? Share — tell us about — when you told Marcus and Chad that you were 75 percent sure and you had your gun ready and your — and you had your gun ready and you were gonna go get em, didn’t you say that? Isn’t that a fact, Ron?

Geraldo asks a very long question; one that Ronald nor many others would be able to follow; but conludes with asking if all the details he has laid out is a fact. Notice that Geraldo has now given us additional information about what Ronald was allege to have said to "Marcus and Chad"; not only that he was 75% sure of who took Haleigh, but that Ronald had planned to get his gun to go get those who took Haleigh.

CUMMINGS: No, it is not a fact.

Weak denial, as Ronald reflects back the wording of Geraldo. Geraldo is not conducting a solid interview, but in television interviews, it is often more important that the Interviewer be seen and heard more, as he is building a career, rather than gathering relevant information about the disappearance of Haleigh.

RIVERA: Why would they make that up? Why would they make that up?

CUMMINGS: I don’t know why they would make [OVERLAP] for you. But I — I am fixing [OVERLAP] to have the law called right here, right now because you’re making up things or they’re making up things and you’re getting into —

Ronald's response uses Geraldo's language (reflection) again but then adds in two seemingly unneccessary words: "for you". This may indicate that Ronald believes that Marcus and Chad have given this information because of who Geraldo is; a celebrity and not an investigator formally attached to the case.

then Ronald says that he is preparing to have the law called "right here" and "right now" because "you" Geraldo, is making things up, which would indicate that Ronald does not believe that Marcus and Chad would tell Geraldo these details, but then adds that "they're making up things". He does not specify which things are being made up. The drugs? The abuse of Haleigh? The certainty of who took Haleigh? The domestic violence against Crystal?

RIVERA: I am — I am relating to you what they are saying.

CUMMINGS:  Get out of my face, man. 

Ronald is now escalated and demands respect from Geraldo. The demand for respect in this situation is what often leads to violence.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You need to back off, man. That’s my son.

A man steps forward and tells Geraldo what he "needs" to do, and identifies himself, after this threat, as Ronald's father.

RIVERA: Alright. Well I’m sorry — I am sorry for what has happened.


A woman does not believe that Geraldo is sorry.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You need to go.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We are — [OVERLAPPED CONVERSATION] Listen. You wanna come up here and make [OVERLAP] allegations. Why don’t you go back to —

RIVERA: These are not my allegations, man. These are not my allegations. You have to understand that.


RIVERA: You have to understand this is not my allegation. Don’t touch him, don’t touch him, please. We’re leaving. Come on, let’s go. Let’s go.

CUMMINGS: [OVERLAP]" I wanted you to see that all this is about is my daughter. I love you, baby. [OVERLAP] If you are out there, I want you to know that I love you and I will find you, baby. I love you. And two, whoever — whoever has you, please bring my daughter home to me. I love my daughter. I love you, baby. I will find you."

Ronald said that he wanted Geraldo to know that "this" (this means close; that means far away; this that has been about drugs and domestic violence and child abuse; the subjects asked by Geraldo) is about Haleigh; except Ronald does not use her name.

"If you are out there..," Doesn't Ronald believe that she has been taken? Why the question? A parent who's child is kidnapped does not question whether or not the child is alive. Protective instincts put them firmly in denial. When Christ raised Jairus's daughter, we are told that the parents were stunned. He jolted them out of their denial by directing them to feed the little girl.

"whoever, whoever has you..." The subject of who took Haleigh triggers the repeat; this shows an increase in sensitivity. He repeats his love for her. He calls her "baby" which is a term of endearment, showing affection. Geraldo reacts to this speaking directly to Haleigh and interprets it as Haleigh being alive, and asks:

RIVERA: "You believe she’s alive then?"

CUMMINGS: I’m always gonna believe that my daughter’s alive until they find her.

This is a powerful indication that Ronald Cummins knows that Haleigh is deceased and that when she is found, she will be seen as she is: dead. While she is not found, he is going to believe that she is alive but when they find her, he will then no longer believe that she is alive.

This form of statement is common in cases where it is known that the missing person is dead. OJ Simpson was going to search for Nicole's killer. How long? For the rest of his life. Why did he think it would take that long? John Ramsey and others used similar language.

When someone says that they will search for the rest of their lives, they are likely telling the truth. They likely hope the killer is not found soon; and for good reason, so the search must go on for as long as they are alive.

Ronald did not take the time to think about his words. He just spoke them. In less than a microsecond, the brain tells the tongue what to say, using words and tenses; many instilled within us from a very early age.

It is not a slip, nor a mistake.

In statement analysis, we believe what someone tells us unless we find indicators of deception.

Ronald has told us that he will go on believing that Haleigh is alive but only until they find her.

This is a strong indication that he knows she is deceased.

This represents the opinion of the author only and not that of any organization. The comments posted by users are the expressed opinions of the authors only. All are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon personal interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.