Latest / Luke's English Podcast / S1E27 - The Space Between Words_ Jack Fox and the Michael John Olson Story

Transcript

S1E27 - The Space Between Words_ Jack Fox and the Michael John Olson Story · Luke's English Podcast

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: On Tragedy. We cover cases that involve real people and
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: real events. Episodes may include discussions of violence, criminal behavior,
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: and loss. We share these stories to honor those impacted
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: and to raise awareness, but they may not be suitable
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: for all audiences. Listener discretion is advised. Joining us today
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: is Jack Fox, a professional statement analyst who specializes in
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: examining language for patterns, omissions, and subtle shifts that may
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: reveal hidden information. Jack has worked with investigators and legal
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: professionals to help interpret statements in both active and cold cases,
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: offering insight into what people say and sometimes what they don't.
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: Before we begin, we want to remind listeners that statement
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: analysis is a linguistic and behavior tool, not a determination
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: of guilt or innocence. The insights shared in this conversation
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: are meant to guide understanding and spark further inquiry, not
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: to accuse or assign blame. Everyone discussed in this episode
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: is presumed innocent unless proven otherwise in a court of law.
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: With that in mind, Jack joins us to help unpack
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: the statements connected to the disappearance of a Michael John Olson,
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: exploring what language can and can't tell us about that night.
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: This is Tragedy a true crime podcast. Today's conversation is
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: one we are really looking forward to as we hope
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: to shed some light on Michael John Olson's disappearance by
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: speaking with Jack Fox. Jack is well known as the
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: guide behind the Never a Truer Word channel on YouTube
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: and welcome to the podcast.
• 1:53
  Speaker 2: Hi, Alisa, Michael, thank you very much for having me.
• 1:55
  Speaker 2: I can't wait to talk about this fascinating statements that
• 1:59
  Speaker 2: we have.
• 2:00
  Speaker 3: I know we've been talking about you for a week
• 2:02
  Speaker 3: now looking forward to this interview, so I'm really happier
• 2:04
  Speaker 3: with us very on.
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: Members of the family are like, when is this happening?
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: We're ready for this. But before we discuss Michael's disappearance,
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: please tell us about you and what led you to
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: developing an expertise in statement analysis.
• 2:21
  Speaker 2: I could give you, guys, a really fancy story which
• 2:23
  Speaker 2: would all be true and saying is what I do
• 2:25
  Speaker 2: is find lies and deception and what people say. Lying
• 2:28
  Speaker 2: would not be to my benefit. About how I have
• 2:31
  Speaker 2: always been fascinated in how words can be used to
• 2:34
  Speaker 2: influence people. I had a long career working in radio,
• 2:39
  Speaker 2: which involves a lot of influencing people through your words.
• 2:42
  Speaker 2: Because words when you're a radio presenter or a radio
• 2:44
  Speaker 2: show producer, are one of the few tools you have.
• 2:48
  Speaker 2: So I thought I could get an advantage over everyone
• 2:50
  Speaker 2: else by using words in a smarter way than everyone else.
• 2:53
  Speaker 2: So studied the psychology behind words and how people respond
• 2:57
  Speaker 2: to different words and so on in order to give
• 2:59
  Speaker 2: myself and anti there. I moved on to doing some
• 3:02
  Speaker 2: marketing work and also some management work as well, and again,
• 3:06
  Speaker 2: the influence of words in those situations was crucial to
• 3:10
  Speaker 2: me and the things I was trying to do. I
• 3:12
  Speaker 2: dabbled and hit in the therapy as well for a while.
• 3:15
  Speaker 2: And again that's all about how words can influence a person,
• 3:19
  Speaker 2: very directly influence a person. I could tell you all that,
• 3:22
  Speaker 2: and it's all true, and you know I've always been
• 3:25
  Speaker 2: interested in how words influence. I could also say that
• 3:28
  Speaker 2: when I was a kid, my mum hated me for
• 3:30
  Speaker 2: my pedanticness, if that even is a word, because if
• 3:34
  Speaker 2: she was laying down the law, or she was trying
• 3:35
  Speaker 2: to tell me offer something, I'd be parsing her words
• 3:38
  Speaker 2: and trying to find the loophole and what she said
• 3:41
  Speaker 2: to let me do what I wanted to do, or
• 3:43
  Speaker 2: just be the smartest kid in the house. And that's
• 3:46
  Speaker 2: kind of what I do now, is I just parse
• 3:49
  Speaker 2: every single word in a statement or someone gives them
• 3:53
  Speaker 2: an interview in order to go why did they choose
• 3:57
  Speaker 2: that word? Because no word we use as accidental, and
• 3:59
  Speaker 2: then try and work out the motivations behind the person talking.
• 4:03
  Speaker 2: Are they deceiving us? Are they telling us the truth?
• 4:06
  Speaker 2: What are you? Why are they telling us these words?
• 4:08
  Speaker 2: Why have they chosen these words to use? To try
• 4:10
  Speaker 2: and just get a deeper understanding of what they say.
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: And if you walked into an elevator with someone and
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: you had maybe five floors to describe to them what
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: you do, what would you say that to them?
• 4:23
  Speaker 2: I can listen to what someone says and to say
• 4:25
  Speaker 2: whether they're telling the truth, the whole truth, or nothing
• 4:27
  Speaker 2: but the truth? And what are they hiding?
• 4:30
  Speaker 3: I can tell you've been asked that question before because
• 4:32
  Speaker 3: that's a perfect answer to it.
• 4:34
  Speaker 2: I think we've only got to the first floor, though,
• 4:36
  Speaker 2: the rest of it's embarrassed silence.
• 4:39
  Speaker 3: Now they're terrified now they've heard what you said.
• 4:42
  Speaker 2: I get that all the time. People are like comment
• 4:45
  Speaker 2: under my videos and they're like, I've written this five
• 4:47
  Speaker 2: times and deleted it five times to try and get
• 4:50
  Speaker 2: the words perfect, and it's like, chill, don't worry. It's
• 4:54
  Speaker 2: so funny.
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: So how do you typically establish a linguistic baseline when
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: analyzing statements from witnesses or associates, specifically for us in
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: a missing person's case.
• 5:07
  Speaker 2: So I don't, and this is slightly differently. I know
• 5:10
  Speaker 2: own body language baseline is very important. So what does
• 5:13
  Speaker 2: someone look like when they're calm and relaxed and you know,
• 5:16
  Speaker 2: feel in control and comfortable, and then they notice deviations
• 5:20
  Speaker 2: away from that? Whereas what I do is slightly different
• 5:24
  Speaker 2: because I'm looking at individual words and the way that
• 5:29
  Speaker 2: we talk. We've got two modes of talking. One is
• 5:31
  Speaker 2: like an autopilot mode, which is the one we use
• 5:34
  Speaker 2: most of the time. You know, when you're sitting talking
• 5:35
  Speaker 2: to someone and the words are just coming out your mouth.
• 5:38
  Speaker 2: You don't think about which words you're going to use,
• 5:40
  Speaker 2: just those words come out. And what happens in that state.
• 5:43
  Speaker 2: You're relaxed, you're not on guard, and therefore you're just
• 5:48
  Speaker 2: picking words as you would. You know, your brain controls
• 5:51
  Speaker 2: your breathing. Your brain is in charge of those words
• 5:53
  Speaker 2: as well, and what it will typically do because your
• 5:55
  Speaker 2: brain looks after you is just choose the best words
• 5:58
  Speaker 2: that it feels are appropriate in that situation. There's another
• 6:02
  Speaker 2: state we're in where we're deliberately choosing our words, which
• 6:05
  Speaker 2: is maybe what I'm doing now, because I'm thinking this
• 6:08
  Speaker 2: is a very complex concept that I've got to get
• 6:10
  Speaker 2: across to people. So I'm going to make sure that
• 6:13
  Speaker 2: I use the right words very deliberately. But also if
• 6:17
  Speaker 2: we're lying, if we're hiding something, if we're stressed and nervous,
• 6:21
  Speaker 2: that is the mode we're more likely to use because
• 6:24
  Speaker 2: we are hoping that we are making an impression with
• 6:27
  Speaker 2: our words and choosing our words a little bit more carefully.
• 6:30
  Speaker 2: So I don't try and baseline, I'm just looking at
• 6:33
  Speaker 2: why is this person chosen that word and then coming
• 6:35
  Speaker 2: up with possibilities. Nothing that I come to is concrete.
• 6:40
  Speaker 2: You know, I can't say with one hundred percent certainty
• 6:43
  Speaker 2: this person is telling the truth or this person is lying.
• 6:46
  Speaker 2: But what I can do is spot patterns. The more
• 6:48
  Speaker 2: words I hear from someone, the better, you know. Hearing
• 6:51
  Speaker 2: someone talk and answer to one question versus a fifteen
• 6:54
  Speaker 2: minute interview, for example, or a two hour police interview,
• 6:57
  Speaker 2: I will get more and more and more data the
• 6:59
  Speaker 2: more someone talks.
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: Is there a particular case that you have outlined that
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: you just found really really interesting or something that maybe
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: would be fairly well known. We should probably explain to
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: our listeners. You are not in the United States, but
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: I know you have covered some United States cases. There's
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: something that really stood out to you in your work.
• 7:20
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a classic one, the John Benny Ramsey case,
• 7:25
  Speaker 2: because there are so many people did talking around that.
• 7:29
  Speaker 2: So you've got John and you had Patsy talking, and
• 7:32
  Speaker 2: they spoke quite a bit at times. John still speaks.
• 7:35
  Speaker 2: Now we've got all sorts of words involved in that
• 7:38
  Speaker 2: case as well, So there is the nine to one
• 7:40
  Speaker 2: one call that was made, there's the ransom note as well.
• 7:44
  Speaker 2: So it's like, I mean, it's a very tragic case.
• 7:47
  Speaker 2: So I don't want to do it light by saying
• 7:50
  Speaker 2: it's like a treasure trove of words and statements to analyze.
• 7:53
  Speaker 2: But there are so many words and statements there for
• 7:57
  Speaker 2: me to look at, So that really is one for me. Sometimes,
• 8:00
  Speaker 2: you know, there are cases where it's all about evidence,
• 8:03
  Speaker 2: DNA evidence, fingerprint evidence, CCTV evidence, and there's I feel
• 8:07
  Speaker 2: like there's nothing in those for me to look at.
• 8:09
  Speaker 2: But the John Benet Ramsey case just has so many
• 8:11
  Speaker 2: layers of words inside it.
• 8:14
  Speaker 3: It's not really for this show. But I didn't realize
• 8:17
  Speaker 3: until you said it that you had looked at that
• 8:18
  Speaker 3: ransom letter for that case. And that ransom letter I've
• 8:22
  Speaker 3: read many, many times, and I would love to hear
• 8:24
  Speaker 3: your perception of that one.
• 8:27
  Speaker 2: You can find it on YouTube.
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: That's right.
• 8:29
  Speaker 3: I'm going to go look for that episode well.
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: And for me, that one really resonates because I lived
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: in Boulder, Colorado when that happened, So that's I think
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: that for me is like one of the foundational things
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: that happened in my life that brought me to this obsession.
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: We'll say I have a true crime so well.
• 8:47
  Speaker 2: Funnily enough, nothing like that has happened near me. The
• 8:51
  Speaker 2: only thing that's in today's local press websites is at
• 8:55
  Speaker 2: the top of my road, a guy was spotted running
• 8:57
  Speaker 2: naked yesterday and banging on the cars on the road.
• 9:01
  Speaker 2: That is the nearest I've come to true crime in
• 9:03
  Speaker 2: my life. You are kind of worrying, I'm going to
• 9:09
  Speaker 2: lock my door from now on.
• 9:11
  Speaker 3: He could have just watched a rerun of old school
• 9:14
  Speaker 3: that could have done it as well. Think they do
• 9:15
  Speaker 3: that in streaking across the cross and streaking across the quad.
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: Yep, that is very exciting. I have a nice visual.
• 9:23
  Speaker 2: Now, I trust me, whatever your visual is, that someone
• 9:28
  Speaker 2: doing that at the top of my street is not
• 9:30
  Speaker 2: going to live up to it.
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: So in this particular case, we have a couple of
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: statements on one is from fairly close to when Michael
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: John Wilson went missing and one is more recent. So
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: my question is do you consider differences, you know, in
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: statements that are made let's say twenty thirty years ago
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: versus statements that are made within the past five or
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: so years.
• 9:55
  Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, you really have to look at so many
• 9:58
  Speaker 2: things on this. For example, we come to look at
• 10:00
  Speaker 2: these statements, there are contradictions in them, they don't match,
• 10:05
  Speaker 2: but there's been a long passage of time in there,
• 10:09
  Speaker 2: so you know, is that acceptable or are there too
• 10:11
  Speaker 2: many contradictions that make someone go hmm? That's very interesting. Also,
• 10:17
  Speaker 2: memories fade, but liars have a chance to rehearse a story.
• 10:23
  Speaker 2: So if we took a statement from nineteen seventy nine
• 10:26
  Speaker 2: with someone telling a false story, then the first time
• 10:29
  Speaker 2: they tell it. It might be rough, it might have
• 10:32
  Speaker 2: some uneven edges in it, because deception and lying is
• 10:36
  Speaker 2: a hard, hard thing to do. It's not easy at all. Therefore,
• 10:41
  Speaker 2: over time, if they've told the story a few more times,
• 10:44
  Speaker 2: it may become smoother, it may become more believable over time,
• 10:47
  Speaker 2: if they've rehearsed this story and told it a lot
• 10:50
  Speaker 2: in the intervening years. So yes, you do have to
• 10:52
  Speaker 2: look at that passage of time from the first time
• 10:56
  Speaker 2: to the most recent time. I think that's one of
• 10:59
  Speaker 2: the things that is great about nine one one calls.
• 11:01
  Speaker 2: I love listening to them because they're if they're deceptive,
• 11:05
  Speaker 2: you know, if there's a guilty person or someone hiding
• 11:07
  Speaker 2: something making that nine one one call, it's the first
• 11:10
  Speaker 2: time they've told the story, so it's the most likely
• 11:13
  Speaker 2: time that it will be their flaws and all.
• 11:17
  Speaker 1: And they're under some level of trauma in that moment
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: as well, so extremely stressful situation.
• 11:24
  Speaker 2: Yes, and we can spot trauma sometimes in the words,
• 11:27
  Speaker 2: and we can spot what's causing them trauma. So for example,
• 11:32
  Speaker 2: if I was phoning up reporting a child missing, while
• 11:35
  Speaker 2: am I stressed because the child is missing? Or am
• 11:38
  Speaker 2: I stressed because I'm telling a story about a child
• 11:41
  Speaker 2: being missing, and we can try and spot the things
• 11:43
  Speaker 2: that cause the stress while that person's talking.
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: I would like to ask one more kind of foundational
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: question before we really dig into the statements that we have,
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: and this is around emotional language. So what role does
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: emotional language or the absence of emotion no language play
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: in assessing someone's credibility.
• 12:05
  Speaker 2: So the biggest thing I see with the emotional language
• 12:08
  Speaker 2: is when people use it to persuade us or something.
• 12:12
  Speaker 2: I always say the truth is sounds like the quickest
• 12:15
  Speaker 2: line from A to B. So if I say I
• 12:19
  Speaker 2: was upset, that's a very simple sentence, and you know
• 12:22
  Speaker 2: exactly what I'm talking about. I is me. Was means
• 12:26
  Speaker 2: it's in the past, and upset tells you what I
• 12:29
  Speaker 2: felt in the past. If I say I was extremely upset,
• 12:32
  Speaker 2: I just couldn't believe it. I haven't added anything more
• 12:36
  Speaker 2: to that content that you know, their understanding is still
• 12:38
  Speaker 2: the same as I it was and it was upset,
• 12:41
  Speaker 2: but then I've added more emotion around it. Now, again,
• 12:45
  Speaker 2: what I noticed Cousy's questions rather than draws conclusions, But
• 12:48
  Speaker 2: why do they feel the name? Then they need to
• 12:51
  Speaker 2: persuade us with those extra words that they were upset.
• 12:56
  Speaker 1: I think you talk about that sometimes and I don't
• 12:59
  Speaker 1: know if I'm giving mess off away, but I mean
• 13:01
  Speaker 1: sometimes I think maybe I say too many words, or
• 13:03
  Speaker 1: I hear you like in a work call, and you'd
• 13:05
  Speaker 1: be like, I don't understand why somebody said this piece
• 13:08
  Speaker 1: of it because it didn't really add anything to the
• 13:11
  Speaker 1: context or the understanding. I think that's why you're getting
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: at that's correct.
• 13:14
  Speaker 2: Yeah, But also I think we need to remember that
• 13:17
  Speaker 2: not all deception is malicious. So you could be using
• 13:23
  Speaker 2: emotional words when talking to a partner, for instance. I'm
• 13:26
  Speaker 2: not no partners or names mentioned here in the conversation,
• 13:29
  Speaker 2: but you could be using those words, and what you
• 13:32
  Speaker 2: really want to do is get a message across. So
• 13:34
  Speaker 2: you don't feel that saying that what you did upset
• 13:37
  Speaker 2: me would be strong enough to get that message across,
• 13:40
  Speaker 2: because you really want the person to believe that they
• 13:44
  Speaker 2: have upset you. Therefore, you might turn this severity the
• 13:47
  Speaker 2: emotion up by adding in these extra words, which, as
• 13:50
  Speaker 2: you say, don't do anything to change the content of
• 13:53
  Speaker 2: the message, but they do change the severity of the message,
• 13:57
  Speaker 2: and that can be why someone would put in those
• 14:00
  Speaker 2: towards which without being deceptive, you know, without I'm not
• 14:04
  Speaker 2: saying if someone says I'm very upset compared to I'm upset,
• 14:07
  Speaker 2: I'm not saying they're lying. I'm just saying they really
• 14:09
  Speaker 2: want to persuade us how upset they are, and then
• 14:11
  Speaker 2: ask the question, is that because they're not upset and
• 14:13
  Speaker 2: they just put it on, or is that because they
• 14:16
  Speaker 2: truly are upset and want us to know that.
• 14:20
  Speaker 1: So we have a couple of statements from a person
• 14:24
  Speaker 1: who's very close to Michael John Olson's disappearance. We have
• 14:28
  Speaker 1: one from very close to the day he went missing,
• 14:32
  Speaker 1: and then we have another one that's from a we
• 14:34
  Speaker 1: think we believe to be about five years ago. So
• 14:37
  Speaker 1: where does it make sense to start for you?
• 14:40
  Speaker 2: It would make sense to start with the very first
• 14:43
  Speaker 2: statement from nineteen seventy nine.
• 14:45
  Speaker 1: All right, great, we happen to have this is a
• 14:49
  Speaker 1: witness statement that was provided to us when we had
• 14:51
  Speaker 1: a good document release from the West Palm Beach Police Department.
• 14:55
  Speaker 1: And I'm going to just read the statement exactly how
• 14:59
  Speaker 1: it is. And this was taken and signed on December eighteenth,
• 15:04
  Speaker 1: nineteen seventy nine, which is roughly maybe two and a
• 15:07
  Speaker 1: half weeks. We know that Michael John Olsen went missing
• 15:11
  Speaker 1: either late into the hours of November thirtieth or very
• 15:14
  Speaker 1: early morning December first, nineteen seventy nine. So I will
• 15:18
  Speaker 1: read this statement and then we'll have you tell us
• 15:22
  Speaker 1: what you think. So this is a tight and signed
• 15:26
  Speaker 1: statement and it reads like this. On Friday November thirtieth,
• 15:30
  Speaker 1: nineteen seventy nine, I went to the dog Track at
• 15:33
  Speaker 1: about seven fifteen pm and got a table in the clubhouse.
• 15:38
  Speaker 1: Michael Olson got there at about seven thirty five pm
• 15:42
  Speaker 1: and another person got there at about eight pm. We
• 15:47
  Speaker 1: stayed at the dog Track until about one fifteen am.
• 15:51
  Speaker 1: Then Michael and I went to the wild Side Bar
• 15:53
  Speaker 1: on Okachobe Boulevard. After we left the wild Side, we
• 15:58
  Speaker 1: went back to the dog Track and picked up Michael's car.
• 16:01
  Speaker 1: I parked my van at the church on Cherry Road,
• 16:04
  Speaker 1: just west of Congress Avenue, and we went at Michael's
• 16:08
  Speaker 1: car to mister G's. We stayed in mister G's until
• 16:12
  Speaker 1: they started to close and had turned on the lights
• 16:17
  Speaker 1: when we left, and Michael dropped me off at my van.
• 16:21
  Speaker 1: I last saw Michael driving towards Congress on Cherry Road.
• 16:25
  Speaker 1: I had to be at work at nine or ten am.
• 16:28
  Speaker 1: He never showed up. Michael was wheeling some of the
• 16:32
  Speaker 1: races at the track, and I believe he wound up losing.
• 16:35
  Speaker 1: But I don't know how much. He seemed to like
• 16:38
  Speaker 1: the job here a lot and got along with everything
• 16:41
  Speaker 1: that I know of. I never heard him say anything
• 16:45
  Speaker 1: about going anywhere else or home. He seemed happy here.
• 16:50
  Speaker 1: And that's the conclusion of this witness statement.
• 16:54
  Speaker 2: Well, what I will say here is I don't know
• 16:58
  Speaker 2: the question that led to him providing that statement, or
• 17:01
  Speaker 2: whether it was many questions, or whether it was compiled
• 17:05
  Speaker 2: for him through you know that he had an interview
• 17:07
  Speaker 2: and they pulled out, you know, the best bits of
• 17:10
  Speaker 2: the interview to put all this together as a statement
• 17:12
  Speaker 2: for him. I'm guessing the person who signed this didn't
• 17:16
  Speaker 2: type this out, so it's it's been typed for him. However,
• 17:22
  Speaker 2: the first thing I noticed when I read this was
• 17:24
  Speaker 2: where the story starts, which is the night before Michael
• 17:29
  Speaker 2: went missing. Now that's unusual because if you think about
• 17:34
  Speaker 2: where the story should naturally start, it's when Michael didn't
• 17:37
  Speaker 2: turn up for work. There could be a small lead
• 17:41
  Speaker 2: in I was out with Michael the night before, was
• 17:42
  Speaker 2: expecting to see him at ten o'clock, but he didn't
• 17:45
  Speaker 2: show up. But there's so much detail about the night
• 17:48
  Speaker 2: before and this person spending that time with him the
• 17:52
  Speaker 2: night before, and very little detail about Michael being missing.
• 17:58
  Speaker 2: Interesting as well that the we have the story about
• 18:02
  Speaker 2: the dog track, then we have something which I'll come
• 18:04
  Speaker 2: on to talk about a lot of bars and cars,
• 18:08
  Speaker 2: and then we go back to the dog track, as
• 18:10
  Speaker 2: if the dog track really is the focus of this
• 18:13
  Speaker 2: story and not Michael being missing himself. Then we have
• 18:19
  Speaker 2: this detail that seems really unnecessary about the movement of vehicles.
• 18:25
  Speaker 2: It's extremely detailed about how they moved vehicles last night,
• 18:31
  Speaker 2: and I'm like, why why do we need all this detail?
• 18:35
  Speaker 2: And there's no real explanation for why these vehicles moved,
• 18:40
  Speaker 2: why they were in certain cars, why they both didn't
• 18:43
  Speaker 2: just take their own car or so on. The detail
• 18:45
  Speaker 2: in the car and the cars and the car movement
• 18:48
  Speaker 2: really caught my eye as well. There is a lot
• 18:53
  Speaker 2: more detail about and a lot more times as well,
• 18:56
  Speaker 2: around the dog track than there are about the bars.
• 18:58
  Speaker 2: So you know, we've got the tie time that this
• 19:01
  Speaker 2: person arrived at the dog track, the time Michael got there,
• 19:04
  Speaker 2: the time the third person got there, and the time
• 19:06
  Speaker 2: of when they left the dog track at one point fifteen,
• 19:08
  Speaker 2: and then the bars are all there's no times associated
• 19:12
  Speaker 2: with them. The nearest there is when mister G's closed,
• 19:16
  Speaker 2: but there's no actual time put into that. And then
• 19:18
  Speaker 2: times arrive again when it comes back to work. I
• 19:22
  Speaker 2: had to be at work at six thirty am, Michael
• 19:24
  Speaker 2: was supposed to be nine or ten, so the times
• 19:27
  Speaker 2: come back there, but there's no times around these bars
• 19:29
  Speaker 2: at all in there. The only other thing that I
• 19:33
  Speaker 2: want to pull out at this point is that there's
• 19:37
  Speaker 2: a lot of joint pronouns. And we we stayed at
• 19:42
  Speaker 2: the dog track, we left the wild Side, we went
• 19:45
  Speaker 2: back to the dog track. Sorry, there's another mention of
• 19:47
  Speaker 2: dog track. So we go to the dog track three
• 19:49
  Speaker 2: times in this story. We went to Michael's car to
• 19:53
  Speaker 2: mister Jay's and we left and Michael dropped me off.
• 19:58
  Speaker 2: There's a lot of we in that story, but a
• 20:01
  Speaker 2: certain parts there are. Michael and I went to Wildside bar.
• 20:06
  Speaker 2: I parked my car at the van and sorry, I've
• 20:11
  Speaker 2: lost my place in it. We stayed at Mister Jesus
• 20:14
  Speaker 2: we've got I don't want to say a falling out,
• 20:17
  Speaker 2: We've got split in the pronouns at that part there
• 20:21
  Speaker 2: where it stops being we, and then once we go
• 20:25
  Speaker 2: into the next day, it's all separate. Michael was supposed
• 20:28
  Speaker 2: to be at work, he never showed up. I believe
• 20:32
  Speaker 2: he wound up losting. So it's there's some suggestion of
• 20:36
  Speaker 2: separation there.
• 20:38
  Speaker 1: To me, I'm really glad you brought up the piece
• 20:41
  Speaker 1: about the pronouns that is, so I have a follow
• 20:43
  Speaker 1: up question about that. So how do you interpret that
• 20:45
  Speaker 1: pronoun use and verb tense shifts in statements, like what
• 20:50
  Speaker 1: does it indicate to you?
• 20:52
  Speaker 2: It indicates closeness or distance. So I always use the
• 20:58
  Speaker 2: example of In fact, let's use the example of my father.
• 21:01
  Speaker 2: My father calls me a family nickname when he likes me,
• 21:04
  Speaker 2: and he calls me that quite a lot now, But
• 21:06
  Speaker 2: when I was a kid, I got called that sometimes
• 21:08
  Speaker 2: other times it was my full name. Then you think
• 21:12
  Speaker 2: about being at school when a teacher didn't like you,
• 21:14
  Speaker 2: they would stop using your name and they call you you,
• 21:17
  Speaker 2: And the whole pronoun thing just shows distance. If you
• 21:22
  Speaker 2: talk about we, then you really are a couple with
• 21:25
  Speaker 2: that person. You were doing it in Unison. We went
• 21:29
  Speaker 2: back to the dog track for example, that sounds like
• 21:32
  Speaker 2: something that was done in Unison, Whereas when it's Michael
• 21:35
  Speaker 2: and me, or Michael and I went to the white
• 21:37
  Speaker 2: side bar, that's two people doing something that suggests a
• 21:40
  Speaker 2: little bit less Unison in there. So pronouns can be
• 21:44
  Speaker 2: tremendously indicative of how someone was feeling at the time.
• 21:50
  Speaker 2: And there's something we use pronouns so instinctively, don't we.
• 21:54
  Speaker 2: You never think about the pronouns that you use to
• 21:56
  Speaker 2: refer to someone or in a situation. That's one of
• 21:59
  Speaker 2: those situations where your brain is picking the word that
• 22:01
  Speaker 2: it best feels represents the situation that it knows in
• 22:05
  Speaker 2: its head.
• 22:07
  Speaker 1: Yes, I used an example of that last night when
• 22:09
  Speaker 1: there are a series of things that needed to be
• 22:11
  Speaker 1: done and Michael said, looks like you have a lot
• 22:15
  Speaker 1: to do. I said, yeah, we're going to be real busy.
• 22:19
  Speaker 1: So thank you for that because your story really helped me.
• 22:25
  Speaker 2: Which is quite interesting is when someone talks to us
• 22:28
  Speaker 2: like that, we do tend to pick up sometimes on
• 22:30
  Speaker 2: the I was talking about management earlier, and a good
• 22:35
  Speaker 2: manager will be the person who says we've got a
• 22:38
  Speaker 2: lot of work to do, or look, don't worry. I
• 22:41
  Speaker 2: know things are hard for us, but we will get
• 22:43
  Speaker 2: through it. And that's just suggesting a team. When the
• 22:46
  Speaker 2: manager is like, don't worry. I know things are hard
• 22:49
  Speaker 2: for you, but I trust you to get on with it,
• 22:50
  Speaker 2: they're not going to get involved in solving the problem
• 22:53
  Speaker 2: that's there.
• 22:55
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that resonates with you. So thank you
• 22:57
  Speaker 1: for those two examples. When we're talking I don't know
• 23:01
  Speaker 1: how discreete you get into this, but when we're speaking
• 23:03
  Speaker 1: about statements related to an unsolved missing person, are there
• 23:09
  Speaker 1: specific types of linguistic shifts that are prevalent.
• 23:14
  Speaker 2: Maybe Yeah, I'm looking for storytelling as a sign of guilt,
• 23:21
  Speaker 2: I suppose, Which is again, when I say the quickest
• 23:27
  Speaker 2: way to the truth or the truth is the fastest
• 23:29
  Speaker 2: line for me to be if there's a missing person,
• 23:32
  Speaker 2: and presuming that everyone wants to find the missing person,
• 23:35
  Speaker 2: I would expect people to be factual, to be giving
• 23:39
  Speaker 2: helpful information and not telling stories about what happened. And
• 23:44
  Speaker 2: this to me, and I'm not saying the person that
• 23:46
  Speaker 2: said this is guilty, but what I am saying is
• 23:48
  Speaker 2: this first statement to me sounds a little bit like storytelling,
• 23:53
  Speaker 2: because we've got all sorts of details that don't seem
• 23:56
  Speaker 2: that helpful in finding the missing person in there, but
• 24:00
  Speaker 2: maybe more helpful to the person telling the story here,
• 24:05
  Speaker 2: And so I'm looking for storytelling. I think that something
• 24:09
  Speaker 2: that law enforcement could do a lot more good with
• 24:13
  Speaker 2: is when there is a missing person, is being able
• 24:16
  Speaker 2: to look at the reporting people or are the closest
• 24:19
  Speaker 2: people to the person missing, and being able to work
• 24:22
  Speaker 2: out very quickly are they in storytelling mode? Are they
• 24:25
  Speaker 2: hiding something? You know? Should I be looking close to
• 24:27
  Speaker 2: home with this, or are they giving me factual, helpful
• 24:30
  Speaker 2: information and not looking like they're hiding anything at all,
• 24:34
  Speaker 2: in which case we need to be focusing our investigations
• 24:37
  Speaker 2: further away.
• 24:39
  Speaker 1: I do think that is sort of what has happened
• 24:42
  Speaker 1: as we have learned more about this disappearance. There seems
• 24:45
  Speaker 1: to be a hyper focus on whose car was in
• 24:48
  Speaker 1: the church parking lot and who drove and who didn't drive.
• 24:51
  Speaker 1: And I don't really know. I mean, it seems like
• 24:55
  Speaker 1: from what you're talking about, there may be some maybe
• 24:59
  Speaker 1: subconscious things going on in the telling of the story,
• 25:02
  Speaker 1: but I don't know that evidentiary it's really relevant.
• 25:06
  Speaker 2: No, it's not really relevant. I think one of the
• 25:08
  Speaker 2: things that I do, and I listened to you speaking
• 25:11
  Speaker 2: to Douglas McGregor on a recent episode, and he said
• 25:14
  Speaker 2: something that resonated with me, which is that what I
• 25:18
  Speaker 2: can do is point to this is strange. So maybe
• 25:22
  Speaker 2: we should be asking more questions in this area or
• 25:25
  Speaker 2: you know this, this doesn't they're hiding something there. Maybe
• 25:28
  Speaker 2: there's something that could be found rounding about you know
• 25:32
  Speaker 2: that that there. So it's in the next statement, but
• 25:35
  Speaker 2: there's some strange phrasing about the bars they went to.
• 25:38
  Speaker 2: So I would be wanting to dig into that part
• 25:41
  Speaker 2: of the story to see if we could develop any
• 25:43
  Speaker 2: more leads or lines of investigation through looking at that
• 25:47
  Speaker 2: part of the story.
• 25:51
  Speaker 1: Are there other things that stood out in this witness
• 25:53
  Speaker 1: statement that you'd like to address that we have not
• 25:56
  Speaker 1: spoken about.
• 25:58
  Speaker 2: I think that in this one was the I last
• 26:01
  Speaker 2: saw Michael driving towards Congress on Cherry Road. That seems
• 26:06
  Speaker 2: very final. I last saw Michael driving towards Congress on
• 26:09
  Speaker 2: Cherry Road. Do you know what I mean? That I
• 26:13
  Speaker 2: last is very final? You know it's not he drove
• 26:17
  Speaker 2: off down Cherry Road. I went home, I went to
• 26:19
  Speaker 2: work the next day and he didn't turn up. It
• 26:22
  Speaker 2: seems to have a very finality too. Even if it
• 26:26
  Speaker 2: was the last time I saw him that night, that
• 26:28
  Speaker 2: would not have the same final feeling as I last
• 26:31
  Speaker 2: saw Michael driving towards Congress on Cherry Road.
• 26:35
  Speaker 3: Interesting.
• 26:37
  Speaker 1: All right, let's take a look at this more recent account. Now,
• 26:41
  Speaker 1: this is an email that was sent to someone by
• 26:46
  Speaker 1: this same person close to the case. And if it's
• 26:49
  Speaker 1: okay with you, I'll just start by reading it again
• 26:51
  Speaker 1: like we did with the other one. Yeah, it reads
• 26:55
  Speaker 1: like this. Although time has slipped by, the memory is
• 27:00
  Speaker 1: always still hanging in the back of my mind. I
• 27:02
  Speaker 1: do remember a private investigator was hired from a firm
• 27:06
  Speaker 1: in Palm Beach. Mike's mom and dad would remember the details,
• 27:10
  Speaker 1: and the investigator would know all the guys who were
• 27:14
  Speaker 1: at the dog track that evening. There were five or
• 27:17
  Speaker 1: six of us, and the last race was after eleven PM.
• 27:22
  Speaker 1: Then the rest of the guys had to be at work.
• 27:24
  Speaker 1: At six am, all went home. Mike and I drove
• 27:29
  Speaker 1: to the Baptist church at the corner of Cherry Road
• 27:32
  Speaker 1: and Congress and left my van getting into his new
• 27:35
  Speaker 1: Grand Prix, driving to the first bar and had a
• 27:39
  Speaker 1: few drinks with no problems. Then we drove a few
• 27:42
  Speaker 1: blocks to the wild Side, which I had never been
• 27:45
  Speaker 1: to before, but I felt it was a bit rough
• 27:48
  Speaker 1: around the edges, although I don't recall any disturbances. As
• 27:53
  Speaker 1: it was around two am. I had to be at
• 27:55
  Speaker 1: work at six and Mike didn't have to be in
• 27:58
  Speaker 1: until ten. He dropped me off at the church and
• 28:02
  Speaker 1: I drove home, and Mike was staying at the Howard
• 28:05
  Speaker 1: Johnson's at Okechobee and ninety five about a mile away,
• 28:11
  Speaker 1: never to be seen again. We stopped at the motel
• 28:15
  Speaker 1: later in the day, only to find his belongings were
• 28:18
  Speaker 1: still there, along with his golf clubs. Days later, his
• 28:22
  Speaker 1: mom and dad came down and I took them everywhere
• 28:25
  Speaker 1: we had journeyed the days earlier. One note, Mike hit
• 28:30
  Speaker 1: about five to six trifectas that evening, and at that
• 28:33
  Speaker 1: time you placed your bets at one window and collected
• 28:36
  Speaker 1: your winnings at another. To be honest with you, Florida
• 28:40
  Speaker 1: has a lot of seedy characters. I worked another year
• 28:45
  Speaker 1: in West Palm Beach and kinda lost my love for
• 28:48
  Speaker 1: the East Coast of Florida. Certainly a tragic evening, but
• 28:52
  Speaker 1: never any remains of his car or himself is quite baffling.
• 28:57
  Speaker 1: The private investigator sent me some pictures a few years
• 29:00
  Speaker 1: after it happened, but I didn't recognize any of the individuals.
• 29:05
  Speaker 1: Feel free to call me. I will say. There are
• 29:09
  Speaker 1: like maybe two periods in this. So that's why it's
• 29:12
  Speaker 1: a little difficult to read aloud, because I'm sort of
• 29:15
  Speaker 1: extrapolating where I think the positive should be.
• 29:17
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I could do with some punctuation in that.
• 29:20
  Speaker 3: We'll really be helping to read.
• 29:23
  Speaker 1: All right, Well, let's dig into this one the way
• 29:25
  Speaker 1: we did with the first one. What stands out?
• 29:29
  Speaker 2: So there's two things stand out that stood out before,
• 29:32
  Speaker 2: which is again the all the mention of vehicles and
• 29:37
  Speaker 2: the strange movements of them, and also where the story starts.
• 29:42
  Speaker 2: The story starts again at the dog track that evening,
• 29:46
  Speaker 2: and that interests me. Again. This is kind of free form.
• 29:50
  Speaker 2: This is obviously I don't think maybe it is as
• 29:54
  Speaker 2: a result of a question, but this is obviously much
• 29:56
  Speaker 2: more free form and the person's own words than maybe
• 30:00
  Speaker 2: the police statement was. I'll come back to those things.
• 30:04
  Speaker 2: The next thing I noticed were the number of contradictions
• 30:08
  Speaker 2: there from the first statement, which are I will say interesting.
• 30:14
  Speaker 2: The ones I noted were there were five or six
• 30:17
  Speaker 2: of us at the dog track, and there was only
• 30:19
  Speaker 2: three people in the initial statement. The last race was
• 30:22
  Speaker 2: after eleven pm, then the rest of the guys had
• 30:25
  Speaker 2: to be at work all went home. In the first
• 30:27
  Speaker 2: statement they were there until about one fifteen am. It
• 30:31
  Speaker 2: was around two am when they last left the second bar. Well,
• 30:35
  Speaker 2: it seems to be in later than that in the
• 30:37
  Speaker 2: first statement, because they didn't leave the track until one
• 30:40
  Speaker 2: fifteen and then did a lot of car moving and
• 30:41
  Speaker 2: went to two bars, so I think it would be
• 30:43
  Speaker 2: later than two am. I had to be at work
• 30:46
  Speaker 2: at six it was six thirty in the initial one.
• 30:48
  Speaker 2: I'm being slightly pedantic with some of these, but as
• 30:52
  Speaker 2: we will see in they may be relevant. And a
• 30:55
  Speaker 2: big one, which is that in the initial statement, I
• 30:58
  Speaker 2: believe he lined up loss losing, but I don't know
• 31:02
  Speaker 2: how much. In this one he hit five or six
• 31:04
  Speaker 2: trifectors and had to go and pick up his winnings
• 31:06
  Speaker 2: at a window. So lots of contradictions, and we've spoken
• 31:10
  Speaker 2: about how things could change over time. Lots of those
• 31:14
  Speaker 2: ones I would let slip. You know, I can't remember
• 31:16
  Speaker 2: what time I had to be at work two months ago,
• 31:19
  Speaker 2: in never mind, you know, decades ago. However, they all
• 31:23
  Speaker 2: start to track up or stack up, just to give
• 31:27
  Speaker 2: me an air of suspicion around the veracity of some
• 31:31
  Speaker 2: of the details. For example, how many people were there
• 31:34
  Speaker 2: that night has changed from three to five or six
• 31:37
  Speaker 2: of us? And also did he win did he lose?
• 31:40
  Speaker 2: That seems like something much larger that you would remember.
• 31:46
  Speaker 2: I thought that in the first statement, there was a
• 31:49
  Speaker 2: sense that losing money may have been something that made
• 31:53
  Speaker 2: this guy, you know, go missing, you know, whether it
• 31:56
  Speaker 2: was a real stress for him, or whether you know,
• 31:59
  Speaker 2: he lost money to the wrong sort of people, or
• 32:01
  Speaker 2: whatever it was he was getting at in that statement.
• 32:04
  Speaker 2: But all of a sudden, it's the winning and maybe
• 32:06
  Speaker 2: that is what happened to him that day, that he
• 32:08
  Speaker 2: won money and people noticed this and robbed him for
• 32:11
  Speaker 2: the money.
• 32:14
  Speaker 1: Yeah, we definitely see an an inconsistency with that. Like earlier,
• 32:21
  Speaker 1: I was talking about this focus on who was driving
• 32:25
  Speaker 1: what car, where was the car parked, what time? And
• 32:27
  Speaker 1: then something that also comes up very frequently is was
• 32:30
  Speaker 1: there a lot of money? Was there a win of money.
• 32:33
  Speaker 1: There was a check that was cash. Did he have
• 32:34
  Speaker 1: a lot of money? Could that explain what happened? So
• 32:38
  Speaker 1: those are kind of the two things that really people
• 32:40
  Speaker 1: seem to really focus on.
• 32:42
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I think there's you shared with me an initial
• 32:45
  Speaker 2: report as well, which I don't think we're going to
• 32:47
  Speaker 2: look at, because it's not the words of the person
• 32:49
  Speaker 2: that we're looking at. It's a police report which mentions
• 32:52
  Speaker 2: a check, doesn't it. And money and money is a
• 32:55
  Speaker 2: theme that comes through and everything here, as does the
• 32:59
  Speaker 2: theme of cars and driving. So in the email we've
• 33:04
  Speaker 2: got there, Mike and I drove to the Baptist church.
• 33:07
  Speaker 2: I left my van getting into his new Grand Prix.
• 33:10
  Speaker 2: New seems like a really strange word to put in there.
• 33:13
  Speaker 2: That the car was new does not seem to be
• 33:15
  Speaker 2: in any way adding to the story that's being told.
• 33:19
  Speaker 2: But it's noted that the car was a new Grand Prix.
• 33:22
  Speaker 2: Driving to the first bar, drove a few blocks to
• 33:25
  Speaker 2: the wild Side. He dropped me off there and I
• 33:31
  Speaker 2: drove home. And then also I took him everywhere. I
• 33:36
  Speaker 2: took them, sorry talking about the parents, I took them
• 33:39
  Speaker 2: everywhere where we had journeyed the days earlier and now
• 33:44
  Speaker 2: That got me very interested because we do have again
• 33:48
  Speaker 2: these cars and the driving there, but everywhere we had
• 33:51
  Speaker 2: journeyed the days earlier. And actually, if you look at
• 33:54
  Speaker 2: his description of the night before, it is more like
• 33:57
  Speaker 2: a description of a journey than a night of fun, games, laughter,
• 34:03
  Speaker 2: drinks and dog tracks. Does the description is much more
• 34:06
  Speaker 2: like a journey.
• 34:09
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, just even to go back to you
• 34:11
  Speaker 3: mentioned earlier about statements that you can, you know, change
• 34:14
  Speaker 3: over time versus things that kind of stand out to
• 34:17
  Speaker 3: be polar opposites. We talked about that with Jenny quite
• 34:20
  Speaker 3: a bit in a previous episode, and the winning thing
• 34:23
  Speaker 3: is I've really hung up on that because the difference
• 34:25
  Speaker 3: between losing money, losing fifty dollars versus winning five trifectas
• 34:31
  Speaker 3: you know, or even three, I mean, just from a
• 34:33
  Speaker 3: statistics perspective, that it would be nearly impossible. So we've
• 34:37
  Speaker 3: gone from losing money to something that's nearly impossible, and
• 34:40
  Speaker 3: these are very I don't think that's something that would
• 34:42
  Speaker 3: have changed over time.
• 34:44
  Speaker 2: Yeah, So you know, he gets the order of the
• 34:46
  Speaker 2: bars differently in the second telling of this as well.
• 34:50
  Speaker 2: He gets the time that he started work and these
• 34:53
  Speaker 2: things can go wrong with time. But for me, the
• 34:56
  Speaker 2: winning or losing is an event of the evening, you know,
• 35:01
  Speaker 2: a big event of the evening. And it seems to
• 35:05
  Speaker 2: me like to get that so wrong, you know, as
• 35:08
  Speaker 2: you know, starting work at six or six thirty, that's
• 35:10
  Speaker 2: that's neither here nor there. But winning versus you know, losing,
• 35:15
  Speaker 2: very very wrong.
• 35:17
  Speaker 1: Yeah, we have you know, twenty twenty one year old.
• 35:21
  Speaker 1: You know, men who are at the dog track and
• 35:24
  Speaker 1: if somebody wins even three or four trifectors, because we
• 35:27
  Speaker 1: looked into what this means, that's a lot of money, right,
• 35:31
  Speaker 1: Like I remember getting excited around I think I want
• 35:33
  Speaker 1: eighty dollars in Las Vegas. I remember I'm like, whoa
• 35:36
  Speaker 1: eighty bucks? That's a lot.
• 35:38
  Speaker 3: Everyone new she want eighty dollars, I.
• 35:42
  Speaker 2: Think for me. So one of the really interesting things
• 35:45
  Speaker 2: we can do is look at repeated concepts when we
• 35:47
  Speaker 2: talk to someone and learn a lot about what's important
• 35:50
  Speaker 2: to them, what's what they value when they talk. And
• 35:53
  Speaker 2: I just like to point out, Alyssa, that you were
• 35:54
  Speaker 2: texting me one evening from a casino car park, then
• 35:57
  Speaker 2: you told me that you went into the casino afterwards,
• 35:59
  Speaker 2: and now telling me more betting stories. About wedding in Vegas.
• 36:02
  Speaker 2: So I got my eye on you.
• 36:05
  Speaker 1: I do like a good casino.
• 36:08
  Speaker 2: That's true, that's accurate.
• 36:09
  Speaker 1: That's fair. There's something that stood out to me at
• 36:12
  Speaker 1: the beginning of this email. I just want to read
• 36:15
  Speaker 1: it back, and I mean it stood out to me.
• 36:18
  Speaker 1: This is not my air of expertise, but I wonder
• 36:20
  Speaker 1: what your thoughts are. And it's really the very beginning
• 36:23
  Speaker 1: of this email, and it says, although time has slipped by,
• 36:27
  Speaker 1: the memory is always still hanging in the back of
• 36:30
  Speaker 1: my mind. And that just feels like someone is setting
• 36:34
  Speaker 1: up like not remembering. I feel like they're just right
• 36:36
  Speaker 1: out of the gate saying, hey, I don't really remember.
• 36:38
  Speaker 1: That's how that reads to me.
• 36:40
  Speaker 2: Now, that's a really good point. The first things that
• 36:43
  Speaker 2: we mentioned tend to be the things that were just
• 36:45
  Speaker 2: desperate to mention because they're very important for us to mention.
• 36:50
  Speaker 2: So time is slipped by, is yeah, indicative of my memory?
• 36:56
  Speaker 2: Might not be so good on this, but then it
• 36:59
  Speaker 2: does say memory is always still hanging in the back
• 37:03
  Speaker 2: of my mind. I'm always suspicious of people who talk
• 37:06
  Speaker 2: in absolutes, so I don't wish to be unkind to
• 37:11
  Speaker 2: Michael who's disappeared. However, it's a long time has passed,
• 37:16
  Speaker 2: you know, and this was someone who was a friend
• 37:19
  Speaker 2: of his, not a close relative or a parent or
• 37:22
  Speaker 2: anything like that. Always hanging at the back of your mind.
• 37:25
  Speaker 2: I'm not sure I believe that that feels like a
• 37:30
  Speaker 2: little bit persuasive to me or is it true? In
• 37:34
  Speaker 2: which case, why is it true again? Because we would
• 37:35
  Speaker 2: expect time to maybe you think about this on specific
• 37:39
  Speaker 2: dates or if you pass a dog track or you know,
• 37:41
  Speaker 2: something like that, that might be the sort of thing
• 37:45
  Speaker 2: that would remind you of this experience that you had,
• 37:49
  Speaker 2: so time is slipped by. Yeah, really important that they
• 37:52
  Speaker 2: want to get this out first. The memory is always
• 37:54
  Speaker 2: still hanging at the back of my mind. And that
• 37:57
  Speaker 2: word hanging, I think you'd have a lot of hidden
• 38:01
  Speaker 2: meaning in it, And I'm not going to guess what
• 38:04
  Speaker 2: that is, because the concept of hanging or lingering or
• 38:08
  Speaker 2: anything like that doesn't appear anywhere else in the email.
• 38:11
  Speaker 2: When I first saw hanging, I was like, oh, I'm
• 38:13
  Speaker 2: going to watch out for related concepts through it, and
• 38:15
  Speaker 2: there doesn't seem to be anywhere else. But that word
• 38:18
  Speaker 2: is not a very expected word, you know. We would
• 38:23
  Speaker 2: say the memory lingers or is still there or I've
• 38:25
  Speaker 2: never forgotten, but hanging in the back of my mind
• 38:28
  Speaker 2: is a very unusual way of constructing that thought.
• 38:32
  Speaker 1: Yeah, agreed, that would just really stood out to me.
• 38:35
  Speaker 1: So are there things in this email that you wanted
• 38:38
  Speaker 1: to discuss that you that we have not talked about yet.
• 38:42
  Speaker 2: Yeah, So that middle, sorry, second paragraph there where we
• 38:47
  Speaker 2: get more information about the bars than the dogs. Five
• 38:52
  Speaker 2: or six of us, and the last race was after
• 38:54
  Speaker 2: eleven pm. That's all we get about the dogs in
• 38:57
  Speaker 2: this telling. The rest of the guys had to be
• 38:59
  Speaker 2: at work by so all went home, So again a question.
• 39:06
  Speaker 2: But when everyone went home, witnesses stopped, and then we
• 39:10
  Speaker 2: got a lot more detail. Mike and I drove to
• 39:13
  Speaker 2: the Baptist church at the corner of Cherry Road in
• 39:15
  Speaker 2: Congress and left my van getting into his new Grand
• 39:17
  Speaker 2: Prix driving to the first bar, had a few drinks
• 39:19
  Speaker 2: with no problems, and then we drove a few blocks
• 39:21
  Speaker 2: to well Side, which I had never been to before,
• 39:24
  Speaker 2: but I felt it was a bit rough around the edges,
• 39:25
  Speaker 2: although I don't recall any disturbances. So we've got a
• 39:28
  Speaker 2: real full picture again of the movements of cars and vans.
• 39:32
  Speaker 2: Even now some added detail that was a new grand
• 39:34
  Speaker 2: prix that some of the driving was done in the
• 39:37
  Speaker 2: names of the bars are the name of one of
• 39:39
  Speaker 2: the bars when they went, what the bars were like,
• 39:42
  Speaker 2: but the dog track kind of disappeared in terms of
• 39:46
  Speaker 2: any detail there. The other thing is the bars. So
• 39:51
  Speaker 2: have we had went to the first bar, driving to
• 39:55
  Speaker 2: the first bar, we had a few drinks with no problems.
• 40:00
  Speaker 2: Why they need to tell us there were no problems?
• 40:02
  Speaker 2: Were problems expected? Or is this to say no one
• 40:07
  Speaker 2: would have noticed us. I went for a coffee in
• 40:10
  Speaker 2: Starbucks this morning. I didn't tell you. I wouldn't tell
• 40:12
  Speaker 2: you I went for a coffee and Starbucks this morning
• 40:14
  Speaker 2: with no problems unless I had had problems there in
• 40:17
  Speaker 2: the past. I've been banned from Starbucks or something. So
• 40:21
  Speaker 2: adding with no problems was really interesting. And again talking
• 40:25
  Speaker 2: about the wild Side, I'd never been to before, but
• 40:27
  Speaker 2: I felt it was a bit rough around the edges,
• 40:30
  Speaker 2: although I don't recall any disturbances. So both bars have
• 40:35
  Speaker 2: something attached to them which is saying there were no
• 40:39
  Speaker 2: issues at these bars. And I'm very interested in why
• 40:43
  Speaker 2: that was important for the person to put in the
• 40:47
  Speaker 2: email when they wrote it.
• 40:49
  Speaker 1: Yeah, there is this. To me, it feels sort of
• 40:51
  Speaker 1: like a setup, like if I'm telling a story that's
• 40:54
  Speaker 1: leading towards something that significant that did happen. Then also, oh, hey,
• 40:58
  Speaker 1: at first there were no problems this, but then right
• 41:01
  Speaker 1: like he's got this with no problems rough around the edges,
• 41:04
  Speaker 1: and then in near the end there's the to be
• 41:07
  Speaker 1: honest with you. Florida has a lot of CD characters,
• 41:11
  Speaker 1: So that's another like, what what are we trying. It's
• 41:14
  Speaker 1: almost like it's trying to hint towards something.
• 41:17
  Speaker 2: Yeah, but badly because it's to be honest with you,
• 41:20
  Speaker 2: Florida has a lot of CD characters present tense not
• 41:26
  Speaker 2: there were a lot of CD people at the time. Also,
• 41:31
  Speaker 2: this is Florida in general, not the dog Track, just
• 41:35
  Speaker 2: Florida in general, a huge, big place has a lot
• 41:38
  Speaker 2: of CD characters. So again, what he wants us to
• 41:42
  Speaker 2: get from this is that potentially there were some bad
• 41:45
  Speaker 2: people at the dog Track who noticed him winning a
• 41:48
  Speaker 2: lot and thought he'd be easy for money. But when
• 41:51
  Speaker 2: you dig into the words, it doesn't actually say that.
• 41:55
  Speaker 2: It's it's a hint. It's an illusion, and it's very
• 41:58
  Speaker 2: easy just to go, oh, what he thinks, you know,
• 42:00
  Speaker 2: someone saw him at the doll crack winning lots of
• 42:02
  Speaker 2: money and decided to off the Whereas if you read
• 42:06
  Speaker 2: what he says, he doesn't say that at all. He
• 42:08
  Speaker 2: alludes to it there. The other thing is the very
• 42:13
  Speaker 2: end of that paragraph, the last sentence, which is certainly
• 42:19
  Speaker 2: a tragic evening. Well, how do you know it was
• 42:26
  Speaker 2: a tragic evening because this is a missing person. So
• 42:30
  Speaker 2: while that might be sad, it's not necessarily a tragedy.
• 42:37
  Speaker 2: And it's a missing person who in your intro you said,
• 42:40
  Speaker 2: we don't know when this person went missing. Was it
• 42:42
  Speaker 2: the evening or was it the next day? But he
• 42:45
  Speaker 2: recalled he refers to it as a tragic evening, which
• 42:49
  Speaker 2: is I'd be wanting to know why he referred to
• 42:53
  Speaker 2: it that way. But never any remains of his car
• 42:57
  Speaker 2: or himself is quite baffling. He mentions the car first,
• 43:01
  Speaker 2: and he mentions remains as well. It's that is so
• 43:05
  Speaker 2: compared to everything else, so dark, a tragic evening remains
• 43:10
  Speaker 2: the car coming before the person. You know, if you
• 43:14
  Speaker 2: had to ask me to take a flyer on this,
• 43:17
  Speaker 2: I would say, if you find the car, you find
• 43:19
  Speaker 2: the person. And the person would be inside the car.
• 43:24
  Speaker 2: That would be my guess from those words. How the
• 43:26
  Speaker 2: person who wrote this email would know this? You know,
• 43:30
  Speaker 2: I is not there in the words. But again another
• 43:35
  Speaker 2: focus on cars vehicles as well, because the car comes
• 43:39
  Speaker 2: before the person. If a person's gone missing, their car
• 43:42
  Speaker 2: as secondary, very very distant secondary. But no, the car
• 43:47
  Speaker 2: is mentioned and then himself first, and that tragic evening
• 43:51
  Speaker 2: is well, you know, nothing nothing in his story leading
• 43:56
  Speaker 2: up to that point suggests anything about it being a tragedy,
• 43:59
  Speaker 2: because as I said, the story should start when Michael
• 44:05
  Speaker 2: was noticed missing, but it doesn't. It's the evening that
• 44:08
  Speaker 2: was tragic.
• 44:10
  Speaker 3: Yeah, it's interesting too. Just by that statement, it makes
• 44:12
  Speaker 3: me feel good from the perspective of all the work
• 44:15
  Speaker 3: that's been going from the dive groups that it does
• 44:18
  Speaker 3: support their theory that he's in the car and in
• 44:21
  Speaker 3: the water.
• 44:22
  Speaker 2: Yes, yes, and potentially as well with that focus at
• 44:26
  Speaker 2: the end there on Florida. Florida has a lot of
• 44:29
  Speaker 2: CD characters West Palm Beach lost my love for the
• 44:31
  Speaker 2: east coast of Florida. Then that that could be a
• 44:36
  Speaker 2: clue as to a location.
• 44:38
  Speaker 1: As well, something they think about for sure. So what
• 44:44
  Speaker 1: kinds of corroborating evidence, like a map or a time log.
• 44:49
  Speaker 1: We have these handwritten calendars that were kept by the family.
• 44:53
  Speaker 1: Is there anything else that complements linguistic analysis in maybe
• 44:59
  Speaker 1: re constructing the truth or determining the lack of truth.
• 45:05
  Speaker 2: There can be especially when you're talking about timelines, is
• 45:10
  Speaker 2: you can spot people jumping around timelines they when they talk.
• 45:17
  Speaker 2: For example, it happens in both of these statements here,
• 45:20
  Speaker 2: which is that the story starts at the dog track,
• 45:24
  Speaker 2: then there is the bars, then there is the next day,
• 45:28
  Speaker 2: and then we go back to the dog track. So
• 45:31
  Speaker 2: I'm going to number one of the dog track is
• 45:33
  Speaker 2: really significant for some reason here, or what happened at
• 45:37
  Speaker 2: the dog track may be very significant for some reason here.
• 45:40
  Speaker 2: But we notice things like that. We can notice jumps
• 45:42
  Speaker 2: in time as well, and some also statements out of time.
• 45:47
  Speaker 2: I'm working on something at the moment where we've got
• 45:52
  Speaker 2: a woman talking about someone who was threatening her, harassing her,
• 46:00
  Speaker 2: and it's really clear from her words that she's conflated.
• 46:03
  Speaker 2: It's not conflating, not conflating, and talking about saying that
• 46:07
  Speaker 2: these three events all happened on the same day, but
• 46:10
  Speaker 2: she's taken time off of some of the events to
• 46:12
  Speaker 2: make it all sound like it happened in a very
• 46:14
  Speaker 2: compressed period of time, even though these things could have
• 46:17
  Speaker 2: happened over a period of months. Because some of the
• 46:21
  Speaker 2: things she's talking about, she doesn't attach any time to them,
• 46:24
  Speaker 2: she doesn't join them to the other things or talk
• 46:27
  Speaker 2: about them in any sort of logical sequence.
• 46:32
  Speaker 1: I think it's really interesting that you brought up this
• 46:34
  Speaker 1: expansion or compression of time, and we're talking about this
• 46:39
  Speaker 1: missing person's case. All that appears to be known from
• 46:44
  Speaker 1: the Dog Track moving forward is really one person's account.
• 46:48
  Speaker 1: And you know, because we don't have cell phone data
• 46:52
  Speaker 1: from nineteen seventy nine and cameras, Like, who's to say
• 46:56
  Speaker 1: the accuracy of that timeline to the actual truth? Maybe
• 47:01
  Speaker 1: some adaptations to the timeline and the events.
• 47:04
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I go back to the original statement when we're
• 47:07
  Speaker 2: talking about timelines again, we've got this concept here of
• 47:13
  Speaker 2: I went to the Dog Track about seven to fifteen
• 47:16
  Speaker 2: and got a table in the clubhouse. Michael got there
• 47:19
  Speaker 2: about seven thirty five, and the other person got there
• 47:21
  Speaker 2: about eight pm. That's three lines worth of detail in
• 47:24
  Speaker 2: that statement about the times that people arrived we stayed
• 47:28
  Speaker 2: at the Dog track until about one fifteen am. There's
• 47:31
  Speaker 2: no content as to anything in between. You know, there's nothing,
• 47:36
  Speaker 2: and it's exact same when the other one. We don't
• 47:38
  Speaker 2: know were they you know, the amount that was drunk was.
• 47:44
  Speaker 2: There's some good winning, some bad losing. These things come
• 47:48
  Speaker 2: at the very end. But there's a lot of detail
• 47:51
  Speaker 2: at that very start of the dog track, and then
• 47:54
  Speaker 2: in everything no detail until they left. And so I'd
• 48:00
  Speaker 2: be interested in what did happen there at the dog track.
• 48:02
  Speaker 2: The dog track seems to be the foc the centerpiece there,
• 48:08
  Speaker 2: and then we do have lots of detail, like you say,
• 48:11
  Speaker 2: that can't be corroborated around this car, movements and the
• 48:16
  Speaker 2: bars that they visited and so on, which the only
• 48:20
  Speaker 2: other witness to them is not around to corroborate any
• 48:24
  Speaker 2: of that, And that is very interesting to me.
• 48:28
  Speaker 1: Yeah, So based on what we have been able to provide,
• 48:32
  Speaker 1: what are your thoughts about new interviews or reinterviews? Maybe
• 48:35
  Speaker 1: that would you would suggest to clarify inconsistencies in the case.
• 48:40
  Speaker 2: Well, if I had a magic wand and could make
• 48:42
  Speaker 2: anything happen, I would want to talk to this person
• 48:46
  Speaker 2: and dig into those points where things are compressed in time,
• 48:52
  Speaker 2: So what did happen at the dog track? What went on?
• 48:57
  Speaker 2: Who did what? Or taught me through it backwards or
• 48:59
  Speaker 2: what ever? To get some details and then start asking
• 49:03
  Speaker 2: questions about why did you go in separate cars? Why
• 49:07
  Speaker 2: did you make those decisions? Did did Michael wain or
• 49:11
  Speaker 2: did Michael lose at the dog track? Which bar did
• 49:14
  Speaker 2: you go to? Could you describe the bar for me,
• 49:16
  Speaker 2: what it was like, what did you drink when you
• 49:17
  Speaker 2: were there? And just try and see how those stack
• 49:21
  Speaker 2: up as answers, you know, I guess from a maybe
• 49:26
  Speaker 2: more realistic point of view. Then the investigator seems to
• 49:30
  Speaker 2: have the names of the five or six of us
• 49:32
  Speaker 2: that were in the dog track. Can they shine any
• 49:34
  Speaker 2: light on it? Or you know, was there a point
• 49:38
  Speaker 2: where actually they went home slightly earlier? Because actually just
• 49:43
  Speaker 2: let me let me do a little bit of live
• 49:45
  Speaker 2: just now. Well I just think about this, right, So
• 49:51
  Speaker 2: what we've got is in the first one we've got,
• 49:56
  Speaker 2: I went to the dog track seven fifteen, Michael seven
• 49:59
  Speaker 2: thirty five, other person eight. Then it's we stayed at
• 50:02
  Speaker 2: the dog track until about one point fifteen. Then Michael
• 50:05
  Speaker 2: and I went to the wild side. It doesn't say
• 50:08
  Speaker 2: all of us stayed there, So did some people dive
• 50:11
  Speaker 2: out early and the night? That would be very natural
• 50:14
  Speaker 2: actually for a night. I wouldn't it that people drop
• 50:16
  Speaker 2: off at different times. It's the same in the second statement,
• 50:19
  Speaker 2: five or six of us and the last race was
• 50:20
  Speaker 2: after eleven then, And it doesn't say that they all
• 50:26
  Speaker 2: left after eleven, it's just then because the rest of
• 50:28
  Speaker 2: the guys had to be at work at six am,
• 50:30
  Speaker 2: all went home and Mike and I drove to Baptist Church.
• 50:34
  Speaker 2: So there is there a There is a large bit
• 50:37
  Speaker 2: of time there because the way it's being told, eleven
• 50:40
  Speaker 2: pm everyone went home. Then we've got these two bars
• 50:43
  Speaker 2: that they're in until two pm. So it's a period
• 50:45
  Speaker 2: of three hours where there's a lot of car moving,
• 50:48
  Speaker 2: a lot of sitting in bars where nothing happened. So
• 50:52
  Speaker 2: can the people at the dog track who were there?
• 50:55
  Speaker 2: Can they give any information? What time did everyone actually leave? What?
• 50:59
  Speaker 2: You know, what time that they leave up? And also
• 51:02
  Speaker 2: I think it'd be a very long shot, but I'm
• 51:04
  Speaker 2: not an experienced investigator. Was there anyone at the bars
• 51:08
  Speaker 2: who had any information as to what happened?
• 51:12
  Speaker 1: We do have some initially, when the folks who worked
• 51:19
  Speaker 1: at the golf course. These people who were out that
• 51:20
  Speaker 1: night were reached out to for Jenny Decker's podcast. Several
• 51:24
  Speaker 1: of them did respond, and we have a lot of
• 51:27
  Speaker 1: their emails that sort of helped to build the timeline.
• 51:30
  Speaker 1: We do know that there was apparently a plan as
• 51:34
  Speaker 1: far as who was meeting where and where they were
• 51:36
  Speaker 1: going after the dog track, and there was apparent divergence
• 51:40
  Speaker 1: from the plan where they did not This person who
• 51:44
  Speaker 1: was last to see Michael did not do what the
• 51:47
  Speaker 1: original plan was, which we found interesting as well. So
• 51:50
  Speaker 1: we have some of that.
• 51:51
  Speaker 3: Yes, we're talking a time period that if you change
• 51:53
  Speaker 3: the plan, there's no cell phones, there's no pagers, you
• 51:55
  Speaker 3: can't exactly update everyone else. And so it isolated the
• 51:58
  Speaker 3: two of them because they shifted their plans.
• 52:02
  Speaker 1: And I do believe the police did actually I know
• 52:07
  Speaker 1: they went to the two bars and they showed their pictures,
• 52:10
  Speaker 1: and from what I recall seeing, I would need to
• 52:11
  Speaker 1: dig back just to make sure it's perfect, but I
• 52:13
  Speaker 1: recall them not coming back with any information about anybody
• 52:17
  Speaker 1: who worked seeing them that evening. Then I also know
• 52:21
  Speaker 1: that they did talk to like those really early morning people,
• 52:24
  Speaker 1: like the milk delivery people, because could potentially be happening
• 52:28
  Speaker 1: at like five in the morning, right depending on which
• 52:30
  Speaker 1: timeline you're reading. So they the newspaper guys, the milkman,
• 52:34
  Speaker 1: did they see anything, because it's a really small period
• 52:38
  Speaker 1: of like driving from the church parking lot to the hotel,
• 52:41
  Speaker 1: and nobody really saw anything that stood out to them
• 52:43
  Speaker 1: as far as like carjacking was a theory at one point,
• 52:47
  Speaker 1: and you know, nobody ever said that they saw anything
• 52:49
  Speaker 1: like that.
• 52:50
  Speaker 2: Yeah. I think the other thing is take the time.
• 52:54
  Speaker 2: What you spoke about about it being a small time. Actually,
• 52:58
  Speaker 2: in terms of the the email, we have eleven pm
• 53:02
  Speaker 2: until six am when this person turned up at work.
• 53:06
  Speaker 2: That's a period of seven hours where a lot could
• 53:09
  Speaker 2: have happened in that time. I guess so, because you
• 53:14
  Speaker 2: know the bar in the first one when they said
• 53:20
  Speaker 2: stayed on until the lights went on, I mean that
• 53:22
  Speaker 2: might just be true of every single bar. So it's
• 53:24
  Speaker 2: not much of a flyer. But there is a bit
• 53:26
  Speaker 2: of information on the bar, but it could be information
• 53:28
  Speaker 2: gleaned on another visit. But there's you know, very little
• 53:33
  Speaker 2: about the bars I'm including I don't recall any disturbances.
• 53:36
  Speaker 2: Now that is I don't recall is It's perfect because
• 53:44
  Speaker 2: it's one of how can we prove what people recall?
• 53:46
  Speaker 2: So if it was if there was a disturbance in
• 53:48
  Speaker 2: the bar that night, I didn't say there wasn't. I
• 53:52
  Speaker 2: just said I don't recall any disturbances. So what I've
• 53:54
  Speaker 2: said is truthful. I don't recall them. Proving what someone
• 53:57
  Speaker 2: recalls or what they don't recall is is really really
• 54:00
  Speaker 2: tough to do.
• 54:03
  Speaker 1: Anything else that stood out and I of these statements
• 54:06
  Speaker 1: were in comparison to these statements that you wanted to
• 54:08
  Speaker 1: bring up that we did not discuss.
• 54:11
  Speaker 2: Yeah, there was one more thing on the discussion of
• 54:14
  Speaker 2: And again it's the fact that the moment that he
• 54:18
  Speaker 2: was discovered missing just doesn't seem to really be in there.
• 54:23
  Speaker 2: We stopped at the motel later in the day. Now
• 54:25
  Speaker 2: I don't know who we is. It's obviously the person
• 54:28
  Speaker 2: plus at least one other person, only to find all
• 54:32
  Speaker 2: his belongings were still there. Interesting, Why not just all
• 54:38
  Speaker 2: his belongings were there? You know, at that time, I'm
• 54:43
  Speaker 2: sure it would be entirely expected that all his belongings
• 54:46
  Speaker 2: would be there, because you would be thinking, I don't know, hangover,
• 54:53
  Speaker 2: not liking work. He just didn't want to turn up
• 54:55
  Speaker 2: for this job, embarrassed by the losses, met a girl
• 54:59
  Speaker 2: and decided I had to go off and do something
• 55:01
  Speaker 2: better than working. The belonging still being there shouldn't be exceptional.
• 55:07
  Speaker 2: If someone hadn't shown up for three or four days
• 55:10
  Speaker 2: and you thought they'd run town and they disappeared, and
• 55:13
  Speaker 2: you turned up at their place and their belongings were there,
• 55:17
  Speaker 2: you'd say their belongings were still there, but still there
• 55:20
  Speaker 2: just feels a little bit unexpected there. And the other
• 55:25
  Speaker 2: one was at the very end, and I'm going to
• 55:27
  Speaker 2: have to say that street name that I find really
• 55:29
  Speaker 2: hard to stay. He dropped me off at the church.
• 55:34
  Speaker 2: I drove home, and Mike was staying at Howard Johnson's. Okay,
• 55:41
  Speaker 2: joby and ninety five, about a mile away, never to
• 55:45
  Speaker 2: be seen again. He doesn't actually say when he last
• 55:49
  Speaker 2: saw him there. I drove home, so I would presume
• 55:53
  Speaker 2: that there's either Mike drove off and I never saw
• 55:57
  Speaker 2: him again, which is kind of what's in that first statement.
• 55:59
  Speaker 2: This one is I drove home, so actually this is
• 56:04
  Speaker 2: I drove home, so he drove home, Mike was staying
• 56:08
  Speaker 2: at Hard Johnson's and never to be seen again, but
• 56:12
  Speaker 2: he doesn't say when he last saw him in that
• 56:14
  Speaker 2: telling of it. It just says he was never to
• 56:16
  Speaker 2: be seen again.
• 56:17
  Speaker 1: Fascinating. This has been so interesting. We were really really
• 56:21
  Speaker 1: looking forward to this. I really appreciate you taking all
• 56:23
  Speaker 1: the time that you took to look into these statements,
• 56:27
  Speaker 1: and I'm sure other people find this very interesting as well.
• 56:30
  Speaker 1: So remind our listeners where they can find you.
• 56:34
  Speaker 2: The easiest thing to do is google never a Truer Word,
• 56:38
  Speaker 2: and you will find all my channels there, I including
• 56:43
  Speaker 2: my YouTube channel where I do regular breakdowns of words
• 56:46
  Speaker 2: of people in the news or sometimes a classic case
• 56:50
  Speaker 2: like this as well. If you just google never a
• 56:52
  Speaker 2: Truer Word, you will find me excellent.
• 56:55
  Speaker 3: Well, this has been a fantastic interview. I really enjoyed it.
• 56:58
  Speaker 3: I think our listeners will really enjoy it, and so
• 57:00
  Speaker 3: thank you for joining us.
• 57:02
  Speaker 2: Thank you for having me.
• 57:05
  Speaker 1: Tonight. We looked at the disappearance of Michael john Olson
• 57:08
  Speaker 1: through a different lens, one that focuses not just on evidence,
• 57:12
  Speaker 1: but on language itself. As Jack Fox reminded us, sometimes
• 57:17
  Speaker 1: the smallest details, a phrase, a pause, a choice of words,
• 57:22
  Speaker 1: can reveal what's been hidden for decades. They can reopen conversations,
• 57:27
  Speaker 1: challenge assumptions, and help us see the past more clearly.
• 57:32
  Speaker 1: For Michael's family, the questions have never gone away, and
• 57:36
  Speaker 1: for those who remember him, the search for understanding continues.
• 57:40
  Speaker 1: If you have any information related to the disappearance of
• 57:43
  Speaker 1: Michael John Olson, we encourage you to reach out to
• 57:47
  Speaker 1: the West Palm Beach Police Department. You've been listening to
• 58:00
  Speaker 1: Tragedy a True Crime Podcast. Our purpose is to honor
• 58:04
  Speaker 1: victims by sharing their stories through the voices of friends, family,
• 58:08
  Speaker 1: and those whose lives were forever changed. If today's episode
• 58:12
  Speaker 1: resonated with you, we encourage you to subscribe, leave a review,
• 58:17
  Speaker 1: and share the podcast so these important stories continue to
• 58:20
  Speaker 1: be heard. Together, we can preserve their memories and ensure
• 58:25
  Speaker 1: their voices are never forgotten. If you have ideas for
• 58:29
  Speaker 1: cases we should cover or questions about what you heard,
• 58:33
  Speaker 1: you can connect with us through our Facebook group Tragedy
• 58:36
  Speaker 1: a True Crime Podcast on x at Tragedy Podcast, by
• 58:42
  Speaker 1: email at Tragedy a True Crime Podcast at gmail dot com,
• 58:47
  Speaker 1: or by visiting our website www dot Tragedy a True
• 58:51
  Speaker 1: Crime Podcast dot com. Thank you for listening, and we
• 58:56
  Speaker 1: hope you'll join us next time,