Latest / The Path Went Chilly / Mystery Case Statement Analysis Pt. One

Transcript

Mystery Case Statement Analysis Pt. One · The Path Went Chilly

• 0:30
  Speaker 1: So welcome back to our latest series of The Path
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: with Chili. We're recording this just a few days before Christmas,
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: and once again, since Ashley is busy, she has a
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: newborn baby and a family to take care of. Is
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: just going to be me and Jewles doing this particular episode,
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: but we're going to do something a little different from
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: the norm because I'm not going to say the case
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: we're covering right now, because at the moment, Jewles doesn't
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: even know it. I have deliberately not told her any
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: details about it except provided her with a statement that
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: was said by one of the people connected to this case.
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: Because Jewels is going to be performing a statement analysis
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: in this episode, Jules, you want to tell everyone what
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: that is?
• 1:06
  Speaker 2: Yes, okay, So statement analysis has been something I've been
• 1:09
  Speaker 2: interested in since I started Briddle Me That years ago.
• 1:13
  Speaker 2: I no longer do the podcast, but one person that
• 1:16
  Speaker 2: I had interviewed for one of my episodes was Mark
• 1:18
  Speaker 2: McLish and he was the most interesting person that I interviewed.
• 1:23
  Speaker 2: I thought it was so fascinating how you could break
• 1:25
  Speaker 2: down just simple words that we take for granted, how
• 1:28
  Speaker 2: they're put together and punctuation pronouns used time references and
• 1:34
  Speaker 2: you could deduce whether something is false or whether it's true.
• 1:38
  Speaker 2: It's a pretty simple system and when I was interested
• 1:41
  Speaker 2: in learning about the technique, I reached out to Mark
• 1:45
  Speaker 2: and he let me do the training for free. He
• 1:48
  Speaker 2: was incredibly supportive. He looks at statements for me whenever
• 1:52
  Speaker 2: I have something that I have a question when I'm practicing. Unfortunately,
• 1:56
  Speaker 2: for this one, our timing just didn't really align, so
• 1:58
  Speaker 2: he couldn't double check my work. So I want to
• 2:00
  Speaker 2: preface this and say I was certified, but I am
• 2:03
  Speaker 2: in no way an expert here. There could be some
• 2:05
  Speaker 2: of you listening who know far more than I do,
• 2:09
  Speaker 2: and that's okay. You can have your opinion on the
• 2:13
  Speaker 2: way that this is structured. And in the show notes
• 2:15
  Speaker 2: will provide the statement. So if you want to go
• 2:18
  Speaker 2: and do your own analysis, you're more than welcome to.
• 2:21
  Speaker 2: And I just want to give you guys a little
• 2:22
  Speaker 2: bit of information about who Mark McLish is. So he's
• 2:26
  Speaker 2: literally written the book. He's written three of them. One
• 2:29
  Speaker 2: of them is don't be Deceived, the other one is
• 2:32
  Speaker 2: I Know You're lying, and ten ways to spot a liar.
• 2:35
  Speaker 2: So he is a grandfather in the industry, he spent
• 2:38
  Speaker 2: twenty six years in law enforcement. He worked in the
• 2:41
  Speaker 2: Secret Service as well as the Marshall Service, and he
• 2:44
  Speaker 2: spent a great deal of time training in statement analysis
• 2:48
  Speaker 2: because he was the lead instructor on interview techniques and
• 2:52
  Speaker 2: that's where he developed the system of statement analysis. He
• 2:54
  Speaker 2: also worked on developing the software that would detect deception
• 2:58
  Speaker 2: and statements. So he retires hired in two thousand and
• 3:01
  Speaker 2: nine as a supervisory Deputy US Marshal, So he now
• 3:04
  Speaker 2: gets presentations on statement analysis as well as providing training
• 3:08
  Speaker 2: to military and law enforcement agencies. Another fun fact about him,
• 3:11
  Speaker 2: I think it's taekwondo that he's a black belt in.
• 3:15
  Speaker 2: I think he was like head of ground training techniques
• 3:18
  Speaker 2: or something related to that. So our own Ashley Wellman,
• 3:22
  Speaker 2: has a black belt in taekwondo, so I just thought
• 3:24
  Speaker 2: that was an interesting tie in.
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: I actually didn't even know that about Ashley, so that
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: don't be my surprise. So that's cool to hear. So
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: when you interviewed Mark McLish on riddle me that was
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: it in relation to any particular case or was it
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: just a general conversation about statement analysis.
• 3:38
  Speaker 2: No, I believe it was. This was like four years
• 3:41
  Speaker 2: ago or something at this point, maybe even five, But
• 3:44
  Speaker 2: I believe it was the Faith Hedge Peth case and
• 3:48
  Speaker 2: the nine to one one call I believe was what
• 3:50
  Speaker 2: we went over.
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: And what's interesting is that's a case there has since
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: been an arrest and it turned out not to be
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: face roommate who made the call, but rather a completely
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: random predator who was never on the rate as a suspect.
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: So if you kind of interesting to go back and
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: listen to that and see how much is analysis was
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: close to the facts.
• 4:06
  Speaker 2: Yeah, and I think there can be a lot of
• 4:07
  Speaker 2: different things that can go into why somebody is reacting
• 4:11
  Speaker 2: the way that they are with a nine to one
• 4:13
  Speaker 2: one call. But I think a lot of us, when
• 4:15
  Speaker 2: looking at that case, were wrong. I know I was wrong.
• 4:19
  Speaker 2: I thought that there had to have been some involvement
• 4:21
  Speaker 2: of the roommate, given her behavior, the fact that it
• 4:24
  Speaker 2: was unlocked, and the way that she spoke on that
• 4:27
  Speaker 2: nine to one one call, and then what seemed like
• 4:29
  Speaker 2: a lack of cooperation with law enforcement. I don't know
• 4:32
  Speaker 2: if it was a lack of cooperation or just the
• 4:34
  Speaker 2: fact that she wasn't talking to the press, she wasn't
• 4:37
  Speaker 2: giving any statements, and so we were left to wonder
• 4:39
  Speaker 2: and all we really had to go off of was
• 4:42
  Speaker 2: that nine one one call.
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: Yeah, And it's been different in varying cases, where sometimes
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: a nine one one call er was guilty and other
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: times they were completely innocent. You just kind of can't
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: react to how people are going to act and that
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: particular situation. But the good news about the case we're
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: going to talk about is it's still on SOLT, So
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: we still can't technically know if jewels statement analysis is
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: going to be right or wrong, because the truth is
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: still murky. So what we did is I deliberately didn't
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: tell Jewels any details about the cases. I just gave
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: her a one paragraph statement that was made by someone
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: connected to this case in a police interrogation room, and
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: without knowing any of the context of what he was
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: talking about any details of the case, she performed a
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: statement analysis and what he said. So what we'll do
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: is we'll read the statement and then Jewels will give
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: her own statement analysis, and when she's done, I will
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: provide her the context when this statement was made and
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: then share all the details about the featured case, and
• 5:37
  Speaker 1: then we'll find out at the end if Jewels has
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: changed her opinion or not, or if she still thinks
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: she's right on the money. So I'm just going to
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: read the statement out word for word now, and I'll
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: just say is that this is made by an individual
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: while they're in a police interrogation room. So let me
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: just pull it up here. So here it is word
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: for word. Oh, I think it was in the original
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: one you sent me yesterday, so I'll just pull that up.
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: I just got your final one now that I just
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: want to get the word for word one. Okay. So
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: I'm going to read a word for word, and I'm
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: going to bleep out the name of the victim here
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: because we don't want to give that away quote. Okay. Basically,
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: the truth of the matter is me and Blank went
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: to the old College and we got in a big
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: argument and fight, and it was over money that she
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: wouldn't give back to me. It was some change of
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: a twenty dollars bill. She hauled off and punched me.
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: I then, not thinking, pushed her. When she fell backwards
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: her head and paled on something sharp sticking out of
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: the ground. I then said, are you all right? I
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: run over to her, and she just mined a little bit,
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: and there was nothing else. I hollered out for help too,
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: because Holmes Boulevard is right there. Nobody came, nobody yelled
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: back or anything. I didn't want to leave her. I
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: freaked out. I didn't. I said, I don't know what
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: to tell you all. I couldn't tell you all. I
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: just freaked so not thinking, I freaked, I tripped. I
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: just didn't know what to do. I buried her. I
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: didn't know what to do. It was the wrong thing
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: to do. I agree, but I was fourteen years old.
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: I wasn't thinking. I then I came home after that,
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: but she was dead, definitely dead before I buried her.
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: That I know because I checked her stomach and all that.
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: Then after that, I sat there for about thirty minutes,
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: thirty eight to forty five minutes, just didn't know what
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: to do. I went home, I got cleaned up. I
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: regret it. I'm sorry it did happen. I regret pushing her.
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: I wish I could go back in time and not
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: have done that. I wish I could turn time. If
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: I could turn time back, I wouldn't just you know,
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: it was all over money, and you know what money
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: will do to you when you're a kid. I don't know.
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: You were a kid, you had a certain amount of money,
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: the money was valuable to you then, you know. But
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: that's the way it was with me when I was
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: a kid. Every dime I got I depend on because
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: most stuff like that I had to work for. So, Jules,
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: let's hear your statement analysis on this.
• 7:56
  Speaker 2: Oh, this is just the most bizarre statement right from
• 8:00
  Speaker 2: the jump. As soon as I started reading it, I'm like, Okay,
• 8:05
  Speaker 2: it starts with okay basically, so like we're already looking
• 8:10
  Speaker 2: at a problem because we're not just hearing the truth.
• 8:13
  Speaker 2: We're hearing basically what happened, And so I'm gonna analyze. Okay, basically,
• 8:18
  Speaker 2: the truth of the matter is me and Blank went
• 8:22
  Speaker 2: to the old college that part first, Okay, So okay,
• 8:27
  Speaker 2: the subject is taking time to think about what they're
• 8:30
  Speaker 2: going to say. So statements like I swear to God
• 8:33
  Speaker 2: or like the subject used here the truth of the
• 8:36
  Speaker 2: matter often indicate deception. There's an obvious need to convince,
• 8:40
  Speaker 2: and it doesn't always mean deception. If someone feels as
• 8:44
  Speaker 2: though they aren't being believed, they may use these declarative statements.
• 8:49
  Speaker 2: I don't know the discourse between the interviewer and the
• 8:51
  Speaker 2: subject prior. But to me personally from the jump, we're
• 8:55
  Speaker 2: looking at like a high high probability of deception. As is,
• 9:00
  Speaker 2: this isn't a good start. The use of the word,
• 9:03
  Speaker 2: like I said, basically it's suspect. Is this what happened?
• 9:06
  Speaker 2: Or is it basically what happened? It could potentially indicate
• 9:10
  Speaker 2: withholding of information or that this isn't at all what
• 9:14
  Speaker 2: happened and it's just a fabrication. The subject mentions the
• 9:19
  Speaker 2: old college. What's the old college? We know this is
• 9:23
  Speaker 2: familiar since he used the definite article with the rather
• 9:27
  Speaker 2: than a so is this his old college? The location's vague,
• 9:32
  Speaker 2: but perhaps this is somewhere known to everyone in the area.
• 9:36
  Speaker 2: But the lack of where within the college that they
• 9:40
  Speaker 2: ended up it just isn't giving enough details. There's withholding
• 9:44
  Speaker 2: of specifics such as where did you go in the
• 9:47
  Speaker 2: old college and what was the objective?
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: Well, and I started sharing details about the case, I'll
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: go more into what the old college was, and you'll
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: find out that this was a place that was close
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: to where h this supposed crime took place and that
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: the police did check out the site of this supposed
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: old college but found no corroborating evidence to support this
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: person's story. But yeah, it is kind of a bad sign,
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: especially when you learn the full context that he's starting
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: it off by just using phrases like basically and the
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: truth of the matter, and you just kind of feel
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: like he's trying to find the right words to explain
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: what happened, even though if he's telling the truth, this
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: probably shouldn't be needing to do.
• 10:27
  Speaker 2: This, And unfortunately, I feel like this sets the tone
• 10:30
  Speaker 2: for the entire statement.
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly, because I remember watching it for the first
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: time because I covered this one on the Trail Went
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: Cold several years ago, and when I watched the interrogation,
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: I had these feelings that you did immediately.
• 10:44
  Speaker 2: So the next part that we're going to cover. The
• 10:46
  Speaker 2: next line is we got in a big argument and fight,
• 10:50
  Speaker 2: and it was over money that she wouldn't get back
• 10:53
  Speaker 2: to me. So the use of the word we indicates
• 10:56
  Speaker 2: the partnership of some kind. So I'd say that there's
• 10:59
  Speaker 2: a high problem ability that they didn't just meet that night.
• 11:02
  Speaker 2: If they are indeed acquainted, they were known to each
• 11:06
  Speaker 2: other prior to the events that would end her life.
• 11:09
  Speaker 2: And I find this interesting that the subject says big
• 11:12
  Speaker 2: argument and fight. Typically one would say one or the other.
• 11:17
  Speaker 2: It's possible that in this person's personal dictionary, an argument
• 11:21
  Speaker 2: is verbal and a fight is physical. The interviewer should
• 11:25
  Speaker 2: definitely probe further here. And the subject says that the
• 11:29
  Speaker 2: woman in question wouldn't give back money, but never says
• 11:33
  Speaker 2: how she came into possession of that money. He never
• 11:36
  Speaker 2: says that she took it from him or stole it,
• 11:38
  Speaker 2: or even that he lent it to her. We are
• 11:41
  Speaker 2: only getting part of the story here, and don't you
• 11:43
  Speaker 2: find that a little bizarre?
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: I do, yes, because once we learn the background of
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: this person, it just seems very odd that they would
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: be in possession of money at this particular time. And
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: that's one of the story that has always been kind
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: of a red flag to me. And I do see
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: this sometimes where or if someone confesses to a murder
• 12:02
  Speaker 1: and they always say, well, I didn't intend to kill
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: this person. It was just a thing where we got
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: into an argument in a fight and they fell over
• 12:08
  Speaker 1: and hit their head. And there was one case that
• 12:11
  Speaker 1: I covered on the Trail and Cold a couple of
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: years ago about the disappearance of a woman named Bethany Decker,
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: who was killed by her boyfriend Ronald roll Dan and
• 12:19
  Speaker 1: they never found her remains, but there was a compelling,
• 12:22
  Speaker 1: circumstantial evidence against him to charge him with murder, and
• 12:26
  Speaker 1: one of the terms of the plea deal that was
• 12:28
  Speaker 1: offered is that he would have to make a statement
• 12:30
  Speaker 1: in court, a full confession about what happened. And even
• 12:33
  Speaker 1: though he did, the victim's family was not satisfied because
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: he used the whole thing, well, we got into a
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: fight and I pushed her and she hit her head,
• 12:40
  Speaker 1: and I didn't mean to. And they've always been skeptical
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: of that because this guy was known for having a
• 12:45
  Speaker 1: history of violence and abuse. But because they couldn't find
• 12:49
  Speaker 1: her remains, they can't really prove or disprove his story.
• 12:52
  Speaker 1: But they still kind of feel that, yeah, that's his
• 12:54
  Speaker 1: way of like deflecting responsibility, where he tries to say
• 12:57
  Speaker 1: that he didn't mean to kill anyone and that it
• 12:59
  Speaker 1: was only an accident, and that could very well be
• 13:01
  Speaker 1: the case here as well.
• 13:03
  Speaker 2: I mean I will say here, like I've gone back
• 13:06
  Speaker 2: and forth for sure on whether or not this is
• 13:10
  Speaker 2: this is completely fabricated at a false confession, or this
• 13:13
  Speaker 2: is completely fabricated and this person is indeed responsible. By
• 13:18
  Speaker 2: the time we get to this, I may change my
• 13:20
  Speaker 2: mind again because there's so much in here that says
• 13:25
  Speaker 2: this is all fabricated. But there is just a few
• 13:28
  Speaker 2: little nuggets that give me pause, and we'll get to that.
• 13:33
  Speaker 2: But the money thing is definitely one of them. If
• 13:37
  Speaker 2: he is indeed responsible, that money is not the motivation,
• 13:41
  Speaker 2: because there's just the lack of specificity, and you'd think
• 13:44
  Speaker 2: if money was so important, you would give us an amount.
• 13:47
  Speaker 1: Yes, And I've always felt the same thing about this
• 13:49
  Speaker 1: particular person. I don't have a concrete opinion on whether
• 13:52
  Speaker 1: or not they're guilty, but I do believe that if
• 13:54
  Speaker 1: they are, then the statement that they're making here is
• 13:56
  Speaker 1: not the truth about what actually happened.
• 13:59
  Speaker 2: And think about when you're telling a story, a true story,
• 14:03
  Speaker 2: it should flow for memory. But this story has a
• 14:06
  Speaker 2: lot of pauses. Like when you're looking at the transcript,
• 14:09
  Speaker 2: there's a lot of dot dots and there isn't a flow.
• 14:13
  Speaker 2: It's disjointed and there's a lot of fragments, and that
• 14:16
  Speaker 2: shouldn't really be happening if it's coming from memory, and
• 14:20
  Speaker 2: if it is an incident where somebody lost their life,
• 14:23
  Speaker 2: and you're saying that you pushed her. Okay, well, if
• 14:27
  Speaker 2: this resulted in her death, you'd think that he would
• 14:30
  Speaker 2: remember that.
• 14:31
  Speaker 1: I think so. Yeah, Like, once you learn the full contact,
• 14:34
  Speaker 1: you would pretty much realize that this is one of
• 14:36
  Speaker 1: the most memorable experiences that would have taken place in
• 14:39
  Speaker 1: this person's life. So you think he would recall details
• 14:42
  Speaker 1: a lot more vividly.
• 14:43
  Speaker 2: Exactly. Typically, when you're telling a story, it shouldn't be
• 14:47
  Speaker 2: something that requires that much effort. You often see that
• 14:51
  Speaker 2: in deceptive statements. And I mentioned the money earlier. He
• 14:56
  Speaker 2: doesn't tell us how much money. He doesn't tell us
• 14:59
  Speaker 2: how she got that much money, and that seems like
• 15:02
  Speaker 2: a very odd thing to me, especially when he's telling
• 15:05
  Speaker 2: us that is his primary motivation for this fight. He
• 15:09
  Speaker 2: jumps into the next part of the story. There isn't
• 15:11
  Speaker 2: a lead up about why or what led up to
• 15:14
  Speaker 2: the fight, or he doesn't say something to the effect of,
• 15:18
  Speaker 2: she took the money, I confronted her, and she punched
• 15:20
  Speaker 2: me rather out of the blue, she hauled off and
• 15:24
  Speaker 2: punched me. The language she used here is odd. Did
• 15:28
  Speaker 2: she out of nowhere punch him as he suggests, or
• 15:32
  Speaker 2: was she defending herself. There's definitely a withholding of information
• 15:36
  Speaker 2: here in my opinion. And then he says, I then
• 15:39
  Speaker 2: dot dot dot, So he's pausing to think about how
• 15:42
  Speaker 2: he's going to phrase this. If he was recalling it
• 15:45
  Speaker 2: from memory, there wouldn't be the need to pause incessantly
• 15:48
  Speaker 2: and rephrase as he does throughout. So this version of
• 15:52
  Speaker 2: events seems deceptive. With the quote I then dot dot dot,
• 15:56
  Speaker 2: not thinking dot dot dot pushed her think about recalling
• 15:59
  Speaker 2: about event such as this. If you were punched in
• 16:01
  Speaker 2: the face, you may react by pushing back. The pause
• 16:05
  Speaker 2: in the inclusion of not thinking makes me believe there's
• 16:08
  Speaker 2: a potential that this isn't in all how the event's transpired,
• 16:12
  Speaker 2: and that this is deceptive, just like we've seen throughout
• 16:15
  Speaker 2: the statement. And notice how casual not thinking is and
• 16:19
  Speaker 2: how devoid of emotion this story is considering the gravity
• 16:23
  Speaker 2: of it. The tone doesn't match the actions, and that's
• 16:26
  Speaker 2: something to look out for.
• 16:28
  Speaker 1: Yes, the whole thing about the twenty dollars bill has
• 16:30
  Speaker 1: always been a red flag for me because when you
• 16:32
  Speaker 1: hear the full context of who these people are, it
• 16:35
  Speaker 1: does seem unlikely that they would have been in possession
• 16:38
  Speaker 1: of a twenty dollars bill at this particular time, So
• 16:41
  Speaker 1: it does sound like he's thrown that detail into the story,
• 16:44
  Speaker 1: possibly to mask what he really did, like the real
• 16:47
  Speaker 1: truth behind her death. And also when you learn the
• 16:50
  Speaker 1: full context of when he's making this confession, I mean,
• 16:53
  Speaker 1: people are going to act differently when they're confessing to
• 16:56
  Speaker 1: the worst thing they ever did. But I do think
• 16:58
  Speaker 1: that this is a context where he probably would be
• 17:01
  Speaker 1: a lot more emotional. But I've seen the actual police
• 17:04
  Speaker 1: interrogation video where he makes his confession, and he does
• 17:07
  Speaker 1: do it in a very flat, unemotional tone most of
• 17:10
  Speaker 1: the time, and you're kind of wondering this was true.
• 17:14
  Speaker 1: Then I would expect like a lot more emotion from him.
• 17:17
  Speaker 2: Yeah, the tone is very incongruous with what you would expect.
• 17:21
  Speaker 2: You would expect there to be a lot of emotion
• 17:23
  Speaker 2: when you're recalling something like this, but there isn't that.
• 17:27
  Speaker 2: And he uses a lot of passive language as well,
• 17:30
  Speaker 2: which is something to look out for, Like you know
• 17:32
  Speaker 2: she fell, It's like, no, she didn't fall. You pushed her,
• 17:36
  Speaker 2: and that's why she ended up where she was, if
• 17:39
  Speaker 2: you were to be believed. So the next time we're
• 17:41
  Speaker 2: going to analyze, is she fell backwards and her head
• 17:45
  Speaker 2: dot dot dot. When she fell backwards, her head impaled
• 17:48
  Speaker 2: on something sharp sticking out of the ground. So like
• 17:51
  Speaker 2: I just said, she didn't fall backwards. This is passive
• 17:54
  Speaker 2: language and it's used to minimize. So the subject admits
• 17:58
  Speaker 2: to pushing her backwards, then he doubles down and takes
• 18:01
  Speaker 2: himself out of the statement by following it up again
• 18:05
  Speaker 2: when she fell backwards. This shows a lack of responsibility
• 18:09
  Speaker 2: and distancing. So rather than being like when I pushed
• 18:12
  Speaker 2: her backwards and she fell, he's like when she fell backwards,
• 18:16
  Speaker 2: as if this was something that happened independent of anything
• 18:19
  Speaker 2: that he did. And so I'm curious what he was
• 18:22
  Speaker 2: going to say when he said, well, she fell backwards
• 18:26
  Speaker 2: and her head dot dot dot.
• 18:29
  Speaker 1: It is true. Like if you see this sense in
• 18:32
  Speaker 1: just a void, it's making it sound like he's saying
• 18:34
  Speaker 1: that she fell accidentally, like she tripped, and that he
• 18:37
  Speaker 1: never touched her. But then you see the full context
• 18:39
  Speaker 1: and he says we got into a fight and I
• 18:41
  Speaker 1: pushed her. But at that particular point it does sound
• 18:44
  Speaker 1: like he's afflecting responsibility, saying that, well, it's not really
• 18:47
  Speaker 1: my fault. I only gave her a light shove, and
• 18:49
  Speaker 1: she's the one who fell backwards and caused the fatal
• 18:52
  Speaker 1: injury to her head. So yeah, it makes you wonder
• 18:54
  Speaker 1: is he kind of deflecting responsibility from what he did
• 18:56
  Speaker 1: or is this just not one hundred percent true.
• 18:59
  Speaker 2: Yeah, he's not saying I am paled her head. That
• 19:02
  Speaker 2: he's saying she fell backwards, like taking himself out of
• 19:06
  Speaker 2: that statement completely, and he just doesn't claim responsibility, and
• 19:10
  Speaker 2: he makes it the fault of the inanimate object, like
• 19:12
  Speaker 2: that inanimate object impaled her. I didn't you know, Like
• 19:16
  Speaker 2: he's not like he's saying, you know, it was my fault.
• 19:18
  Speaker 2: This happened and her head was impaled as a result
• 19:22
  Speaker 2: of my actions. He's really trying to take himself out
• 19:25
  Speaker 2: of the statement and make it sound like an accident.
• 19:29
  Speaker 2: So the next part is he said I then said
• 19:33
  Speaker 2: are you all right? He doesn't seem panic when recalling,
• 19:37
  Speaker 2: which should be like a really visceral and emotional situation
• 19:41
  Speaker 2: where most people would rush to her side right away
• 19:44
  Speaker 2: before asking are you all right? I think if you
• 19:48
  Speaker 2: were to tell a story about an event and it
• 19:50
  Speaker 2: was an accident, would you include something like this I
• 19:53
  Speaker 2: don't know. It's not a typical flow of events during
• 19:56
  Speaker 2: a chaotic moment in my opinion.
• 19:59
  Speaker 1: Yeah, And I always wonder how many of these incidents
• 20:02
  Speaker 1: actually happen where someone is pushed and then just by
• 20:04
  Speaker 1: pure luck or bad luck, they wind up getting their
• 20:06
  Speaker 1: head impaled on something sticking out of the ground. Like
• 20:09
  Speaker 1: you hear more details about this exact location where this
• 20:11
  Speaker 1: allegedly took place, and you're thinking of them selves, Man,
• 20:14
  Speaker 1: the odds of her falling down at this one spot
• 20:17
  Speaker 1: that had a sharp object sticking out of the ground
• 20:20
  Speaker 1: just seems very remote. It just seems like one of
• 20:22
  Speaker 1: those one in a million things that could happen. So
• 20:24
  Speaker 1: it makes you wonder is he deflecting responsibility and making
• 20:28
  Speaker 1: this up to kind of rid himself of his own
• 20:31
  Speaker 1: culpability and what happened And the fact that he's asking
• 20:34
  Speaker 1: are you all right? Like you said, it just seems
• 20:37
  Speaker 1: like a weird thing to say if you saw someone
• 20:39
  Speaker 1: fell and potentially hit their head on something which caused
• 20:42
  Speaker 1: an injury and killed them instantly, And it's almost like,
• 20:46
  Speaker 1: if this isn't what actually happened, it's him once again
• 20:48
  Speaker 1: deflecting responsibility, saying that hey, I didn't mean to kill her.
• 20:52
  Speaker 1: I actually asked her if she was okay, So that
• 20:54
  Speaker 1: means it was just an accident and this wasn't premeditated
• 20:57
  Speaker 1: or anything. So it makes you wonder. Yeah, just changing
• 21:00
  Speaker 1: the details to kind of deflect on what he actually
• 21:03
  Speaker 1: did do.
• 21:05
  Speaker 2: So the next line that we're going to analyze is
• 21:07
  Speaker 2: I run over to her and she just mined a
• 21:09
  Speaker 2: little bit and there was nothing else. So we've got
• 21:13
  Speaker 2: a bit of a problem here at the beginning. I
• 21:16
  Speaker 2: run should be iran, so present tense is often indicative
• 21:20
  Speaker 2: of deception in a statement. And why would you run
• 21:24
  Speaker 2: over to her? Like how far away could she be?
• 21:27
  Speaker 2: The subject isn't a superhero that could like push her
• 21:30
  Speaker 2: one hundred meters away? He admitted he pushed her, So
• 21:34
  Speaker 2: it shouldn't require a run. It should be a step
• 21:36
  Speaker 2: or two, should it not.
• 21:38
  Speaker 1: Yeah, like if they got into like an altercation where
• 21:40
  Speaker 1: he shoved her and she fell over, like she's not
• 21:42
  Speaker 1: gonna fly like one hundred feet away, Like he's not
• 21:45
  Speaker 1: gonna need to run over. She's going to be very
• 21:47
  Speaker 1: close to him.
• 21:48
  Speaker 2: Interesting, he uses the word just a lot. This is
• 21:51
  Speaker 2: the first time we see it in the statement, But
• 21:53
  Speaker 2: he uses it quite a bit, and it's what's referred
• 21:56
  Speaker 2: to as a unique word, and it can often indicate
• 22:00
  Speaker 2: withholding of information. So when he says she just mined
• 22:04
  Speaker 2: a little bit, I question if that's indeed accurate. What
• 22:08
  Speaker 2: does he mean by mind? It's not phrase in the
• 22:12
  Speaker 2: context of someone lying there and dying. Why would it
• 22:15
  Speaker 2: not make more sense that she raised her arms and
• 22:17
  Speaker 2: waved her fingers. There's something soft about mind, and that
• 22:21
  Speaker 2: can indicate deception in this context. So if she is
• 22:26
  Speaker 2: indeed dead, which it seems like she potentially is, with
• 22:30
  Speaker 2: there was nothing else, wouldn't we see more panic, more grief, regret, remorse.
• 22:37
  Speaker 2: There's a very casual telling of events that potentially ended
• 22:41
  Speaker 2: someone's life, and that's troubling. There likely was something else,
• 22:45
  Speaker 2: and he's potentially leaving that out of the statement.
• 22:49
  Speaker 1: Yeah, getting back to use of the word mind, I
• 22:51
  Speaker 1: will say that the audio quality on the police and
• 22:53
  Speaker 1: teror cation video isn't the best. So I had to
• 22:56
  Speaker 1: watch that part six or seven times while I was
• 22:59
  Speaker 1: making the train because I had to be absolutely sure
• 23:02
  Speaker 1: what word he used, because I couldn't figure out what
• 23:04
  Speaker 1: he was saying at first, and then once I watched it,
• 23:06
  Speaker 1: a few times it's like, oh, he's saying mind, which
• 23:09
  Speaker 1: even so is just a very weird phrase to go
• 23:11
  Speaker 1: in there, just saying that she kind of mined and
• 23:13
  Speaker 1: looked like she was alive for a little a few
• 23:15
  Speaker 1: seconds before she died, and that is just a very
• 23:18
  Speaker 1: odd phrase to use when you're making a confession to
• 23:20
  Speaker 1: being responsible for someone's death. And yeah, the way he
• 23:24
  Speaker 1: said like there was nothing else, like, he doesn't even
• 23:26
  Speaker 1: make it sound like U he panicked a lot that
• 23:30
  Speaker 1: this person who he caused her death and he didn't
• 23:33
  Speaker 1: even like get down much and like tried to see
• 23:35
  Speaker 1: if she was okay or move her body or anything
• 23:37
  Speaker 1: like that. He just says she moved her head and uh,
• 23:40
  Speaker 1: then she stopped. And I took that immediately as an
• 23:43
  Speaker 1: indication that she was dead. And of course I could
• 23:46
  Speaker 1: be a sign that he's totally fabricating this story and
• 23:49
  Speaker 1: this isn't what happened.
• 23:50
  Speaker 2: I would think if it was unintentional and this was
• 23:53
  Speaker 2: a complete accident, like you pushed her and her head
• 23:56
  Speaker 2: impaled on something sharp, which I don't believe him at all,
• 23:59
  Speaker 2: But if that was indeed the case, you would see
• 24:02
  Speaker 2: some shock because that is a very normal response when
• 24:07
  Speaker 2: something like that happens, that it's an accident and you
• 24:09
  Speaker 2: realize that you unintentionally ended somebody's life by your actions.
• 24:15
  Speaker 2: But he's not shocked. We're not seeing any emotional reaction,
• 24:19
  Speaker 2: and that leads me to believe that, like pretty much,
• 24:21
  Speaker 2: everything he's saying so far is deceptive. Okay, so the
• 24:25
  Speaker 2: next line we're gonna analyze is I hollered out for
• 24:28
  Speaker 2: help too? Because Holmes Boulevard is right there. Nobody came,
• 24:32
  Speaker 2: nobody yelled back or anything. So I question what year
• 24:36
  Speaker 2: is this? Did they have cell phones landlines? Because I
• 24:41
  Speaker 2: hollered out for help too, So the inclusion of two
• 24:44
  Speaker 2: is interesting, as if he hollered in addition to something else. Also,
• 24:50
  Speaker 2: why is he hollering for help on the street? I
• 24:52
  Speaker 2: don't know, Like where this college is located. Is it rural?
• 24:55
  Speaker 2: Did he not have access to a neighbor's home a phone?
• 24:59
  Speaker 2: I don't know this This is incredibly suspect. And if
• 25:01
  Speaker 2: someone heard his cries, wouldn't they approach him in a
• 25:04
  Speaker 2: vehicle or on foot? Why would they holler back? So
• 25:08
  Speaker 2: I question if he did indeed holler as he claims
• 25:10
  Speaker 2: Like here, this appears deceptive and end quote. Nobody came,
• 25:14
  Speaker 2: nobody yelled back or anything like I just said, why
• 25:18
  Speaker 2: would somebody yell back? Wouldn't they see you and come
• 25:21
  Speaker 2: to you?
• 25:22
  Speaker 1: Like?
• 25:22
  Speaker 2: What were you hoping to achieve just by randomly hollering?
• 25:26
  Speaker 2: Notice that he doesn't say he waved his hands and
• 25:28
  Speaker 2: jumped up and down and ran in front of an
• 25:30
  Speaker 2: approaching car. So we're to believe that he just wandered
• 25:33
  Speaker 2: onto the street and started hollering. In my opinion, this
• 25:37
  Speaker 2: is deceptive and it never transpired.
• 25:40
  Speaker 1: Well, without giving away the exact year just yet, I
• 25:42
  Speaker 1: will say that this was the pre cell phone era,
• 25:45
  Speaker 1: so he wouldn't have had one. Uh, there would have
• 25:47
  Speaker 1: been payphones around, but I don't have any information about
• 25:49
  Speaker 1: where the nearest payphone would have been to this location.
• 25:52
  Speaker 1: And I'll just say that this incident supposed this supposedly
• 25:56
  Speaker 1: took place at night, and it was in an outdoor area,
• 25:59
  Speaker 1: but I don't I don't think it was all that
• 26:01
  Speaker 1: far from many other houses or in many other places
• 26:04
  Speaker 1: to get help. It wasn't like it was in a
• 26:06
  Speaker 1: rural area or anything. So if he really wanted to
• 26:08
  Speaker 1: get help, I don't think he would have had to
• 26:10
  Speaker 1: have run far to the nearest house in order to
• 26:13
  Speaker 1: call for emergency or medical assistance, or call to the
• 26:16
  Speaker 1: nearest pay phone. So, yeah, that does strike me as odd.
• 26:19
  Speaker 1: That's he hollers out for help and no one comes,
• 26:23
  Speaker 1: and then after that he doesn't do anything else. He
• 26:25
  Speaker 1: makes no attempt to find help for this person that
• 26:27
  Speaker 1: he supposedly killed.
• 26:29
  Speaker 2: And do you notice what's missing throughout you, Like, while
• 26:31
  Speaker 2: he tells his story, he's talking about what happened. There's
• 26:36
  Speaker 2: nothing else you know she was dead and how he's panicking,
• 26:39
  Speaker 2: And he doesn't say, so, I got up, I ran
• 26:42
  Speaker 2: out of the college, I ran onto the road. I
• 26:45
  Speaker 2: was jumping up and down and waving my hands. He
• 26:48
  Speaker 2: doesn't tell you what he's physically doing. He just says
• 26:51
  Speaker 2: I was there and I was hollering. It just seems
• 26:55
  Speaker 2: like if you were going to fabricate a story, that
• 26:57
  Speaker 2: is how you would fabricate it, because if you were
• 26:58
  Speaker 2: going to be recalling some thing from memory, you would
• 27:01
  Speaker 2: be saying which you physically did. It would be imprinted
• 27:04
  Speaker 2: in your memory because there would be so much emotion
• 27:07
  Speaker 2: tied to the fact that this individual lost their life,
• 27:10
  Speaker 2: Like he's playing it off as an accident, but no
• 27:13
  Speaker 2: matter what the motivation he had, or if indeed this
• 27:18
  Speaker 2: was premeditated murder or if it was an accident, or
• 27:21
  Speaker 2: if he's even responsible, I would think that there would
• 27:25
  Speaker 2: be like just an urgency and heightened emotional state shock.
• 27:30
  Speaker 2: The recall wouldn't be so casual, don't you think.
• 27:34
  Speaker 1: I think so, yeah, that even if he was fabricating
• 27:37
  Speaker 1: the story to cover up his own complicity, that he
• 27:40
  Speaker 1: would at least throw in some details of just saying
• 27:42
  Speaker 1: that I ran, I looked for cars, but there was
• 27:44
  Speaker 1: no one around. I went to a neighbor's house and
• 27:47
  Speaker 1: knocked on the door, but there was no one home,
• 27:48
  Speaker 1: like make it look like he tried to do more
• 27:50
  Speaker 1: to try to save this person's life, but instead he
• 27:53
  Speaker 1: just casually says I yelled, I hollered, but no one came.
• 27:56
  Speaker 1: So that just really sounds like he had to come
• 27:58
  Speaker 1: up with this story on the fly or something like that,
• 28:01
  Speaker 1: and just because it wasn't actually the truth, it doesn't
• 28:04
  Speaker 1: have any details to add to the believability of it.
• 28:07
  Speaker 2: So the next line that we're going to analyze is
• 28:09
  Speaker 2: I didn't want to leave her dot dot dot, I
• 28:11
  Speaker 2: freaked out, dot dot dot, I didn't dot dot dot
• 28:16
  Speaker 2: I said I don't know what to tell you. All.
• 28:18
  Speaker 2: It's possible that he didn't know what to do and
• 28:20
  Speaker 2: he did freak out, but he says, quote I didn't
• 28:25
  Speaker 2: and trails off. I'm really curious what he was going
• 28:28
  Speaker 2: to say there There is an I didn't and he
• 28:31
  Speaker 2: trails off with what didn't he do? This is a
• 28:36
  Speaker 2: pattern where he starts a sentence and then it goes
• 28:39
  Speaker 2: against what I would assume is his better judgment to continue,
• 28:42
  Speaker 2: and he rephrases, so this can definitely be indicative of deception.
• 28:47
  Speaker 2: So it's interesting that he says, quote, I said I
• 28:50
  Speaker 2: don't know what to tell you. He's not saying he's
• 28:54
  Speaker 2: not saying I don't know what to tell you, but
• 28:57
  Speaker 2: that he said that I said I I don't know
• 29:00
  Speaker 2: what to tell you. He's not saying I don't know
• 29:02
  Speaker 2: what to tell you, but that he'd already said that,
• 29:06
  Speaker 2: And it's not an equal statement. They're two very different things.
• 29:10
  Speaker 2: It's also an odd statement since they're asking for his
• 29:12
  Speaker 2: version of events and that should come from memory. So
• 29:17
  Speaker 2: the fact that he doesn't know what to say is interesting. Also,
• 29:21
  Speaker 2: he's using past tense, as if he said this to
• 29:23
  Speaker 2: them before. But since I only have a piece of
• 29:26
  Speaker 2: the interview, it is possible that they had discussed this.
• 29:29
  Speaker 1: Yes, I'm going to talk more about this when we
• 29:31
  Speaker 1: share the details of the case. But there were prior
• 29:34
  Speaker 1: conversations between the person making this statement and the police,
• 29:38
  Speaker 1: and there is an additional person in the interrogation room
• 29:41
  Speaker 1: at this point that he's telling to the first time.
• 29:44
  Speaker 1: So that kind of is how this statement comes in here.
• 29:47
  Speaker 1: But once you learn the full details about why he's
• 29:50
  Speaker 1: making this statement, you're going to think that, Wow, he
• 29:52
  Speaker 1: should really be more emotional or have better recall or
• 29:55
  Speaker 1: more details. But just the way that he's just casually
• 29:58
  Speaker 1: saying I didn't know what to do. I freaked out.
• 30:00
  Speaker 1: But uh he isn't giving like more urgency. He's making
• 30:04
  Speaker 1: it sound like even though this was an accident, he
• 30:06
  Speaker 1: wasn't responsible. He just like kind of had this attitude that, well,
• 30:10
  Speaker 1: she's dead, nothing I can do about it.
• 30:14
  Speaker 2: All right, So the next line that we're going to
• 30:16
  Speaker 2: analyze is I couldn't tell you all. I just freaked out.
• 30:21
  Speaker 2: Uh so I dot dot dot not thinking dot dot dot,
• 30:25
  Speaker 2: I freak dot dot dot, I trip dot dot dot,
• 30:29
  Speaker 2: I just don't know what to do dot dot dot,
• 30:32
  Speaker 2: I buried her. So when he says I couldn't tell
• 30:37
  Speaker 2: you all, I believe him. I personally believe that the
• 30:40
  Speaker 2: truth is leaking out here. He can't tell the investigators everything,
• 30:44
  Speaker 2: and that's why we're seeing so much withholding. Either he
• 30:48
  Speaker 2: isn't responsible at all and he doesn't have the details
• 30:51
  Speaker 2: and that's why he's withholding, or he's fabricating and perhaps
• 30:55
  Speaker 2: the truth of the events are far worse, and he
• 30:58
  Speaker 2: fears that the truth could impact many things, from the
• 31:01
  Speaker 2: way that investigators view him to the type of sentence
• 31:05
  Speaker 2: that he may receive if, say, for example, sexual assault
• 31:08
  Speaker 2: was included in the crime, or like I said, he
• 31:11
  Speaker 2: can't tell them because he simply doesn't know. He again
• 31:15
  Speaker 2: uses the word just with I freaked out, indicating that
• 31:20
  Speaker 2: he is potentially withholding on his actions surrounding her death
• 31:23
  Speaker 2: and that he did more than quote freak out. He
• 31:28
  Speaker 2: again says that he wasn't thinking, and another use of
• 31:31
  Speaker 2: just with I just don't know what to do. He's
• 31:35
  Speaker 2: again withholding. Also ask yourself if the end result is
• 31:40
  Speaker 2: you bury someone, This seems very calculated and well thought out.
• 31:46
  Speaker 2: One has to move the body, get it to a vehicle,
• 31:48
  Speaker 2: find a shovel, transport the body, and then dig a
• 31:51
  Speaker 2: hole and bury the individual. The way that he tells
• 31:55
  Speaker 2: the story, he just skips over all those details. And
• 31:58
  Speaker 2: don't you find that a little bit perplexing?
• 32:01
  Speaker 1: I do. And I'm not giving anything away because in
• 32:04
  Speaker 1: a couple moments we're going to analyze this statement. But
• 32:08
  Speaker 1: the person did say his age out loud when he
• 32:11
  Speaker 1: said this incident took place, And when you hear this
• 32:13
  Speaker 1: person's age, you're thinking, this is not someone who just
• 32:16
  Speaker 1: casually decides to bury a body, and if they did,
• 32:19
  Speaker 1: they would not be so careful about it and so
• 32:22
  Speaker 1: like cautious that the victim's remains would not be found
• 32:26
  Speaker 1: for many, many years. And it is kind of weird
• 32:29
  Speaker 1: that he just says I picked up like, oh yeah,
• 32:33
  Speaker 1: he does. Later on he gives like a more detailed
• 32:35
  Speaker 1: version about how he buried. But the fact that he's
• 32:37
  Speaker 1: not providing specific details in this particular statement is a
• 32:41
  Speaker 1: bit telling, because you know, most people, once like they
• 32:45
  Speaker 1: are there in a situation like this, are just not
• 32:47
  Speaker 1: going to casually say within seconds or minutes, oh okay,
• 32:50
  Speaker 1: I did this bad thing. I'm going to have to
• 32:52
  Speaker 1: bury someone and just have the wherewithal to do it successfully.
• 32:55
  Speaker 1: So I've always felt that this is the most troubling
• 32:57
  Speaker 1: part of the confession, which doesn't hold water to me.
• 33:01
  Speaker 2: It absolutely doesn't hold water. I just think I think
• 33:05
  Speaker 2: if you were going to dispose of a body like
• 33:09
  Speaker 2: you said, at the age of the potential perpetrator here,
• 33:13
  Speaker 2: it would be very very difficult for them to be
• 33:16
  Speaker 2: able to get the implements and just to be able
• 33:21
  Speaker 2: to execute burying a body and to know what to do.
• 33:25
  Speaker 2: This is pre Internet age. They're not googling how to
• 33:28
  Speaker 2: dispose of a body or like where to do it,
• 33:30
  Speaker 2: So it's very very strange. And again, if you're deciding
• 33:36
  Speaker 2: to bury the body of somebody that you're saying that
• 33:40
  Speaker 2: like they fell backwards and impaled their head, and that
• 33:44
  Speaker 2: you're leading us to believe that this was an accident,
• 33:47
  Speaker 2: then there should be more emotion attached to this, not
• 33:49
  Speaker 2: just I buried her. There's nothing there. It's devoid of
• 33:55
  Speaker 2: any shock, any grief, any remorse, there's no regret. There's
• 34:01
  Speaker 2: just nothing. It's flat.
• 34:04
  Speaker 1: Exactly when you hear the full context about what the
• 34:06
  Speaker 1: relationship was between this person making the statement and the
• 34:10
  Speaker 1: person who died, this just seems more unbelievable. And I'll
• 34:13
  Speaker 1: just say that if I was the age of the
• 34:16
  Speaker 1: person who's making this statement, and I had accidentally killed someone,
• 34:20
  Speaker 1: I can tell you that my brain at that time
• 34:21
  Speaker 1: would not have instantly gone to bury the body and
• 34:24
  Speaker 1: cover it up within seconds or minutes after it happened.
• 34:27
  Speaker 1: And I'm sure you'd probably say the same thing.
• 34:29
  Speaker 2: No, I mean, my brain wouldn't have gone there either.
• 34:32
  Speaker 2: But I suppose there are those individuals. If you're you know,
• 34:36
  Speaker 2: there's the birthing of a serial killer or something like that,
• 34:39
  Speaker 2: then perhaps they'd fantasize about a scenario such as that,
• 34:43
  Speaker 2: and in fantasizing about those scenarios, they'd considered body disposal.
• 34:49
  Speaker 2: I have no idea, but I assume we can't apply
• 34:53
  Speaker 2: our thought process to the way that somebody who could
• 34:56
  Speaker 2: be a killer, and especially if they're a objective was
• 35:00
  Speaker 2: to murder. Then we're not going to be thinking in
• 35:03
  Speaker 2: the same way that somebody whose thought process is like
• 35:06
  Speaker 2: that would.
• 35:08
  Speaker 1: Well, when you learn more about this person's background, I
• 35:10
  Speaker 1: can say he does not seem like a young dexter
• 35:12
  Speaker 1: morgan in trading. He doesn't seem like the type of
• 35:14
  Speaker 1: person who would kill someone just for the thrill of
• 35:17
  Speaker 1: doing it, just to see if he can get away
• 35:18
  Speaker 1: with it. So I'm thinking that if he was guilty,
• 35:20
  Speaker 1: he had an entirely different motive, rather than just because
• 35:24
  Speaker 1: he was a budding serial killer.
• 35:25
  Speaker 2: Dexter was who I thought of. Have you started watching
• 35:28
  Speaker 2: the new Dexter.
• 35:29
  Speaker 1: I know I haven't, but I remember the original series
• 35:31
  Speaker 1: when they did flashbacks to him as a kid and
• 35:34
  Speaker 1: his father trying to groom him to like, well, if
• 35:36
  Speaker 1: you're going to be a serial killer, at least kill
• 35:37
  Speaker 1: other serial killers so you can get that rage out
• 35:40
  Speaker 1: in positive ways.
• 35:42
  Speaker 2: Dexter Original Sin is so good. You should watch it.
• 35:44
  Speaker 2: It like sticks so close to the source material, uses
• 35:47
  Speaker 2: the same type of musical score, and Michael C. Hall
• 35:50
  Speaker 2: does a narration, and every character on there has the
• 35:54
  Speaker 2: like exact same looks or vibes as their inspiration from
• 35:59
  Speaker 2: the original Dexter. It's really good.
• 36:01
  Speaker 1: Okay, I'll have to check it out, all right.
• 36:03
  Speaker 2: So the next line that we're going to do is
• 36:05
  Speaker 2: I didn't know what to do. It was the wrong
• 36:08
  Speaker 2: thing to do. I agree again, he says I didn't
• 36:12
  Speaker 2: know what to do. For someone who didn't know what
• 36:14
  Speaker 2: to do doesn't baring someone seem like a well thought
• 36:17
  Speaker 2: out endgame after a murder, so it doesn't seem like
• 36:20
  Speaker 2: one would casually stumble into it. Like we mentioned, his
• 36:23
  Speaker 2: statements are incongruous to the actions that he took. So
• 36:27
  Speaker 2: what is the it in it was the wrong thing
• 36:30
  Speaker 2: to do? Is he referencing a murder, a rape, an accident?
• 36:34
  Speaker 2: He doesn't say, he just agrees that it was wrong.
• 36:38
  Speaker 1: Yes, I think that when you look at this person's
• 36:40
  Speaker 1: age when this incident allegedly happened, you're gonna think that
• 36:43
  Speaker 1: a normal person, if they accidentally killed someone, if they're
• 36:46
  Speaker 1: going to panic and freak out, they're probably going to
• 36:48
  Speaker 1: do something like run away and leave the body behind
• 36:51
  Speaker 1: and just pray that no one finds the body, or
• 36:53
  Speaker 1: just think well, if they find the body, I'll just
• 36:55
  Speaker 1: say that I didn't do it. They're not going to
• 36:57
  Speaker 1: instantly go to like, I'm going to cover this up
• 36:59
  Speaker 1: by burying her because this is an arrow when they
• 37:02
  Speaker 1: did not know about DNA yet, So no one at
• 37:05
  Speaker 1: that age at that time is going to be thinking, well,
• 37:07
  Speaker 1: if they find the body, they're going to find my
• 37:09
  Speaker 1: DNA on them, so I better bury her. That doesn't
• 37:12
  Speaker 1: really fit the scenario at all, So I do agree
• 37:15
  Speaker 1: that it contradicts where he says I didn't know what
• 37:16
  Speaker 1: to do, yet he knows to bury the body.
• 37:20
  Speaker 2: Okay, So the next line that we're going to do is,
• 37:23
  Speaker 2: but I was fourteen years old. I wasn't thinking. I
• 37:26
  Speaker 2: then dot dot dot. I came home after that, but
• 37:29
  Speaker 2: she was dead. He says over and over how he
• 37:33
  Speaker 2: wasn't thinking, but his actions appear to be calculated. I then,
• 37:38
  Speaker 2: what she says is often indicative of withholding of information.
• 37:42
  Speaker 2: Then is skipping over what preceded it and the dot
• 37:45
  Speaker 2: dot dot or paused where he rephrases it's likely a
• 37:48
  Speaker 2: spot where something happened that he's excluding from the statement.
• 37:53
  Speaker 2: And this again seems out of order. I came home
• 37:55
  Speaker 2: after that, but she was dead. Firstly, what is the
• 37:59
  Speaker 2: that he's referring to? And secondly, didn't he say he
• 38:03
  Speaker 2: buried her already? So stating that she was dead seems
• 38:06
  Speaker 2: redundant since it's out of order, and one often sees
• 38:10
  Speaker 2: this in deceptive statements.
• 38:12
  Speaker 1: Well, now we're at the point when he reveals his
• 38:14
  Speaker 1: exact age at the time this incident took place, which
• 38:17
  Speaker 1: is fourteen years old, and I'm sure you're all thinking
• 38:19
  Speaker 1: to yourself, it seems very at a character for a
• 38:21
  Speaker 1: fourteen year old to just have the wherewithal to bury
• 38:24
  Speaker 1: a victim only minutes after they allegedly killed them. And
• 38:28
  Speaker 1: like he said, it contradicts where he keeps saying I
• 38:31
  Speaker 1: wasn't thinking, but he was thinking enough that he was
• 38:33
  Speaker 1: going to bury the victim in order to cover up
• 38:35
  Speaker 1: his crime. So it's a very crazy contradiction. And he says,
• 38:40
  Speaker 1: I came home after that, and like, I'm wondering, what
• 38:42
  Speaker 1: is the that he's referring to, because if it was
• 38:45
  Speaker 1: just like an accident in a burial, it just seems
• 38:48
  Speaker 1: that weird that he would throw it in there. Like
• 38:49
  Speaker 1: that makes you wonder did something else actually happened? And
• 38:52
  Speaker 1: he did go home after it took place, But it
• 38:56
  Speaker 1: isn't the incident as he outlined it here in his confession.
• 39:00
  Speaker 2: So the next line that we're going to do is
• 39:03
  Speaker 2: definitely dead before I buried her. That I know because
• 39:06
  Speaker 2: I checked her stomach and all that. So notice how
• 39:10
  Speaker 2: there was no she was So when he takes her
• 39:12
  Speaker 2: out of the statement, this is sensitive, so pay attention.
• 39:16
  Speaker 2: So if he did indeed bury her, I would wonder
• 39:19
  Speaker 2: if she was dead, because the fact that she's taken
• 39:24
  Speaker 2: out of there and he uses the fragment definitely dead
• 39:27
  Speaker 2: before I buried her is really bizarre. So what does
• 39:31
  Speaker 2: he mean by quote that I know because I checked
• 39:35
  Speaker 2: her stomach and all that. Firstly, one typically checks a pulse.
• 39:40
  Speaker 2: Does he mean that he watched her chest to see
• 39:42
  Speaker 2: if it went up and down? But we cannot extrapolate.
• 39:46
  Speaker 2: We can only go off what people say. So I'm
• 39:49
  Speaker 2: curious if there's any injuries to the stomach or why
• 39:52
  Speaker 2: is he focusing on that rather than the pulse or
• 39:55
  Speaker 2: her breathing or lack thereof. And the quote all that
• 39:59
  Speaker 2: is he implying that he did other things that are
• 40:01
  Speaker 2: lower on her body than her mouth or her chest,
• 40:04
  Speaker 2: since he references the stomach, but he's not telling us
• 40:07
  Speaker 2: what they are, so we can't be sure that he
• 40:10
  Speaker 2: did anything at all to check to see if she
• 40:12
  Speaker 2: was alive. So the use of the word that is
• 40:15
  Speaker 2: interesting is distancing language. Rather than this, he says that
• 40:21
  Speaker 2: this whole portion of the statement, in my opinion, seems
• 40:23
  Speaker 2: potentially fabricated. This whole statement seems fabricated thus far.
• 40:28
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I've always found that detail weird that the only
• 40:31
  Speaker 1: thing he says is I checked her stomach, Like nothing
• 40:33
  Speaker 1: about checking your pulse, And I guess he's trying to
• 40:36
  Speaker 1: imply that he wanted to see if she was still breathing,
• 40:38
  Speaker 1: if her stomach was moving. But you notice that the
• 40:41
  Speaker 1: one thing he never mentions in the confession is checking
• 40:43
  Speaker 1: your actual head, Because if someone fell down and hit
• 40:47
  Speaker 1: their head out of a sharp object sticking out of
• 40:49
  Speaker 1: the ground, I mean, I'm assuming if it happened so
• 40:52
  Speaker 1: fast that you may not even notice that sharp object,
• 40:55
  Speaker 1: You're just gonna see your landing her head and then
• 40:57
  Speaker 1: wonder why she's not getting up. Yet he never anything
• 41:00
  Speaker 1: about pulling her head up just to double check if
• 41:02
  Speaker 1: there was any sort of injury here. It's like he
• 41:05
  Speaker 1: has such great vision that at night he was able
• 41:07
  Speaker 1: to tell that her head hit a sharp object sticking
• 41:10
  Speaker 1: out of the ground, and that it was so deadly
• 41:12
  Speaker 1: that it killed her instantly, so he didn't have to
• 41:15
  Speaker 1: attempt any medical attention or go for help, just to
• 41:18
  Speaker 1: get a professional to check if she was still alive.
• 41:21
  Speaker 2: Oh, but he asked her if she was okay, and
• 41:23
  Speaker 2: then he ran over to her, and it's like, sir,
• 41:26
  Speaker 2: if this is indeed what happened. You would think you're
• 41:28
  Speaker 2: telling a story like that somebody fell after you push
• 41:31
  Speaker 2: them and they impaled their head. You'd think I ran
• 41:33
  Speaker 2: over to them and I grabbed her. I grabbed her
• 41:37
  Speaker 2: head to check and see if she was okay, or
• 41:39
  Speaker 2: her neck, to see if she was breathing, she was bleeding.
• 41:42
  Speaker 2: There was no details like that. How did you know
• 41:45
  Speaker 2: that her head was impaled? And he doesn't give like
• 41:49
  Speaker 2: we said before with the running, the part about hollering
• 41:52
  Speaker 2: on the street. He doesn't say like I got up
• 41:54
  Speaker 2: and I ran out of the college and I ran
• 41:56
  Speaker 2: to the street. He doesn't say like I went over
• 41:59
  Speaker 2: and I touched her. And he's lacking any sort of
• 42:02
  Speaker 2: statements on like what physical actions he took. It's just
• 42:06
  Speaker 2: so vague, just saying I checked her stomach. Who checks
• 42:10
  Speaker 2: the stomach?
• 42:12
  Speaker 1: Yeah, this really doesn't sound like the actions of a
• 42:14
  Speaker 1: fourteen year old who is genuinely panicked that they killed someone.
• 42:18
  Speaker 1: I mean, I can't say I've never been in that situation,
• 42:20
  Speaker 1: so I can't say what I would do. But I
• 42:23
  Speaker 1: don't think I would just like say, oh, i'm your
• 42:25
  Speaker 1: check her stomach. Oh she's not breathing. She must be
• 42:27
  Speaker 1: dead and then just leave it at that and then
• 42:29
  Speaker 1: decide to bury her.
• 42:31
  Speaker 2: I'm going to say that you wouldn't do this, and emotionally,
• 42:34
  Speaker 2: you would have a reaction if somebody accidentally fell backwards,
• 42:38
  Speaker 2: because you have the normal range of human emotions and
• 42:41
  Speaker 2: we're just not seeing that here. Everything that we're reading
• 42:45
  Speaker 2: so far has there's no panic, there's no emotion. It's
• 42:49
  Speaker 2: just like he's describing like what he ate for lunch,
• 42:52
  Speaker 2: you know what I mean?
• 42:54
  Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly. Just seems very casual.
• 42:58
  Speaker 2: So the next line we're going to analyze is then
• 43:00
  Speaker 2: after that, I sit there for about thirty minutes, thirty
• 43:03
  Speaker 2: to forty five minutes, just didn't know what to do.
• 43:07
  Speaker 2: So the whole statement then after that is very interesting.
• 43:11
  Speaker 2: Each individual word shows missing time, and withholding there's a
• 43:15
  Speaker 2: significant event or events that he's skipping over here, so
• 43:19
  Speaker 2: then shows missing time. After also shows missing time, indicating
• 43:23
  Speaker 2: there was an event preceding it. So we're looking at
• 43:25
  Speaker 2: something that is just incredibly vague. So he's using distancing
• 43:30
  Speaker 2: language with that, rather than saying exactly what happened, He's
• 43:34
  Speaker 2: using present tense language with sit there and not sat there.
• 43:38
  Speaker 2: He's recalling a past event, so he should be using
• 43:41
  Speaker 2: past tense language. Present tense language is often in a
• 43:45
  Speaker 2: deceptive statement, so we see the order of the story here.
• 43:49
  Speaker 2: It's out of sain which we often see time references
• 43:52
  Speaker 2: jumbled up in deceptive statements. He said that he's buried her,
• 43:56
  Speaker 2: and now he's talking about the aftermath of her murder
• 44:00
  Speaker 2: or this accidental death. I guess saying that he was
• 44:03
  Speaker 2: sitting there for about thirty minutes, which is an interesting
• 44:07
  Speaker 2: choice since statistically liars often picked the number three, so
• 44:11
  Speaker 2: this would include thirty minutes, and quote about makes it
• 44:15
  Speaker 2: even less precise. So quote just didn't know what to do.
• 44:21
  Speaker 2: We see the inclusion of the unique word just, and
• 44:24
  Speaker 2: we also see the fact that he took the eye
• 44:27
  Speaker 2: out of the statement, so he's distancing himself from responsibility.
• 44:31
  Speaker 1: Yeah. I always found that weird that he just said
• 44:33
  Speaker 1: I sit there rather than sat there, even though he's
• 44:36
  Speaker 1: describing an event that took place in the past, and
• 44:39
  Speaker 1: when you just see the full context, it's like so
• 44:42
  Speaker 1: weird that he can be calculated enough to bury this
• 44:46
  Speaker 1: person's body and then run away, yet then'd be shell
• 44:49
  Speaker 1: shocked enough afterwards to just sit there between thirty to
• 44:52
  Speaker 1: forty five minutes. That's interesting. I didn't know that. Statistically,
• 44:55
  Speaker 1: liars often picked the number three. So I'm guessing this
• 44:58
  Speaker 1: is a common thing where if have to make up
• 45:00
  Speaker 1: a story and come up with a timeframe, they'll usually
• 45:03
  Speaker 1: say like thirty minutes or so, just they're just attracted
• 45:05
  Speaker 1: to that word, that number for some reason.
• 45:07
  Speaker 2: Yeah, thirty minutes, three o'clock. Yeah, it's just it's a
• 45:11
  Speaker 2: typical number that liars will pick. I don't know why.
• 45:15
  Speaker 2: So the next line that we're going to analyze is
• 45:18
  Speaker 2: I went home, I got cleaned up. I regret it.
• 45:22
  Speaker 2: I'm sorry it did happen. I regret pushing her. So
• 45:27
  Speaker 2: he already said that he went home more out of
• 45:30
  Speaker 2: order statements and time references that are off, So he
• 45:33
  Speaker 2: skips over what he did after sitting there. He says
• 45:37
  Speaker 2: he buried her, But we're getting no information on how
• 45:40
  Speaker 2: or when that transpired. If this is true, he likely
• 45:44
  Speaker 2: did go home and get cleaned up, but he's definitely
• 45:47
  Speaker 2: withholding a great deal of information on what preceded that exactly.
• 45:52
  Speaker 2: And although this sounds really strange, to stay with me.
• 45:56
  Speaker 2: So the use of the phrase cleaned up could indicate
• 45:59
  Speaker 2: sexual activity so washing, bathing, brushing teeth, These personal cleaning
• 46:05
  Speaker 2: rituals can be indicative of sexual abuse or activity. So
• 46:09
  Speaker 2: I question here if he is indeed responsible, that the
• 46:13
  Speaker 2: potential motive could be that of rape and not related
• 46:17
  Speaker 2: to the money at all. So quote I regret it.
• 46:21
  Speaker 2: My question if he does, he's taking what he regrets
• 46:25
  Speaker 2: out of the statement. So how much could he truly
• 46:28
  Speaker 2: be feeling remorse if he can't say exactly what he
• 46:30
  Speaker 2: did that he regrets. Does he regret cleaning up? That's
• 46:34
  Speaker 2: what the sentence structure would have you believe, But clearly
• 46:37
  Speaker 2: he means the death of the victim, but he's not
• 46:40
  Speaker 2: saying that, so I can't be sure. And he doesn't
• 46:43
  Speaker 2: say that it was an accident. He just leaves it
• 46:45
  Speaker 2: out entirely. He uses really strange language here, and he
• 46:49
  Speaker 2: doesn't say I'm sorry it happened. He uses present tense
• 46:52
  Speaker 2: I'm sorry it did happen, which isn't the same thing.
• 46:56
  Speaker 2: Is he apologizing for what he did or is he
• 46:59
  Speaker 2: apologizing to investigators who may be giving him disapproving glances
• 47:04
  Speaker 2: and affirming that it did indeed happen. He's lacked a motion,
• 47:08
  Speaker 2: like we said, through this entire statement, and the way
• 47:11
  Speaker 2: that he chooses to express remorse is suspect. Many killers
• 47:15
  Speaker 2: express remorse, but people who make false confessions would have
• 47:19
  Speaker 2: no reason to be remorseful, aside from wasting time of
• 47:22
  Speaker 2: investigators or getting the families hopes up. He says that
• 47:25
  Speaker 2: he regrets pushing her, but he doesn't mention that he
• 47:28
  Speaker 2: regrets anything else, not the fight, not the fact that
• 47:31
  Speaker 2: she died, that he chose to bury her and cover
• 47:33
  Speaker 2: it up, simply that he pushed her. We can only
• 47:36
  Speaker 2: believe he regrets what he tells us that he regrets.
• 47:40
  Speaker 1: Yeah, the whole statement about him getting cleaned up. When
• 47:43
  Speaker 1: you learn the full context of this case, you're going
• 47:45
  Speaker 1: to wonder, like, is this part even true. I mean,
• 47:48
  Speaker 1: it is possible that there was sexual abuse here that
• 47:50
  Speaker 1: he's not talking about, and that's why he felt the
• 47:52
  Speaker 1: need to clean himself up. Yet at the same time,
• 47:55
  Speaker 1: if he actually buried someone, then obviously he would be
• 47:59
  Speaker 1: pretty dirty and require a lot of cleaning. And when
• 48:02
  Speaker 1: you see the circumstances of how he was living at
• 48:04
  Speaker 1: the time, you would think that someone would have noticed
• 48:07
  Speaker 1: something that if he had gotten if he had accidentally
• 48:09
  Speaker 1: killed someone and buried their body. There would be a
• 48:11
  Speaker 1: lot more warning signs with them, like he would be
• 48:13
  Speaker 1: covered in dirt, he would be sweaty. And I haven't
• 48:15
  Speaker 1: heard anything to indicate that someone saw him on that
• 48:19
  Speaker 1: fashion on that particular night, which makes me wonder if
• 48:22
  Speaker 1: this entire part of the story is completely fabricated. And
• 48:25
  Speaker 1: it's interesting how he always uses the word her throughout
• 48:28
  Speaker 1: this when describing the victim, like I regret pushing her.
• 48:31
  Speaker 1: But you'll notice that there was only one moment in
• 48:33
  Speaker 1: the entire statement where I had to bleep out the
• 48:35
  Speaker 1: victim's name, And it's kind of a detached thing where
• 48:39
  Speaker 1: he only uses the victim's name once during the entire statement.
• 48:43
  Speaker 1: And when you hear that, you're like, yeah, that's kind
• 48:45
  Speaker 1: of surprising when you learn the relationship between them. So
• 48:48
  Speaker 1: it's kind of like he's deliberately not using the person's
• 48:52
  Speaker 1: name to distance himself from what he did.
• 48:54
  Speaker 2: Yeah, that can definitely be indicative of distancing. But if
• 48:58
  Speaker 2: the perpetrator used her name in the beginning, like I remember,
• 49:02
  Speaker 2: I thought this too. I was doing the Scott Peterson
• 49:06
  Speaker 2: interview with investigators and just for practice, and I sent
• 49:09
  Speaker 2: it to Mark and I was noting every single time
• 49:12
  Speaker 2: that he said her rather than like my wife or Lacey.
• 49:17
  Speaker 2: And I had the exact same thought that you did,
• 49:21
  Speaker 2: because I thought, like, if you're continuing to say her
• 49:23
  Speaker 2: rather than saying her name. But he said, if her
• 49:26
  Speaker 2: name was used initially, then you can say her. But
• 49:31
  Speaker 2: I still do think that if you're going to go
• 49:34
  Speaker 2: a whole statement and you're only going to use that
• 49:37
  Speaker 2: person's name once, if that person meant something to you
• 49:41
  Speaker 2: and you're indicating that there was a relationship, and earlier
• 49:45
  Speaker 2: on in the analysis, I said that we would indicate
• 49:48
  Speaker 2: a partnership, and I thought that these two were known
• 49:50
  Speaker 2: to each other. This wasn't just like a victim of
• 49:52
  Speaker 2: opportunity or a chance encounter. Then you would think that
• 49:57
  Speaker 2: somebody who would be remorseful, especially if they respond, would
• 50:00
  Speaker 2: be using that person's name. It just it doesn't feel
• 50:04
  Speaker 2: emotionally appropriate.
• 50:06
  Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, especially when you learn the full context about
• 50:08
  Speaker 1: why he's saying this.
• 50:10
  Speaker 2: So the next line is I wish I could go
• 50:12
  Speaker 2: back in time and not have done that. I wish
• 50:15
  Speaker 2: I could turn time. If I could turn time back,
• 50:18
  Speaker 2: I wouldn't just you know, I wish I could go
• 50:21
  Speaker 2: back in time and not have done that. Again, what
• 50:24
  Speaker 2: is that There's a great deal of information that he's withholding,
• 50:28
  Speaker 2: So I think there's a potential that that could refer
• 50:30
  Speaker 2: to rape or murder and not just an accident. He
• 50:34
  Speaker 2: doesn't say accident, and we can only go off what
• 50:37
  Speaker 2: the subject says, So based on his words, this is
• 50:41
  Speaker 2: likely no accident. He doesn't say her name or express
• 50:44
  Speaker 2: regret over her being dead. Notice, it's all about him.
• 50:48
  Speaker 2: If I could go back in time, I would just
• 50:51
  Speaker 2: dot dot dot.
• 50:51
  Speaker 3: You know.
• 50:53
  Speaker 2: Again, he uses the word just he's withholding information, and
• 50:56
  Speaker 2: you know he's assuming. The interviewer notes. By using this language,
• 51:01
  Speaker 2: she's distancing himself from the act and the potential motivation.
• 51:05
  Speaker 2: He doesn't anywhere say that this was a terrible accident,
• 51:08
  Speaker 2: as I just mentioned, So we have to ask ourselves
• 51:11
  Speaker 2: if there is a possibility that he intended to end
• 51:14
  Speaker 2: her life. He's purposefully vague and in my opinion, trying
• 51:18
  Speaker 2: to cover up what really happened and what was his
• 51:20
  Speaker 2: true motivation if he was indeed in fault.
• 51:24
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it's kind of weird the phrasing. I wish I
• 51:26
  Speaker 1: could have gone back in time and not have done that.
• 51:29
  Speaker 1: And I'm thinking if this was legitimately an accident, that
• 51:32
  Speaker 1: he would say more details that he would say, if
• 51:34
  Speaker 1: I could do it over again, I would have been
• 51:36
  Speaker 1: certain that she was dead, like I would have gone
• 51:38
  Speaker 1: for help, and maybe if I had acted quicker, I
• 51:41
  Speaker 1: could have saved her life. But it's like you're saying
• 51:44
  Speaker 1: that all I wish I had not done that. That
• 51:46
  Speaker 1: does kind of indicate that maybe he's did something else
• 51:49
  Speaker 1: but just doesn't want to say it, and then he
• 51:51
  Speaker 1: has great regrets about having done it. But it's just
• 51:54
  Speaker 1: a weird phrase to use. If you are genuinely like
• 51:56
  Speaker 1: not a fault, then it was genuinely an accident.
• 52:00
  Speaker 2: The next line is it was all over money dot
• 52:02
  Speaker 2: dot dot. And you know what money will do to
• 52:04
  Speaker 2: you when you're a kid. I don't know dot dot
• 52:07
  Speaker 2: dot you were a kid, dot dot dot. You had
• 52:10
  Speaker 2: a certain amount of money dot dot dot. The money
• 52:13
  Speaker 2: was valuable to you. Then you know, so the it
• 52:16
  Speaker 2: he doesn't say what it is, was it the fight,
• 52:20
  Speaker 2: was it pushing her? He doesn't say what money does
• 52:23
  Speaker 2: to him. He pushes it onto the detective trying to
• 52:26
  Speaker 2: relate with the statement, and you know what money will
• 52:29
  Speaker 2: do to you when you're a kid, I don't know.
• 52:31
  Speaker 2: Dot dot dot you were a kid, dot dot dot
• 52:33
  Speaker 2: you had a certain amount of money, the money was
• 52:35
  Speaker 2: valuable to you, then, you know, So why are you
• 52:39
  Speaker 2: referencing childhood and money? This seems like a need to
• 52:43
  Speaker 2: distract from what could be a real motivation or what
• 52:47
  Speaker 2: were the real actions that he took. He doesn't say
• 52:50
  Speaker 2: the amount of money that she had in possession. He's
• 52:52
  Speaker 2: so nonspecific with the change from twenty dollars. So the
• 52:56
  Speaker 2: subject takes himself out of the statement, distancing himself and
• 52:59
  Speaker 2: further brings the detective in. So he's meandering and loses
• 53:03
  Speaker 2: the plot here. He was fourteen, not seven, So the
• 53:07
  Speaker 2: reference to him as a kid, is that appropriate or
• 53:10
  Speaker 2: do you think that that's to minimize.
• 53:13
  Speaker 1: Yeah, because that's this whole story, is that they got
• 53:15
  Speaker 1: into a fight over money and that he pushed her
• 53:18
  Speaker 1: accidentally and that's how she wound up dead. So he's
• 53:21
  Speaker 1: pretty much saying that's the entire motivation, and he's trying
• 53:24
  Speaker 1: to make it sound like, oh, if you're a kid
• 53:25
  Speaker 1: or if you're a teenager, that a fight over money
• 53:28
  Speaker 1: can escalate a lot worse than if you're an adult,
• 53:31
  Speaker 1: and that's why they got into a physical altercation, which
• 53:34
  Speaker 1: is kind odd that she's just trying to justify it, saying, well,
• 53:38
  Speaker 1: you know what it's like if someone doesn't steals money
• 53:40
  Speaker 1: from you or doesn't give you the correct money, you
• 53:42
  Speaker 1: can drive you wild. And I'm thinking, really, is a
• 53:44
  Speaker 1: fourteen year old going to act this way over a
• 53:46
  Speaker 1: twenty dollars? And one thing he doesn't mention in the
• 53:49
  Speaker 1: statement you'll notice is that he doesn't say what happened
• 53:51
  Speaker 1: to the actual money, because he says that she didn't
• 53:54
  Speaker 1: give him back the correct change from the twenty dollars,
• 53:56
  Speaker 1: but he doesn't mention anything about checking her pockets or
• 53:59
  Speaker 1: anything to collect the money. Even though this was supposedly
• 54:02
  Speaker 1: the motivation for her death.
• 54:05
  Speaker 2: I would go so far as to say that it wasn't.
• 54:07
  Speaker 2: And then he's lying because it's completely nonspecific. Just all
• 54:12
  Speaker 2: the details here nonspecific. He just feels like he's trying
• 54:15
  Speaker 2: to distract when he's bringing the detective into it, Like,
• 54:18
  Speaker 2: how does he know that money was valuable to the
• 54:19
  Speaker 2: detective when he was a kid. He won't take responsibility
• 54:23
  Speaker 2: by saying when I was a kid, money was valuable
• 54:25
  Speaker 2: to me. He's distancing himself from what he's saying was
• 54:28
  Speaker 2: his primary motivation, which I think is really odd.
• 54:32
  Speaker 1: Well, I'll just say that once you learn the full
• 54:34
  Speaker 1: context of how this statement is taking place, this statement
• 54:37
  Speaker 1: about the money does make a bit more sense when
• 54:39
  Speaker 1: you realize that it's not just a detective, that there's
• 54:42
  Speaker 1: someone else in the room who is hearing this story.
• 54:44
  Speaker 1: So I think that's why he's just talking about how
• 54:47
  Speaker 1: you know that money was valuable to me back then.
• 54:50
  Speaker 2: That might be the context that I'm missing, because it's
• 54:52
  Speaker 2: just like, why are you meandering on about how you
• 54:54
  Speaker 2: had a certain amount of money when you were a kid?
• 54:56
  Speaker 2: To the detective, it's like, why don't you just say
• 54:58
  Speaker 2: I had a certain amount of money when I was
• 54:59
  Speaker 2: a kid, and that money was very valuable to me,
• 55:02
  Speaker 2: and so I felt the under threat when she took
• 55:06
  Speaker 2: this money or whatever. But he doesn't give any details
• 55:08
  Speaker 2: like that. It just feels like an utter fabrication. So
• 55:12
  Speaker 2: the next line is, but that's the way it was
• 55:14
  Speaker 2: when I was a kid. The subject finally references himself
• 55:18
  Speaker 2: as a kid, but again doesn't say money was important
• 55:20
  Speaker 2: to me as a kid. He keeps it vague with
• 55:23
  Speaker 2: but that's the way it was with me when I
• 55:25
  Speaker 2: was a kid. Is fourteen a kid?
• 55:28
  Speaker 1: I don't know.
• 55:28
  Speaker 2: I think it's more of a teenager, but I guess
• 55:30
  Speaker 2: it depends on the age the subject is when looking back.
• 55:34
  Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, as we're going to talk about this is
• 55:36
  Speaker 1: years down the line, so obviously the person saying this
• 55:40
  Speaker 1: is no longer a kid. They are now grown adult,
• 55:42
  Speaker 1: So that's probably why they were referring themselves to a
• 55:44
  Speaker 1: kid at age fourteen, even though that would technically make
• 55:47
  Speaker 1: them a teenager. And of course at that point they
• 55:49
  Speaker 1: are old enough to know right from wrong.
• 55:52
  Speaker 2: So I'm not sure if this next one is like
• 55:54
  Speaker 2: a grammatical error or if this is I'm going to
• 55:57
  Speaker 2: think that it's not, but I'll read the line every
• 56:00
  Speaker 2: dime I got I depend on because most stuff like
• 56:03
  Speaker 2: that I had to work for, so I depend on
• 56:07
  Speaker 2: is present tense, So I don't know if he's referring
• 56:10
  Speaker 2: to the past or the present, like right now, money
• 56:12
  Speaker 2: is really important, like every dime I have, Like rather
• 56:15
  Speaker 2: than saying every dime I have I depend on, he
• 56:18
  Speaker 2: said I got or does he mean every dime I got?
• 56:21
  Speaker 2: Past tense at that time, and then he's saying I
• 56:23
  Speaker 2: depend on, I'm thinking that it's the misuse of present
• 56:28
  Speaker 2: tens rather than him speaking about present tents. What do
• 56:32
  Speaker 2: you think?
• 56:33
  Speaker 1: That's what I'm thinking as well, because he is staying
• 56:35
  Speaker 1: this statement years after the alleged incident took place, and
• 56:38
  Speaker 1: I don't think he would say I depended on every
• 56:40
  Speaker 1: dime I got way back when I was fourteen years old.
• 56:43
  Speaker 1: So he's trying to say that, like any free thing
• 56:46
  Speaker 1: I have right now, I had to work for. So
• 56:48
  Speaker 1: but he's still trying to use it as a justification
• 56:51
  Speaker 1: for his motivation, saying, you know how hard it is
• 56:53
  Speaker 1: for me to earn money, so you can understand why
• 56:55
  Speaker 1: I would have lost my temper and accidentally killed someone
• 56:58
  Speaker 1: over money back when I was fourteen years old.
• 57:01
  Speaker 2: Yeah, And he goes on by saying, because most stuff
• 57:03
  Speaker 2: like that I had to work for. Most stuff like
• 57:06
  Speaker 2: that you had to work for. Like what are we
• 57:08
  Speaker 2: referring to here, Like we're knowing, Okay, So he's saying
• 57:11
  Speaker 2: most stuff like that. Is he referring to money, is
• 57:15
  Speaker 2: he referring to relations with women? He doesn't specify what
• 57:19
  Speaker 2: most stuff like that is.
• 57:21
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it's kind of weird to me because we really
• 57:23
  Speaker 1: don't know how true this story is and I don't
• 57:27
  Speaker 1: know if he's trying to say that, like talk about
• 57:30
  Speaker 1: even how emotional connections had to work for because I
• 57:32
  Speaker 1: we're going to find out this person that he supposedly
• 57:35
  Speaker 1: killed was someone who had a very strong connection to him,
• 57:38
  Speaker 1: and maybe he's thinking about how it was very difficult
• 57:41
  Speaker 1: for me to develop strong relationships with other people. That
• 57:44
  Speaker 1: was something I had to work for. So it could
• 57:46
  Speaker 1: be like a distancing himself again where he's saying that
• 57:48
  Speaker 1: there's no way I would commit premeditated murder because this
• 57:51
  Speaker 1: person was someone who was close to me.
• 57:55
  Speaker 2: All right, So I'm going to give my conclusion here.
• 58:00
  Speaker 2: I think the vast majority of the statement, as we've
• 58:02
  Speaker 2: mentioned throughout, is fabricated. The time references are all off
• 58:06
  Speaker 2: and the events are jumbled. There's missing time all over
• 58:09
  Speaker 2: the place as well. The subject takes himself out of
• 58:12
  Speaker 2: the statement. He uses passive language, the story lacks emotion,
• 58:16
  Speaker 2: the tone is inappropriate, and it seems like he's trying
• 58:19
  Speaker 2: to cloak what could be his real motivation, which if
• 58:23
  Speaker 2: he isn'tdeed responsible. Based on these statements, I think could
• 58:26
  Speaker 2: potentially be sexual in nature, but they're definitely not related
• 58:30
  Speaker 2: to the money that he brings up throughout the entire statement.
• 58:33
  Speaker 2: But given the context of the entire statement, it is
• 58:36
  Speaker 2: entirely possible that it could be a balse confession and
• 58:39
  Speaker 2: there are underlying motives or fantasies that drove the subject
• 58:43
  Speaker 2: to confess. There's plenty of use of unique words such
• 58:45
  Speaker 2: as just, and the fact that he doesn't say this
• 58:47
  Speaker 2: was an accident at any point, and he doesn't give
• 58:50
  Speaker 2: clear details. The whole account is vague. He skates over
• 58:54
  Speaker 2: the part about burying her, and he gives no details
• 58:57
  Speaker 2: on what should be a very memorable action. Taken this
• 59:00
  Speaker 2: feels like an important part of the story, as is
• 59:02
  Speaker 2: the part where she was impaled and by what, And
• 59:06
  Speaker 2: like Robin said, he doesn't check her head. He offers
• 59:10
  Speaker 2: no further clues. None of this feels like it's coming
• 59:13
  Speaker 2: from memory. Basically, all of the events in here, in
• 59:16
  Speaker 2: my opinions, seemed fabricated. And there's two possibilities here in
• 59:19
  Speaker 2: my very non expert opinion, let's keep this in mind.
• 59:23
  Speaker 2: Number one, this is a false confession by someone who
• 59:26
  Speaker 2: came forward with very few details and no real knowledge
• 59:31
  Speaker 2: of the crime, but they're somehow tied to her because
• 59:34
  Speaker 2: like I said earlier, the use of us indicates a partnership,
• 59:38
  Speaker 2: and I felt as though this is somebody who had
• 59:40
  Speaker 2: known her in her life. Number Two, this is a
• 59:43
  Speaker 2: suspect to confess, but with a completely inaccurate retelling of
• 59:47
  Speaker 2: events in question, reframing them to put himself in a
• 59:50
  Speaker 2: less culpable position. And I go back and forth on these.
• 59:53
  Speaker 2: I'm not even going to say which one that I
• 59:55
  Speaker 2: feel like is more likely, because I think that both
• 59:58
  Speaker 2: options are equally plausible, and I think I'll have an
• 1:00:02
  Speaker 2: opinion once you tell me the details of the case.
• 1:00:06
  Speaker 2: But the one thing that I can settle on is
• 1:00:08
  Speaker 2: this statement is fabricated. It is almost entirely deceptive.
• 1:00:13
  Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, before we recorded this, you sent me like
• 1:00:15
  Speaker 1: a draft of your statement analysis and you just wanted
• 1:00:18
  Speaker 1: to ask me if I was on the right track,
• 1:00:20
  Speaker 1: and I said that you were, because when I covered
• 1:00:22
  Speaker 1: this case, when the trail went cold four years ago,
• 1:00:24
  Speaker 1: I pretty much had these same feelings where I wasn't
• 1:00:28
  Speaker 1: one hundred percent certain about whether the person making this
• 1:00:30
  Speaker 1: statement was guilty. But either way, I do not believe
• 1:00:33
  Speaker 1: that this is an accurate account of what actually happened,
• 1:00:36
  Speaker 1: and that if the person who said it was guilty,
• 1:00:39
  Speaker 1: then the victim's death took place in an entirely different fashion,
• 1:00:43
  Speaker 1: and that he was not telling the full truth.
• 1:00:45
  Speaker 2: If Mark was looking over this statement, you guys would
• 1:00:48
  Speaker 2: get a way better result where he would tell you
• 1:00:50
  Speaker 2: probably exactly whether or not this person did it or
• 1:00:53
  Speaker 2: not he was lying this entire statement. And I'm really
• 1:00:57
  Speaker 2: interested to hear the details the case.
• 1:01:00
  Speaker 1: So now this would be a good time to end
• 1:01:02
  Speaker 1: part one and part two. I will finally reveal which
• 1:01:05
  Speaker 1: case it is to Jewels and give her the full details,
• 1:01:08
  Speaker 1: and we can go back over this statement analysis and
• 1:01:10
  Speaker 1: see if she's changed her mind or she still thinks
• 1:01:13
  Speaker 1: she was dead on on what she believed about the statement.
• 1:01:16
  Speaker 1: So join us for part two of our series about
• 1:01:18
  Speaker 1: Jewels statement analysis.
• 1:01:21
  Speaker 2: Robin, do you want to tell us a little bit
• 1:01:23
  Speaker 2: about the Trail Went Cold Patreon?
• 1:01:25
  Speaker 1: Yes, the Trail Cold Patreon has been around for three
• 1:01:27
  Speaker 1: years now, and we offer these standard bonus features like
• 1:01:31
  Speaker 1: early ad free episodes, and I also send out stickers
• 1:01:34
  Speaker 1: and sign thank you cards to anyone who signs up
• 1:01:37
  Speaker 1: with us on Patreon if you join our five dollars
• 1:01:40
  Speaker 1: tier Tier two. We also offer monthly bonus episodes in
• 1:01:44
  Speaker 1: which I talk about cases which are not featured on
• 1:01:47
  Speaker 1: The Trail Went Cold's original feed, so they're exclusive to
• 1:01:50
  Speaker 1: Patreon and if you join our highest tier, Tier three,
• 1:01:53
  Speaker 1: the ten dollar Tier. One of the features we offer
• 1:01:56
  Speaker 1: is a audio commentary track over classic episode of Unsolved Mysteries,
• 1:02:01
  Speaker 1: where you can download an audio file and then boot
• 1:02:04
  Speaker 1: up the original Unsolved Mysteries episode on Amazon Prime or
• 1:02:07
  Speaker 1: YouTube and play it with my audio commentary playing in
• 1:02:11
  Speaker 1: the background, where I just provide trivia and factoids about
• 1:02:14
  Speaker 1: the cases featured in this episode. And incidentally, the very
• 1:02:17
  Speaker 1: first episode that I did a commentary track over was
• 1:02:20
  Speaker 1: the episode featuring this case. So if you want to
• 1:02:23
  Speaker 1: download a commentary track in which I make more smart
• 1:02:26
  Speaker 1: ass remarks about Jewel Kaylor, then be sure to join
• 1:02:29
  Speaker 1: Tier three.
• 1:02:30
  Speaker 3: So I want to let you know a little bit
• 1:02:31
  Speaker 3: about the Jeweles and Nashty Patreons. So there's early ad
• 1:02:34
  Speaker 3: free episodes of the Path Went Chili. We've got our
• 1:02:37
  Speaker 3: Path Went Chili mini's, which are always over an hour,
• 1:02:40
  Speaker 3: so they're not very many, but they're just too short
• 1:02:42
  Speaker 3: to turn into a series, and we're really enjoying doing those,
• 1:02:45
  Speaker 3: so we hope you'll check out those patreons.
• 1:02:47
  Speaker 2: We'll link them in the show notes.
• 1:02:49
  Speaker 1: So I want to thank you all for listening and
• 1:02:51
  Speaker 1: any chance you have to share us on social media
• 1:02:54
  Speaker 1: with a friend or d rate and review is greatly
• 1:02:56
  Speaker 1: appreciate it. You can email us at the path Went
• 1:02:59
  Speaker 1: Chili at Gmail dott. You can reach us on Twitter
• 1:03:02
  Speaker 1: at the Pathwin. So until next time, be sure to
• 1:03:04
  Speaker 1: bundle up because cold trails and chili pass call for
• 1:03:08
  Speaker 1: warm clothing.
• 1:03:08
  Speaker 2: Music by Paul Rich from the podcast Cold Callers Comedy