Suicidio di David Rossi: analisi di alcuni stralci di un’intervista rilasciata da Ranieri Rossi e Carolina Orlandi a Gianluigi Nuzzi di Quarto Grado

David Rossi

David Rossi era il responsabile della comunicazione di Monte dei Paschi di Siena, il 6 marzo 2013 si è suicidato gettandosi dalla finestra del suo ufficio, poco tempo prima di suicidarsi aveva subito una perquisizione, la seconda, e temeva di venir arrestato.

Sono agli atti innumerevoli testimonianze in questo senso di familiari e colleghi:

– Venerdì primo marzo 2013, 5 giorni prima di suicidarsi, David Rossi aveva esternato a sua moglie Antonella Tognazzi la paura che all’indomani sarebbe stato arrestato, dicendo testualmente che sarebbero andati a prelevarlo nella giornata di sabato stante la chiusura per il week end dei mercati finanziari. Ed alla risposta della moglie che, sdrammatizzando ed evidentemente non dando troppo peso alle parole del marito, gli diceva che se poi il temuto arresto il giorno dopo non fosse avvenuto si sarebbe dovuto tranquillizzare, Rossi aveva chiuso il discorso affermando che “sarebbe già una buona cosa” (dall’Ordinanza di accoglimento della Richiesta di Archiviazione, 5 marzo 2014).

– Martedì 5 marzo 2013, David Rossi si era mostrato talmente angosciato dalla preoccupazione di essere intercettato dagli inquirenti che aveva preso a comunicare con sua moglie Antonella Tognazzi e la di lei figlia Carolina Orlandi per iscritto (dall’Ordinanza di accoglimento della Richiesta di Archiviazione, 5 marzo 2014).

– Il 7 marzo 2013, il Presidente del Monte dei Paschi dell’epoca, Alessandro Profumo, sempre riguardo al 5 marzo, giorno precedente alla morte di David, ha dichiarato agli inquirenti: “Ricordo che due giorni fa lo invitai a raggiungermi nel mio ufficio per ragioni di lavoro e lui in quelloccasione mi rinnovò la sua preoccupazione; temeva in particolare di poter subire conseguenze penali dalle indagini in corso, mostrava preoccupazione addirittura di essere arrestato” (dall’Ordinanza di accoglimento della Richiesta di Archiviazione, 5 marzo 2014).

– La consulente coach della Banca, Carla Lucia Ciani ha riferito agli inquirenti il contenuto di una conversazione della mattina del 6 marzo 2013 tra lei e David Rossi: “Mi ha manifestato una situazione di ansia derivante dalla perquisizione subita, in un contesto già problematico disse che era un momento in cui gli stava cadendo addosso il mondo… la morte del padre, la crisi del Monte, lo stato di salute della moglie, e perquisizioni da lui subite. Insomma lui si sentiva dentro una serie di situazioni negative che non riusciva a gestire (…) Si sentiva quasi il senso di disgrazia imminente, questo era fortissimo tant’è che usava espressioni quali “ho paura che mi possano arrestare”, “ho paura di perdere il lavoro” (…) “io mi sto comportando male, da quando ho subito la perquisizione ho fatto una cavolata dietro l’altra” (…) disse di aver fatto una cavolata mandando uno comunicazione a VIOLA chiedendo protezione, in ciò quindi mostrando la sua fragilità all’azienda e dall’altra temendo di aver messo a disagio Viola se non addirittura irritato (…) Quando ha iniziato a parlarmi della frustrazione, a prefigurarsi delle pre-immagini negative, mi parlò della paura di essere arrestato, del fatto che sua moglie non fosse in condizioni di sostenersi; che avrebbe perso il lavoro se fosse successo qualcosa di grave” (dall’Ordinanza di accoglimento della Richiesta di Archiviazione, 5 marzo 2014)..

Di seguito l’analisi delle recenti dichiarazioni rilasciate da Ranieri Rossi, fratello di David Rossi e da Carolina Orlandi, figlia della compagna di David, a Gianluigi Nuzzi di Quarto Grado:

Gianluigi Nuzzi: David è stato picchiato ma bisogna chiedersi da chi è stato picchiato e allora: Carolina e Ranieri, lui aveva subito delle intimidazioni?

Gianluigi Nuzzi, sostituendosi alla procura, lascia intendere al suo pubblico che non vi siano dubbi che David Rossi sia stato picchiato, accreditando, senza averne le competenze, una morte omicidiaria.

Ranieri Rossi: Che io sappia no, però… eh… certo, lui era molto preoccupato, l’ultimo giorno che io l’ho visto e in cui siamo stati a pranzo, lui in macchina con me guardava continuamente gli specchietti e teneva… temeva di essere seguito, perché uno altrimenti non guarda gli specchietti in macchina.

David non ha subito alcuna intimidazione, non è emerso nulla in tal senso né dalle indagini svolte dalla procura né da quelle svolte dai consulenti della famiglia Rossi ma Ranieri lascia spazio al dubbio con un ” però… eh… certo, lui era molto preoccupato”

E’ vero che David “era molto preoccupato” ma nonostante Ranieri Rossi sia a conoscenza del  motivo di tanta preoccupazione omette con cura di riferirlo al conduttore. David, come abbiamo visto, temeva di venir arrestato, ma Ranieri non desidera che si sappia.

Ranieri dissimula per evitare che il pubblico di Quarto Grado, una volta venuto a conoscenza della paura palesata da David a familiari e colleghi, comprenda che David semplicemente temeva di essere seguito da inquirenti in borghese e non da fantomatici sicari.

Gianluigi Nuzzi: Ma non le disse nulla, non disse…?

Nuzzi suggerisce una risposta negativa.

Ranieri Rossi: Non mi disse niente, poi andammo al ristorante, normali, in un bar e anche lì si guardava sempre intorno come se uno avesse paura di qualcosa.

Ranieri risponde “Non mi disse niente” e poi sposta il focus.

Gianluigi Nuzzi: Ma non era uno sospettoso di suo?

Ranieri Rossi: Ma no, in genereee, insomma, era uno tranquillo nella sua vita, a parte gli ultimi, ecco, gli ultimi tempi.

Carolina Orlandi si intromette: (incomprensibile) una persona molto razionale, Davide era una persona molto razionale e nell’ultimo periodo, se è cambiato, non c’è stata nei suoi occhi solo preoccupazione ma una paura effettiva, secondo me anche di… di qualcosa che evidentemente non poteva spiegarci, che evidentemente non poteva dirci ma che lui sentivaaaa molto vicino a sé, proprio perché si guardava…

Quando Carolina dice “secondo me anche di… di qualcosa che evidentemente non poteva spiegarci, che evidentemente non poteva dirci ma che lui sentivaaaa molto vicino a sé”, con l’uso della parola “anche” ci mette al corrente del fatto che lei è a conoscenza di un motivo di “preoccupazione” e “paura effettiva” di David ma si guarda bene dal renderlo pubblico. E’ chiaro che con la parola “anche” Carolina non può che riferirsi alla paura che aveva David di venir arrestato.

Carolina, invece di riferire ciò che sa, invita il pubblico a fantasticare dicendo che quel “qualcosa” che preoccupava e spaventava David era “qualcosa che evidentemente non poteva spiegarci, che evidentemente non poteva dirci ma che lui sentivaaaa molto vicino a sé”, si tratta di conclusioni completamente sganciate dalle risultanze investigative, illazioni di Carolina Orlandi che gettano ombre sinistre su persone vicine a David Rossi.   

Gianluigi Nuzzi: Ma si era confidato con voi? Vi aveva fatto capire dov’era il punto di rischio? Dov’era la sorgente di quelle sue preoccupazioni?

Carolina Orlandi: Nno. Non l’ha mai fatto nello specifico, almeno a casa eee…

Carolina Orlandi mente. La Orlandi è smentita dalla testimonianza di sua madre Antonella Tognazzi. Carolina Orlandi, a 5 anni dai fatti, non può non sapere che pochi giorni prima di suicidarsi David aveva detto ad Antonella Tognazzi di temere di venir arrestato.

Non sono solo gli atti d’indagine a smentire Carolina ma anche la sua risposta. La Orlandi è incapace di rispondere con un netto “No” e fa seguire ad un “Nno”, dove si sofferma sulla lettera “N” per prendere tempo per rispondere, almeno 11 parole finalizzate alla persuasione del suo interlocutore. Ogni parola che segue ad una negazione la indebolisce.

Carolina mostra di non possedere la protezione del cosiddetto “muro della verità”, un’impenetrabile barriera psicologica che permette a coloro che dicono il vero di rispondere con poche parole che non lasciano dubbi. A differenza della Orlandi, chi possiede il “muro della verità” non ha la necessità di convincere nessuno.

Ranieri Rossi: Quella sera non me lo disse, disse solo delle cose che poi ho riportato, che sanno tutti, che un amico mi ha tradito e ho fatto una cavolata ehm però mmmm non mi sembrava neanche il caso in quell’occasione di chiedergli.

Anche Ranieri Rossi risponde alla domanda di Nuzzi cui in precedenza ha risposto la Orlandi ed anche lui mostra di essere privo del “muro della verità”.

Da notare che la domanda rivolta a Ranieri e Carolina da Nuzzi è generica. Nuzzi non ha chiesto a Ranieri che cosa si fossero detti durante l’incontro del 6 marzo 2013 ma Ranieri, per evitare di riferirgli di essere a conoscenza del fatto che suo fratello temeva di venir arrestato si limita a riportare parte dei contenuti del colloquio intercorso tra lui e suo David l’ultimo giorno.

Quando Ranieri dice “Quella sera non me lo disse” lascia peraltro intendere che David gli avesse confidato in precedenza i motivi della sua preoccupazione. In ogni caso è difficile pensare che Ranieri e la Tognazzi non si siano mai confrontati su questo tema nei giorni precedenti e nei 5 anni successivi al suicidio di David.

Vi chiedete il perché Ranieri Rossi abbia dissimulato e il perché Carolina Orlandi abbia dissimulato e mentito. Non si tratta di autoinganno, sia Ranieri che Carolina non hanno lasciato filtrare alcune informazioni perché la verità non gli fa gioco in quanto accredita il suicidio di David. 

Ciò che ha permesso a Ranieri di dissimulare e a Carolina di dissimulare e mentire senza provare senso di colpa, sono il convincimento di averlo fatto per una nobile causa e la consapevolezza di avere l’opinione pubblica dalla propria parte.

Ranieri e Carolina si stanno comportando esattamente come una procura che, forte del proprio convincimento astratto, pur non avendo alcuna prova che possa supportarlo, trascina a sé un’opinione pubblica alla quale mente e nasconde le risultanze d’indagine che smonterebbero la propria errata ricostruzione dei fatti. Una prece.

Leggi anche:

Morte di David Rossi: un suicidio

Morte di David Rossi: analisi delle telefonate di soccorso di Bernando Mingrone

Morte di David Rossi: analisi dell’intervista estorta a Pierluigi Piccini da Le Iene

Morte di David Rossi: analisi di alcuni scambi verbali tra Giancarlo Filippone e Antonino Monteleone

Annunci

Analysis of some excerpts of Ryan K. Widmer’s interview with correspondent Karin Johnson

Sarah and Ryan Widmer

On August 11, 2008, Ryan K. Widmer killed his wife Sarah by drowning her in their Hamilton Township home.

Ryan Widmer was tried three times:

  • In April 2009, a jury, after 23 hours of deliberations, found him guilty.
  • In 2010, a jury, after 31 hours of deliberations, was unable to reach a verdict.
  • The last trial, that started in January 2011, found Ryan Widmer guilty of unpremeditated murder. He was sentenced to 13 years of prison.

After his third and last trial Widmer released an interview from prison to correspondent Karin Johnson.

What we look for in the following excerpts is for Ryan Widmer to issue a reliable denial and to tell the truth about the night of his wife death.

A reliable denial is found in the free editing process, not in the parroted language and has 3 components:
1. the pronoun “I”
2. past tense verb “did not” or “didn’t”
3. accusation answered
If a denial has more than 3 or less than 3 components, it is no longer reliable.

There is no consequence to issue a reliable denial about any false allegation.

“I did not kill Sarah” followed by “I told the truth” while addressing the denial, it is more than 99% likely to be true. This would be the “wall of truth”. 

The “wall of truth” is an impenetrable psychological barrier that often leads innocent people to few words, as the subject has no need to persuade anyone of anything.

We begin every statement analysis expecting truth, and it is the unexpected that confronts us as possibly deceptive.

Ryan Widmer speaking about his death mother: She let this destroy her, you know, it’s sad because it should have never happened, I mean, I loose my wife, I go through to this and now I loose my mum.

“She let this destroy her” is generic, Widmer shows closeness to what destroy his mother saying “this”. He doesn’t explain what he is referring with “this”, “this” could be the murder as his “wrongful conviction”, Ryan Widmer count on us to interpret.

The presence of “you know” shows Widmer’s acute awareness of the audience.

Note that the focus is not on his mother, the focus is on Ryan Widmer himself. This first sentences speaks loud of Widmer’s personality. This first sentence tells us especially about his lack of empathy.

Ryan Widmer: I mean… it was a normal night… uhm… we hanged out at the time, we still trying the grass growing… uhm… because our house was fairly new, so I was water and grass, I took the dog for a walk, which normally she did but she didn’t feel about that night… uh man! she was on the couch, we were on the couch, I made dinner, everything was fine except her complain of being sick and having an headache…

Note the use of “I mean”, “uhm”, “uh man!” to take time to think. 

Note the use of the word “normal” that tells us that it was not a normal night.

“we hanged out at the time” is unnecessary to say, he uses these words to fill his narrative, it sounds story telling.

Note that he contradicts himself when he says “I took the dog for a walk, which normally she did but she didn’t feel about that night…” because this was already something out of the ordinary.

Widmer first says  “she was on the couch” and then he adds “we were on the couch” counting on us to conclude that they were on the couch at the same time.

When Widmer says “she didn’t feel about that night…” and “everything was fine except her complain of being sick and having an headache…” he is building his defence.

Karin Johnson: Did you kill Sarah?

Ryan Widmer: No… uhm… no, I always said that, this is the way it is, just because I’m in prison doesn’t mean I’m guilty… (cut)

We count the words after a “No”, these words weaker the negation. In this case the sentence is incomplete but we can still analyse anyway the words said after “No”:

“uhm” is a non word, useful to take time to think.

I always said that” is different from “I told the truth”. To repeat something doesn’t make it the truth.

“this is the way it is” is a sentence often used by sociopath.

I’m guilty” is an embedded admission, Widmer framed himself without parroting anybody’s words.

Karin Johnson: Did you guy argue at all that night?

“at all” are unnecessary words, with these two words the correspondent suggests the answer to Widmer.

Ryan Widmer: No… not at all, no.

Widmer shows a need to persuade that usually innocent don’t have.

Ryan Widmer: I stayed downstairs watching the football game, I walked upstairs, you know, kind of took my clothes out, kind of ye… I was surprised, she wasn’t in the bed yet… uh… give my staff ready to go to the bed and walked in the bathroom, that’s when I found her.

When Widmer says “I stayed downstairs watching the football game” he doesn’t say where Sarah was, he counts on us to interpret.

“I walked upstairs” is an unusual sentence, Widmer was inside his house, he couldn’t have taken a bike or a car to go upstairs, “I went upstairs” was expected, “I walked upstairs” sounds story telling.

The presence of “you know” shows Widmer’s acute awareness of the audience.

When Widmer says “kind of took my clothes out, kind of ye…” he sounds vague and story telling.

kind of ye…” is not only vague but also incomplete, self censoring is a signal of suppressed information.

Note that “I was surprised” is a reference to an emotion. The description of an emotion in the right part of a statement and not at the end of it, is unexpected in a truthful narrative.

Note that “she wasn’t in the bed yet…” is unexpected, truthful people tells us what happened, what they saw, what they did, etc. There is no reason to report things in the negative while speaking freely. Widmer shows a need to pre empt a possible question, this is not only an alert for deception, but opens to the possibility that Sarah was in the bed when he went upstairs.

Note the location of the non word “uh”, a pause to think in “she wasn’t in the bed yet… uh… give my staff ready to go to the bed”.

In “give my staff ready to go to the bed and walked in the bathroom” by beginning without the personal pronoun “I”, Widmer is not psychologically committing to what he is saying, something that deceptive people often do. 

Note that “give” is also at the present tense. We know that Ryan Widmer is able to use the past tense. When he says “”give my staff ready to go to the bed” his use of the present tense tells us that he is not recalling from experiential memory.   A commitment to a past event is found in past tense verbs. When someone is speaking of an event in the past, it is expected the subject to use past tense language.  When someone is not committing, or even fabricating, they can slip into present tense language. Present tense language is deemed unreliable. Deceptive people often use the present counting on us to interpret and assume that they are speaking of the past event.

“that’s when I found her” is a vague sentence, he is not telling us that he found her death or in the bathtub. He again counts on us to interpret and assume.

Karin Johnson: You explain how you saw Sarah?

Ryan Widmer: Just floating in… in the water… uhm… you know, I just… I… I like… I don’t really know how to describe, how to say… I saw her, pulled her out the water, drained the water… uh… just, as soon as the water get drained with her still in the tub, just found the cell phone right away… (cut)

Note how difficult is for Widmer to answer. The question is sensitive to him.

Note that there is no subject in “Just floating in… in the water…”, Widmer’s account of the events is not reliable.

The presence of “you know” shows Widmer’s acute awareness of the audience.

 ” I just… I… I like… I don’t really know how to describe, how to say…”, note the vagueness, he is unable to describe the scene; the presence of the non word “uhm”, useful to take time to answer; the stuttering “I”, a signal of anxiety; 

Note the three “just” in few words ” I just… I… I like… (…) uh… just, as soon as the water (..)  just found the cell phone right away…”. “just” is a dependent word  used in comparison. Its communication is found in dependence upon another thought. We can assume that, while building his unreliable story, Widmer was thinking about what really took place.

When Widmer says “just found the cell phone right away…” he doesn’t say that he called 911 and the unexpected presence of the adverb “right away” is telling us that he didn’t call “right away” but that there was a delay.

Ryan Widmer: I don’t understand why they continue to drive that home. The problem with it, is: Ok, her hairs were wet… uhm… you know, they say the carpet was dry, the only carpet’s samples they took from that night were soaked and that was introduce in the trial… uh… the bathtub… you know… they claim they left out of my house 2 or 3 hours later, went back to take pictures, the pictures taken 2 or 3 hours later of the bathtub, clearly shows water sitting in that bathtub, not a lot but you talk about an hour later I… I mean, I don’t know what to say other than I don’t believe her body was as dried, the carpet nor everything else was as dried as they make it out to be.

Widmer admits that the prosecutors were right “The problem with it, is: Ok, her hairs were wet… uhm… you know”, he is unable to contest the prosecutors’ theory.

The presence of “you know” shows Widmer’s acute awareness of the audience, again.

“water sitting in that bathtub”, water don’t sit in a bathtub, every time someone gives a body posture to an inanimate object there is the possibility of a staging.

When Widmer says “I… I mean, I don’t know what to say other than I don’t believe her body was as dried, the carpet nor everything else was as dried as they make it out to be” he is not convinced and not convincing. There is no “wall of truth” within Ryan Widmer.

Karin Johnson: Three trials, three chances to take the stand, why you didn’t ever testify?

Ryan Widmer: I… just… uh… it wasn’t my decision… uhm… made by my lawyers and multiple people that were involved, but the main decision: I said what I said in the 911 call, I can’t tell anybody what happened to her in the bathroom that night, that’s what people want me to say, so there is really… there is nothing I can say to change anything.

This incipit “I… just… uh… it wasn’t my decision… uhm… made by” shows that the question is sensitive to him.

The answer to the question is here: “I can’t tell anybody what happened to her in the bathroom that night”. Widmer cannot tell anybody what happened to her in the bathroom that night because the truth is incriminating, that’s why, in his three trials, he never took the stand. 

Analysis Conclusion:

Ryan Widmer is deceptively withholding information.

Widmer is not only unable or unwilling to deny his involvement in his wife Sarah’s death but he accepts a possible guilt, something that is not expected from an innocent.

Ryan Widmer has guilty knowledge of what happened to his wife Sarah.

It’s highly likely that, while Sarah was already in bed, Ryan filled the bathtub, then asked her to reach him in the bathroom where, pushing her head under the water, he drowned her. 

Analysis of some excerpts from an interview Ronald Santiago released to correspondent Erin Moriarty

Bernadette and John Greg Ohlemacher

In June 2006 Ronald Santiago, a loan officer’s assistant at Countrywide Home Loans was accused of breaking into John Gregory and Bernadette Ann Vigil Ohlemacher’s home in Paradise Hill, a suburb of Albuquerque, New Mexico, in the early morning of August 2, 2005, and fatally shooting them with a 9- millimiter handgun. Renee Ohlemacher the couple’s 20 year old daughter was at home but the shooter left her unharmed.

On February 26th, 2014 a jury found Ronald Santiago not guilty of the double homicide.

After the sentence Ronald Santiago said: I’m happy that the truth has come out. I had no part of this.

“I had no part of this” is an unreliable denial and the word “this” shows closeness to the crime. 

Ronald Santiago

Here some excerpts from an interview Santiago released to correspondent Erin Moriarty in 2006:

What we look for in the following excerpts is for Ronald Santiago to issue a reliable denial.

A reliable denial is found in the free editing process, not in the parroted language and has 3 components:
1. the pronoun “I”
2. past tense verb “did not” or “didn’t”
3. accusation answered
If a denial has more than 3 or less than 3 components, it is no longer reliable.

“I did not kill the Ohlemachers” followed by “I told the truth” while addressing the denial, it is more than 99% likely to be true. This would be the “wall of truth”. 

The “wall of truth” is an impenetrable psychological barrier that often leads innocent people to few words, as the subject has no need to persuade anyone of anything.

We begin every statement analysis expecting truth, and it is the unexpected that confronts us as possibly deceptive.

Ronald Santiago: I’ve always wanted to help people, it feels so good from inside to be able to help somebody.

Note that Santiago has the need to describe himself as a “good guy” to ingratiate himself with the correspondent. This is the “good guy/bad guy principle” in Statement Analysis. He has a desire to appear a “good guy” to cover up a “bad guy”.

Ronald Santiago: Being able to help somebody buy their first home to own their own home was a great feeling.

Note that Santiago has the need to describe himself as a “good guy”, again.

Ronald Santiago: I wanted to do the best possible job I could for them, every single time.

Note that Santiago has the need to describe himself as a “good guy”, again.

Erin Moriarty: How would you describe Bernadette?

Ronald Santiago: The few times that I met her, she seemed to be very nice to me, she was very nice to me.

Santiago says that he met Bernadette few times, this is unnecessary to say, he is taking the distance from one of the victim. 

Ronald Santiago asked about his reaction after the news of the double murder: I was shocked. I mean, I was disturbed.

Note that Santiago has the need to describe himself as a “good guy”, again.

Erin Moriarty: You cried?

Ronald Santiago: Yes ma’ am. I guess I’m an emotional person. I take things serious. When I heard that, it hurt. It was sad.

Note that Santiago describes himself as “an emotional person”.

Note that Santiago has the need to describe himself as a “good guy”, again. This is incessant.

Ronald Santiago is exceedingly manipulative.

In “When I heard that”, “that” is distancing language. Santiago feels the need to distance himself from the double murder.

Ronald Santiago: We were one of the hottest mortgages in the southwest. There was a pressure cooker.

“There was a pressure cooker” is passive language. Passivity is used to conceal identity or responsibility. Santiago is unable to say that someone put pressure on him because is untrue.

Erin Moriarty: And what was the pressure like on you?

Ronald Santiago: The pressure was incredible. I’ve taken loan applications on holidays, phone calls on Christmas Eve, Christmas Day. You were open 24/7. Their motto is “get it done”.

When Santiago says “The pressure was incredible” he doesn’t say somebody put pressure on him. In order to blame his company for what he did, he says that “Their motto is “get it done”.

We can conclude that everything he did was his fault.

On June 12, 2006, Ronald Santiago surrendered himself to the U.S. Secret Service in Albuquerque, claiming that he had been forging checks in his capacity as a loan officer. During the initial interview, he told Secret Service Agent Bryan Nguyen that he needed psychological help. Agent Nguyen sent Defendant to a local hospital for a mental evaluation. During the course of the forgery investigation, Agent Nguyen learned that Defendant had serviced the Ohlemachers’ loan application shortly before their deaths.

Ronald Santiago: I had made a mistake. I’m not denying that… that’s never been a question. I’m not hiding from that. Have I done something wrong? I participated in something that was wrong.

When Santiago, referring to the forging of two checks in an unrelated home loan, says “I’m not hiding from that”, he is telling us that he is hiding from something else, if not from that, from what? 

“that” is distancing language.

Note that he is referring with the word “that” to the fact that he forged two checks.

When he says “Have I done something wrong? I participated in something that was wrong”, he doesn’t specify what he is talking about and he shows a need to share guilt with the word “participated”.

Erin Moriarty: So, what went wrong in that case? What happened in that case?

Ronald Santiago: I overpromised.

Erin Moriarty: What do you mean, you overpromised?

Ronald Santiago: I told them (the Howards’ family) that I can get the loan done within a specific period of time and… I didn’t, I dropped the ball.

Note the pause to think.

Ronald Santiago: But I knew I was gonna get caught, I knew I was gonna get caught.

This is sensitive. 

Note that he wasn’t caught for the forged checks, he surrendered himself to the U.S. Secret Service. When he says “I knew I was gonna get caught” Santiago is referring to the double murder.

Ronald Santiago: I’ve never done anything… illegal in my life. To do something that was stupid and lose everything because of that stupidity. That’s very emotional.

Note the pause in this sentence “I’ve never done anything… illegal in my life”, this is not only something not easy to say for him but also unreliable, his denial covers an undetermined amount of time and open to the possibility that he didn’t do anything illegal in his life until he did.

Note his to describe himself as a “good guy” that only did something “stupid”.

We note that Santiago’s mood in that period was “very emotional”.

Ronald Santiago: Relief of not having to do that anymore, I thought getting out from underneath all that pressure “get it done”, “get it done”. I don’t have to do that anymore.

We note that Santiago in that period was “underneath all that pressure”.

Erin Moriarty: How would you remember it was a Tuesday (the day of the double murder)?

Ronald Santiago: Well, it was a very dramatic event. I mean, again, people that… that I work with… were killed.

Note the position of the pauses to think.

Santiago is unable to say “people that I know”, he chooses to say “people that I work with”“With” shows distance between him and the victims and speaks about their relation. Note also that “work” is at the present tense.

“were killed” is passive language. Passivity in analysis indicates a desire to conceal and this concealment is often responsibility.

Ronald Santiago: I was telling the truth. I denied everything. I had nothing to do with anybody hurting forth anymore a murder… I did not… and I answered all their questions.

“I was telling the truth” is vague, he doesn’t say when he was telling the truth.

Santiago is unable to say “I told the truth”.

In any case, most of the people don’t lie, 90% or more of deception comes from deliberately withheld or concealed information, rather than outright lying. In other words, often everything people say is true, they simply leave out that they had committed the crime.

“I denied everything” is an unreliable denial.

There is no consequence to issue a reliable denial about any false allegation.

“I had nothing to do with anybody hurting forth anymore a murder” is an unreliable denial and a sentence that goes against the law of economy in words. He is unable or unwilling to say a simple sentence as “I didn’t kill the Ohlemacher”. The “wall of truth” in not within Ronald Santiago. 

“I did not…” is self censoring. 

When he says “and I answered all their questions” he doesn’t say that he said everything.

Erin Moriarty: You know the Ohlemacher were shot and killed with a 9-millimeter Ruger, according with the police, and you had owned one.

Ronald Santiago: I owned one… but I got rid of it a year… before this even took place.

Note the positions of the two pauses to think. 

He calls the double murder “this” to minimise. 

Moreover “this” shows closeness to the double murder.

Erin Moriarty: So what happened to your 9-millimiter?

Ronald Santiago: I treated.

Erin Moriarty: To who?

Ronald Santiago: You know, we’ve been knocking heads for the last year and a half.

The presence of “You know” tells us of Santiago’s acute awareness of the audience.

When Santiago says “we’ve been knocking heads for the last year and a half”, he doesn’t speak just for himself but shows a desire to hide in a crowd like most guilty people.

Erin Moriarty: You don’t happen to remember the name of the guy you give this 9-millimiter Ruger?

Ronald Santiago: Robert? But I don’t remember his last name, it was just as simple, okay, that’s great.

Erin Moriarty: How did that spent shell casing ended up in his bag?

Ronald Santiago: I don’t know how it got there, I didn’t put it there. Is it a possibility that someone put it there? That could have been part of law enforcement, there is a possibility but I’m not going to accuse.

Erin Moriarty: That’s damaging, Ron, I mean…

Ronald Santiago: Yeah, I know it is. Tha… that’s the whole case. They’re saying because that shell casing was in my gun bag, in my garage, that I was the one that pulled the trigger to kill these people.

When Santiago says “I was the one that pulled the trigger to kill these people”, he framed himself without parroting anybody’s words. This is an “embedded admission”. 

Erin Moriarty: Did you ever expect to go to jail?

Ronald Santiago: No ma’ am, not for murder.

Ronald Santiago: It’s frightening, its scary, I mean, I have not done anything to anyone.

“I have not done anything to anyone” is an unreliable denial.

Erin Moriarty: What was your reaction when you heard this?

Ronald Santiago: I didn’t hurt anyone, I didn’t tamper with anyone’s personal belongings, their vehicles, anything, I‘ve not done anything wrong.

“I didn’t hurt anyone, I didn’t tamper with anyone’s personal belongings, their vehicles, anything, I‘ve not done anything wrong” are all unreliable denials. This answer goes against the law of economy in words. There is not “wall of truth” within him.

Note that Santiago uses the word “hurt” instead of “kill” to minimize, this has to do with the sense of guilt.

Ronald Santiago speaking about his lawyers: I own them everything, they believe in me since the beginning, they’ve shown that I didn’t do this, if it wasn’t for them, I’d still be locked up.

Santiago is unable to say “they’ve shown that I didn’t kill the Ohlemacher” and is again referring to the double murder with “this”, showing closeness to it.

On June 14 2006, Det. Mike Fox and Secret Service Agent Brian Nguyen went to thePresbyterian Kaseman Hospital in Albuquerque to speak with Ronald Santiago who was undergoing a psychiatric treatment.

Ronald Santiago: Sir, I didn’t hurt the Ohlemachers, I didn’t hurt the Ohlemachers.

“I didn’t hurt the Ohlemachers” is an unreliable denial. Santiago is unable or unwilling to say “I didn’t kill the Ohlemachers”.

There is no consequence to issue a reliable denial about any false allegation.

Note that Santiago uses the word “hurt” instead of “kill” to minimize, again. 

Ronald Santiago: I did this. What I’ve admitted. I’ve come to the Secret Service like I was supposed to. I turned myself in for the things that I’ve done wrong. I’ve admitted that. When it comes to the Ohlemachers, sir, I didn’t hurt anybody.

When Santiago says “I did this”, he wants us to believe that he is speaking about the checks he forged but he is unable to specify it.

“I did this” could easily be referred to the double murder and considered an embedded admission.

When he says “What I’ve admitted” he is telling us that there is something he didn’t admit.

Note that he first says “I did this” and then referring to the things he turned himself in for he says “I’ve admitted that”, “this” and “that” are two different things.

“I didn’t hurt anybody” is an unreliable denial.  He uses the word “hurt” instead of “kill” to minimize, again. 

Minimization is a distancing measure, it’s a way to avoid of dealing with negative emotions by reducing the importance and impact of events that give rise to those emotions, it’s a common strategy used by guilty people to deal with feelings of guilt.

Detective: I can tell it in your eyes that you did it. And it hurts you that you did it. and you don’t want to say it.

Ronald Santiago: It hurt to think that someone thinks I would hurt someone like that.

Note that Santiago shows a need to describe himself as a “good guy” that suffers for being considered a murderer. 

“I would hurt someone like that” is an embedded admission.

Note that Ronald Santiago is not only unable to give a reliable denial but he accepts a possible guilt, something that is not expected from an innocent. There is no consequence to issue a reliable denial about any false allegation. Santiago accepts what the de facto innocent don’t accept: he allows people to believe he is involved. There is no “wall of Truth” within Santiago. This is why he allows blame to be put upon him.

Detective: Nothing is gonna help you until you confess, until you get it out. It’s gonna eat you up.

Ronal Santiago: And I have confessed. I forged, I did forgery.

“And” at the start of a sentence means missing information. 

Agent: Ron, we’re trying to help

Ronal Santiago: I know, Sir, you are trying to help, I did not… hurt the Ohlemachers.

“I did not… hurt the Ohlemachers” is an unreliable denial. Note the position of the pause, Santiago is unable to substitute the word “hurt” with “kill”.

Detective: No, you didn’t, you didn’t hurt ‘em, you kill ‘em.

Ronald Santiago: I did not kill…

Santiago didn’t complete his sentence. This is self censoring. 

Detective: You killed ‘em, you killed the Ohlemachers.

Santiago doesn’t deny.

Detective: What’s gonna happen when the gun matches up, though?

Ronald Santiago: My gun’s not gonna match up.

Detective: You positive?

Ronald Santiago: Yes, Sir.

Detective: 100%?

Ronald Santiago: I didn’t shoot ‘em.

Santiago is able to say “I didn’t shoot ‘em” because in his mind, he “was the one that pulled the trigger to kill these people” but it was his gun which “shoot ‘em .

Detective: 100% positive the gun’s gonna match up?

Ronald Santiago: Right.

Detective: What’s let’s just say that it does?

Ronald Santiago: If it says it does?

The detective catches Santiago off guard, he is unable to answer, he answers with a question not to answer.

Detective: Uh, uhm.

Ronald Santiago: Then, I’m in a lot of trouble, Sir, I’m wanted for murder.

Santiago doesn’t say that it will be impossible to have a match, contra he accepts a possible match and a possible guilt, something that is not expected from an innocent.

Detective: Because it’s gonna match up, isn’t it?

Ronald Santiago: No, Sir.

Detective: There’s not a person in the world that’s gonna look at this and think that you didn’t kill ‘em, so it’s time to quit lying. It’s time to tell the truth.

Ronald Santiago: Sir, when I get discharged from here, I will contact you, so that way you can have me taken in and booked whenever you need to, ‘cause I’m not gonna talk anymore.

Santiago refuses to reply to the detective. He is unable to say “I told you the truth”.

Detective: Ok.

Analysis Coclusions:

Deception indicated.

Ronald Santiago was unable or unwilling to deny the allegation. He never gave a reliable denial, he never said “I didn’t kill the Ohlemacher” and “I told the truth”.

Ronald Santiago showed a psychological need to be seen as a “good guy” because he feels guilt and doesn’t wish to be seen as a “bad guy”.

He is strongly manipulative.

Ronald Santiago has guilty knowledge of what happed to John Greg and Bernadette Ohlemacher. 

Santiago got away with the double murder of the Ohlemachers.

Un servizio di MediaTV sul caso Ungureanu con miei interventi

I miei interventi ai minuti 6:19, 8:54, 11:53, 14:12, 15:09 e 15:58.

La criminologa Ursula Franco fa il punto su alcuni casi giudiziari mediatici (intervista)

Le Cronache Lucane, 16 giugno 2018

Che cosa pensa dell’ultimo libro di Carmelo Abbate “Gli uomini sono Bastardi”?

Personalmente mi addolora che la magistratura non prenda provvedimenti e permetta a soggetti come lui, privi di competenze in campo criminologico, di esprimersi pubblicamente su soggetti indagati, non solo è estremamente diseducativo ma è una violazione dello stato di diritto. Gente come Abbate istiga alla giustizia sommaria ma soprattutto contribuisce a creare mostri che non esistono favorendo gli errori giudiziari.

Dottoressa Franco cosa pensa del “teatro virtuale” tirato in ballo dalla procura di Bologna dopo l’arresto di Stefano Monti nel caso del buttafuori ucciso 20 anni fa?

Che il “teatro virtuale” non possa reggere in dibattimento è la procura stessa a dircelo, se l’impianto accusatorio fosse stato solido, gli inquirenti non avrebbero dato in pasto ai giornalisti il caso. E’ ormai un’abitudine delle procure foraggiare il processo mediatico quando il castello accusatorio è fragile. Nei casi giudiziari, come nel linguaggio, il bisogno di convincere nasconde insicurezza. Un esempio su tutti: il processo mediatico voluto dalla procura di Asti per creare un mostro che non esiste e motivarne arresto e condanna in assenza di prove.

Riguardo al caso in specie, è assai improbabile che l’omicidio di Valeriano Poli, commesso attraverso l’uso di un’arma da fuoco, sia seguito ad una colluttazione. L’omicidio di Poli ha tutte le caratteristiche di un omicidio premeditato ed il killer, essendo in possesso di una pistola, non aveva motivo di rischiare di avere la peggio in una colluttazione, peraltro se si fosse picchiato con il Poli prima di ucciderlo, non avrebbe solo corso il rischio di lasciare sulla scena del crimine indizi incriminanti ma anche di avere su di sé segni riconducibili ad un corpo a corpo.

Che cosa dovrebbe fare una procura quando l’impianto accusatorio è fragile?

Dovrebbe tornare sui suoi passi e rivedere il caso, perché se un impianto accusatorio non regge, uno dei motivi è l’innocenza dell’indagato.

Ci sono novità sul caso Ungureanu?

Purtroppo no, la procura di Benevento si è cristallizzata su una ricostruzione dei fatti “fantasiosa” e, nonostante la verità sia agli atti, sembra ignorarla. I risultati autoptici ci dicono che Maria morì di morte accidentale e che l’orario della sua morte è incompatibile con la presenza di Daniel e Cristina Ciocan in paese. E’ peraltro agli atti un quadro indiziario senza via d’uscita relativo alle violenze cui veniva sottoposta Maria da suo padre Marius Ungureanu. Sperma di Marius sulla sua maglietta e sulla coperta del suo lettino e intercettazioni tra lui, sua moglie ed un altro personaggio fortemente incriminanti. I fatti accaduti sono immarcescibili, non ci si può schiodare da queste certezze.

Se i Ciocan venissero rinviati a giudizio che succederà?

Difficilmente si andrà oltre l’udienza preliminare. Se invece il giudice li rinviasse a giudizio, la difesa farà emergere tutto ciò che è agli atti, parecchi soggetti infatti si sono inspiegabilmente macchiati del reato di favoreggiamento personale nei confronti di Marius Ungureanu. Ne vedremo delle belle.

Intervista ripresa dal casertasera.it:

TORNA A PARLARE LA CRIMINOLOGA URSULA FRANCO SUL CASO DELLA BAMBINA MARIA UNGUREANU TROVATA SENZA VITA A S. SALVATORE TELESINO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SAN SALVATORE TELESINO. Torna a parlare la criminologa Ursula Franco, consulente dei fratelli Ciocan, in riferimento al caso di Maria Ungureanu, la bambina ritrovata senza vita nella piscina di un resort di San Salvatore, il 19 giugno 2016 e per la quale sono indagati appunto i fratelli Ciocan. La nota criminologa, intervistata dal quotidiano Roma e da sempre critica sull’operato della procura e sul caso ribadisce anche a noi  cosa fare a proposito e in genere quando l’impianto accusatorio è fragile come il questo caso.

“La procura dovrebbe tornare sui suoi passi e rivedere il caso, perché se un impianto accusatorio non regge, uno dei motivi è l’innocenza dell’indagato.

  • Ci sono novità sul caso Ungureanu?

“Purtroppo no –dice la Criminologa –  la Procura di Benevento si è cristallizzata su una ricostruzione dei fatti “fantasiosa” e, nonostante la verità sia agli atti, sembra ignorarla. I risultati autoptici ci dicono che Maria morì di morte accidentale e che l’orario della sua morte è incompatibile con la presenza di Daniel e Cristina Ciocan in paese. E’ peraltro agli atti un quadro indiziario senza via d’uscita, relativo alle violenze cui veniva sottoposta Maria da suo padre Marius Ungureanu. Sperma di Marius sulla sua maglietta e sulla coperta del suo lettino e intercettazioni tra lui, sua moglie ed un altro personaggio fortemente incriminanti. I fatti accaduti sono immarcescibili, non ci si può schiodare da queste certezze”.

  • Se i Ciocan venissero rinviati a giudizio che succederà?

“Difficilmente si andrà oltre l’udienza preliminare. Se invece il giudice li rinviasse a giudizio, la difesa farà emergere tutto ciò che è agli atti, parecchi soggetti infatti si sono inspiegabilmente macchiati del reato di favoreggiamento personale nei confronti di Marius Ungureanu. Ne vedremo delle belle”.

Analysis of an interview Adam Kaufman released to correspondent Erin Moriarty

Eleonora “Lina” and Adam Kaufman

On June 2012, a jury acquitted Aventura developer Adam Kaufman of second-degree murder in the death of his wife Eleonora “Lina”, 33. He was accused of strangling her in a fit of rage on November 7, 2007.

What we look for in the following excerpts is for Adam Kaufman to issue a reliable denial.

We look for him to say freely “I didn’t kill my wife Lina” and “I am telling the truth”.

This would be the “wall of truth”. 

The “wall of truth” is an impenetrable psychological barrier that often leads innocent people to few words, as the subject has no need to persuade anyone of anything.

We begin every statement analysis expecting truth, and it is the unexpected that confronts us as possibly deceptive.

Adam Kaufman: I think about Lina every day. S…she was stunningly beautiful. She had class, elegance, style.

I believe him.

Adam Kaufman: This particular morning, it was about 5 o’clock. I remember waking up and seeing her not there. And I figured, ok, you know, she’s with the baby. She’s not in bed, she’s with the baby. Right around 6 o’clock, I woke up again. She wasn’t there. That’s when I got a pit in my stomach. I remember calling. No response. I remember walking into the bathroom and seeing her there slumped over onto the magazine rack. I just remember being in a frantic mode to… to save her.

Note that Kaufman says four times “I remember”, this is unexpected in a truthful account. “I remember” is unnecessary wording whereas in truthful accounts people can only tell us what they remember. This may be an indication that Adam  previously, told the correspondent what was not from his experiential memory.

“I remember waking up and seeing her not there” and “she wasn’t there” are vague and quite different from “I woke up and I didn’t see her in the bed” and “she wasn’t in the bed”.

When Adam says “you know” he shows an acute awareness of the audience.

“That’s when I got a pit in my stomach”, it sounds premature, too early to worry. 

“I remember calling. No response” is vague, Kaufman is unable to say “I called Lina and she did not respond”.

Note the use of “just” in “I just remember being in a frantic mode”. “just” is a dependent word used to comparison. Its communication is found in dependence upon another thought and as other dependent words reveals withheld information. Adam is comparing a “frantic mode” to a more relaxed mode. 

Note the pause after “to… to save her” that shows his need to take time to answer, this is sensitive and open to the possibility that he was aware that nothing could be done to save her. 

Adam Kaufman speaking about his arrest and charges: You gotta be kidding me. How could this happen? There’s a mistake. What evidence is there? There’s… there’s no evidence.

After Adam says “You gotta be kidding me. How could this happen?” we expected him to say “I didn’t kill my wife Lina” freely. Instead hrefers to the evidence. He repeats “evidence” three times in few words. This is unexpected. 

The “evidence” are sensitive to him. An innocent is not expected to speak spontaneously about “evidence” especially as a priority. An innocent is expected to deny the allegations.

Kaufman is counting on us to interpret and assume that he is denying the allegations.

A reliable denial is found in the free editing process, not in the parroted language and has 3 components:
1. the pronoun “I”
2. past tense verb “did not” or “didn’t”
3. accusation answered
If a denial has more than 3 or less than 3 components, it is no longer reliable.
“I did not kill Lina” followed by “I told the truth” while addressing the denial, it is more than 99% likely to be true. 

Erin Moriarty: Was Lina excited about the wedding?

Adam Kaufman: Ohh, she was so looking forward to it. She was one of Raquel’s bridesmaids. I was Seth’s best man. She was her happiest.

Adam Kaufman: I remember her coming home around 11:00.

Note that Adam is using “I remember” again. This is unexpected in a truthful account. “I remember” is unnecessary wording whereas in truthful accounts people can only tell us what they remember. This may be an indication that Adam  previously, told us what was not from his experiential memory.

Erin Moriarty: Did you see her when she came home?

Adam Kaufman: Yes, yes. I was already in bed watching TV. And you could definitely tell she was spray tanned. It just seemed a lot to me.

Everything Kaufman says after “Yes” are unnecessary information.

When Adam says “I was already in bed watching TV and you could definitely tell she was spray tanned. It just seemed a lot to me” his goal is to introduce his defense: I was at home and the spray tan killed Lina.

Note that Kaufman doesn’t say “I was in the bed” but “I was already in the bed”, “already” is unnecessary to say, it goes against the law of economy in words.

Why Kaufman feels the need to tell us, without being asked, “I was already in bed watching TV “ in the night of November 6? Because he wasn’t in the bed, in fact one of the officers who respond to his 911 call, on the morning of November 7, touched the hood of his car and found it warm, another officer saw that only one side of the couple’s bed had been slept in and the firemen who rushed to the scene noted that Adam was fully clothed.

Adam Kaufman: I remember going to over to her, seeing all this red stuff all over. Pink, almost frothy whatever it was and I remember grabbin’ her from the back. And she felt cold. “Lina, Lina, Lina, wake up”.

Note that Adam is using “I remember” twice. This is unexpected in a truthful account. “I remember” is unnecessary wording whereas in truthful accounts people can only tell us what they remember. This may be an indication that Adam  previously, told us what was not from his experiential memory.

The bathroom where Lina died

At 6:10 a.m., Adam Kaufman called 911:

Adam Kaufman: Help! help me please. My wife is in the bathroom dying. I don’t know what’s going on. She’s on the floor dying.

Note that Adam doesn’t ask for help for his wife but for himself. He is the one who needs help, she is death.

Adam says “please” twice, he shows an unexpected politeness, a signal of a need to ingratiate himself with the operator.

Note that Kaufman doesn’t introduce his wife properly, he doesn’t say “my wife Lina” but only “my wife”, this is distancing language, an indication of a poor relationship and/or a need to distance himself from his wife.

Note that without being asked he say “I don’t know what’s going on”. There is no reason to report things in the negative while speaking freely, that’s why everything is said in the negative is double important to us and deemed sensitive.  Adam shows a need to pre empt a possible question, this is not only an alert for deception, but opens to the possibility that Adam is telling us that he knows exactly what’s going on. 

Adam Kaufman: There’s blood. There’s stuff coming out of her mouth, there’s foam. She looks pale. She looks sick. She has marks on her neck. I don’t know what happened.

Again, without being asked Kaufman says something unexpected, for the second  time and in the negative “I don’t know what happened”, this is sensitive and tells us that he is aware of what happened.

911 Dispatcher: I need you to do compressions. OK?

Adam Kaufman: … 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26…

911 Dispatcher: Can you hear her breathing?

Adam Kaufman: No, she’s cold.

911 Dispatcher: Did something happen? Did she fall?

The use of compound questions by an operator is a mistake because a compound question allows the caller to choose which question to answer.

Adam Kaufman: No. No. Oh my God, Linaaa.

We don’t know which question Adam answered because the operator asked two questions. In any case he shows deception, how can he says “No”? First: something happened for sure; Second: how does he know she didn’t fall?.

Note “Oh my God”, the use of divinity is a linguistic signal of deception.

911 Dispatcher: Calm down sir, help is on the way. OK?

END OF THE 911 CALL

Erin Moriarty: You told the operator there were marks on her neck. Where were those marks?

Adam Kaufman: Here, here. There were maybe three or four of ‘em that I could see.

“that I could see” open to the presence of something else.

Adam Kaufman: They were frantic, putting something over her face, putting something in her mouth. Continually asking me questions about her health. I’m thinking, ok, what health problems does she have? Lina was always healthy to me.

Adam is building his defense, he is trying to attribute the marks on Lina’s neck to the responders.

When Adam says “I’m thinking, ok, what health problems does she have? Lina was always healthy to me”, he is speaking at the present tense, a signal that he is not recalling from experiential memory.

Adam Kaufman: I was numb and I couldn’t… I couldn’t think straight. I couldn’t feel my body.

Again, Adam is building his defense, he is trying to justify his way of acting that appeared suspicious to the officers. 

Erin Moriarty: What are you thinking had happened to Lina?

Adam Kaufman: I had no idea.

Erin Moriarty: There are officers who said you didn’t act normal.

At Adam Kaufman’s trial, first responder Michael Castro said: “Mr. Kaufman, on the scene was sometimes very calm, just talking like us right now and within a second he would be completely a grieving type, out of control. It was almost like an act”.

Adam Kaufman: How do you act? Is there a book on how you act when your wife just passes away. How do you act? How do you act?

Its common within people with a guilty knowledge to use these words to defend themselves when accused of acting not properly, not like grieving people usually act. These words show their unsatisfiable desire to follow instructions not to look suspicious. 

Erin Moriarty: What did you think? What killed her?

Adam Kaufman: I didn’t know. And it was very, very, very frustrating.

When he says “And it was very, very, very frustrating” I don’t believe him, the presence of three “very” speaks not only of his need to persuade that innocent people don’t have but tells us that this thing for him wasn’t frustrating at all. There is no “wall of truth” within Adam Kaufman.

Adam Kaufman: She spoke Russian, English, Danish, Flemish, Hebrew. Uhm a little bit of Italian.

Erin Moriarty: Sophisticated?

Adam Kaufman: Very sophisticated … and I was just in awe.

Adam Kaufman: I was just kind of patting myself on the back saying: “Wow, you’re a lucky guy”.

Note the word “just”. “just” is a dependent word used in comparison. Its communication is found in dependence upon another thought. We can assume that his thought was not always “Wow, you’re a lucky guy”.

Adam Kaufman: And they all kept telling me: “We’re waiting on test results, we’re waiting on test results”. And I kept calling and no return phone calls. No answers.

Adam Kaufman: A few hours before she passed away, she had a spray tan for the first time. It is possible to have an allergic reaction from this. So that was our thought. That everything else was normal.

Note the use of the word “normal”, when something is labelled “normal” is to be considered not normal at all.

Erin Moriarty: Why would these people think that you had something to do with Lina’s death?

Adam Kaufman: You know, I… I… I… I’ve pondered that for… for years now. When someone that young and healthy dies, people want answers. And I can’t give people answers they wanna hear.

Adam says “you know” showing an acute awareness of the audience.  

The question is sensitive to Kaufman. Note the presence of a stuttering “I… I… I… I” that shows increase of tension which indicates an increase in anxiety. 

The last sentence “And I can’t give people answers they wanna hear” sounds very close to an embedded admission. He cannot give people answers because those answers are incriminating.

Erin Moriarty: The prosecutor says that she believes that there was a fight that morning before. Did you fight with Lina?

Adam Kaufman: Absolutely not. Lina and I argued just like every married couple. Did we argue that day? Absolutely not. Everything was perfect.

Adam is unable to say just “No”.

“Absolutely not” speaks of Adam’s need to persuade and it is not a reliable denial. 

Note the word “just” in “Lina and I argued just like every married couple”. “just” is a dependent word used in comparison. Its communication is found in dependence upon another thought. We can assume that Adam was comparing a way of arguing “like every married couple” to a different one, a deadly way.

Adam Kaufman: There were some minor issues that I tried to stay out of. There were some… uhm… there was an issue with walking down the aisle.

Note the non words “uhm” he used to take time to answer. The location shows us that what follows is sensitive to him “an issue with walking down the aisle”.

Erin Moriarty: You call it a minor issue. Some of her friends say it was a major issue.

Adam Kaufman: It both… I can’t say it did not bother Lina. Lina and I did talk about it. We did. And she was upset about it. Definitely was upset.

Erin Moriarty: Did you fight about that? Did that become a physical fight?

Adam Kaufman: Not at all. No. Never.

Adam is unable or unwilling to answer with a “No” but shows a need to persuade that innocent people don’t have. There is no “wall of truth” within him.

“Not at all” is a unreliable denial.

“Never” is a unreliable denial. Deceptive people finds the word “never”, with its long vague-like coverage of time, an acceptable substitute for “did not”, yet we know it is the language of deception.

Adam Kaufman: I’ve never laid a hand on her in our entire relationship. Nothing happened… look at the evidence.

Adam Kaufam is unable or unwilling to say “I didn’t kill my wife Lina”, knowing the allegations are upon him.

“Never” is a unreliable denial. Deceptive people finds the word “never”, with its long vague-like coverage of time, an acceptable substitute for “did not”, yet we know it is the language of deception.

Kaufman is unable to use the word “kill”.

Adam Kaufman says “I’ve never laid a hand on her” instead of “kill” to minimize. 

Minimization is a distancing measure, it’s a way to avoid of dealing with negative emotions by reducing the importance and impact of events that give rise to those emotions, it’s a common strategy used by guilty people to deal with feelings of guilt.

“I’ve never laid a hand on her in our entire relationship” is a unreliable denial. This could be truth but leaves an open door to the possibility “I’ve never laid a hand on her in our entire relationship”… until I killed her.

“Nothing happened…” is untrue, something happened, Lina is death.

“look at the evidence” is unexpected, an innocent is expected to deny the allegation not to refers to the evidence, especially in priority and without having ever denied the allegation.

Adam Kaufman: I’ve always been consistent with one story. One story that she was slumped over.

This his huge, Adam Kaufman calls is recalling of the event “one story”, twice. I believe him, it was “one story” not the truth.

The fact that he always has been consistent with this “one story” doesn’t make it the truth.

And finally, note the passive “she was slumped over”, by who? Adam Kaufman was the only other adult in the house. Passivity in analysis indicates a desire to conceal and this concealment is often responsibility. Adam uses the passive to cover up the author of this act but he is telling us the truth when he says that Lina “was slumped over”, this is the reconstruction of the homicide. 

Erin Moriarty: You didn’t tell anyone that she was over the toilet, like she was throwing up?

Adam Kaufman: Never. Never. Absolutely not.

“Never. Never. Absolutely not” is an unreliable denial.

“Never” is a unreliable denial. Deceptive people finds the word “never”, with its long vague-like coverage of time, an acceptable substitute for “did not”, yet we know it is the language of deception.

“Absolutely not” is signal of a need to persuade that tells us that there is no “wall of truth” within him. 

Erin Moriarty: That morning you are looking for your wife…

Adam Kaufman: Yes, got up, came in here and saw this door half way open and that’s when I saw her… in here.

When Adam says “got up, came in here and saw this door half way open” by beginning without the pronoun “I”, he is not psychologically committing to what he is saying, something that deceptive people often do.

Note that he repeats “here” twice, this location (the bathroom) is sensitive to him.

Erin Moriarty: Where was she exactly?

Adam Kaufman: The… we had a leather magazine holder/rack.

Erin Moriarty: And where it was? Right the right corner.

Adam Kaufman: It was right here, it was right here.

Adam Kaufman: Uhm, when I walked in she was on top of it and you can see how small this space is, so she was almost wedged here, against th… on top and leading over.

Erin Moriarty: What do you mean part of her body was still on the toilet?

Adam Kaufman: She wasn’t on the toilet, she wasn’t on the toilet, she was propped up basically.

He repeats “She wasn’t on the toilet”, this is sensitive to him.

Erin Moriarty: Ok, show me, give me an idea where she was? I am her height…

Adam Kaufman: Yes.

Erin Moriarty:… exactly.

Adam Kaufman: So she was draped over and her head, if you turn your head to the right, like that, and her hair was in her face. More over her left shoulder was in the corner, arm and rest upon against here.

Erin Moriarty: OK, but she wasn’t on the toilet?

Adam Kaufman: No, it was almost like… she was sitting on the toilet and then got up and this happened or was about to sit down on the toilet and this happened.

Kaufman saying twice “this happened” shows closeness to what happened for the presence of “this”.

Adam Kaufman: Well, at that point… the on… its almost like time to steal, I screamed her name, said “Lina Lina”, I immediately ran in here and I came this way running in here, I felt her, at that point the first thing I realise that she felt cold I couldn’t feel a pulse, I couldn’t get to, at that point my only concern was to get her out of here, so I screamed her name “Lina, Lina, wake up, wake up”, so I had picked her up from underneath her shoulder blade arms and turn, pulled her out this way and I put her head back down here, I ran into the bedroom, pick up the cordless, called 911.

Note that he repeats “here” twice, this location (the bathroom) is sensitive to him.

Do you remember when Adam said previously “I just remember being in a frantic mode”? He was comparing a “frantic mode” to a more relaxed mode. Here it’s the answer: “I immediately ran in here” speaks of a delay. Adam’s need to add the adverb immediately” tells us that he didn’t take actions immediately.

Note that he says three times “at that point”. “at that point” is a temporal lacunae, deceptive people often jump over time in order to withholding information.

Erin Moriarty: I mean, do you think when you were giving her CPR you might have left some of these injuries?

Adam Kaufman: I… I….I…I can’t tell you one way or another. I… I’m working on my wife. I wanna believe that I wasn’t rough on her. I tilt her head back? I thought I did it gently. Is it possible that I did? Yeah, it’s possible.

Note that the stuttering “I”, a signal of anxiety, is present two times in this answer, an indication that the question is sensitive to him. 

“I can’t tell you one way or another” is quite interesting, the correspondent asked him if the injuries on Lina’s neck could have been left by him while performing CPR and he opened to another option, “one way or another”, “one way” is CPR, “another” is manual strangulation, the real cause of Lina’s death.

We know that Adam Kaufman is able to use the past tense. When he says “I… I’m working on my wife” his use of the present tense tells us that he is not recalling from experiential memory. He didn’t perform any CPR on Lina. When someone is speaking of an event in the past, it is expected the subject to use past tense language. Present tense language is deemed unreliable. Deceptive people often use the present counting on us to interpret and assume that they are speaking of the past event.

Note that he says freely “Is it possible that I did? Yeah, it’s possible”, this is an embedded admission.

Adam Kaufman about the verdict: And it was amazing. It was unbelievable. It was pretty overwhelming. It was… it was overwhelming.

Adam says that his acquittal was “unbelievable”, this is unexpected. This is something that only a subject with a guilty knowledge could say.

Erin Moriarty: Even though you’re acquitted, aren’t there still some people who wonder? Did you have anything to do with your wife’s death?

There is no consequence to issue a reliable denial about any false allegation. This last question is good to allow Adam Kaufman to say “I didn’t kill my wife Lina” and “I am telling the truth”. This would be the “wall of truth”.

Adam Kaufman: Of course there’s people out there that are… that are gonna sit and wonder. The people that matter know the truth. And that’s all I care about.

Kaufman not only is unable or unwilling to answer the question with a reliable denial but he accepts a possible guilt, something that is not expected from an innocent. There is no consequence to issue a reliable denial about any false allegation. Adam Kaufman accepts what the de facto innocent don’t accept: he allows people to believe he is involved. There is no “wall of Truth” within Adam Kaufman. This is why he allows blame to be put upon him.

Analysis conclusion:

Deception Indicated.

Kaufman has guilty knowledge of what happened to his wife Lina.

Adam Kaufman got away with murder.

La criminologa Ursula Franco smonta la bufala che vuole che Zodiac e il Mostro di Firenze siano la stessa persona (intervista)

La busta inviata a Silvia Della Monica con il lembo di pelle di Nadine Mauriot

Le Cronache Lucane, 14 giugno 2018

Dottoressa cosa ne pensa della teoria Zodiac uguale Mostro di Firenze?

E’ una boiata, è la ciliegina sulla torta di una delle pagine più nere della criminologia italiana. Quello del Mostro di Firenze che ha ucciso 16 persone, è un caso giudiziario irrisolto di cui dobbiamo vergognarci internazionalmente, non perché chi ha indagato non abbia identificato il serial killer nostrano ma perché ha mostrato di non saper nulla di delitti seriali; gli inquirenti e i giudici, non solo hanno fantasticato di vendite di “feticci” e “festini” ma hanno distrutto le vite di soggetti estranei ai fatti.

Un messaggio inviato da Zodiac alla stampa

E le lettere inviate dal Mostro e da Zodiac?

E’ comune che i serial killers inviino missive di sfida agli inquirenti, gli permette di tenere alti i livelli di cortisolo, adrenalina e noradrenalina, che sono gli ormoni dello stress, adorano il rischio e amano stare al centro dell’attenzione. La riprova del desiderio di palcoscenico dei serial killers è Angelo Izzo, un assassino sociopatico che, negli anni, ha preteso di fornire ai magistrati informazioni sulla strage di piazza Fontana, sulla strage di Bologna e quella di piazza della Loggia, sugli omicidi di Mino Pecorelli, Fausto e Iaio e Piersanti Mattarella, sulla morte di Giorgiana Masi, su molti altri episodi di terrorismo e di mafia, sulla violenza sessuale subita da Franca Rame e infine sulla scomparsa di Rossella Corazzin, lo ha fatto solo perché si tornasse a parlare di lui.

Cosa c’è in comune tra le lettere inviate da Zodiac e quelle del Mostro di Firenze?

Nulla. Quell’insieme di segni zodiacali e numeri mostrati in televisione non sono mai stati attribuiti al Mostro di Firenze. Nel caso del serial killer italiano abbiamo un’unica certezza, ovvero che egli abbia inviato un lembo di pelle di Nadine Mauriot, una delle sue ultime due vittime, all’interno di una busta con l’indirizzo scritto con lettere ritagliate dai giornali, a Silvia Della Monica, un magistrato che si stava occupando del suo caso, il resto sono lettere inviate da mitomani, qualche migliaio.

Perché il mostro di Firenze e Zodiac non possono essere la stessa persona?

Zodiac avrebbe rivendicato anche gli omicidi italiani firmandosi Zodiac. E’ nella natura umana attribuirsi ciò che ci appartiene.

E poi per un serial killer il legame con il territorio è vitale.

In caso di reati seriali commessi da serial killers stanziali, una tecnica per determinare in quale area viva l’offender è lo studio dei luoghi in cui commette i suoi crimini da un punto di vista geografico. Un serial killer che colpisce sempre nella stessa area mostra di aver uno stretto legame con il territorio in cui opera, tanto che grazie ad un modello comportamentale detto Geographic profiling si può delimitare l’area in cui il soggetto vive e anche ipotizzare se si muova o meno a bordo di un mezzo di trasporto.
Questo modello comportamentale parte dal presupposto che un soggetto selezioni le sue vittime vicino a casa e che quindi viva nell’area all’interno del suo raggio d’azione. Le zone in cui l’offender colpisce rientrano in una ‘comfort zone’, un’area dove si sente al sicuro, area che, nella maggior parte dei casi, non è nella cosiddetta zona cuscinetto a ridosso di casa sua, in quanto in quell’area teme di venir facilmente riconosciuto.
I luoghi dove l’offender si sente al sicuro sono quelli che frequenta e dove ha l’opportunità di incontrare le sue vittime; le ‘comfort zone’ possono essere multiple; luoghi, non solo vicini a casa sua ma anche al posto di lavoro o alla casa dei suoi familiari.

Va da sé che difficilmente un serial killer poteva essere di casa a San Casciano in Val di Pesa e a Vallejo… siamo seri.