Omicidio di Lidia Macchi: analisi di alcuni stralci di dichiarazioni di Stefano Binda

Stefano Binda

Lidia Macchi è stata uccisa con 29 coltellate il 5 gennaio del 1987, il suo corpo senza vita è stato ritrovato due giorni dopo nel bosco di Cittiglio, in provincia di Varese.

Lidia, prima di morire, aveva avuto un rapporto sessuale.

Nel 1987, il medico legale che eseguì l’autopsia sul cadavere di Lidia Macchi scrisse che prima di morire la ragazza aveva avuto un rapporto sessuale consenziente. Nel 2016, nell’ordinanza che ha disposto l’arresto di Stefano Binda, il GIP ha ammesso che il rapporto sessuale fu probabilmente consenziente ma ha avanzato l’ipotesi che la costrizione avrebbe potuto essere, non fisica, bensì effettuata con minaccia.

Il dato medico legale fa testo, sul cadavere di Lidia non sono stati riscontrati segni che indichino una violenza sessuale.

Il 15 gennaio 2016 è stato arrestato ed accusato dell’omicidio della Macchi un suo ex compagno di liceo, Stefano Binda, 49 anni.

Binda, il 18 maggio 2016,  ha rilasciato brevi dichiarazioni spontanee davanti al Tribunale del Riesame di Milano durante un’udienza relativa all’istanza di scarcerazione presentata dai suoi legali:

Stefano Binda: “Non c’entro nulla con l’omicidio, non ho ucciso io Lidia, non ho inquinato le prove né potrei farlo”.

“non ho ucciso io Lidia, non ho inquinato le prove” sono negazioni credibili, Binda prende possesso di ciò che dice aggiungendo il pronome personale “io” ad una frase che non ne avrebbe avuto bisogno.

Binda ha parlato di “prove”, non spontaneamente, lo ha fatto perché il GIP riteneva che non dovesse essere scarcerato per il pericolo di inquinamento delle prove.

Da notare che Binda usa le parole “omicidio” e “ucciso” invece di minimizzare facendo ricorso a termini più blandi, come fanno di solito i colpevoli. Chi commette un reato generalmente minimizza per evitare lo stress che gli indurrebbe il confrontarsi con il reato di cui è sospettato o accusato, non è questo il caso.

Binda ha detto poche parole, quelle giuste e ha mostrato di non avere alcun bisogno di convincere nessuno.

Il legale della famiglia Macchi, Daniele Pizzi, ha così commentato le dichiarazioni di Binda:

“Se Stefano Binda è davvero innocente come continua a ripetere, è bene che dica una volta per tutte tutto ciò che sa”.

Daniele Pizzi ci riferisce di non essere convinto della colpevolezza del Binda in quanto lascia spazio alla possibilità che sia innocente, quindi, se Binda fosse innocente, come potrebbe dire “una volta per tutte tutto ciò che sa”?

Nell’aprile 2016 il corpo di Lidia Macchi è stato riesumato, nessun reperto biologico isolato dai resti della Macchi è risultato ascrivibile a Stefano Binda. Ciò che stupisce è che la riesumazione e gli esami sui reperti biologici siano stati effettuati all’indomani dell’arresto del Binda e non prima.

Stefano Binda, una volta venuto a conoscenza dei risultati degli esami sui reperti biologici isolati sui resti di Lidia, ha dichiarato:

“Sono sereno, si conferma quanto ho sempre sostenuto: non ho ucciso io Lidia”.

“non ho ucciso io Lidia” è una negazione credibile.

Il 24 aprile 2018 i giudici della Corte d’assise di Varese hanno condannato Stefano Binda all’ergastolo sulla base di due consulenze riguardanti la poesia “In morte di un’amica”, recapitata a casa Macchi dopo l’omicidio.

immagini.quotidiano.net.jpeg

Susanna Contessini, la grafologa, consulente della procura, ha attribuito la poesia “In morte di un’amica”, a Stefano Binda.

La psicologa Vera Slepoj, consulente della procura, ha sostenuto che la poesia “In morte di un’amica”,  è da attribuire all’assassino in quanto rappresenta “un atto liberatorio, un gesto dovuto dall’omicida entro il meccanismo complesso della verità e del desiderio di dare una spiegazione inconsapevole della vicenda e forse una simbolica assoluzione a se stesso. E’ una sorta di tentativo di coprire i rimorsi e un bisogno simbolico di sepoltura per rimuovere le proprie responsabilità”.

Cinzia Altieri, la consulente grafologa della difesa, ha comparato la grafia di “In morte di un’amica” con la grafia presente sulla busta che conteneva la missiva e con quella della frase “Stefano è un barbaro assassino” trovata a casa di Binda e secondo lei nessuna delle tre grafie è riconducibile a Binda.

Secondo la Altieri lo stampatello di “In morte di un’amica” è la scrittura abituale dell’estensore, così come è naturale e abituale la grafia degli scritti sequestrati a Binda. Cinzia Altieri ha dichiarato: “Esistono somiglianze fra scritture di mani diverse, ma qui sono rilevanti le differenze che sono sostanziali. Per esempio Binda non è uso mettere i punti sopra le i. Fa uno scarsissimo ricorso ai segni d’interpunzione. Sembra amare il punto esclamativo che invece non viene usato in “In morte di un’amica” dove avrebbe trovato una giustificazione nell’enfasi che pervade la prosa anonima. Diversa la formazione di r, l, t. Conclusione: né “In morte di un’amica”, né l’indirizzo sulla busta, né la frase “Stefano è un barbaro assassino” sono stati scritti da Binda. L’attribuzione non presenta elementi inequivocabili di identificazione”.

Le conclusioni della Altieri sono logiche e condivisibili.

Non solo non vi è certezza scientifica che la poesia “In morte di un’amica” sia stata scritta dal Binda ma è aleatorio attribuire quella poesia all’assassino di Lidia Macchi e non invece ad un mitomane.

Per quanto riguarda l’analisi del linguaggio, le parole analizzate sono sicuramente attribuibili a Stefano Binda (a differenza della poesia) e sono le parole di un soggetto che nega in modo credibile e che non apre alla possibilità di essere l’autore dell’omicidio di Lidia.

Binda possiede la protezione del cosiddetto “muro della verità”, un’impenetrabile barriera psicologica che permette ai soggetti che dicono il vero di limitarsi a rispondere con poche parole, in quanto gli stessi non sentono la necessità di convincere nessuno.

Annunci

Analysis of an interview Dr. Timothy Stryker released to correspondent Richard Schlesinger

Dr Linda Goudey and Dr. Timothy Stryker

On October 4, 1993, Dr. Linda Goudey, a successful OB/GYN, specializing in high-risk pregnancies, four days after she was last seen at the hospital were she worked, was found murdered in her car, in the parking lot of the New England Memorial Hospital of Stoneham. Goudey’s body was covered in a blanket. She had been strangled.

Her boyfriend, Dr. Timothy Stryker, an endocrinologist, was never criminally charged in the death of Dr. Linda Goudey but 13 years after the homicide a jury of a civil court trial found him guilty of Lin Goudey murder and ordered him to pay Lin’s family $15 million.

After Dr. Linda Goudey die, Dr. Timothy Stryker married and had two daughter.

Dr. Timothy Stryker died of cancer on January 12, 2011 at the Lemuel Shattuck prison Hospital in Boston while he was serving a four-year prison sentence after pleading guilty to perjury related to the investigation.

Deane Stryker

On Feb. 24, 2018, one of Dr. Timothy Stryker daughter, Deane Kenny, a medical student, 22, was killed in a unprovoked attack by Jeffrey Yao, 24, at the Winchester public library (Massachusetts). Jeffrey Yao stabbed Deane 20 times with a 10-inch hunting knife while she was studying at a table of the public library.

Dr. Timothy Stryker

What we look for in this interviews is for Dr. Timothy Stryker to issue a reliable denial, to say “I didn’t kill Linda” not simply parroting back the interviewer’s words but in the free editing process and we look for him to show the protection of 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.

Dr. Timothy Stryker: I always knew I was gonna be a doctor, my father is a doctor, my mother is a nurse, so it was always in my blood to be a doctor, I never questioned it. 

Dr. Timothy Stryker: One of my attractions to Lin and was that she was in a similar situation, of being a very dynamic person, the very busy practice.

Dr. Timothy Stryker: Yeah, I respected her so much, how she went that extra mile to… uhm… really take care of patient and do everything that needed to be done, help a mother have a healthy baby.

Dr. Timothy Stryker: We went jogging together, we had dinner together, we had so much to share, so much compatibility.

Dr. Timothy Stryker: We didn’t speak on the phone that evening that she died because she stayed at the hospital, she had phoned me to tell me she wasn’t coming over for dinner that night.

Note that he doesn’t say “that evening that she was killed” but “that evening that she died” not to deal with the words “killed” or “murdered”, this is common among guilty people.

Dr. Timothy Stryker: It was that kind of stunned shut down everything else sort of single but more like a Twilight zone… uhm… around me.

Dr. Timothy Stryker: It started going to this good cop/bad cop routine and I knew at that point I was clearly being in play.

Dr. Timothy Stryker: How I could be blame for something as terrible as this.

Note that Stryker is unable to use the words homicide or murder, again. This is minimization, a distancing measure. 

“this” shows closeness to the homicide.

Dr. Timothy Stryker: I know that I’m innocent here.

“I’m innocent” is an unreliable denial. “here” is unexpected. Is he guilty elsewhere? 

To affirm to be innocent is different from saying “I didn’t kill Lin”, which is expected.

To say, “I am innocent” is to deny the judicial outcome, not the action. Stryker is able to say “I’m innocent” because he is innocent “de iure”, he has never been  judged. When people say they are innocent, they are just denying the conclusion that they are guilty not the action.  An innocent “de facto” is someone who did not “do it” and is able to say “I didn’t do it” and eventually to add in the judicial conclusion. 

Dr. Timothy Stryker: I spent hours sitting and thinking, you know, how could people think that I could be guilty of something like this.

Note the word “sitting”. There is no reason to describe his own body posture, therefore we assume that for Stryker the event was memorable and we consider his need to recall his body posture a signal of an increase in tension.

There is no empathy for the victim, the focus is on himself, he is not telling us that he spent hours thinking about the murder, why, who, when, how but about how could people think that he could be the author. 

“you know” is a pause and a signal of an acute awareness of the interviewer. 

The use of the word “this” shows closeness to the homicide, again.

Dr. Timothy Stryker: It just makes me sad, you know, that people could think this way about me.

Dr. Timothy Stryker: I just knew it from a very young age, that’s what I wanted to do, you know, because it’s… it’s my nature to want to help people.

“it’s my nature to want to help people” is an unnecessary information. Stryker feels the need to represent himself as a “good guy” to ingratiate the interviewer. When a subject has the need to portray himself as the “good guy”, we often find evidence that he is a “bad guy”. Virtue Signaling is often a signal of projected guilt, “good guy”/”bad guy”.

Dr. Timothy Stryker: So we met over lunches at the hospital, and… we started to share patients, because I would refer patients to her as a gynecologist.

Dr. Timothy Stryker: We would sit and read together at night, and… do movies, and… she gotten me into skiing and then I got her into scuba diving in the Caribbean trips that we took together.

Note the word “sit”, this is an unnecessary information and a signal of tension in the relationship.

Richard Schlesinger: Were you in love with her?

Dr. Timothy Stryker: Yes, I was.

Dr. Timothy Stryker: I was looking very much forward (he is referring to a trip).

Richard Schlesinger: Was she?

Dr. Timothy Stryker: Yes, and she was actually the one that made the reservations for the trip. And it was her idea. She was very happy about it.

Dr. Timothy Stryker: In this dream she… had this vision of being in a car, I think it was on the side of a mountain, and driving around and then… then seeing a plane go crash into the side of the mountain, and she took this as some possible bad omen that perhaps, you know, we might have a plane crash.

Richard Schlesinger: Was she gonna go in that trip?

Dr. Timothy Stryker: Yes, she never said that she wasn’t going.

Dr. Timothy Stryker: I guess towards the end of the relationship… uhm… you know, there may have been some stagnation… uhm… because she was going to burn down… uhm… from how hard she was working.

Richard Schlesinger: Are you a flexible man?

Dr. Timothy Stryker: Uhm… I have to be flexible, to be available. When a patient has chest pain, or to be available when somebody’s traumatized or…

He doesn’t say he is a flexible man and he speaks just about his relationship with his patients.

Richard Schlesinger: What about your personal life?

This is a good question.

Dr. Timothy Stryker: I have to be flexible with my kids, with my wife, and…. uh… you know, so again, this is a story they tried to tell.

He doesn’t say he is a flexible man.

Dr. Timothy Stryker: I didn’t really start to… get concerned until Saturday night, because, you know, she would go a day without calling me, uhm, but, you know, to go two days, uhm, without calling me and didn’t feel right.

Dr. Timothy Stryker: They had located her car and then, after I got up to the hospital, one of the, uhm, midwives, actually at the hospital walking in the hall with me, saying, you know, they found her body, she is death.

Dr. Timothy Stryker: You know, when she died, initially I was stunned but, then, after that, for me it was just sadness.

Dr. Timothy Stryker: I was actually called in to speak with a detective right there on the spot. And he asked me, you know, “Who do you think could have killed her?”

Dr. Timothy Stryker: And there was a time when she got very angry in my kitchen because I called her a pea brain and she had a temper tantrum. There was a cup of peas, and a cup of potatoes, and cup of corn and here she was just throwing these at the walls, at my paintings. I grabbed her to pull her away from picking up the next thing to hurl at the wall and that’s when she fell down and hit the floor, and that’s when she bruised her ribs that time.

Dr. Timothy Stryker: I was never in any way verbally, physically, abusive to her. And I would like for people to talk to my wife, or talk to the girlfriend that I had from 15 years ago, before I started going out with Lin that, you know, that has never been me.

 “I was never in any way verbally, physically, abusive to her” is an unreliable denial. “that has never been me” is also unreliable.

Dr. Timothy Stryker: Well, I cooperated with them by giving them, you know, the briefcase that was in my house.

Note that he doesn’t say “her briefcase” but “the briefcase”

Dr. Timothy Stryker: I gave them that jacket to facilitate them looking for her jacket, so they knew what they were supposed to be looking for. I was trying to help them. And, they looked at it for blood stains and all that kind of stuff, and obviously that wasn’t there.

Stryker says “that jacket” and not “my jacket” because the jacket he gave the investigators was Linda’s jacket not his’s. Linda’s briefcase and her jacket were in Stryker’s house because Dr. Goudey went there to have dinner with him. He killed her at his house then put her in the car and drove back to the hospital.

Dr. Timothy Stryker: Actually became an opportunity to actually have some time away and for me to sit in a quiet space and start to deal with the emotions that I had to kind of shut down right after her death. In retrospect I wish I hadn’t gone, even though at the time it was therapeutic for me to do that.

Note “for me to sit” is another unnecessary reference to body posture, a signal of increase in tension.

Dr. Timothy Stryker: And they (police) told me that everything about my story was checking out OK and… but they just wanted to do a little polygraph so they could rule me out as a suspect.

Note that Stryker is referring to his recalling of the event as “my story”, this tells us that he told the investigators a “story” not the truth.

Here some excerpts from Stryker lie detector session:

Polygraph examiner: Do you know why I have asked you here?

Dr. Timothy Stryker: The boyfriend is usually the number one suspect.

Polygraph examiner: Did you cause the death of Lin Goudey?

Dr. Timothy Stryker: No.

Polygraph examiner: Do you think she was murdered?

Dr. Timothy Stryker: It’s easier to accept suicide.

Richard Schlesinger: Did you say after the lie detector test, “I just put the noose around my neck?”

Dr. Timothy Stryker: No, I would never say something like that. Uhm… it would have been more like, “You guys are trying to put a noose around my neck”, because my feeling at the time was that these people were trying to badger me.

“No” is a good answer and is expected. It would be best to say “No” and nothing else since there should not be need to explain. We count every word added to “No”, weakening the response.

“I would never say something like that” is an unreliable denial.

Richard Schlesinger: Did you kill Lin Goudey?

Dr. Timothy Stryker: No, I did not.

This is not a reliable denial. He is unable to say “I did not kill Lin Goudey” not even parroting Schlesinger’s words.

Richard Schlesinger: Do you know who did kill Lin Goudey?

Dr. Timothy Stryker: No, I don’t and if I did I wouldn’t be in this situation.

“No” is a good answer, and is expected. It would be best to say “No” and nothing else since there should not be need to explain. We count every word added to “No”, weakening the response.

Dr. Timothy Stryker: I think about what I would do if my daughter died, you know, and if I suspected that somebody else may have killed her and I could see how I would have an agenda, you know, to try to bring somebody to justice but they obviously are blaming the wrong person.

Dr. Stryker doesn’t deny his involvement in Dr. Linda Goudey’s murder, he allows blame to be put upon him. There is not the protection of the “wall of truth” within him.

During the civil case Lin’s family attorney Michael Altman confront Stryker in court:

Attorney Michael Altman: Did you express feeling of anger towards her?

Dr. Timothy Stryker: I never screamed at her, I never cursed at her, so I never, you know, expressed anger in any significant way.

“Never” seeks vagueness and is unreliable as this was a single specific event.

“I never screamed at her” is an unreliable denial.

“I never cursed at her” is an unreliable denial.

“I never, you know, expressed anger in any significant way” is an unreliable denial.

Saying “expressed” Stryker admits that he felt anger.

Saying “significant” he contradict himself, he admits that he expressed anger but not in a “significant way”.

Attorney Michael Altman: What’s going on inside, did you feel anger toward her?

This is a great question, Attorney Michael Altman is a good listener.

Dr. Timothy Stryker: Some… times.

Attorney Michael Altman: On October 1, did you get angry enough to want to strangle her?

Dr. Timothy Stryker: No, sir.

Note the word “sir”, Stryker tries to ingratiate himself with Attorney Michael Altman.

Attorney Michael Altman: Did you kill Lin Goudey?

Dr. Timothy Stryker: No, sir.

Note the word “sir”, Stryker tries to ingratiate himself with Attorney Michael Altman.

Dr. Timothy Stryker: I think this was baked up upon emotions and so we’ll definitely be appealing.

Stryker doesn’t say that the sentence was a mistake but that “was baked up upon emotions”, was he expecting more evidence? Probably yes, this is the reason he adds “and so we’ll definitely be appealing”. 

Dr. Timothy Stryker: It’s been obviously very difficult because I’m sitting here with this potential financial disaster over my head.

Note the reference to his body posture “I’m sitting”, a signal of increase in tension.

Nine months after a civil court found him responsible for the death of Goudey, he was ordered to pay her family $15 million Dr Thimoty Stryker revealed that a witness, Graig Pizzano, had called him saying that on the night of September 30th of 1993, he saw someone in Linda Goudey’s car who didn’t look him.

Dr. Timothy Stryker: He called me, you know, on the phone at my office. And apparently he had seen all this publicity. And he realized, when he saw my face on the screen, that I wasn’t the person that he saw with Lin Goudey that night.

Dr. Timothy Stryker: and he told me that his went to a bar with his friends, picked up a girl,  took her over to this parking lot, over at the hospital.

Dr. Timothy Stryker: He happened to pull up next to their car. And things started to get hot and heavy between him and this girl he picked up. And he walked over to their car to actually ask for a condom, he saw them engaged in sexual activity.

Richard Schlesinger: He said that he clearly saw Lin?

Dr. Timothy Stryker: Yes.

Richard Schlesinger: And he clearly saw the man she was with.

Dr. Timothy Stryker: Correct.

Richard Schlesinger: And how did he describe the man she was with to you?

Dr. Timothy Stryker: Over six foot tall, over 200 pounds, you know, a big man with blonde hair.

Richard Schlesinger: It’s a wacky story, to put it politely.

Dr. Timothy Stryker: Yes. No. And that’s why I asked him a number of questions at the time, to see if I could verify his story. And he also seemed to have information that clearly he wouldn’t have had if just from reading the newspapers.

Stryker contradicts himself with “Yes. No”.

When Dr. Stryker says “to see if I could verify his story” he tells us that Pizzano told a “story” not the truth.

“And he also seemed to have information that clearly he wouldn’t have had if just from reading the newspapers” is weak. 

Richard Schlesinger: Did you know this guy?

Dr. Timothy Stryker: No.

Richard Schlesinger: You never met before?

Dr. Timothy Stryker: Never met him.

“Never met him”, note the missing “I”. A dropped pronoun means no commitment to the action described. Stryker is counting on us to assume and interpret. This is a technique used in deception.

Richard Schlesinger: Have you given this fellow any money at all?

Dr. Timothy Stryker: I have not given Craig Pisano any money or anything else that would anyway encourage him to came forward.

“I have not given Craig Pisano any money or anything else that would anyway encourage him to came forward” is not a reliable denial.

Richard Schlesinger: Were you involved in him coming forward at all?

Dr. Timothy Stryker: In no way.

“In no way” is not a reliable denial.

Analysis Conclusion:

Deception Indicated.

Dr. Timothy Stryker is unable to deny his involvement in Linda Goudey murder.

The absence of a denial, it is a concern. If Stryker is unable or unwilling to say that he didn’t kill Linda, we are not permitted to say so for him. 

Dr. Timothy Stryker accepts what the de facto innocent doesn’t accept: he allows people to believe he is involved in Dr. Goudey murder. There is no “wall of Truth” within him. This is why he allows blame to be put upon him.

Stryker has guilty knowledge of what happened to Linda Goudey.

La ricostruzione dell’omicidio di Kathleen Hunt Atwater Peterson

Nel 2014 ho analizzato l’omicidio di Kathleen Hunt Atwater Peterson, nel marzo del 2015 ho pubblicato su questo blog la ricostruzione dei fatti, il 21 marzo 2016 l’analisi della telefonata di soccorso fatta da Michael Peterson e l’8 maggio 2016 un’analisi delle dichiarazioni di Peterson.

Nell’agosto 2017, il Daily Mirror ha consigliato ai suoi lettori di leggere la mia analisi della telefonato di soccorso di Michael Peterson.

Il 21 dicembre 2017, il tema del 100esimo episodio del famoso podcast americano “My Favourite Murder” è stato l’omicidio di Kathleen Hunt Atwater, la conduttrice, Georgia Hardstark, ha parlato del mio blog MALKE CRIME NOTES, della mia analisi criminologica del caso e della mia analisi della telefonata di soccorso di Michael Peterson.

Dall’aprile 2018 è disponibile un documentario americano dal titolo The Missing Pieces: The Staircase con alcuni miei interventi durante i quali analizzo sia la telefonata di soccorso che la dinamica dei fatti, la regia è di Philip Tatler IV.

538804-investigation_discovery

Michael Iver Peterson è un bugiardo patologico convinto di essere un buon mentitore tanto da aver permesso, al regista francese Jean-Xavier de Lestrade, di girare un incriminante documentario, The Staircase (2004), sulla sua vicenda processuale.

Dal documentario The Staircase emerge con forza il profilo psicopatologico di Michael Peterson e quello della sua famiglia allargata, uno straordinario esempio di famiglia narcisistica.

Peterson ha abusato mentalmente delle sue due mogli (Patricia Sue e Kathleen), dei due figli avuti con la prima moglie Patricia (Todd e Clayton) e delle due figlie adottive (Margaret e Martha, figlie di Elizabeth Ratliff), l’unica componente della famiglia che è sfuggita alle manipolazioni di Peterson è la figlia di Kathleen, Caitlin Veronica Atwater.

Michael Peterson è un uomo ossessionato da se stesso e dai propri bisogni, privo di empatia, arrogante e sprezzante nei confronti del suo prossimo, incapace di stabilire relazioni sane con gli altri esseri umani, convinto erroneamente di essere più intelligente degli altri.

Michael Iver Peterson uccise sua moglie Kathleen tra le 23:08 e le 23.53 del 9 dicembre 2001 con le mani nude. Kathleen non morì in seguito ad una caduta dalle scale né Peterson usò l’attizzatoio per colpirla, come invece sostenuto dall’accusa.

Michael Iver Peterson uccise sua moglie Kathleen prendendola per i capelli e facendole sbattere ripetutamente e violentemente la testa contro gli scalini di legno della scala di servizio della loro villa.

Durante l’aggressione, che si sviluppò almeno in due tempi, in un’occasione Michael Peterson strinse la gola di Kathleen e con il pollice della mano sinistra le ruppe il corno superiore della cartilagine tiroidea di sinistra.

800px-Larynx_external_it.svg

All’esame autoptico vennero rilevate multiple lacerazioni sul cuoio capelluto della vittima ma nessuna frattura della teca cranica. Secondo il medico legale tali lacerazioni vennero causate da un oggetto piatto, nessun oggetto colpì la testa di Kathleen ma fu la testa di Kathleen ad impattare contro gli scalini di legno della scala di servizio.

Tra le mani di Kathleen, sugli ultimi scalini della scala di servizio dove Kathleen trovò la morte e sulla lattina di Diet Coke dalla quale aveva bevuto Michael Peterson dopo l’omicidio, furono ritrovati alcuni capelli strappati appartenenti alla vittima.

Peterson strappò i capelli a Kathleen durante l’omicidio perché li usò per trattenerla e sbatterle la testa a terra, Kathleen se ne strappò altri nel tentativo di liberarsi dalla presa mortale del marito, per questo motivo vennero ritrovati ta le sue dita di entrambe le mani.

E’ chiaro che se i capelli ritrovati sulla scena del crimine fossero stati analizzati al microscopio, i risultati dell’analisi avrebbero permesso agli investigatori di differenziare i capelli strappati da quelli che si erano rotti in seguito all’impatto del cuoio capelluto con gli scalini.

La grande quantità di sangue presente sul cavallo dei pantaloni di Michael Peterson si spiega facilmente:

Michael Peterson assaltò Kathleen una prima volta e la credette morta, Kathleen invece si riprese tanto da riuscire ad alzarsi in piedi, a questo punto Peterson l’aggredì nuovamente e questa volta, sedendosi su di lei per immobilizzarla, con i propri pantaloni assorbì il sangue fuoriuscito dalle ferite della vittima e colato sugli abiti dopo il primo assalto.

Questa ricostruzione è l’unica cui si confanno tutte le risultanze investigative:

– Kathleen non patì alcuna frattura della teca cranica perché la sua testa impattò contro degli scalini di legno.

– Sul cadavere di Kathleen vennero rilevate alcune contusioni nell’area posteriore delle braccia e sulla schiena perché la donna urtò le braccia e il dorso durante l’aggressione.

– Non furono riscontrate contusioni su coste, gambe, piedi o ginocchia di Kathleen perché Kathleen non cadde dalle scale.

– Alcune contusioni furono invece rilevate sui polsi e sulle mani di Kathleen perché la donna si difese cercando di liberare i propri capelli dalla stretta del marito.

– La distribuzione delle macchie di sangue, il tipo di macchie (low/medium velocity blood spatters), l’assenza di cast off nella ristretta area in cui fu perpetrata l’aggressione, l’assenza di un pattern riferibile ad un corpo contundente sia sui muri, che sul cranio della vittima, che sulle sue lesioni da difesa, escludono che Peterson abbia usato un’arma per ucciderla.

– Infine, nessuna frattura del massiccio facciale è stata rilevata all’esame autoptico; è chiaro che se Kathleen fosse stata aggredita da dietro in quell’area così ristretta, ogni qualvolta fosse stata colpita posteriormente, la donna sarebbe caduta urtando il volto.

image002

Nel 1985, a Gräfenhausen, in Germania, un’amica di Michael Peterson, Elizabeth Ratliff fu ritrovata morta ai piedi delle scale di casa sua dopo che Peterson l’aveva accompagnata a casa.

In questo caso all’esame autoptico, eseguito in seguito ad una riesumazione dei resti della Ratliff avvenuta dopo l’omicidio di Kathleen, il medico legale ha rilevato lesioni molto simili a quelle presenti sul corpo di Kathleen, oltre ad una frattura della base cranica.

Michael Peterson perpetrò l’omicidio della Ratliff con le stesse modalità. In questa occasione, fracassò la testa della sua vittima contro un pavimento di mattonelle di terracotta e non contro degli scalini di legno, per questo motivo fu capace di fratturare il cranio di Elizabeth Ratliff.

leggi anche:

Michael Peterson’s 911 call

The murder of Kathleen Hunt Atwater Peterson at the ‘hands’ of Michael Peterson

Michael Iver Peterson: a liar and a murderer

Analysis of some interviews released by Rick Wayne Valentini aka Bryan Stewart

Jamie Laiaddee

On March 18, 2010, Jamie Laiaddee vanished from a suburb of Phoenix, Arizona. When detectives started searching for Jamie, they found that her boyfriend Bryan Stewart was a con man whose real name is Rick Wayne Valentini. In 2011 Valentini was found guilty of fraud and Jamie’s murder.

Bryan Stewart known to his jailers as Rick Wayne Valentini is serving, as Inmate 268586, his 54-year prison term at the Arizona State Prison complex in Florence.

On June 21, 2018, Jamie Laiaddee remains were found in Sun Lakes (Arizona).

Rick Wayne Valentini aka Bryan Stewart

What we look for in this interviews is for Bryan Stewart to issue a reliable denial, to say “I didn’t kill Jamie” not simply parroting back the interviewer’s words but in the free editing process and we look for him to show the protection of 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.

Bryan Stewart: Jamie Laiaddee is alive, she took 100 thousands dollars of daddy’s money and she left the State of Arizona… bring it on, I know she’s alive.

Bryan Stewart: She was hot (laughs), I mean how else do you put it?

Bryan Stewart: She had a really good smile and… and really got enthusiastic about the football games and would jump up and cheer and would sing with the fight song.

Erin Moriarty: Did she pay most of the bills?

Bryan Stewart: Most of the big ones, yeah, but it’s not like I was dependent upon her.

Erin Moriarty: Did you love Jamie?

Bryan Stewart: I still love Jamie, you know, I just want Jamie to be happy. It’s hard because I don’t know if Jamie knows wha… what it takes to make her happy.

 “you know” is a pause and a signal of an acute awareness of the interviewer. 

Saying “I don’t know if Jamie knows wha… what it takes to make her happy” Bryan reveals one of the reason of his frustration in the relation with Jamie.

Bryan Stewart: She came in, asked me to take a week off from work. And she’s like: “We’re gonna go to Denver. We’re gonna get a house, you know, I’ve got a job offer up there… uhm… It’s time to go. I wanna go. I wanna get out of the State”. Basically, I… I told her: “No, I’m not leaving Arizona. I’m not gonna marry you”.

Note how inaccurate he is in referring their last conversation, he says “she’s like” and “Basically”.

Bryan Stewart: She was laying in bed. And I gave her a kiss, told her I loved her and got in the truck and drove to work.

This answer is revealing.

Note “She was laying in bed”. The description of Jamie’s body posture is an unnecessary information and, as any unnecessary information, is doubly important for us. When an unnecessary description of a body posture enters a statement, it indicates an increase in emotional tension.

“And I gave her a kiss, told her I loved her”, the “kiss Goodbye” and the sentence “told her I loved her” are two linguistic signals of the time of death.

Note that when Bryan says “And got in the truck and drove to work” he goes against the law of economy in words, he doesn’t say “I went to work” but “got in the truck and drove to work” where “truck” and “drove” are unnecessary words. Why has he the need to say these two words? Was he disposing her body at that time?

Erin Moriarty: When is the last time you saw Jamie?

Bryan Stewart: Physically saw her? 3:15 a.m. March 18, 2010.

Note that “Physically saw her?” does not have a pronoun.

When a subject asks a question and does not wait for the interviewer to answer, it may be an indication that the subject is re-living the event, working from experiential memory, and speaking to himself.

Why Bryan has the need to add the word “Physically” to his sentence? Is he comparing “Physically” with something else? Was she an inanimate body at 3:15 a.m.? 3:15 a.m. is the time of her death? Did he leave for work at 3:15 a.m.? At what time was he supposed to be at work? How long did he take to get to work?

Bryan Stewart: Weee never had anybody over for dinner. We never had any parties. Nobody came over to watch television or to just hang out. So…

This is something close to blaming the victim. A red flag.

Erin Moriarty: Why not?

Bryan Stewart: I… I… one of the great mysteries. I dont know.

A stuttering “I” show increase in tension and tells us that the question is sensitive to Bryan.

Detective Moffat: How long have you and Jamie been dating?

Bryan Stewart: Give or take three years.

Det. Moffat: OK. When did you guys move in together?

Bryan Stewart: Honestly, I don’t know.

Note the word “Honestly”.  

Det. Moffat: OK.

Bryan Stewart: (Laughs)

Det. Moffat: Where you cheating on Jamie at all before?

Bryan Stewart: No.

Det. Moffat: Walk me through what happened around March.

Bryan Stewart: It was simple, really. She hated everything about this State. She wanted out. Now, she’d been up there for interviews. I suspected that she would get the Denver offer.

Note the word “really”

Det. Moffat: Did you hurt Jamie? 

Bryan Stewart: (shaking his head “no”) Unh-uh .

Bryan is unable to answer, not even parroting Detective Moffat’s words.

Det. Moffat: Did you have anything to do with her disappearance?

This question is good to allow Bryan to say “I didn’t cause Jamie disappearance”,  “I didn’t kill her” and “I am telling the truth”. This would be the “wall of truth”.

Bryan Stewart:… (shaking his head “no”) Unh-uh.

Bryan wait longer than usual to emit a sound, an indication that the question is sensitive to him. Bryan is unable to answer, not even parroting Detective Moffat’s words. 

Det. Moffat: You have nothing to hide?

The detective suggests a negative answer.

Bryan knows that the blame is upon him, this question is still good to allow him to say “I didn’t cause Jamie disappearance”, “I didn’t kill her” and “I am telling the truth”. This would be the “wall of truth”.

Bryan Stewart: No. Unh-uh.

Det. Moffat: I have no freakin’ clue who’s sitting in front of me. And it’s extremely uneasy for me as I’m investigating a case of this magnitude. I mean, you’re talking about a woman who’s been gone for two months now. And I have a person in front of me that has different Social Security numbers, a couple of different dates of birth.

Erin Moriarty: You’re not really Bryan Stewart at all, are you?

Bryan Stewart: To me, I am.

Erin Moriarty: But not legally, are you?

Bryan Stewart: Well, legally, I’m not anything.

Bryan Stewart: Driving from Michigan to Arizona, that’s all I did. “Bryan Stewart, Bryan Stewart, Bryan Stewart, Bryan Stewart”. I was always saying, listening for “Bryan Stewart, Bryan Stewart”. Because it’s a new name.

Bryan Stewart: And if you don’t want to accept that… I don’t want you around. I don’t want you in my life.

Erin Moriarty: Why not just change your name legally? Why go to the trouble of forging a birth certificate?

Bryan Stewart: No, it… it was my understanding that to… to change your name legally would take years.

Note the stuttering “it” and the pause, the question is sensitive to him. 

Bryan Stewart: Everybody takes their name for granted. You… your name is the very core essence of who you are, of what you are. And you find out it… that it’s all a lie… And then you find out that your own father doesn’t even know you exist, because your own mother didn’t bother to tell him.

Erin Moriarty: When you talked to Detective Moffat…when he sat you down, he asked you about your military record. And you said you had been to Iraq and Afghanistan. You hadn’t, had you?

Bryan Stewart: Unh-uh.

Erin Moriarty: No, you lied.

Bryan Stewart: I was…

Erin Moriarty: You lied.

Bryan Stewart: Yeah.

Erin Moriarty: You tell a lotta stories though…don’t you?

Bryan Stewart: I have a lotta stories to tell.

Erin Moriarty: But you tell a lotta lies.

Bryan Stewart: Uhm, lies mixed in with the truth.

Erin Moriarty: You never actually went to the University of Michigan, did you?

Bryan Stewart: No.

Erin Moriarty: But, you let people think you did?

Bryan Stewart: Sure.

Erin Moriarty: Why?

Bryan Stewart: It was just… a tie-in to my home state. And it was just part of the… the pride that I had. I’ve been a Michigan fan since I was a little boy.

Bryan Stewart is a pathological liar without any sense of shame.

Erin Moriarty: Did you kill Jamie?

Bryan Stewart: No. I’ve never killed anybody in my life. Not ever.

We count the words added to “No” weakening the response.

“I’ve never killed anybody in my life. Not ever.” is an unreliable denial. Bryan is deceptive, he altered his denial to avoid a direct lie. The word “never” is used by deceptive people to avoid referring to a specific time period, “never” spans a large and sometimes indefinite amount of time, thus it is vague and unreliable. 

Bryan Stewart is unable to say “I did not kill Jamie” not even parroting the interviewer’s words.

A reliable denial 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.

“No, I did not kill Jamie” followed by “I told the truth” while addressing the denial, it would more than 99% likely to be true.

Erin Moriarty: Did you two fight that night?”

Bryan Stewart: No.

Bryan is able to say “No”, probably because the fight took place early in the morning or because he is a pathological liar or because the word “fight” doesn’t fit his personal internal and subjective dictionary, in other words “fight” could be not his idea of what happened. Erin Moriarty should have tried different words as “struggle”, “violent confrontation”, “row”, “altercation” and so on.

Erin Moriarty: Were you angry with her?

Bryan Stewart: No… she told me that… that she was gonna be leaving the next day.

“No” is a good answer, and is expected. There is no reason to add “she told me that… that she was gonna be leaving the next day”, Bryan with this sentence is answering a possible question, a question that Erin Moriarty never made. Bryan doesn’t say “she was going to leave” or “she would have left” but “she was gonna be leaving”“she was gonna be leaving” is a sentence that goes against the law of economy in words.

Erin Moriarty: And where was she going?

Bryan Stewart: It was my impression Denver.

Just an impression.

Bryan Stewart: I taught Jamie how to create a whole new life for herself. That… included a new identification, a whole new persona… a whole new way of looking at things.

Erin Moriarty: Are you saying that you helped Jamie change her identity?

Bryan Stewart: Yeah. I showed her how to do it. The only thing that she ever lived for was to be free of her family. She wanted to be on her own.

Bryan Stewart: If you think using the name Bryan Stewart is fraudulent, hey, we’re gonna fight it out in court.

Erin Moriarty: That’s nervy, isn’t it?

According to police, Valentini used Laiaddee’s credit cards to go on dating websites after Jamie vanished. 

Bryan Stewart: Yeah, it’s pretty nervy (laughs).

Erin Moriarty: And pretty insensitive too, isn’t it?

Bryan Stewart: Uhm.

Erin Moriarty: Ya.

Bryan Stewart: You know, a little, because… well, let me… let me explain.

Erin Moriarty: You used her credit cards to go on dating sites to meet other women.

Bryan Stewart: Well, you know what? Look, Jamie… Jamie was leaving.

Note that Bryan doesn’t say “Jamie left” or “she left” but he describes Jamie in her act of “leaving”.

Erin Moriarty: Why did you cut up her driver’s licence?

Bryan Stewart: I didn’t cut ‘em up.

He lies according with the evidence.

Bryan Stewart: I am the only human being who knows what happened. I am the only human being who knows why things happened, when they happened.

This is an embedded admission. He and Jamie knew “what happened” and “why things happened” and “when they happened” but clearly he is telling us that Jamie didn’t survive.

Max Covil, Defender Attorney: What was your relationship like?

Bryan Stewart:… It was, I would say 95 percent great.

This long latency period before answering shows that Bryan needs to take time to answer because the question is sensitive to him.  

Max Covil: Did you… did you argue?

Bryan Stewart: No, not really.

“not really” tells us that something happened. 

Max Covil: Did you kill Jamie to use her credit cards?

Bryan Stewart: Absolutely not.

Bryan is unable to say “No”. “Absolutely not” shows a need to persuade that innocent people don’t have. There is no “wall of truth” within him.

Max Covil : Did you have general permission to use her credit cards?

Bryan Stewart: Yes.

Max Covil: Why do you feel that you had permission to use the cards?

Bryan Stewart: Even from our first date, it was literally a… an instruction to use them.

Bryan doesn’t say that Jamie instructed him to use her credit cards but he uses a inappropriate passive form as “it was literally a… an instruction to use them” to
conceal his own responsibility in the fraud.  

Bryan’s lawyer asked him why he believed Jamie was alive at the time of her disappearance.

Bryan Stewart: Because I would get back to my condo and things would be moved around or things would be left behind…

Bryan is describing his mood after the homicide, he was under stress.

Max Covil: OK, now how did she get into your apartment.

Bryan Stewart: She had a key.

Max Covil: How did she communicate with you?

Bryan Stewart: Email and telephone.

Erin Moriarty: You have told people that if you had a computer you could find her. I’ve got a computer here. You wanna try? Got my iPad here. How would you find her?

Bryan Stewart: I… I would have to look on mine uhm.

A stuttering “I’” shows increase in tension. The question is sensitive to Bryan.

Erin Moriarty: I mean, if I got this whole thing set up, could you…

Bryan Stewart: No, because I need to get into my computer because there’s a special Email site that we were working through.

Erin Moriarty: You must know, Bryan, that sounds a little crazy that you wouldn’t give this information to your attorneys and they wouldn’t go looking for the one person who could save you from going to prison for life.

Bryan Stewart: I… you know, I… I told them that. And I never heard anything.

A stuttering “I” shows increase in tension. The question is sensitive to Bryan.

Max Covil : Did you murder Jamie Laiaddee?

Bryan Stewart: No, Jamie Laiaddee is alive.

Bryan is able to fabricate reality, he is dangerous.

Erin Moriarty: She would just let you go on trial for murder? Go to prison? For the rest of your life?

Bryan Stewart: I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t think that… I don’t think either one of us ever expected it to get this far.

Note the repetitions, the question is sensitive to him.

Max Covil: Would you be at all surprised if I told you that she was about to walk through that door?

Bryan Stewart:… No.

Bryan waits too long before answering, the question is sensitive to him. He knows that Jamie couldn’t walk through the door because he killed her.

Prosecutor Juan Martinez: You didn’t actually talk to her in that condo, did you?

Bryan Stewart: No.

Juan Martinez: You haven’t seen her at any time and she hasn’t walked in now, right?

Bryan Stewart: Right.

Juan Martinez: And she won’t walk in because you killed her, right?

Bryan Stewart: Wrong.

Bryan Stewart recalling the moment he was told that the jury had reached a verdict: Oh, yeah, they’re like: “Yeah, you’re good. Any time a jury comes back that quick”. And I was like: “OK, well, wow, all right, that’s pretty good”.

Bryan Stewart: I just sat there, like to me, my life was over with. I just couldn’t understand, you know? I mean, if I would have killed her, I would have admitted to it.

When Bryan says “if I would have killed her” he tells us that there is the possibility that he killed her. Innocent people don’t allow anybody to believe they are involved in a murderer.

Erin Moriarty: You’ve told so many stories, it’s hard to believe you.

Bryan Stewart: Let’s look at the Army, OK?

Erin Moriarty: No, let’s look at what happened to Jamie. That’s what really matters.

Erin Moriarty’s statement is good to allow him to say “I didn’t cause Jamie disappearance”, “I didn’t kill her” and “I am telling the truth”. This would be the “wall of truth”.

Bryan Stewart: Jamie took $100,000 and she left the state of Arizona. I’ve said it for 18 months. I say it now. And I’m gonna say it for the next 18 years.

Note that Bryan is unable to deny the allegations. He doesn’t say “I didn’t kill  Jamie” which was expected.

“I’ve said it for 18 months. I say it now. And I’m gonna say it for the next 18 years” doesn’t make it the truth.

On June 30, 2018, few days after Jamie remains were found, Bryan spoke from prison:

Bryan Stewart: I have no clue. All I can tell you is… is that I’ve never killed anyone in my life and I maintain that to this day.

“I’ve never killed anyone in my life” is an unreliable denial.

Analysis Conclusion:

Deception Indicated.

Bryan Stewart is unable to deny his involvement in Jamie Laiaddee disappearance. 

The absence of a denial, it is a concern. If someone is unable or unwilling to say that he didn’t do it, we are not permitted to say so for him. 

Bryan Stewart accepts what the de facto innocent doesn’t accept: he allows people to believe he is involved in Jamie murderer. There is no “wall of Truth” within Bryan. This is why he allows blame to be put upon him.

Bryan is not only withholding information but he is also able to fabricate reality. Less than 10% of those who are deceptive, will fabricate reality, 90% plus of lies are via missing information.

Bryan Stewart didn’t just overcome the internal stress of lying because he doesn’t experience any sense of shame for being caught in his lies.

Bryan Stewart has guilty knowledge of what happened to Jamie Laiaddee.

Morte di Fortuna Loffredo: una mia dichiarazione su Urbanpost

Fortuna Loffredo, processo d’Appello a Raimondo Caputo: e se fosse innocente? “Non ci sono prove”

Urbanpost, scritto da Michela Becciu, 2 luglio 2018

Omicidio Fortuna Loffredo, Raimondo Caputo processo d’Appello news: “Non esiste prova che sia stato lui”, così l’avvocato Paolino Bonavita, difensore del presunto orco del Parco Verde di Caivano già condannato in primo grado all’ergastolo – 10 anni all’allora convivente Marianna Fabozzi, rea di non avere impedito quegli abusi a Fortuna e ad una delle sue figlie, amichetta della vittima – al processo d’Appello che si sta svolgendo presso la Corte d’Assise di Napoli. Come nel primo grado, l’imputato ammette gli abusi a Fortuna e ad una figlia della Fabozzi ma nega con forza l’omicidio, accusando pertanto del delitto l’allora compagna.

Raimondo Caputo inchiodato dall’amichetta di Fortuna

La Procura generale durante la requisitoria ha ricordato e ricostruito il giorno del delitto – 24 giugno 2014 – spiegando perché la piccola Fortuna quando fu lanciata nel vuoto dall’ottavo piano della palazzina non fu sentita gridare mentre precipitava dall’ottavo piano. La piccola in quel frangente era già incosciente. E’ morta sul colpo  e “le prove sono certe, per questo gli imputati vanno condannati ancora una volta”, ha tuonato la pubblica accusa. Ma chi davvero, tra Caputo e la Fabozzi, ha spinto giù nel vuoto la giovane vittima? In realtà questo aspetto non è mai stato chiarito ‘oltre ogni ragionevole dubbi’ poiché, ad oggi, non v’è prova scientifica né testimonianza oculare a carico del condannato Titò. Per la Procura e i giudici di primo grado quel giorno Fortuna sarebbe stata uccisa perché si sarebbe ribellata al presunto tentativo di violenza da parte del suo aguzzino.

Contro Caputo c’è la dichiarazione della figlia di Marianna Fabozzi, la quale sostiene che l’uomo condusse Fortuna, contro la sua volontà, fino all’ottavo piano. L’avvocato di Caputo ha tuttavia chiesto alla Corte anche la derubricazione del reato, da omicidio volontario a omicidio preterintenzionale. Il difensore della Fabozzi, l’avvocato Salvatore Di Mezza, dopo aver presentato una memoria difensiva della sua assistita, ha chiesto l’assoluzione per la donna o in alternativa una pena più mite.

Omicidio Fortuna Loffredo, e se Caputo fosse innocente? Il parere della criminologa Franco

Come dichiarato a Le Cronache Lucane, la criminologa Ursula Franco è una sostenitrice dell’innocenza di Raimondo Caputo. “Posso dirle che in primo grado è stato commesso un errore, non è stato Raimondo Caputo ad uccidere Fortuna Loffredo ma Marianna Fabozzi. Caputo non aveva un movente, non aveva di certo una reputazione da difendere, mentre non è una coincidenza che Marianna Fabozzi abbia assistito a due precipitazioni, quella di suo figlio (Antonio, morto il 27 aprile 2013, dopo essere precipitato da una finestra dell’appartamento della nonna ndr) e quella di Fortuna, è lei che ha spinto giù i due bambini. Chi uccide una prima volta e la fa franca, quando reitera generalmente lo fa con le stesse modalità”. Secondo il suo punto di vista l’allora compagna di ‘Titò’ si sarebbe macchiata del delitto di Fortuna, eseguito con le medesime modalità con cui nel 2013 uccise il suo stesso figlio: gettandolo dalla finestra. Sul movente dell’omicidio la Franco ha asserito: “Escludo che la Fabozzi abbia ucciso Fortuna Loffredo per proteggere Raimondo Caputo. La Fabozzi non sarebbe stata capace di un gesto “altruistico” in quanto è una donna anaffettiva ed egoista, oltre ad essere un’immatura con un basso QI. Il movente dei due omicidi è da ricercare nell’incapacità della Fabozzi di tollerare le frustrazioni. Marianna Fabozzi ha ucciso i due bambini per futili motivi: irritazione, fastidio, invidia”.