Analysis of some excerpts from different interviews released by Christopher Porco

920x920-1

Christopher Porco

In 2006, Christopher Porco was convicted of murdering his father Peter and attempting to murder his mother Joan with an axe while they were at home asleep in their bed.

Peter and Joan Porco lived in Bethlehem, N.Y. and had two sons, 23-year-old Jonathan and 21-year-old Christopher.

Christopher Porco, a student at the University of Rochester drove more than 220 miles and attacked his parents with an ax during the early hours of Monday, November 15, 2004. 

Surveillance cameras captured him leaving his University campus with his yellow Jeep Wrangler at 10:30 p.m. of November 14 and returning in the morning of November 15 at 8:30.

images-2

Christopher Porco’s Jeep Wrangler

Christopher Porco deactivated his parents house security alarm at 2:14 a.m., struck his father Peter in the head 16 times and his mother Joan 3 times, then cut the phone line at 4:59 a.m. before leaving.

Detectives examined all the toll tickets released the night of the murder and found in one of these Christopher’s DNA as he paid cash for the tolls.

On the scene they found the key of the front door, usually hidden by the family in the flowerpot, in the front door lock. 

Porco was sentenced to 25 years to life for second-degree murder and 25 years for attempted murder, both sentences to be served consecutively

What we look for in this interviews is for Christopher Porco to issue a reliable denial, to say “I didn’t attack my parents” 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.

Christopher Porco is recalling a phone call that he received from a local reporter on November 15, 2004:

(…) and she, you know, asked me if I had any comment on my parents being killed that day. I kind of dropped the phone and was completely shocked, and in disbelief. I called the Bethlehem Police Department And the woman on the phone said she couldn’t tell me anything but they would call me back. So I sat in my room and waited.

“my parents being killed” is passive. Passivity is used to conceal identity or responsibility.

Note “I sat”. Porco has no reason to describe his own body posture, therefore we assume this event was memorable for him and we consider his need to recall his body posture a signal of an increase in tension.

My father was a funnelling wonderful man, family came first always he loved his job but he always managed to be around for my brother and I.

I believe him.

You know, I saw her and she was swollen and covered in tubes and I’m… my reaction was: I burst into tears, fell on the floor right there.

The broken sentence “and I’m” indicates an incomplete thought or self censoring.

porcos

Joan and Peter Porco

Christopher Porco’s call to Police:

Christopher Porco: Hi… uhm… my name is Chris Porco and I was just called by Time Union saying that my parents were found death this afternoon… uh I was wandering if you have more information on that?

“Hi” is unexpected. In a dramatic phone call like this, Christopher Porco feel the need to start with a greeting to ingratiate himself with the operator. He has a psychological need to be on the side of the good guys which indicates to the contrary.

“my parents” is an incomplete social introduction and tells us about the stat of his relationship with them.

“uhm” is a pause which indicates sensitivity or a need to stall for time to think.

Porco shows not to be in a hurry, he could have asked about his parents without referring about the call he received from the Time Union. Saying that the Time Union called him, he pre empt a possible question by the Police dispatcher about the reason he was calling.  

“uh” is another pause which indicates sensitivity or a need to stall for time to think.

Police dispatcher: Hey, Chris, where about are you?

Christopher Porco: I’m at school, in Rochester, New York.

Police dispatcher: OK, and are… are you in a dorm there?

Christopher Porco: Yes, I’m.

Police dispatcher: OK, do you have a dorm name or…?

Christopher Porco: Uh, it’s called Murno.

Police dispatcher: Okay. And you rehearsing from the Times Union?

Christopher Porco: Yeah, they called me and said my… my parents were found… uhm… I guess dead. I don’t know. They didn’t say how or anything.

Note that Porco repeats “my” twice and says “uhm” showing a need to stall for time to think.

Police dispatcher: Let me try and find somebody who may have some more information for you.

Police officer: OK… uh… now as far as, when was the last time you said you came down and saw your parents?

Christopher Porco: Uh… about three weeks ago… uh… it was on a weekend. I can’t give you a date, I’ll have to figure it out. I’m not really sure.

Note that Porco says “uh” twice, these pauses indicate sensitivity or a need to stall for time to think. 

“I’m not really sure” indicates that Porco believes that someone can be “really sure” or “sure”.

Police officer: Ok, what about three weeks ago?

Christopher Porco: Yeah.

Police officer: OK, and the email. What… what was going on with your email? You said you emailed him today but you didn’t get a response!?

Christopher Porco: Uhm… Yeah, I emailed him this afternoon. Uh… at my dad at work.

Note that Porco says “Uhm” and a “uh”, these pauses indicate sensitivity or a need to stall for time to think. 

Police officer: OK.

Christopher Porco: Uhm… about… uh… college loans stuff.

Note that Porco says “Uhm” and “uh” again, these pauses indicate sensitivity or a need to stall for time to think. 

Police officer: OK, are you going directly to Albany Med.?

 Christopher Porco: I don’t know whe… I don’t even know where my mother is, but…

Note that the officer tells him that his mother is at Albany Med. but Porco answers as he didn’t understand.

The two broken sentences of this answer indicates self censoring, a signal that the question is sensitive to him.

Police officer: Yes, she is at Albany Med.

Christopher Porco: OK, do you know her condition or in…

A broken sentence indicates self censoring.

Police officer: No, because I haven’t talked to her, let me give you my pager number.

Christopher Porco: OK.

Police officer: Cause when you get there I’ll come and see if there is anything I can do for you.

Christopher Porco: Okay.

Police officer: Alright?

Christopher Porco: Yeah.

Police officer: OK, thanks.

Christopher Porco: Yep. 

Police officer: Right, Bye.

920x920

Joan Porco after the attack

Porco about his interview with Police:

Christopher Porco: I wanted to be as helpful as I could. I knew that in cases like this, you know, the quicker the better. So I wanted to give them what they needed to… uhm… to figure out who did it.

Note the position of the pause “uhm”. Porco doesn’t say that he “wanted to be as helpful” “to caught the killer” or “to caught who killed my father” but simple “to figure out who did it”. He said “did it” instead of “killed” and “who” instead “the killer” to minimize. Minimization is a distancing measure, it’s a common strategy used by guilty people to avoid of dealing with negative emotions (stress) by reducing the importance and impact of events.

Peter Van Sant: There is a question that people want me to ask you directly, did you drive over to your parents house go up into their bedroom attack them with an axe killing your father and gravely wounding your mother?

This is not a good question. This is a closed question, a “yes” or “no” question. 

Christopher Porco: You know, I can’t say enough… uh… absolutely no… uhm… I would never do anything like that… uh… to anyone let alone my parents who I love dearly.

Note that Porco is unable to answer with a “No”. He shows a need to persuade that usually innocent people don’t have. There is no “wall of truth” within him.

Note the four pauses “You know”, “uh”, “uhm” and “uh” he uses to take time to answer.

“I would never do anything like that… uh… to anyone let alone my parents” is an unreliable denial. 

Porco 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. 

He said “do anything like that” instead of “killed” to minimize. 

Porco is unable to say “I didn’t attack my parents” or “I didn’t kill my father” not even parroting the interviewer’s words.

“who I love dearly” is something unnecessary to say.

Christopher Porco: She had a many hours surgery the… the night… of the attack.

Christopher Porco: I can’t imagine attacking anyone let alone my parents in that way, that’s not something I would ever do.

“I can’t imagine attacking anyone let alone my parents in that way” is an unreliable denial.

“that’s not something I would ever do” is an unreliable denials.

Christopher Porco: The surveillance cameras, you know, on campus… uhm… don’t show me going to the Thruway. They don’t show me going home. You know. They show me going off-campus. If I wanted to do something like this, you know, if I wanted to sneak home on the Thruway, uhm, why would I take a big yellow car? Uhm… that makes no sense to me.

Note that when Porco says “If I wanted to do something like this” and “If I wanted to sneak home on the Thruway”, he allows twice for the possibility, moreover the word “this” is an indication of closeness to the attack.

Christopher Porco: Like I… I said I’m absolutely innocent and looking for the trial.

“Like I… I said” is just a way to refer to something he said before not necessarily to the truth.

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

“I’m absolutely innocent” is not a reliable denial. When people say they are innocent, they are just denying the conclusion that they are guilty not the action. Porco is still “innocent de iure” because he hasn’t be judged yet. To affirm to be innocent is different from saying “I didn’t kill my father”or “I didn’t attack my parents”, which is expected. To say, “I am innocent” is to deny the judicial outcome, 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. 

Saying “absolutely innocent” Porco, not only shows a need to persuade, but tells us that he believes in degrees of innocence, evidently he believes that someone can be “absolutely innocent” or simple “innocent”.

Peter Van Sant: Prosecutors say there’s a motive in this case that you were in debt and that this attack you attempted to kill both parents to inherit money.

This question is good to allow Porco to say “I didn’t attack my parents”, “I didn’t kill my father” and “I am telling the truth”. This would be the “wall of truth”.

Christopher Porco: To me it’s absurd, I could never trade money for my parents’ lives.

“I could never trade money for my parents’ lives” is an unreliable denial.

Peter Van Sant: Are you optimistic going to the trial?

This question is good too to allow Porco to say “I didn’t attack my parents”, “I didn’t kill my father” and “I am telling the truth”. 

Christopher Porco: I would like to think it would be a not guilty verdict… uhm… I… I certainly believe it should be… it’s about, you know, clear… clear my name to show people that I would never do this to my family, you know, I love them.

Note the stuttering “I”, a signal of an increase in anxiety.

“I would never do this to my family” is an unreliable denial. He altered his denial to avoid a direct lie. He said “this” showing, for the second time, closeness to the attack.

Note that 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. 

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.

Porco feels the need to express the reason why he “would never do this”, this goes beyond the realm of the question,  ”I love them” is unnecessary to say.

Christopher Porco: You know if she thought I have done it, you know, she would… I’m sure… still love me but… uhm… I think her, you know, her attitude would be much different.

Peter Van Sant: She would want you held responsible.

Christopher Porco: Of course, absolutely… absolutely.

Peter Van Sant: Where is your optimism/pessimism meter right now, how are you doing?

Christopher Porco: Uh… you know, as far as guilt or innocence, you know, I… I’m… I’m very optimistic about how things have been going and how they will go.

Note the pauses “Uh… you know (…) you know” and the stuttering “I”, an indication that the question is sensitive to him.

Christopher Porco: And not jump to a conclusion and to look at everything, you know, as they should. I think that once you look at the whole picture it’s pretty clear that things just don’t add up.

Peter Van Sant: When the verdict was read you were emotionless, why?

Christopher Porco: Uhm… well, definitely it was, you know, the shock of it, of course… uhm… you know, but also Laurie told me… uhm… that, whatever the outcome, that I should just not really show much emotion.

Note the pauses “Uhm… well (…) you know (…) uhm… you know (…) uhm”, an indication that the question is sensitive to him.

Christopher Porco: You know, it’s one thing for a juror to say that on TV, but it’s another thing for them to actually believe that. It would not have been possible for me to do this with the lack of evidence there was. It’s… it’s just not possible.

Peter Van Sant: Do you still say today that the real killer is out there somewhere?

Christopher Porco: Uh… there’s no doubt in my mind. I… I know they’re out there… uhm… at this point I have, you know, little confidence that they’ll ever be caught.

Note the pauses “Uh” (…) uhm (…) you know” and the stuttering “I”, an indication that the question is sensitive to him.

Note that Porco suggests that more than one attacked his parents and adds that he has “little confidence that they’ll ever be caught”, why?

images-1

Christopher Porco during the trial

On Monday, November 15, 2004, fews hours after the discovering of the murder of Peter Porco and the attempted murder of his wife, Christopher S. Porco was interviewed by detective Rudolph, detective Bowdish and investigator Williams. Here some excerpts from the interview (MARY LOU STAHR, MLS TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES, 38 Surrey Hill Drive Latham, New York 12110, May 9, 2006):

DETECTIVE RUDOLPH: Yeah. So what time do you think you woke up?

MR. PORCO: Woke up at eight, around there. Went for a run.

When Porco says “Woke up at eight” and “Went for a run” by beginning both sentences without the pronoun “I”, he shows not to be psychologically committing to the actions he is describing, something that deceptive people often do.

(…) DETECTIVE RUDOLPH: Did you go to your dorm or you just got up and ran?

MR. PORCO: Got up and ran. Well, I walked in my room and got my shoes.

Saying “Got up and ran” by beginning without the pronoun “I”, he shows again no commitment to the actions he is describing.

(…) OFFICER: Getting up from the couch at about 8 a.m., you’re saying?

MR. PORCO: Yeah.

DETECTIVE BOWDISH: And then you did go for a run?

MR. PORCO: Yeah.

DETECTIVE BOWDISH: Got back maybe around 8:20, give or take.

MR. PORCO: Right.

DETECTIVE BOWDISH: Right? All right. What’s after that?

MR. PORCO: Sat back down on the same couch and sat around and watched TV for about three hours with five or six guys. We were waiting for the guy to wake up who was in my bed.

When Porco says “Sat back down” by beginning without the pronoun “I”, he shows again no commitment to the actions he is describing.

Moreover the description of his own body posture is an unnecessary information and, as any unnecessary information, is doubly important for us. Note that when an unnecessary description of a body posture enters a statement, it indicates an increase in emotional tension.

When Porco says “with five or six guys. We were waiting (…)” he shows a need to “hide in a crowd”.

(…) DETECTIVE BOWDISH: Okay. After that?

MR. PORCO: Came back.

When Porco says “Came back” by beginning without the pronoun “I”, he shows again no commitment to the action he is describing.

DETECTIVE BOWDISH: What time did you get back to the dorm?

MR. PORCO: Twenty minutes later.

DETECTIVE BOWDISH: 12:20?

MR. PORCO: About. Before (inaudible three to four words). 

DETECTIVE BOWDISH: Okay.

MR. PORCO: Sat down on the pink/big couch. 

When Porco says “Sat down on the pink/big couch” by beginning without the pronoun “I”, he shows again no commitment to the action he is describing. Moreover the description of his own body posture is an unnecessary information that indicates an increase in emotional tension.

DETECTIVE BOWDISH: M-m h-m-m.

MR. PORCO: Watched TV for like another hour.

When Porco says “Watched TV for like another hour” by beginning without the pronoun “I”, he shows again no commitment to the action he is describing.

(…) DETECTIVE BOWDISH: Honestly, honest to God. I knew your father for a long time. That’s why I’m saying that maybe, maybe something got out of hand, all right? I’m trying — I don’t — you know, I’m trying to say maybe I can — I can help a little bit here. Maybe, all right? But somebody — you’ve got to work with me a little bit, all right?

I’ve got to try —

MR. PORCO: There’s nothing to work with. I don’t know what you want me… you want me to come in and say that I killed my parents? That would be a lie. That’s (expletive) up. I would never do that. There’s no way in hell. You know, you can think I’m cold and stuff. How do you know what? You don’t know what I’ve been like.

“I killed my parents” is an embedded admission.

“I would never do that” is an unreliable denial. 

The word “never” is used by deceptive people to avoid referring to a specific time period. 

To say “do that” instead of “kill” is a way to minimize. 

“There’s no way in hell” shows that Porco has a need to persuade.

“I’m cold” is an admission.

(…) DETECTIVE RUDOLPH: So your only chance to explain is…

MR. PORCO: There is nothing to explain. I’m sorry if (inaudible four words) you think I killed my parents when you know that that’s…

Note that Porco says “I’m sorry”. Evidently he has a reason to be sorry.

“I killed my parents” is another embedded admission.

(…) DETECTIVE BOWDISH: You know what? I feel a lot of pain here.

MR. PORCO: I’m sorry.

Note that Porco says “I’m sorry” again.

(…) DETECTIVE BOWDISH: That’s why I’m asking you these questions (inaudible three words) out of hand.

MR. PORCO: I don’t know, I’m sorry.

Note that Porco says “I’m sorry” again.

(…) DETECTIVE BOWDISH: Why do you need to speak to one (lawyer) first?

MR. PORCO: (inaudible)

DETECTIVE BOWDISH: Well, look it, Chris. Why would that be?

MR. PORCO: Because I want to make sure that my rights are protected. I feel I have done nothing wrong.

“I feel I have done nothing wrong” is an unreliable denial. Porco altered his denial to avoid a direct lie. 

(…) DETECTIVE BOWDISH: Well, you know what? If I felt as though it was still incriminating of evidence I have right now, I wouldn’t be asking you to take it because I wouldn’t need it. You know what I mean?

MR. PORCO: I understand that.

DETECTIVE BOWDISH: Okay. All right.

MR. PORCO: I would hope there wouldn’t be. I honestly believe that if my mother told you that I had killed her husband, you would already have… you’d have me in handcuffs.

“I had killed her husband” is another embedded admission.

(…) MR. PORCO: Right. I… you know, I’ve given everything you’ve asked for. I’m not trying to hide anything from you, but I think that I’m entitled… I know I’m entitled to speak with someone (inaudible three words.)

Note that, without being asked, he says “I’m not trying to hide anything from you”. 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. He shows a need to pre-empt a possible question, this is not only an alert for deception but opens to the possibility that he is telling us the exact contrary. 

(…) DETECTIVE BOWDISH: I mean, your brother is coming back, that’s fine. I mean, I have to talk to him anyways.

MR. PORCO: He had nothing to do with it.

How does Cristopher know that his brother “had nothing to do with it”?

(…) DETECTIVE RUDOLPH: See, those guys right there are on the fence with you. I’ll be honest with you. I’ll be honest with you. I’m not on the fence. I’m on the other side of the fence, and I’m convinced that you did it.

MR. PORCO: I understand how you feel, and I’m sorry. Not correct.

Note that Porco says “I’m sorry” again.

(…) DETECTIVE RUDOLPH: All right. So between you and me, right, now there is nobody else in here to witness it, why don’t you tell me what happened because nobody else is going… just me anyway with no witnesses, because I know you (expletive) did it.

The detective made a mistake saying “I know you did it”, he put Porco on the defensive.

MR. PORCO: I didn’t do it.

“I didn’t do it” is an unreliable denial. He said “do it” instead of “kill” to minimize.

DETECTIVE RUDOLPH: You did do it.

MR. PORCO: I most certainly did not. I’m sorry if my reaction

is not what you want.

“most certainly” weakers the unreliable denial “I did not”. 

Note that Porco says “I’m sorry” again.

DETECTIVE RUDOLPH: I’ve been around doing this long

enough to know.

The detective is vague, he doesn’t specify what he “have been around doing”.

MR. PORCO: Dealt with a lot of murderers, huh?

Porco is the one to interpret the detective’s words and admits to be a murderer.

(…) DETECTIVE RUDOLPH: So is that really Coke on your shirt because I’m going to find that out.

MR. PORCO: I wouldn’t have given it to you if I thought there was blood on it.

Porco accepts what the de facto innocent doesn’t accept: he allows people to believe he could be involved in his father murderer.

DETECTIVE RUDOLPH: Still would have gotten it from a warrant anyway.

MR. PORCO: Oh.

DETECTIVE RUDOLPH: Let me guess, there’s an insurance policy?

MR. PORCO: I would kill my parents for money. Brilliant.

“I would kill my parents for money” is a “Brilliant” admission.

(…) DETECTIVE BOWDISH: And I appreciate that, I really do.

MR. PORCO: If I thought that you were going to find my DNA all over my parents’ bodies then, you know, I wouldn’t give it to you. I’d wait for a court order.

Porco accepts what the de facto innocent doesn’t accept: he allows people to believe he could be involved in his father murderer.

(…) DETECTIVE BOWDISH: (inaudible) well, I told you… I gave you the God’s honest truth. I told you what the reason was, but you won’t believe me.

MR. PORCO: I don’t, you’re right. I’m sorry.

Note that Porco says “I’m sorry” again.

(…) INVESTIGATOR WILLIAMS: But not lying to the police? 

MR. PORCO: I haven’t lied to you guys at all tonight.

Porco is unable to say “I told you the truth” but I believe him when he says “I haven’t lied to you guys at all tonight”, infact less than 10% of those who are deceptive would fabricate reality, 90% plus of lies are via missing information.

(…) INVESTIGATOR WILLIAMS: No, no. What I’m saying is, if it comes back that we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did it, what should be done to you?

This question is good to allow Porco to deny.

MR. PORCO: Then I should go to jail (inaudible four words). The system works. In most cases it does.

Porco is not only unable to deny, he admits “I should go to jail”. 

INVESTIGATOR WILLIAMS: If we gave… put right here in front of you irrefutable evidence that puts you at the scene of that crime…

MR. PORCO: I hope you wouldn’t have that, but…

Porco doesn’t deny, he doesn’t say that they would never find “irrefutable evidence” that puts him at the scene of the attack, he just hopes.

INVESTIGATOR WILLIAMS: If we did.

MR. PORCO: Okay.

INVESTIGATOR WILLIAMS: Would you tell us that you did it?

MR. PORCO: (inaudible)

INVESTIGATOR WILLIAMS: No, no. Wait. I didn’t say you… I didn’t ask you if you did it. I said if we put in front of you…

MR. PORCO: You wouldn’t have that to begin with though. 

INVESTIGATOR WILLIAMS: This is a hypothesis. This is just…

MR. PORCO: If I knew…

INVESTIGATOR WILLIAMS: If we threw here in front of you, there’s a picture of you walking out of the house with an X, Y, Z murder weapon. Now will you tell us whether you did it or not?

This question allows Porco to deny.

MR. PORCO: Well, obviously, then I would have done it, yeah.

Porco is unable to deny his involvement in the attack and he accepts what the de facto innocent doesn’t, he opens to the possibility to be the attacker. 

INVESTIGATOR WILLIAMS: Okay.

MR. PORCO: Yeah.

INVESTIGATOR WILLIAMS: You would tell us?

MR. PORCO: I…

This is self censoring.

INVESTIGATOR WILLIAMS: If we came to you with irrefutable evidence, eyewitness accounts, videotape, fingerprints on the murder weapon.

MR. PORCO: Probably, yeah.

Porco accepts what the de facto innocent doesn’t accept: he allows people to believe he could be involved in his father murderer, again. 

(…) INVESTIGATOR WILLIAMS: Well, these circumstances, (inaudible three words) irrefutable…

MR. PORCO: If I had done something and you had proof that I had done it.

Porco is unable to deny his involvement in the attack and he accepts what the de facto innocent doesn’t, he opens to the possibility to be the attacker, again. 

INVESTIGATOR WILLIAMS: Well, I’m not saying if you did. I’m saying, we have — we have no way of knowing if you did. We bring you physical evidence.

MR. PORCO: I would question the evidence.

Porco accepts what the de facto innocent doesn’t accept: he allows people to believe he could be involved in his father murderer.

(…) INVESTIGATOR WILLIAMS: — all of them to suffer through all of this?

MR. PORCO: If I had done it and you showed me evidence that I couldn’t argue with that I had done it, I would say yes, fine, I did it.

Denial.

When Porco says  “If I had done it”, he opens to the possibility to be the attacker, again. 

“I had done it” and “I did it” are two admissions.

(…) INVESTIGATOR WILLIAMS: Yeah. You were running wearing your sneakers?

MR. PORCO: M-m h-m-m.

INVESTIGATOR WILLIAMS: What else?

MR. PORCO: I had a white tee-shirt on and shorts and a sweatshirt over the tee-shirt and a backpack on my back. 

INVESTIGATOR WILLIAMS: Where did you get the shorts? 

MR. PORCO: I was wearing them at the time. 

INVESTIGATOR WILLIAMS: I thought you were wearing jeans?

MR. PORCO: H-m-m?

INVESTIGATOR WILLIAMS: I thought you were wearing jeans?

MR. PORCO: I changed.

INVESTIGATOR WILLIAMS: When? I asked —

MR. PORCO: (inaudible) I remember changing… I changed at my girlfriend’s, actually.

INVESTIGATOR WILLIAMS: All right. (inaudible)

MR. PORCO: Did you ask me if I changed (inaudible three words) or not?

INVESTIGATOR WILLIAMS: Yeah. I asked you what you were wearing in bed. I asked you when you went to your room, what did you do. To get sneakers and put them on.

MR. PORCO: I changed the night before. I didn’t change that morning.

INVESTIGATOR WILLIAMS: I asked you what you were wearing when you went to bed on the couch.

MR. PORCO: Shorts and a sweatshirt.

INVESTIGATOR WILLIAMS: And you said jeans and a hoody.

MR. PORCO: I wore shorts to bed.

INVESTIGATOR WILLIAMS: See what I’m saying?

MR. PORCO: Yeah. I understand.

INVESTIGATOR WILLIAMS: Okay.

MR. PORCO: They were blue shorts that said UR on the flap. 

DETECTIVE BOWDISH: (inaudible two words) we’re looking for it still.

INVESTIGATOR WILLIAMS: All right, so now you said…

DETECTIVE BOWDISH: Your father is pretty upset. 

INVESTIGATOR WILLIAMS: You know, you didn’t broach it, didn’t touch it, apparently. He says he went back to his room and got changed before he went jogging.

MR. PORCO: No, this was the night before. 

INVESTIGATOR WILLIAMS: The night before?

MR. PORCO: Yes.

INVESTIGATOR WILLIAMS: Didn’t he just tell us that he slept in his jeans and his hoody, right?

DETECTIVE BOWDISH: I didn’t hear anything about changing the clothes.

MR. PORCO: I don’t remember saying…

DETECTIVE BOWDISH: There wasn’t anything about changing your clothes.

This excerpt is interesting because the investigators recognise that Porco didn’t mention that he had changed his clothes (pants) to go for a run.

(…) INVESTIGATOR WILLIAMS: Chris, you have no alibi. Do you understand that?

MR. PORCO: (inaudible)

INVESTIGATOR WILLIAMS: You have motive.

MR. PORCO: I don’t understand what you think my motive is. 

“my motive” is an admission. Porco admits to have a motive.

INVESTIGATOR WILLIAMS: Well, money.

MR. PORCO: I’m going to kill my parents for $300,000? I mean, come on.

“I’m going to kill my parents for $300,000” is another admission.

(…) DETECTIVE WILLIAMS: So what happened? (inaudible)

MR. PORCO: I told you.

DETECTIVE WILLIAMS: You can’t convince me.

MR. PORCO: I’m sorry. I (inaudible three to four words).

Note that Porco says “I’m sorry” again.

(…) DETECTIVE WILLIAMS: But you’re not looking (inaudible two words).

MR. PORCO: I’m sorry. I don’t know what you want me to do.

Note that Porco says “I’m sorry” again.

(…) INVESTIGATOR WILLIAMS: You’re forging your father’s name on a big, pretty big loan. He doesn’t pay your car bill because it’s overdue.

MR. PORCO: That’s absolutely no reason to murder someone.

INVESTIGATOR WILLIAMS: Is there ever a reason to murder?

MR. PORCO: I think there are valid reasons.

An admission. 

INVESTIGATOR WILLIAMS: There is.

MR. PORCO: Well, not murder, but killing somebody, yeah. 

Another admission.

DETECTIVE BOWDISH: Things happen at the spur of the moment too, and then we’re remorseful afterwards. 

MR. PORCO: True.

This is another admission.

ANALYSIS CONCLUSION:

Deception Indicated.

During his first interview with the detectives:

1) Porco said “I’m sorry” eight times, it enters the language of the guilty;

2) He admitted to be “cold”; 

3) He allows the investigators to believe he could be involved in his father murder;

4) He admitted to be a murderer;

5) He admitted to have a “motive” when he said “my motive”;

6) He admitted he attacked his parents when he said “I killed my parents” twice; “I had killed her husband”; “I would kill my parents for money”; “I had done it”; “I did it” and “I’m going to kill my parents for $300,000”;

7) He admitted he should go to jail when he said “I should go to jail”.

Christopher Porco didn’t deny his involvement in his parents’ attack. 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. 

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

Christopher Porco killed his father and attempted to kill his mother.

Ursula Franco, MD and criminologist

Annunci