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.

Annunci

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.

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 building.

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”. He is just telling us that is relating the same things not 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; the presence of the non word “uhm”, useful to take time to answer; the stuttering “I”, a signal of anxiety; Widmer’s unexpected incapacity to describe the scene. 

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 contrast 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 not the “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 the need of Santiago to describe himself as a “good guy”. This is the “good guy” principle which belies the status of “bad guy”

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

Note the need of Santiago 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 the need of Santiago 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 the need of Santiago 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 the need of Santiago to describe himself as a “good guy”. This is incessant. This is the “good guy” principle which belies the status of “bad guy”, again.

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.

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” but he is unable to say that someone put pressure on him.

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? 

Note that he repeats the word “that”, “that” is distancing language and sensitive to him.

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.

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 to him. 

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 has never done anything illegal in his life until he did.

Note the need of Santiago to describe himself as a “good guy” that only did something “stupid”.

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.

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.

“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 itself.

“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. 

After Santiago says “I did not…” he is censoring himself. 

Saying “and I answered all their questions” Santiago 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. 

“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.

“I was the one that pulled the trigger to kill these people” 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

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”.

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

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.

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 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 the need of Santiago to describe himself as a “good guy” that suffers for being considered a murderer. This is the “good guy” principle which belies the status of “bad guy”, again. 

“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.

Santiago left something out, he started his sentence with “And”. There are missing information here.

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.

No denial from Santiago.

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’ll 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 shows 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.

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 us 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 and another officer saw that only one side of the couple’s bed had been slept in. 

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.

Analysis of some excerpts from Frederick Mueller’s interviews with investigators

Dr Leslie J Denis Mueller’s last picture on Cottonwood Creek, Colorado

On May 3, 2008, while Leslie Jeanne Denis and Frederick Harold Mueller, were hiking near Lake City, Colorado, Leslie died by drowning.

According with undersheriff Robert Burden, Fred Mueller told him that Leslie died by accident “as he took the picture, a bird flew by, the bluebird appeared to startle the dog and that as she was getting up, she suddenly started going backwards. And she did a swan dive, just like head and shoulders and just slides like mush into the channel”.

Hinsdale County sheriff Ron Bruce and undersheriff Robert Burden didn’t believe Fred Mueller’s story.

Sheriff Ron Bruce

Fred Mueller had scratches on his face and an investigator found a pair of broken glasses belonging to Fred and what appeared to be signs of a struggle in the snow near the scene.

According with the autopsy report by doctor Jerry Gray, Leslie Mueller had no injuries despite her husband said she fell from a cliff about 17 feet above the creek. There was no blood on Leslie’s clothes and no damages.

Prosecutor Matthew Durkin said that the evidence suggested Dr Leslie Mueller fought with her husband and that she was then held down in the water by him.

Mueller wasn’t the one to speak with the 911 operator.

Meuller left Leslie in the water and went to Justin Sparks’ home; Sparks, who had no knowledge of what had just happened to Leslie, called 911 and Fred Mueller didn’t speak with the operator, not even in second place, to give further details. Often people with a guilty knowledge prefer to delegate somebody else to call for help not to face the stress of a deceptive call not. Mueller too chose not to risk to be caught in his lies by the 911 operator.

Justin Sparks, the neighbour that called 911 and found Leslie’s lifeless body was suspicious of Fred Mueller behaviour, during the trial he said: “He would act kind of frantic, one second, and then, the next second, he would… he was talking to me very nonchalance and normal almost felt like he was acting more than being sincere. I just started getting a kind of bad feeling about the whole situation”. Sparks described to the jury a way of acting of people with a guilty knowledge, Fred Mueller was unable to act as a grieving husband because, after the death of his wife, his real and only feeling was relief. 

Few hours after his wife death Fred Mueller told undersheriff Burden that he and Leslie had sex the morning of May 3; ten months after, during an interview with a a CBI agent, Mueller said that a “good autopsy” on his wife’s body could have revealed that they had sex in the morning she died. This revelation is sensitive, it opens to a planned murder not to a second degree murder. The morning of the murder, Fred Mueller made love to his wife on purpose, to show the coroner their marriage wasn’t in trouble.

In 2012 Frederick Mueller was charged with murdering his wife, Dr. Leslie Jeanne Denis Mueller by prosecutor Matthew Durkin. The trial ended in a mistrial.

Frederick Mueller had been tried a second time for the murder of his wife, Leslie, few months later (prosecutor Ryan Brackley) but the jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict on the defendant’s guilt again and the judge declared a mistrial.

Fred Mueller  on Cottonwood Creek, Colorado

Here some excerpts of a conversation Fred Mueller had with sheriff Ron Bruce in the kitchen of his house:

What we look for in the following experts is for Fred Mueller to tell the truth about what happened to his wife Leslie and to issue a reliable denial.

We look for him to say freely “I didn’t kill my wife Leslie” 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.

Fred Mueller: (unintelligible) you know (unintelligible) it’s all my fault, we had a camera, we started taking photos, she took fews of me, I took some of her… uhh… I suggested that she take a picture with her dog and it’s… it’s a border collies its very… it’s an extremely scary dog she is… looks at me, I take a picture… uhm… I think (unintelligible), I think… uhh… like a bird, kind of floaters by… the dog just jumps out and she is turning and… and its like… its like her feet went out from under…

“you know” shows an acute awareness of the audience.  

“it’s all my fault” sounds as an embedded admission.

Note the non words “uhh” and “uhm” and the pauses he used to take time to answer.

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.

Mueller showed us to be able to use the past tense as in the first part of his narrative he spoke at the past tense “we started”, “she took”, “I took” and “I suggested” but then, he suddenly shifted to the present tense making the second part of his narrative unreliable.

In these sentences, “she is… looks at me, I take a picture… uhm… I think (unintelligible), I think… uh… like a bird kind of floaters by, but the dog just jumps out and she is turning and… and its like… its like her feet went out from under…” Mueller sounds vague and unreliable due to the two “I think”, to the “like” and the two “it’s like”.

It’s like… it just happened in slow motion in front of me, she falls forward and… and, I remember, launching forward to try to… to try to get to her but I was probably 5, 6, 7 feets from her, it looked to me like she just did a swam dive and… and lands on the rocks right by the water, just… just like head and shoulders and… and just crumples and just… just slides like mush into the… into the… the little channel and I’m screaming her name, I’m hollering. I should had jump in.

Everything Mueller says at the present tense is unreliable and tells us that he is not recalling from experiential memory.

Again “It’s like”, “to try”, “probably”, “it looked to me like” sound vague and story telling.

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

Note how many times Mueller uses the word “just”. “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, Mueller was thinking about what really took place.

She’s moving with the current. I don’t know what I’m doing and the next thing I know, she’s out of sight there and I can’t really see where I can get to her, she’s just face down in the water, head first going downstream.

Mueller is still speaking at the presente tense of a past event, his narrative is unreliable.

“I don’t know what I’m doing” is in the negative and unnecessary to say, he is using this sentence to fill his unreliable narrative. 

“and the next thing I know” is a clear example of temporal lacunae, a sentence often used by deceptive people to jump over time, a signal of withholding information.

“I can’t really see” is not only in the negative but is weak, the options are two: someone can see or can’t see, the word “really” opens to the fact that he could see something.

When Mueller says “she’s just face down in the water” he is comparing his wife being face down in the water with another position.

Fred Mueller: I didn’t do anything and I’m not at all afraid of the truth.

“I didn’t do anything” is an unreliable denial. Mueller is unable or unwilling to say “I didn’t kill Leslie” which was expected. 

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 Leslie” followed by “I told the truth” while addressing the denial, it is more than 99% likely to be true. A deceptive person will alter his denial to avoid a direct lie.

Saying “I didn’t do anything” Mueller violated component 3 of the reliable denial.

The second sentence “and I’m not at all afraid of the truth” is not only in the negative but he fells the need to add “at all”, we can assume that the truth is sensitive to him.

According with sheriff Bruce, Mueller, during one of the first interview, suddendly started talking about family insurance policies.

Fred Mueller: We had a big insurance policy on the two of us. It was strictly for inheritance, so what in the world would it have been of benefit to me for the reality is there was no reason for my wife to die that benefitted me, no monetary benefit.

An innocent has not reason to speak spontaneously about motives for murder.

“there was no reason for my wife to die that benefitted me, no monetary benefit” is distancing language, Fred Mueller himself introduces the topic but is unable or unwilling to say not only “I didn’t kill my wife Leslie” neither “there was no reason for me to kill my wife, no monetary benefit”.

According with undersheriff Burden, Fred Mueller also said: ” You know, I don’t have any reason to kill my wife. I don’t have any motive. I don’t have a girlfriend. We love each other very much”.

When Mueller, without being asked, says “I don’t have any reason to kill my wife. I don’t have any motive. I don’t have a girlfriend. We love each other very much” he shows a need to pre-empt the question to explain something that an innocent wouldn’t have any need to explain. This is not only an alert for deception, but opens to the possibility that Mueller is telling us the opposite of what it is.

Note that “I don’t have any reason to kill my wife. I don’t have any motive. I don’t have a girlfriend” not only are in the negative but at the present tense: 

  • 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.   
  • Mueller keeps speaking at the present, he is not telling us what he was thinking before the death of his wife but just what he is thinking right now that the allegations are upon him. 

“We love each other very much” is sensitive,  the presence of “very much” shows a need to persuade.

Most of the murderers often sound uninhibited, naive, aggressive or sarcastic, they choose to substitute a reliable denial with rage, sarcasm or whatever, counting on us to interpret and assume that they are denying the allegations. Mueller, incredibly, said to undersheriff Burden “If you didn’t have a badge and gun, I’d fucking beat the shit out of you” and “That’s bullshit. You’re asking me how many times a day did I have sex, but you won’t tell me if you found any damn glasses”.

Fred Mueller: It’s that kind of crap that makes me think you’re not believing a word I’m telling you. I’m just sticking my head in a noose. I didn’t do anything.

Mueller is not only unable or unwilling to deny his involvement in Leslie’s death 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 but Mueller is unable to defend himself. “I didn’t do anything” is an unreliable denial. 

One of Leslie and Frederick Mueller’s daughter reported to Dateline her father’s first call after the death of her mother:

“He said: I’m so sorry, I’m so sorry.

and I said: What happened?

and he said: We were hiking, I tried to take a picture, she felt.

I remember saying: Does she is going be ok?

and he said: No, she is death.

and he said: I’m so… so sorry Mindy”.

Note the initial “I’m so sorry, I’m so sorry” and the final “I’m so… so sorry”.

We note “I’m sorry” because is often an indicator of a form of regret that usually enters the language of the guilty. 

Analysis Conclusion:

Frederick Mueller deceptively witheld information and fabricated reality.

Mueller was not only unable or unwilling to deny his involvement in his wife Leslie’s death but he accepted a possible guilt.

He has guilty knowledge of what happened to his wife Leslie.

Undersheriff Robert Burden

Undersheriff  Robert Burden said to correspondent Peter Van Sant: “I say it was not an accident, I say it was a cold blooded murder”.

I agree. Frederick Mueller got away with murder.

Ursula Franco, MD and criminologist

My reconstruction of the murder of Kathleen Hunt Atwater Peterson in the documentary “The missing Pieces: The Staircase”

 

Read also:

Michael Peterson’s 911 call

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

Michael Iver Peterson: a pathological liar and a murderer