Tag Archive for: statement analysis
Quinn Gray’s Abduction on Dateline NBC
If you didn’t see Saturday night’s Dateline, you missed a whopper of a story. It was two-hours of action, deception and lies. I would have to say this was one of the most hotspot littered cases I think I’ve ever watched. Quinn Gray couldn’t have been a better subject!
For those of you who saw the show, here is Quinn Gray’s ransom note.
So many hot spots:
- Notice Quinn’s normal bubbly written text? When people are held at gunpoint, they get nervous and nervous hand writing isn’t so sweet and smooth! Hello.
- Quinn writes, “I need you read this and be calm!!” Who under duress is going to think like this? Just be calm, honey!
- Quinn writes, “…do not be a hero.” Hero? Who would think about heroes when you have a gun pointing to your head?
- Quinn writes, “This is professional.” What victim of a crime is ever going to think her abductors are “professional”? I could see law enforcement calling someone professional, but not a victim unless they were talking about a crime in hindsight–not during the actual crime. How does she know they are “professional” at this point? She hasn’t seen them do anything, if this is real and they just broke into her house. It’s ridiculous.
- I find it very odd she tells her husband they want $50,000, but he cannot get more than $9,500.00 out of the bank. Had she tried at one point? Would you know this if you were held at gun point? Very odd information for a “victim” to have… She could have called the bank with the kidnappers and asked about how much she could withdrawal, but she makes no mention of it.
- Then she says they only have $7,000, which makes it even more perplexing that she should would know about the $9,500 number because why ask if you don’t have it?
- Her use of the word “stupid” stands out to me as well. When you are facing life and death, and you may not see a loved one again, and I can’t imagine you would worry about them doing stupid things. You would worry about their life instead. It’s odd to say the least. She doesn’t seem worried about him at all, does she?
- It’s odd how she is so sure she will be fine if he just gets the money. Why would she be so sure? A kidnapper wouldn’t give her the time to write that over and over again! Time is of the essence if they are all standing around in her house, mind you.
- She writes, “Please do this honey!” Honey? Again, its ridiculous!!
Clearly, by her own word choices, she was not a woman under duress. Had I found this ransom note, I couldn’t help but chuckle!!!! It tells a heck of a lot information, and while you couldn’t write it off, I would have been very skeptical.
Word choices tell us so much…
Murder Suspect Surveys Crime Scene as Investigators Work
This is a fascinating video of a murder suspect, who is watching nearby as crime scene investigators do their work at the scene of a double homicide Monday in Tulsa, Oklahoma. A couple out walking their dogs on Monday morning came across the bodies of two young joggers dead in the park–shot execution style in the head. The two victims were Ethan Nichols, 21, and his girlfriend, Carissa Horton, 18.
A news reporter happened to interview Darren Price at the scene. When I watch him talk, I find it interesting how he says, “I think it’s real crazy. I bring my kids out here to play. Got to raise the question, is it safe to even walk around this town with people just dying and stuff? It’s not cool.”
Notice the sanitation of situation by the use of the word “dying”? Most people who come across a double homicide would not say that people are “dying”, but people who commit violent crimes often try to sanitize what they’ve done as well as try to distance themselves the act. It’s a lot easier to say “dying” instead of “murder” when you were the one who committed it.
After the crime, Price drove Nichols car to an apartment complex, where police later found it. They set up surveillance and watched Price get into the car and drive it off. Fox 23.com reports that Price later confessed. You can read more here.
Amanda Knox
You’ve probably heard the story that is breaking out of Italy this week. A British Exchange student, Meredith Kercher, 20, was found murdered in her bedroom, and one of the accused is American-born, University of Washington student, Amanda Knox, also 20. Both girls shared a house with other students while living abroad.
Reports are saying “Extreme Sex Game killed Meredith.”
Steve Huff over at True Crime Weblog details the story here, if you want to get into all the details.
Several papers have printed a statement made by Knox to police, and if this statement is true, I find it quite interesting and telling that perhaps Ms. Knox is not being forthright with us.
Read more Knox says:
“Patrick and Meredith were in Meredith’s room while I stayed in the kitchen. I can’t remember how long they were together in the room, but I can only say that at a certain point I heard Meredith screaming and I was scared so I covered my ears. After that, I don’t remember everything, my head is very confused.” (source)
Furthermore, there is this report:
Ms Knox made her “confession” to police when she was taken in for questioning at dawn yesterday. She had claimed earlier to have left the cottage at 5pm on Thursday and returned only the next morning when Ms Kercher’s body was discovered. She now admits that she was at the house. She said that on the evening of November 1 she had met Mr Lumumba, who owned the Le Chic pub where she sometimes worked, at about 9pm after they had exchanged texts. She told police they had gone to the cottage. “I don’t remember if my friend Meredith was already there or whether she came later. What I can say is that [Meredith and Patrick] went off together.” (source)
It has been pointed out to me that Knox’s statement may have been translated from English to Italian to English again. If this is the case, I withdraw any and all conclusions, as it is ESSENTIAL for me to have Knox’s words VERBATIM to make a determination (see comment section below).
If these are Knox’s words verbatim, the four-sentence statement (above) gives us many red flags that are hard to ignore.
- The choice of words “while I stayed in the kitchen” is indicative that Knox was somehow doing something with Patrick and Meredith…yet in the report above, she does not say she is. This is contradictory. “To stay” is indicative of “staying behind” as if to break away from the group.
- The words “I can only say” and “at a certain point” are unique as well. When we recollect a story, we don’t talk like this. When we are controlling facts and being deceptive, however, we do. We only remember details that are important to us, and forget the rest. Knox really wants us to know that she wasn’t in the room, but doesn’t remember anything else. How interesting is that?
- “I was scared so I covered my ears.” When people are afraid because someone is screaming, they typically react by (A) running away for help, or (B) running to the aid of the screamer. Fear evokes a response.You don’t ignore a fearful/terrifying scream from someone, and hope it goes away by covering your ears when you or they could be in danger…unless, of course you know the reason behind the screams — and know you are not in danger.
- “After that, I don’t remember everything” When people are deceptive, the often have a selective memory — remembering “only” what they want us to know and forgetting everything else. It’s so convenient. Too convenient — especially considering strong emotions should have been elicited by the screams — which in turn should have burned searing memories that can’t be purged, no matter how hard she tries. Yet Knox seems to only remember one selective thing. I’m not buying it.
If Knox wasn’t in the room participating in the killing, then her words (if they are indeed hers) certainly hint that she knew what was going on behind those closed doors. It hints she was involved with Patrick and Meredith, yet her story is leaving out any involvement with Meredith.
Each of these four sentences has a red flag in it. That’s a strong indication of deception. I don’t believe Knox is being honest with us –if these do in fact prove to be her words verbatim. That is now the question.
* Modification added 11/10/07 4:14 PM
To see more posts about Knox, click on the labels below.
Tracy Hacker
Tracy Hacker was viciously attacked last October, and nearly ten months after her ordeal, no one has been arrested.
I take a close look at this case reviewing what little information I can find and I share it with you.
You will find my post over at CrimeBlog.US today.
Update:
CrimeBlog.US has now changed to and is being redirected to TrueCrimeWeblog.com and not all post are loading up so with that, I will repost this post for you below:
Attacked from Behind
Posted by Eyes for Lies on Aug 22 2007
The last thing Tracy Hacker remembered was sitting in her backyard with her husband on a Friday night in October. Three weeks later, she woke from a coma after a traumatic brain injury.
Part of Tracy’s skull had to be removed in an effort to save her life. Doctors feared she may not survive, but she did — and today she is thriving. Looking at her now, you’d never know the ordeal she went through just ten months ago…
On that fateful day last October, Hacker’s husband called
To date, no one has been arrested in this case and police are now saying that they only have circumstantial evidence – not enough to arrest anyone – but they do not believe the guy in the police sketch is the one who committed this vicious attack. They have their eyes on someone else.
So then, who did this? Someone random or perhaps someone close to Hacker?
When Hacker is asked who did this to her, she responds, “I’ll never know because I was hit from behind.” However, since the attack, Hacker has divorced her husband and has not gone back to the house where the attack occurred.
That certainly is odd.
In looking at this case, I found very little information but I did find the
Hacker’s husband is only referred to as “C” for (male) caller in the transcripts.In reviewing “C’s” responses, I find them odd and strangely inappropriate for this situation.My eyebrows are raised immediately and throughout much of the transcript.
“C” doesn’t answer many of the questions he is asked, nor does he give details.
When the
I find this odd and interesting.Was he anticipating the next question to be “Who is this ambulance for?” Or does he not have anything else to say?
Most people in this situation would go rambling off in hysterical detail about what they just witnessed. The shock and terror of it all would cause most people to say as much as they possibly could – just to get it off their chest. It’s a normal emotional response.
Yet why isn’t “C” doing this? Instead, he seems to be controlling his words.Why?
When the dispatcher continues and says I need you to take a breath, and tell me what is going on, all “C” can say is “baseball bat, baseball bat.He hit her in the head with a baseball bat”.
Notice the details that are lacking? “C” doesn’t give any details. Most victims of a crime have searing memories that they repeat over and over again.They give the details that are fresh in their head.They give descriptions. They give everything they know as fast as they can to help catch the assailants and to get help for the victims.Why isn’t “C” doing this? This just isn’t normal.
The dispatcher then asks “Who hit her?”, and “C” responds, “I don’t know. I am at home. Please God.”
What does being at home have to do with this? When people are dishonest, they say weird and illogical things. Is “C” being dishonest here? You have to wonder.
As the transcript progresses, I find it really odd how “C” is talking to his wife telling her to lay down. He also says “no, no, no, not on that side” when telling her to lay down, but when he is asked immediately after he is heard saying it — if his wife is conscious, “C” responds “I don’t think so.”
This is a big inconsistency. His actions are not supporting the facts he is giving. You don’t tell an unconscious person to lie down. You just don’t do it. If, however, you were being deceptive and attempting to play the part of a caring husband, you might just slip up. Is that what is happening here? I sure do wonder.
The dispatcher then asks for clarification if Hacker is going in and out of consciousness, and what does “C” say? He doesn’t answer the question. Instead he says, “There is blood in her ears.”
Further down, the dispatcher asks, “Do you know who did this?” Again, I find “C’s” description troubling. “C” says, “Two little guys, possibly Asians. Ran out of my back yard. They hit my wife. I tacked one, I got the bat, I hit one.”
His speech is odd and weird. He is speaking in sentence fragments. Normally people don’t talk like this – even people in distress. People in distress usually do the opposite: they ramble frantically using lots and lots of words. Also, where are the details again?
I find the word “possibly” (in possibly Asians) odd as well. I can understand someone saying something like: I think they were Asian, but I am not sure with the struggle. But you don’t say, “possibly Asians”. The word selection and word order here are not how people recollect information.
When we create stories, however, we add on descriptive details as afterthoughts. People also usually speak in the order of which things occurred. They don’t mix them up as we see “C” doing here. This is more supportive of someone who is creating a story. He talks about the assailants running out of his backyard and then of attacking them. This isn’t logical.
Furthermore, why would two men start hitting his wife with a baseball bat first? Wouldn’t the man, who is normally bigger and stronger than the woman, likely be the main threat in most scenarios? Or was the wife the main target?
I also find the word “little” interesting. People don’t usually use the word “little” when describing people unless they are really small, like a dwarf. And to have two small assailants — that is really odd.
When the dispatcher asks, “Which way did they go?” why isn’t “C” giving us details? They went west, past the fence and behind the bushes. They ran towards the Jones’s house! They ran east towards
Then he stutters and stammers for words when he answers. That’s another red flag.“Ah… ah…. ah… towards… parallel… across the way.” This answer, in the end, isn’t even logical. Who talks like that? This is classic thinking-on-your-feet speech.
Next the dispatcher asks if “C” can describe what either assailant was wearing. “C” says, “Ah…one was wearing a black hooded sweatshirt…. ah… he is the one I tackled. Jeans, both baggy… ah… I don’t know. I think one was Asian for sure, the one I tackled.”
Now both men are little Asians and both are also wearing jeans, that are baggy. Notice, too, how the description of the jeans comes as an afterthought again. I don’t like the hesitations here, either.
Also, notice how “C” is saying that “one was Asian for sure.” This is inconsistent again as he just said shortly before they were “possibly Asians”. Now all of the sudden he is sure that one was Asian?
When we witness a crime, we usually can state the basics. Why is “C” having trouble here?
When the police arrived, they asked “C” who did this. Now all of the sudden, he says the assailants were trying to rob them.
Wouldn’t that be the first thing you would say? My wife and I were sitting out back, when two men approached and tried to rob us.Then they started to beat me and my wife. Why is this important detail not mentioned until now? This is another big red flag.
I also find it odd when “C” says,“I threw my wallet, he didn’t take it. That was after…I don’t know.” He threw his wallet and the robber didn’t take it? That’s odd and so is his speech.He isn’t making sense.He is truly thinking-on-his-feet here again, if you want my opinion.
“C” spoke very little in a short amount of time, but I believe what he said and how he said it is very telling. Unless I find out “C” is an addict of sorts and was out-of-his-mind this day, I don’t believe “C’s” story at all.
Related Info:
It appears the home where this vicious attack took place is currently for sale:
- 1901 DIETER STREET, Maplewood, MN home for sale. $194900.
- http://kstp.com/article/stories/S172248.shtml?cat=206
