Has another killer walked free from the court system?
Michael Mead wrote a statement after being found "not guilty" in court for the murder of his fiance and preborn child. Statement Analysis shows deception in the statement as well as ownership of guilt.
By request, here is Statement Analysis of a letter he sent upon first being arrested. Statement Analysis is in bold type, with italics or underlining added for emphasis.
Does this letter contain the motive?
http://www.wsoctv.com/news/18463453/detail.html
To All My Friends, Family, Neighbors and Business Associates,
It is with sincere regret that have to inform each of you my arrest for the murder of my finance (sic); Lucy Johnson. I want to make it abundantly clear that I did not murder Lucy, and had nothing to do with her death.
Note the additional words show an increase in sensitivity. It is with "sincere"
regret indicates that there is such a thing as "insincere" regret to the subject.
Note that he "wants" to make it not only clear, but "abundantly" clear.
Next: "I did not murder Lucy, and had nothing to do with her death" is presented. Is this a strong denial?
Please note that he "wants" to make this clear; is not the same as saying that he didn't do it; only that he wants to make is "abudantly" clear. We note a strong denial is First Person singular, past tense, event specific. We look for this statement to be given plainly, and without qualilfiers. Here, it says he wants to make the statement, not that he does. He also loads it with qualifiers.
Also, do not miss the self importance (in prior analysis, we saw narcissistic tendencies as he focuses upon himself). He wants to make this statement to "each of you".
It should also not be missed that I did not murder has the word
"murder" rather than "kill" or even "shoot"
In his statement upon release we learn that he says she was happy with him, but he does not say he was happy with her. Does he consider what happened part of a "fight" but not a "murder"?
When we do have a strong denial, without qualifiers, it is something that the rest of the statement will butress.
We do not have that here.
I loved Lucy very much and was looking forward to a life of happiness with her, Lauren, Cason, Christian and our unborn son. I was so looking forward to having another baby in our lives. I was good to Lucy and always treated her kindly. She told her dad the reason she loved me so much, was because I reminded her of her father; Mike Dye. Mike and I have remained close during the course of this investigation, and he and both know that I am innocent. All of my friends and family know that I am innocent as well. I don’t have the capacity within my heart to commit murder. I became a Christian at a very young age, and have been in church all my life. I was raised in the church from the time I was a baby until I was 18. I don’t know why God is letting me walk through this valley, but I know he has his reasons.
Note the need to report his behavior is an attempt to persaude his audience of his published letter, in "I was good..."
Note that "I am innocent" is truthful: he was not, at the time of the letter, judged either way, and is not a strong denial.
Note the emphasis "both" added, as an attempt to persaude.
Note that he does not have the capacity, but only "in his heart"
His portrayal of religious life and church is an attempt to persuade that someone raised in church (until 18, he wrote, which would lead to questions such as "What happened when you turned 18?") is an attempt to persuade and not report.
I am deeply sorry for any reproach I have brought on my friends and family. I am sorry I didn’t consult with an attorney until weeks after her death. I fully cooperated with the Gaston County Police. I voluntarily gave them a gun shot residue test, DNA samples, polygraph test, integration without attorneys, I voluntarily let them search my home; bring out the arson dog, etc. I also voluntarily turned myself in.
Note that "I am sorry" is often found in guilty statements. Here he is "deeply" sorry for bringing "reproach". How would an innocent man, falsely accused, bring reproach upon anyone?
Note that he is not "deeply" sorry, but "sorry", without sensitivity indicators, that he did not get an attorney sooner. This should be carefully viewed:
"deeply sorry" would indicate sensitivity. He has "deep" sorrow for bringing "reproach" on his friends and family. The sensitivity indicator may be deceptive. As it is dropped, the issue becomes serious: "I am sorry I didn't consult..." This suggests that his regret is not friends and family, but about not getting an attorney sooner.
Why? Here is the answer:
"voluntarily"
Note that when any word is repeated, it is "sensitive" or important. He "fully" cooperated; not just cooperated, with police and three times uses the word "voluntarily" following his sorrow.
It is likely that a defense attorney would not have had any of this "cooperation" by his client and he now regrets all of these "voluntary" actions. Had he had an attorney earlier, these things would not have happened.
It has been 26 weeks since Lucy’s death, and it has been pure agony and hell for me and my family and my friends. I have sat back quietly all these months and not said a word.
Note focus upon self. Note that "sat" indicates tension and he has "not said a word" right after speaking about all the things he did to "fully" cooperate, which would mean speaking.
I have never tried to run or hide;
Please note that "tried" in the past tense indicates attempt and failure. He failed to "run or hide" which is something we shall see more of:
I have lived my life day in and day out like I normally would since her death.
The word "normal" is flagged as it enters the vocabulary when someone is accused previously of being abnormal. When someone tells us that their day was "normal" it is a strong indication that it was anything but normal. Here, his life since then has been anything but normal.
I was home on the night of July 16th, all night, just me and my dog Kayla. I didn’t think when I went to bed that night, I would need an alibi. I am penalized for being single, as I didn’t have another person with me in my home that night. My alarm system records (which the police do have) confirm that my alarm was set at 12:16 AM on the 16th and disarmed at 7:17 AM on the 16th.
Note the added emphasis. Extra words, that is, those of which a sentence works if removed, give us additional information. It was not that he was home but he was home "all night". The stress upon "all night" is an indication that he was not home all night. Note theadmission of needing an "alibi" is not something an innocent person would claim ownership of.
Note the inclusion of the alibi: his alarm system and his dog. The specifics tell us the need for alibi: exact time. This may also suggest premeditation and planning.
Because of his emphasis of another "person" (gender neutral), I would want to know if he met up with anyone on the night of the murder.
This is a prime example of malicious prosecution by the Gaston County Police Department and Locke Bell, the Gaston County DA. This has been nothing more than a “witch hunt”. They need to blame someone, so why not get the finance (sic)? They are arresting me on purely circumstantial evidence, without any physical evidence. It’s hard to find physical evidence when you weren’t there!
Note that he reduces circumstantial evidence to "purely" circumstantial evidence.
Before noting that "you" (2nd person) weren't there, which is an obvious weakening (rather than him saying "I wasn't there", the analyst should note that he is not saying that there is not physical evidence, only that it is "hard to find". This should tell investigators that he is aware of physical evidence in existence but it will be hard to find.
Having done the analysis on his letter to media about being found not guilty, along with this analysis, and it brings me to a question of money, and fighting over it. See the following:
The sad part is the real killer is still out there living his life, he has the baby, he gets Lucy’s social security plus doesn’t have to pay her child support,
Note that this one sentence may give you, the reader/analyst, the motive: he did not want to pay 18 years of child support. Note the age, 18, as having entered into his statement.
His relationship to her would have meant 18 years of paying child support to Lucy. Itis so sensitive to him that once arrested for her shooting, it is important enough for him to mention it about another man.
this is likely the motive for the killing. Note his mentioning of "work" but this man gets her social security, money not worked for. This is sensitive to the subject.
while the guy who was good to her and loved her, sits in jail awaiting trail. Lucy and I only knew one another 92 days, and were only engaged for 5 days before her death. We met on Yahoo Personals, she contacted me, we met and were together ever since. I have never been a violent criminal, and have no history of violence. I have never hit or hurt a woman or man for that matter
Note the sensitivity of repetition, as well as the need to revisit the topic: this is an indicator of violence. Prior to this statement, it is likely that he was never a violent "criminal", but a violent -yet-to-be-caught person. This is why he must follow up with qualifying sentences about violence. There likely exists those who knew him prior to the killing who would testify that he was violent.
. I got caught up in Lucy’s drama with her baby (Cason’s) father, I was caught in the cross fire. Lucy’s family attorney; Michael Hodnett can attest to this. It is a shame that in this day and time the police are not intelligent enough to figure out what really happened here, they just want to close the case. So now we will have to prove that I didn’t do it.
Note that he got caught and now feels obligated to prove; not himself, but "we", to prove otherwise. He got caught and he did not expect to be caught.
I had absolutely no motive,
The need to add the word "absolutely" is a sensitivity indicator. Note that another man doesn't "have to" pay child support (above)
and nothing to gain from her death. Lucy, Lauren, Cason, Christian, myself and my parents were all planning to leave for a vacation in the Tennessee mountains the Saturday after her death, additionally we were having a birthday party to celebrate Lucy’s 31st birthday and my nephews 3rd birthday before we left on vacation. The 92 days I got to spend with Lucy were absolutely the best times I’ve ever had. We just clicked from day one. I have worked hard my entire life in the engineering field, and now I stand to loose everything I have worked for my entire life, all because they accuse me falsely. When I am acquitted and absolved of this charge, the good people of Gaston County will also be served injustice.
Note that working for money is an important and sensitive topic for him and now he "stands" (tension indicated) to lose money. The repetition of money is the likely motive. He would not gain money from her death, but he would not "have to" pay child support. It may be that he demanded she abort the child and she refused. I would not be surprised to learn that abortion was something that the victim told her mother or family or close friends about. This may be another reason why he emphasised church, besides the thought of 18 years until adulthood where child support could no longer be mandated.
Note when he is acquitted and absolved, the public will have "injustice" according to the subject.
These events have shattered my world forever. My life has been turned upside down all because I made one decision to go out with one girl. It’s like a light switch was flicked, and my entire world came crumbling down. I am absolutely certain that I will be absolved and acquitted of the charges against me.
Note that she is now a "girl" minimizing language (and insulting) . When language changes, and there is no justification, it is likely deception, as memory works easily and consistently. His decision, or regret, likely came from the pregnancy. He did not expect to be found not guilty.
I have hired a great criminal defense attorney and have a team in place. I put my faith in God at this point it’s all I have.
Note he has nothing but God, just after saying he had a "great criminal defense attorney; not just a great lawyer.
They can take everything from me, but they can’t take my faith away from me. I ask that all Christian’s everywhere pray for me daily, and pray for justice to be done. I truly care about other people, and have always been generous and helpful. I have gone on mission trips, donated lots of money to charity and good causes.
Note two important issues:
1. Narcissism
2. Money
It is likely that people would come forward and say that he only cared about himself.
note the love of money and the anger he had about "having" to pay child support.
Note through out the letter he cannot hide that it is all about him, and not about a mother being murdered.
Those people in my life who know me the best, will tell you exactly that, “Mike loves people”. I would also remind each of you, not to believe everything you will be hearing in the media. The media likes to twist things and get partial stories. At this point I am not sure what they have for a theory or motive, only that they want to make me pay. Again I adamantly deny the charges against me, and hope all of my friends; family and business associates will come forward and support me. I am innocent and a victim of a great injustice. My faith in God during theses time will sustain me. I ask that each of you keep me in your prayers, and work with my family and friends during this difficult time.
Note that he comes close to saying "I didn't do it" in the opening of the letter, stating that he wants those to know, but still avoids saying it there, and throughout the letter. There are plenty of indicators of deception, including the name change. Denying the charges is not a denial, and "I am innocent" is technically true at the time of the writing; he had not been adjudicated. This letter is an intent to persuade, not report, and confirms the analysis of the statement he wrote after acquittal.
In this letter, he not only indicates deception, but speaks of what was likely the motive for killing her: the pregnancy.
The pregnancy would mean 18 years of child support and to him, his money which came from his work, is central. He projects his own selfish, violent ways upon the reader, by attempting to persuade them, those who already know him, that he is kind and generous. A kind and generous person has no need of telling those who know him such things. He was not going to get stuck paying child support for 18 years, and now is angry that another man doesn't have to pay child support.
This letter reveals a cold, narcissistic deceiver, who hides behind a thin veil of religion in order to manipulate others.
Sincerely, Michael L. Mead
No comments:
Post a Comment