In Statement Analysis, because we follow the rules of grammar, we ask the reader/analyst to ask himself or herself:
How would I answer this question? Or, "How would I start out my statement?" due to the reader/analyst's innocence. This simple exercise can open up a window of opportunity for understanding. When we analyze 911 calls, for example, we ask, "what would you say if your child was missing?" or "what would you say if your husband was bleeding?" It helps gain perspective.
Edited version of Wikipedia:
The Oklahoma Girl Scout murders is an unresolved crime in rural Mayes County, Oklahoma. On a rainy, late-spring night in 1977, three girls—ages 8, 9, and 10—were raped andmurdered and their bodies left in the woods near their tent at summer camp. Although the case was classified as "solved" when Gene Leroy Hart, a local jail escapee with a history of violence was arrested, and stood trial for the crime, he was acquitted. Thirty years later authorities conducted new DNA testing, but the results of these proved inconclusive, as the samples were too old.[1] In 1977, Camp Scott was in its 49th year as a keystone of the Tulsa-based Magic Empire Girl Scout Council. Situated along the confluence of Snake Creek and Spring Creek nearState Highway 82, the 410-acre (1.7 km2) compound was located between Locust Grove and Tahlequah.
Gene Leroy Hart had been at large since escaping four years earlier from the Mayes County Jail. He had been convicted of raping and kidnapping two pregnant women as well as four counts of first degree burglary.
Hart was raised about a mile from Camp Scott.
Less than two months before the murders, during an on-site training session, a camp counselor found her belongings ransacked, her doughnuts stolen, and inside the empty doughnut box was a disturbing hand-written note. The author vowed to murder three campers. The director of that camp session treated the note as a prank and it was discarded. [2]
June 12, 1977 was the first day of camp. Around 6pm a thunderstorm hit, and the girls huddled in their tents. Among them were Tulsans Lori Lee Farmer, 8, and Doris Denise Milner, 10, along with Michele Guse, 9, of Broken Arrow, a suburb of Tulsa. The trio were sharing tent #8 in the camp's "Kiowa" unit, named for a Native American tribe.
[edit]The killings
The following morning, a counselor made the discovery of a girl's body in the forest. Soon, it was discovered that all three girls in tent #8 had been killed. Subsequent testing showed that they had been raped, bludgeoned, and strangled.
Gene Leroy Hart, a Cherokee, was arrested within a year at the home of a Cherokee medicine man and tried in March, 1979. Although the local sheriff pronounced himself "one thousand percent" certain the man on trial committed the crimes, a local jury acquitted Hart.
As a convicted rapist and jail escapee, he still had 305 of his 308 years left to serve in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary. In June 1979, during a jog inside the jail, he collapsed and died of an apparent heart attack.(end of entry)
Part 1
Gene Leroy Hart: The Case
____
On Friday, June 1, Cherokee Nation employees Jeff McLemore, Dan Garber, and Gwen LeMaster conducted and interview for the Cherokee Advocate with Gene Leroy Hart and his attorneys Gavin Isaacs and Gary Pitchlynn in the visitors' center at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary at McAlester. There was no way for the six persons in that paneled conference room to anticipate that this was to be the first and only exclusive interview Hart would ever grant. He permitted the interview because he felt the publication of his story through the tribal newspaper would allow him to speak to his people without the risk of having his words distorted or sensationalized by the non-Indian media. As he stated in an earlier personal letter to LeMaster,"...rarely, if ever does it appear in print just the way something was said. That's my main reason for ignoring the media. After giving it a lot of thought and talking with my attorney, I have decided to give an interview, if anyone is interested, but only to the Cherokee Advocate, no others. I feel that our people should have an opportunity to hear me say something and I also think that I owe them that much."
Three days following his meeting with the Cherokee Advocate, Gene Hart collapsed and died after suffering a massive heart attack. Upon receiving the news of his death, certain members of the team of prosecutors who unsuccessfully attempted to persuade a jury to convinct Hart of the June, 1977 murders of three Girl Scouts near Locust Grove, strongly intimated to the press that Hart's ultimate fate had been decided by a "higher authority" than a court of law. These kinds of statements were apparently intended to persuade the public that Hart was guilty of those crimes after all, in spite of an overwhelming lack of evidence and despite the fact that a jury of his peers found him not guilty. It would appear that those members of the prosecution team felt it should be relatively easy to convict Hart of those crimes now that he is dead and can no longer defend himself. Unknown to them, however, the Cherokee Advocate's interview had been held at McAlester on June 1 which, in effect, allows Gene Hart to respond to their remarks and to tell, for the first time, his side of the story. Here is what Gene Hart said on that day.
____
Hart: This was my idea to do this. I feel like the media as a whole did pretty well try to do their best to try to get me convicted. And, our people need to know, and I want to talk to them through the paper. I figure it's the best way to do it. More of them will know. I can't write to all of them, but I can reach all of them, or most of them, through the paper.
Order is always important. It can show priority, either with the first thing said, or, as in the giving of lists, save the 'bombshell' for last, for emphasis. In the case of guilt or innocence, the pattern is a quick and strong denial, without qualifiers, or indicators of sensitivity. It comes from the first person, has a past tense verb, and is specific. Note that Hart begins the interview with his emphasis on the interview itself, not upon guilt or innocence.
How would you open up an interview if you had been arrested for the murder of 3 girl scouts?
Would you say or write, "I can tell them all that I didn't murder these girls..."?
Advocate: After a warrant was issues for your arrest in connection with the Girl Scout murders, you eluded law enforcement officers for about ten months. How much can you tell us about your whereabouts during the period?
Hart: For the ten-month period of time? Well, what time I wasn't with...(turning to Isaacs and Pitchlynn)..Think I ought to go into that?
Note that the answer begins with a question. This indicates that the question about his 10 month avoiding of police is a sensitive question. He further examples the sensitivity by asking for counsel on the question.
Pitchlynn: If it's not going to involve some other people.
Hart: Well, it would involve others. I wouldn't want to offer any names that might hurt other people.
This suggests that he had help in his avoiding of police but it is important to note that he does not state that others helped him. Note "wouldn't want" and "might" are not strong commitments and the reader/analyst should not conclude guilty knowledge on the part of others. It may exists, but his words do not confirm it.
Advocate: I think, Gene, what we're asking is if you were alone or with friends and family? You were portrayed as an expert woodsman living out in the woods and caves.
Hart: Oh yeah. Well, I watched this on television and it was kind of comical in a sense. It was serious, but the law enforcement people knew that there wasn't anybody out there. From what I saw on TV, I just don't see how anybody could travel from one place to another as fast as I supposedly was traveling from one area to another. I was seen in probably a thousand different places.
Note that as he was on the run, he watched news stories about the search for the killer of 3 children and found it "kind of comical"
Note that "but" refutes that which came before it. What came before "but" was the word "serious"
Note that "I supposedly" does not deny traveling from one area to another.
Advocate: But you were staying with friends? Usually in some type of housing?
Hart: Oh yeah, yeah.
Note that a compound question allows the subject to pick and choose which question to answer. Here one question is: "staying with friends?" and the other is "housing?" We do not know which he answers, however, the repetition of "yeah, yeah" shows sensitivity. We know that it could be sensitive if he did not want to get friends in trouble, or it could be sensitive because he did not stay with friends.
Advocate: Did you ever leave the state?
Hart: (Turning to Isaacs and Pitchlynn) Have those federal charges been dropped?
Note his understanding of the charges. He answers the question with a question, indicating that crossing the state line is a sensitive topic. If this is deception, it would indicate that he either crossed the state lines, or that he wanted, via deception, to be believed or thought he was out of state when he wasn't, with the former being more the likely: he had left the state.
Pitchlynn: Not officially.
Hart: There is still a federal charge for Interstate flight. I've never been arraigned on it. Usually it's dropped when you're arrested. They can't prove I've been out of the state.
"I've been out of state" may be an embedded admission.
Advocate: Were you ever hungry?
Hart: I don't remember very many hungry days. Not very many, other than just being hungry and deciding to go eat. Other than that, as I say, I was portrayed as somebody living in the woods for three and a half or four years. That's not possible. Nobody can live out there that long. As cold as the winters are and what with the parasites in the summer and the snakes and the weather. Why, nobody can live out there like that. Live off the land. Our ancestors might have done it, but I can't. I'm not able to do it.
The sensitivity indicators show that he likely confronted hunger (but then hunted or scavenged), cold, parasites and snakes.
Note that "live off the land" drops pronoun.
Note that "I'm not able..." is in the present tense, not the past tense.
Advocate: Then obviously you were pretty well informed about the manhunt if you watched it on TV?
Hart: I was informed and advised at all times. There was very little that happened that I didn’t know about.
Note that watching TV and following the news, which was "comical" or amusing to him, reveals a personality that enjoys the attention and feeling smarter than others. Note that "very little that happened that I didn't know" is sensitive as it is not only in the negative, but begs the question: how would he know that things happened that he, himself, didn't know? This reveals his arrogance.
Advocate: When did you first hear about the Girl Scout murders, and how did you hear about it?
Hart: I got it through the media. It must have been, I guess, the same day it happened. That night maybe.
Advocate: Then when they linked your name with it, what was your first reaction?
Hart: First reaction? (pause) Disbelief...shock. But I did feel, just by virtue of me being an escapee and being from the area, that I might be a suspect. This was up until the charge were filed, something like nine or ten days after it happened. I did feel like I might have been a suspect. But just like I say, was disbelief and shock. When I realized I was charged with it...and my idea, my thinking at the time... and I thought it was good... was, I'll just lay low and the longer I stay away from them, sooner or later these people are going to solve this and they'll leave me alone. That was my thinking. I figured the longer I stayed away, the better off I am. I'll just stay out of their way and, surely, they will sole it sooner or later.
The question is answered with a question, indicating sensitivity. This is often done because the subject is stalling for time to think (see Casey Anthony 911 call)
Note that he felt "disbelief" but thought "I might be a suspect" in it.
This question is a perfect time for him to make a strong denial in the killings.
"Like I said" (etc) is a self reference. Note here, however, it is "like I say" meaning present tense.
A self reference indicates that the subject is not working from experiential memory, but from the memory of what he previously said. (see Billie Jean Dunn as someone attempting to remember what she previously told the press, rather than the ease of experiential memory).
The present tense "like I say" is even more sensitive as an indication that the subject is aware that he does not want to contradict himself, currently, and is not speaking from experiential memory. It should be noted for deception in "disbelief and shock". He is likely aware that he has contradicted himself. He was not shocked (nor in disbelief) that he was a suspect.
Note that he thought the longer he stayed away, the better it would be for him. Note that here is the logical place to declare innocency, but he does not. What he thought, at the time, was to avoid police for a period of time; not that he was innocent, or being falsely accused.
His arrogance will likely show itself in his answers. Deceptive people think they can outsmart others and enjoy doing so when successful; it is the pride of deception that often causes them to get caught.
Advocate: Was that your logic for not turning yourself in?
Hart: Oh yeah, plus the fact that I had something like 305 years to serve in the state penitentiary, which is not something I looked forward to. But the main thing is, I thought sooner or later they’d solve it. They should have been able to, and they still could if they wanted to, I think.
Note the weakness of "think" and the sensitivity of repetition. He only "thinks" they would solve it; and this only if they "wanted" to. This means that police didn't want to solve it, according to the subject, but this assertion itself is only weakened by "I think." There is still no denial of the brutal murders.
Advocate: Prior to that period, when you were at larger following your escape, it seemed to have been common knowledge that you were in the area. What’s your explanation of why you weren’t picked up?
Hart: (laughter) Well, we’ve been over that (gesturing towards his attorneys). It is pretty common knowledge, probably, that I visited with my relatives and friends in that area at one time or another. It’s either that I’m super-smart or the law enforcement in that area is super-dumb. It has to be one or the other, and I really don’t feel like I’m that smart, so there you are. (laughter)
The laughter is a sign of arrogance and holding his searchers in contempt.
The additional words, such as "really" give us additional information: his arrogance comes from getting away with deception and outsmarting police for the period of time when he survived in the woods and from the assistance of others.
Advocate: Virtually every news report published or broadcast in connection with you identified you as a “fullblood Cherokee”. What was your reaction to that?
Hart: Well, the only reaction I have…I looked at it for what it was. It was just the media, and it sounds better than just the name. it seems to sound better and looks better in print. That’s the only thing I can really see…for purposes of identification. That would be another reason, probably, why it was broadcast in this manner.
"well" indicates pause to think.
Advocate: but, in your opinion, did it have any relationship to the case? The fact that you are a fullblood?
Hart: I don’t think so. I don’t believe I did. I don’t believe it had any relevance. I like to think that it didn’t, but you know, it may have been in the eyes of the public, which I’m not aware of because I don’t read newspapers or watch TV. So, in their eyes, maybe, but in mine I see no relevance.
Note that he wished to speak to "our" people and not the press in general. Note anything in the negative as significant.
Here, he does not read news papers nor watch TV. See his above statement in which there was "nothing" he didn't miss on TV regarding the case. This highlights the sensitivity of that which is in the negative.
Advocate: during the manhunt, did you fear if you had been caught that your life would have been in jeopardy? Did you fear for your life?
Hart: That’s a touchy question to answer and I’ll answer it like this: If I had been arrested by law enforcement agencies, say, the Mayes County Sheriff’s Office or the deputy, that we wouldn’t be here now having an interview. And, one reason that there was no harm ever brought to me..no harm came to me during… because I was arrested by the OSBI (Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation). For this very simple reason: I was a trophy you know…it was just that simple. And they’re a pet agency of the Governor himself. So, it made them look so much better for me to be in good health, uninjured and with agents all around me.
(There was a pause in the interview as a trustee came into the conference room and poured hot coffee for everyone).
Hart: At the time of my arrest, the agents..there were a number of them there…eight, nine, or ten…something like that. I don’t remember how many…they had to make sure that they took a picture of me with the agents around me as a souvenir pictures…in the yard while they placed me in the car. One of them takes a picture and then he gets to do it awhile. Another one takes a picture and they just change places.
Note the narcissism; not the fascination with being a "souvenir" but note also no affirmation of innocence.
Advocate: What were you doing at this time? Just standing there?
Hart: No, I’m handcuffed. And Agent (Larry) Bowles has me by the arm and another one on this side (indicating his opposite arm). I don’t remember all the agents that were there. But that’s all they were…just souvenir pictures. There’s no doubt about that. They weren’t used for identification at all. As a matter of fact, they weren’t even sure who they had until we got to the OSBI office in Tahlequah.
Note that body posture described later is always significant. Here, it is likely he knows which agents were there, and sets himself up as the center of attention, literally between two agents.
Advocate: Did you get the feeling it was like a big game hunt and you were the game?
Successful interviewing avoids introducing new language. Here, the interviewer gives him the language "big game hunt" and "game" rather than allow the subject to describe himself. This is the perception of the interviewer.
Hart: That’s exactly what it amounted to. I was the elusive white animal. White..uh…elephant, I guess, that couldn’t be found. To them it was more of a political catch than a real arrest, in my opinion. It was? I know that organization. And I know that’s what it was. Somebody they can parade around in front of the TV cameras, make statements about. To my way of thinking, that’s what it was and I know that’s how they feel about it even though they might deny it, but it’s still true. I know it’s true.
Not only did he consider himself "elusive" but also a rarity (white elephant) to be prized; worthy of being paraded around and considered worthy of statements.
Advocate: That leads me into the events of the day of the arrest. I’m sure that day probably stands out in your mind.
Hart: Yes.
Advocate: Can you tell us what you recall about what your activities were earlier that day, and then the events surrounding the arrest itself?
Hart: Well, I usually got up pretty early. Woke up about the same time that I usually woke up, which was somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 o’clock. And, uh, we’d have breakfast…coffee. During the day, mostly, if there was nothing else to do, I’d either read or…and just about every day I’d work out with a set of weights I had. And, that was pretty much my activity during the day. I didn’t go anywhere…other than outside…on that day. It was just like any other day.
Deception indicated regarding the activities of the day of the arrest.
Note that he reports what he "usually" did; not what he did. Then, he dropped the pronoun in "woke up" which means we cannot say that he woke up because he hasn't told us so. This day was not a "normal" day (note that when the word "normal"; or its concept, enters a statement, it means anything but normal) ---note the sensitivity of repetition and that which is in the negative; he didn't go anywhere. This portion of his statement indicates deception and that it may have been he was up all night.
But I had seen the van that was used (in the arrest) previous to them running in the house. I seen (sic) it something like probably an hour, hour and a half before the arrest took place. I seen (sic) it down under the hill. I did see the van. And, uh, I got out of the house. I left the house.
He is withholding information at this point and "seeing" the van is sensitive. It is likely he does not want to be considered caught unaware or off guard, as that would portray him as less than smart, something sensitive to him. The word "left" indicates that at this point, he has withheld information critical to the account.
I was standing in the timber and the van was parked under the hill there.. five or ten minutes…and then it left. And at that time…I didn’t know it..but what had happened, they had gone up the hill, let agents out and parked down there and left. And, uh, I went back into the house. Shortly thereafter, they had the house surrounded. When they came into the house with a shotgun something like two and a half, three feet from my head, you know, I just..I surrendered (laughter). And, this happened…oh, it was just so quick!
It is a tense time for him ("standing") and likely the arresting officers would describe a different reaction than the one he gave here.
Advocate: What were you doing at the time? Do you recall?
Hart: I had just finished working out. I was getting ready to wash up. And, uh, all I remember…I went to shut the back door and by the time I got back into the front room, they were already there. One of them was. And I was taken outside. I asked the agent if I could put on my pants. I had on a pair of shorts. And he said, “No”. I was placed on the ground. At this time the agents asked, “Who are you? What’s your name? What’s your name?” You know, they kept...a bunch of them kept asking me this. That’s why I know they didn’t know who they had. They didn’t even know where they were. The first press release (said) that I was arrested in Adair County and it was in Cherokee County. That tells you right there that they didn’t know where they were.
"all I can remember" is an indication that he does not wish to tell more of the account. The arresting officers will fill in the embarrassing or sensitive parts he wishes to pass over.
Note that "I was placed on the ground" is soft or passive language. This is likely not accurate. The moment this took place is sensitive to him; noted by "this" being closer than "that"
"You know" enters a statement when the subject is acutely aware of the interviewer.
His "name" is sensitive: important to him.
Note: "who they had" is egotistical and shows his self importance, ie, his name.
The narcissistic suspect did not deny the killings. He showed what was most important to him; not protesting his arrest, but that he be properly credited for outsmarting the police for so long. His deception is plain, and the events of his arrest, itself, bother him and likely do not portray him in the favorable light he wishes to be seen, especially since "our" people; not the public, would be reading this.
An innocent man makes his denial early, often, and without sensitivity indicators. Here, we have none but a view of self, and how important it is to him that he be portrayed as 'front and center' of the story; not the victims.
No comments:
Post a Comment