"People make mistakes"
"My daughter never hurt anybody," Rodriguez said. "All I want is my daughter. I don't care if you drop her off somewhere where somebody can get ahold of her. I don't have anything against anybody. I realize that people make mistakes and I don't care where you drop her off at, just make sure somebody can get ahold of her and bring her home." Edgar Rodriquez
We have posted the sensitivity indicators found in the statements of Edgar Rodriquez, including deception and an issue of sensitivity with the word "bike" that is concerning.
We have also seen that in his timeline for Breeann's disappearance that he is deliberately withholding information about the area near 10AM.
Last night, he was on the Nancy Grace Show. Statement Analysis is in bold type:
GRACE: This 3-year-old little girl taken from in front of her own home. Her parents inside. Along with her, her pink bicycle, training wheels still attached.
To Todd Bonacki, KZIM. I understand that the training wheels had been found, thrown into a corn field?
TODD BONACKI, REPORTER, KZIM NEWS RADIO: That`s exactly right, Nancy. I tell you what, here in the heartland of America, the worst nightmare of parents could possibly experience is continuing, chilling evidence found in the last 48 hours just breaking now late today. They are confirming two training wheels have been found and Nancy, we understand Breeann`s father says he`s absolutely sure that these were the ones attached to his little girl`s bike when it disappeared with her Saturday morning at 11:30 in the morning. He says he knows for sure that he manipulated these two training wheels to fit and form her bike to fit her height. And he knows these are an absolute perfect match.
GRACE: With us, Todd Bonacki, KZIM. And speaking of Breeann`s father he is with us tonight, Edgar Rodriguez, father of Brianne.
Edgar, Thank you for being with us. Explain to me how you know for sure that these training wheels are the ones attached, that were attached to her body?
Note that the question is: How do you know that these are her training wheels? In Statement Analysis, the shortest answer is best. Since Breeann is missing, we would expect to hear "because I recognized them..." and to hear Breeann's name used, since this is the first time he is speaking of her.
EDGAR RODRIGEZ, BREEANN`S FATHER: "Well, we bought her the bike and I put the training wheels on. When she would ride it outside, any type of indentation on the ground the middle wheel would spin because it was supported by the training wheels. And I keep telling myself that I was going to take a wrench and loosen one up. But I never did and one time, I was outside with my daughter and I got upset because she kept having trouble with it. So I told her to get off, and I bent one of the wheel and that way the bike wouldn`t be so wobbly. It`d be supported more on the middle wheel.
The word "well" is used to make time to think of an answer. Note that "we" now changes to "I". The use of the word "we" is appropriate if he is speaking for her, but this is via telephone and it should be considered weak and sensitive. Note some additional wording: "my daughter" instead of using her name; note "I got upset" and that he uses the word "told" to a 3 year old. This is the 3 year old that he said must get up, brush teeth, get herself breakfast before she can go out, as if she is much older. The word "told" is stronger than "said" and taken with "I got upset" is an indication that Edgar Rodriquez lost his temper.
Why does he include a memory of losing his temper while his child is missing? Please note that getting "upset" occurred in association with:
1. Breann
2. Her bike
This may be our first insight of what happened to Breeann Rodriquez.
Here, he told the host, former prosecutor, "I got upset" but was not asked a follow up question to it. Note that he introduced this into the topic while answering a simple question about recognizing the training wheels. Recall that this memory, that is, one of getting upset, is one that he associates when speaking about his daughter, rather than just id'ing the training wheels.
The bike is sensitive as he has used it repeatedly (see prior analysis this week) and police have hinted that evidence may have been thrown there to trick them, which may be these training wheels.
And when they told me about it, I told them that they told me how I could identify this training wheel and they showed me one. It had no bend in it. No bend whatsoever. And I told the FBI at that time if that had a bend on the top part of it, the other one should. I didn`t see the other training wheel for about 20 minutes later. And that`s when the FBI pretty much realized and they didn`t have to show it to me. But they did. And that`s when they showed it to me. I 100 percent know. (Inaudible)
Adversarial.
The word "told" is used rather than "said" (or others) which suggests that this was a strong exchange and was adversarial. This explains why, in prior statements, he showed that the police were withholding information from him. The training wheels themselves, show sensitivity indicators (via repetition) and should cause police to question deception using the bike or bike parts.
"I didn't see" is reported in the negative, in an open statement. This means it is important. What didn't he see? The bent training wheel. This one is important as it identifies the wheels as belonging to him. Note anything reported in the negative is important (not necessary to call it deceptive). We then flag it as important and seek to learn why it is important.
Note that here he is speaking for himself and the use of the word "we" should be considered weak. Note that when he switches to the first person singular, it should be considered important and personal.
Note that he says "that's pretty much when the FBI realized" which would show that he knows what their thinking is. This is noted as deceptive.
This may be when the FBI figured out he was a suspect. He cannot tell us what the FBI was thinking, yet he wishes to portray the relationship as cooperative, rather than adversarial.
GRACE: Right. Mr. Rodriguez, let me ask you. Why do you believe that you and the child`s mother failed your polygraphs?
The question is not "why did you fail it?" but why do you believe you failed it. This is a poorly worded question if the goal is information regarding failure of a polygraph in a missing child case.
RODRIGUEZ: "I don`t know. Honestly. Honestly, when my wife went in there first to do the polygraph and she failed it. I mean, of course as a father when somebody tells you somebody fails a polygraph, it automatically raises a doubt. You know? "
Edgar Rodriquez was not surprised that his wife failed the polygraph.
a. "I don't know" may be a general answer to "why did you fail it?"
b. "honestly, honestly" is repeated, which means that "honest" is a sensitive topic to the subject.
c. Please note "when my wife went in there first" indicates that he is thinking of when either she, or he, went in their "next" or "second"; which is related to the failure. It is likely that he is considering his own failure when answering about hers. Please also note that we do not have the direct question from Nancy Grace.
If, however, the question was about his reaction to his wife's failure, this is a direct answer. If it is a general question to both failing:
He is avoiding answering about his results indicating his failure is sensitive.
d. "of course" means that he wants the audience to accept what he says without questioning it. However, we must note that he uses the 2nd person, "you" and not himself. He portrays being informed of a failed polygraph by a wife when a child is missing something casual for any father to experience. This is minimization and it should alert investigators to deception as there is a need to minimize.
e. Note what he did not tell us: He did not tell us is raises doubt for him.
"it raises doubt" is passive. This indicates, along with the 2nd person, "you" being "as a father" is highly weak. "You", as a father, may have doubts raised, but please note that he did not say that he had doubts about his wife. Deceptive people count on you, the reader/listener, to interpret what they said. Statement Analysis teaches to listen to what someone has said, rather than interpret it.
He said that for you, a father, it will raise doubts about his wife failing a polygraph, but he did not say that for him, as the father, or Breeann's father, he has doubts. The use of "of course" coupled with "you" (2nd person) and the passivity of "it raised doubts" in conclusion show deception:
Analysis Conclusion: He was not surprised by his wife's failed polygraph.
.
GRACE: The training wheels apparently removed from this little girl`s bike found discarded in a corn field. With me, her father who struggled to get those training wheels on to the bike is convinced these are the training wheels.
To Mr. Edgar Rodriguez, you were explaining your theory as to why you and your wife failed the poly.
RODRIGUEZ: Yes. I mean, I don`t know. I mean to be completely honest with you; I mean I really don`t believe that we did fail it. When they told me, I thought it might have been like some kind of tool the FBI uses to squeeze every drop of information relevant or not you can give them. They just say we failed it. I don`t know why.
Note that he frames the words "we failed it" twice.
Note that he only "means" or intends to be "completely" honest with Nancy Grace. This indicates that it is likely that he has not been completely honest with her, only that he intends to be. Note that he "really" doesn't believe that "we" failed. He is no longer speaking for himself when he says "we" failed it. He does not say "I don't think" but qualifies it with "I don't really think" which weakens an already weak assertion. This is an indication that he knows he was not honest on every question on the polygraph.
GRACE: Mr. Rodriguez, it speaks to volumes to me that you are coming on with us tonight and answering your questions as well as the viewers` question. I want to get out the tip line. 866-371-tips.
Alexis, what about the white van?
ALEXIS WEED, PRODUCER, THE NANCY GRACE SHOW: Police are looking for a white van that is believed to have been seen around Breeann`s home a couple of days before she went missing on Saturday. This van is said to be a cargo style white van. They don`t know the make, the model, the year of this van. But it said to have no windows on the side but perhaps a ladder leading up the back that would access the roof of that van.
GRACE: Everyone, I want to confirm that the parents in this case have been totally cooperative with police. Even going out and searching for the little girl themselves.
The tip line 866-371-tips. There`s a nearly $50,000 reward to find Breeann.
No comments:
Post a Comment