Earlier, we looked at "coffee" in Statement Analysis, and why it sometimes enters into a statements.
Most of us drink coffee in the morning when we wake up, but would we feel it important enough to have it enter into out statement? What is it about coffee that may be important enough to enter into our statement, especially something as important as a police statement?
Coffee is often associated with social activity; that is, many times "coffee" enters into a subject's statement because the subject drank coffee with someone else and the other person (or conversation) is sensitive, or important to the subject.
When a subject mentions coffee our response is this: We ask a follow up question to learn if the person was with someone else. That is it. If the person was alone, we move on, but by stopping for a follow up question we often uncover valuable material, and if the subject was alone, so be it, we have only used up 30 additional seconds in our interview.
But what about water?
In the Amanda Knox analysis, a commentator asked why water would enter into a subject's statement in a case like this?
The answer is along the lines of psychology 101 with washing, cleansing, etc.
Sexual abuse victims will often wash themselves repeatedly, as if to clean or shower the ugliness off of them. Sexual abuse victims sometimes blame themselves and try to wash off guilt or wash away the 'dirty' or filthy memories of what happened to them. In fact, child protective caseworkers are trained not only to ask relevant questions, but to listen carefully, and look for clues. even to the point of observing a child. A sexually abused child will often fixate on bodily functions, including frequent bed wetting, or touching their own waste. Extreme cases are sometimes seen by school teachers where a child would even bring his own feces to school. It is a signal that the child has been sexually abused. Frequent showering or hand washing is sometimes a signal, even at school, as a child may repeatedly run to the bathroom to wash his or her hands.
There are many other indicators of possible sexual abuse. For example: bed wetting.
Most all kids wet the bed, and grow out of it. In fact, few make it through potty training without 'accidents' in life. Some wet the bed due to medical conditions, and some even wet the bed due to anxiety. Some simply grow out of it, and others get medicinal relief.
Some wet the bed because of sexual abuse.
A child protective caseworker will ask questions about sleep habits of children but it is when a child is talking that the key to the sexual abuse may unlock the mystery: water, blankets. We listen for any reference to washings, in any way; hands, clothes, etc.
What has been learned is that those involved in sexual assaults/homicides will also assimilate with water, just as victims do. Assailants will mention in their statement, "I stopped to get gas, washed up, and kept going..." Most people wash their hands after using the bathroom, but most people do not feel the need to tell others that they washed their hands. Most people do not include hand washing in a police statement; when they do, we listen.
Amanda Knox referenced showering, even to the detail about her boyfriend washing her ears. This is a linguistic signal of involvement in a sexual crime. A astute commentator speculated that perhaps she mentioned (twice) her ears being washed (sensitive) due to the attempt to 'wash' away the screams of Meredith before she died. Amanda Knox introduced water several times in her statement, alerting trained interviewers to the sexual connection.
Misty Croslin did the same. In her statement, she talked about doing the laundry. Later, Ronald Cummings said "there was no detergent" but it changed nothing. We all do laundry, but few, if any, will ever mention this in a statement, particularly in a police statement.
We all edit and leave out information. Statement Analysis recognizes that what is included is what the subject wanted to include, making it important, or sensitive, to the subject.
Another interesting aside: coverings.
Blankets, coverings, etc. Mostly associated with child abuse:
"I took a shower, dried off with a towel, and got dressed..."
Think about this statement. Even those who say "I got up, took a shower, ate breakfast and went to work" would not mention that they dried off with a towel. We do not think that someone would get out of the shower, and run around the backyard until dry. In fact, we say that drying off with a towel is needless information. Needless information is doubly important to analysis. When someone says they dried off with a towel, or mention any kind of covering with a blanket, it is a signal that they may have been sexually abused in childhood.
When we go to bed, we cover ourselves with blankets. We all do it. It does not mean we were all sexually abused. Very few, indeed, will ever mention it in as statement. It is useless or needless information, making it doubly important. It is an indication that the subject suffered from childhood abuse, likely sexual, and gets comfort from "covering" with a towel, or blanket.
The interviewer flags these words and then begins to ask follow up questions to learn if the subject was abused in childhood. It can prove critical in an investigation.
There is, however, a unique exception to the "coverings" found in statements, and it is rare, but the investigator should be aware of it:
Combat.
PTSD or PTSD-like symptoms in those who were in military combat sometimes use these phrases in their statements, as they find comfort in 'covering' with a towel, or blanket.
In any statement that has needless information, the analyst should flag it as doubly important; often critical, in understanding what happened, and what the subject is thinking.
Amanda Knox' use of the language indicates involvement in sexual assault, and she placed herself at the crime scene. It does not take training for someone to understand when she wrote "I didn't look at the clock" to know something is very wrong. The analyst would flag "didn't" as something reported in the negative, being highly important, and the notion of time. In this case, it appears as alibi building.
Misty Croslin's use (as well as other indicators) tell us that Haleigh Cummings was likely sexually abused before she was murdered and discarded. Tommy Croslin placed himself at the crime scene and was involved. This is why he failed the polygraph, and why, with the one question he passed, his attorney sought to help locate the missing child by coming forward with the information.
Next up: doors: opening and closing and turning on and off lights, and what they reveal about a person as they enter into a statement.
No comments:
Post a Comment