Speaker 1: So welcome back to our latest series of The Path
Speaker 1: with Chili. We're recording this just a few days before Christmas,
Speaker 1: and once again, since Ashley is busy, she has a
Speaker 1: newborn baby and a family to take care of. Is
Speaker 1: just going to be me and Jewles doing this particular episode,
Speaker 1: but we're going to do something a little different from
Speaker 1: the norm because I'm not going to say the case
Speaker 1: we're covering right now, because at the moment, Jewles doesn't
Speaker 1: even know it. I have deliberately not told her any
Speaker 1: details about it except provided her with a statement that
Speaker 1: was said by one of the people connected to this case.
Speaker 1: Because Jewels is going to be performing a statement analysis
Speaker 1: in this episode, Jules, you want to tell everyone what
Speaker 1: that is?
Speaker 2: Yes, okay, So statement analysis has been something I've been
Speaker 2: interested in since I started Briddle Me That years ago.
Speaker 2: I no longer do the podcast, but one person that
Speaker 2: I had interviewed for one of my episodes was Mark
Speaker 2: McLish and he was the most interesting person that I interviewed.
Speaker 2: I thought it was so fascinating how you could break
Speaker 2: down just simple words that we take for granted, how
Speaker 2: they're put together and punctuation pronouns used time references and
Speaker 2: you could deduce whether something is false or whether it's true.
Speaker 2: It's a pretty simple system and when I was interested
Speaker 2: in learning about the technique, I reached out to Mark
Speaker 2: and he let me do the training for free. He
Speaker 2: was incredibly supportive. He looks at statements for me whenever
Speaker 2: I have something that I have a question when I'm practicing. Unfortunately,
Speaker 2: for this one, our timing just didn't really align, so
Speaker 2: he couldn't double check my work. So I want to
Speaker 2: preface this and say I was certified, but I am
Speaker 2: in no way an expert here. There could be some
Speaker 2: of you listening who know far more than I do,
Speaker 2: and that's okay. You can have your opinion on the
Speaker 2: way that this is structured. And in the show notes
Speaker 2: will provide the statement. So if you want to go
Speaker 2: and do your own analysis, you're more than welcome to.
Speaker 2: And I just want to give you guys a little
Speaker 2: bit of information about who Mark McLish is. So he's
Speaker 2: literally written the book. He's written three of them. One
Speaker 2: of them is don't be Deceived, the other one is
Speaker 2: I Know You're lying, and ten ways to spot a liar.
Speaker 2: So he is a grandfather in the industry, he spent
Speaker 2: twenty six years in law enforcement. He worked in the
Speaker 2: Secret Service as well as the Marshall Service, and he
Speaker 2: spent a great deal of time training in statement analysis
Speaker 2: because he was the lead instructor on interview techniques and
Speaker 2: that's where he developed the system of statement analysis. He
Speaker 2: also worked on developing the software that would detect deception
Speaker 2: and statements. So he retires hired in two thousand and
Speaker 2: nine as a supervisory Deputy US Marshal, So he now
Speaker 2: gets presentations on statement analysis as well as providing training
Speaker 2: to military and law enforcement agencies. Another fun fact about him,
Speaker 2: I think it's taekwondo that he's a black belt in.
Speaker 2: I think he was like head of ground training techniques
Speaker 2: or something related to that. So our own Ashley Wellman,
Speaker 2: has a black belt in taekwondo, so I just thought
Speaker 2: that was an interesting tie in.
Speaker 1: I actually didn't even know that about Ashley, so that
Speaker 1: don't be my surprise. So that's cool to hear. So
Speaker 1: when you interviewed Mark McLish on riddle me that was
Speaker 1: it in relation to any particular case or was it
Speaker 1: just a general conversation about statement analysis.
Speaker 2: No, I believe it was. This was like four years
Speaker 2: ago or something at this point, maybe even five, But
Speaker 2: I believe it was the Faith Hedge Peth case and
Speaker 2: the nine to one one call I believe was what
Speaker 2: we went over.
Speaker 1: And what's interesting is that's a case there has since
Speaker 1: been an arrest and it turned out not to be
Speaker 1: face roommate who made the call, but rather a completely
Speaker 1: random predator who was never on the rate as a suspect.
Speaker 1: So if you kind of interesting to go back and
Speaker 1: listen to that and see how much is analysis was
Speaker 1: close to the facts.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I think there can be a lot of
Speaker 2: different things that can go into why somebody is reacting
Speaker 2: the way that they are with a nine to one
Speaker 2: one call. But I think a lot of us, when
Speaker 2: looking at that case, were wrong. I know I was wrong.
Speaker 2: I thought that there had to have been some involvement
Speaker 2: of the roommate, given her behavior, the fact that it
Speaker 2: was unlocked, and the way that she spoke on that
Speaker 2: nine to one one call, and then what seemed like
Speaker 2: a lack of cooperation with law enforcement. I don't know
Speaker 2: if it was a lack of cooperation or just the
Speaker 2: fact that she wasn't talking to the press, she wasn't
Speaker 2: giving any statements, and so we were left to wonder
Speaker 2: and all we really had to go off of was
Speaker 2: that nine one one call.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And it's been different in varying cases, where sometimes
Speaker 1: a nine one one call er was guilty and other
Speaker 1: times they were completely innocent. You just kind of can't
Speaker 1: react to how people are going to act and that
Speaker 1: particular situation. But the good news about the case we're
Speaker 1: going to talk about is it's still on SOLT, So
Speaker 1: we still can't technically know if jewels statement analysis is
Speaker 1: going to be right or wrong, because the truth is
Speaker 1: still murky. So what we did is I deliberately didn't
Speaker 1: tell Jewels any details about the cases. I just gave
Speaker 1: her a one paragraph statement that was made by someone
Speaker 1: connected to this case in a police interrogation room, and
Speaker 1: without knowing any of the context of what he was
Speaker 1: talking about any details of the case, she performed a
Speaker 1: statement analysis and what he said. So what we'll do
Speaker 1: is we'll read the statement and then Jewels will give
Speaker 1: her own statement analysis, and when she's done, I will
Speaker 1: provide her the context when this statement was made and
Speaker 1: then share all the details about the featured case, and
Speaker 1: then we'll find out at the end if Jewels has
Speaker 1: changed her opinion or not, or if she still thinks
Speaker 1: she's right on the money. So I'm just going to
Speaker 1: read the statement out word for word now, and I'll
Speaker 1: just say is that this is made by an individual
Speaker 1: while they're in a police interrogation room. So let me
Speaker 1: just pull it up here. So here it is word
Speaker 1: for word. Oh, I think it was in the original
Speaker 1: one you sent me yesterday, so I'll just pull that up.
Speaker 1: I just got your final one now that I just
Speaker 1: want to get the word for word one. Okay. So
Speaker 1: I'm going to read a word for word, and I'm
Speaker 1: going to bleep out the name of the victim here
Speaker 1: because we don't want to give that away quote. Okay. Basically,
Speaker 1: the truth of the matter is me and Blank went
Speaker 1: to the old College and we got in a big
Speaker 1: argument and fight, and it was over money that she
Speaker 1: wouldn't give back to me. It was some change of
Speaker 1: a twenty dollars bill. She hauled off and punched me.
Speaker 1: I then, not thinking, pushed her. When she fell backwards
Speaker 1: her head and paled on something sharp sticking out of
Speaker 1: the ground. I then said, are you all right? I
Speaker 1: run over to her, and she just mined a little bit,
Speaker 1: and there was nothing else. I hollered out for help too,
Speaker 1: because Holmes Boulevard is right there. Nobody came, nobody yelled
Speaker 1: back or anything. I didn't want to leave her. I
Speaker 1: freaked out. I didn't. I said, I don't know what
Speaker 1: to tell you all. I couldn't tell you all. I
Speaker 1: just freaked so not thinking, I freaked, I tripped. I
Speaker 1: just didn't know what to do. I buried her. I
Speaker 1: didn't know what to do. It was the wrong thing
Speaker 1: to do. I agree, but I was fourteen years old.
Speaker 1: I wasn't thinking. I then I came home after that,
Speaker 1: but she was dead, definitely dead before I buried her.
Speaker 1: That I know because I checked her stomach and all that.
Speaker 1: Then after that, I sat there for about thirty minutes,
Speaker 1: thirty eight to forty five minutes, just didn't know what
Speaker 1: to do. I went home, I got cleaned up. I
Speaker 1: regret it. I'm sorry it did happen. I regret pushing her.
Speaker 1: I wish I could go back in time and not
Speaker 1: have done that. I wish I could turn time. If
Speaker 1: I could turn time back, I wouldn't just you know,
Speaker 1: it was all over money, and you know what money
Speaker 1: will do to you when you're a kid. I don't know.
Speaker 1: You were a kid, you had a certain amount of money,
Speaker 1: the money was valuable to you then, you know. But
Speaker 1: that's the way it was with me when I was
Speaker 1: a kid. Every dime I got I depend on because
Speaker 1: most stuff like that I had to work for. So, Jules,
Speaker 1: let's hear your statement analysis on this.
Speaker 2: Oh, this is just the most bizarre statement right from
Speaker 2: the jump. As soon as I started reading it, I'm like, Okay,
Speaker 2: it starts with okay basically, so like we're already looking
Speaker 2: at a problem because we're not just hearing the truth.
Speaker 2: We're hearing basically what happened, And so I'm gonna analyze. Okay, basically,
Speaker 2: the truth of the matter is me and Blank went
Speaker 2: to the old college that part first, Okay, So okay,
Speaker 2: the subject is taking time to think about what they're
Speaker 2: going to say. So statements like I swear to God
Speaker 2: or like the subject used here the truth of the
Speaker 2: matter often indicate deception. There's an obvious need to convince,
Speaker 2: and it doesn't always mean deception. If someone feels as
Speaker 2: though they aren't being believed, they may use these declarative statements.
Speaker 2: I don't know the discourse between the interviewer and the
Speaker 2: subject prior. But to me personally from the jump, we're
Speaker 2: looking at like a high high probability of deception. As is,
Speaker 2: this isn't a good start. The use of the word,
Speaker 2: like I said, basically it's suspect. Is this what happened?
Speaker 2: Or is it basically what happened? It could potentially indicate
Speaker 2: withholding of information or that this isn't at all what
Speaker 2: happened and it's just a fabrication. The subject mentions the
Speaker 2: old college. What's the old college? We know this is
Speaker 2: familiar since he used the definite article with the rather
Speaker 2: than a so is this his old college? The location's vague,
Speaker 2: but perhaps this is somewhere known to everyone in the area.
Speaker 2: But the lack of where within the college that they
Speaker 2: ended up it just isn't giving enough details. There's withholding
Speaker 2: of specifics such as where did you go in the
Speaker 2: old college and what was the objective?
Speaker 1: Well, and I started sharing details about the case, I'll
Speaker 1: go more into what the old college was, and you'll
Speaker 1: find out that this was a place that was close
Speaker 1: to where h this supposed crime took place and that
Speaker 1: the police did check out the site of this supposed
Speaker 1: old college but found no corroborating evidence to support this
Speaker 1: person's story. But yeah, it is kind of a bad sign,
Speaker 1: especially when you learn the full context that he's starting
Speaker 1: it off by just using phrases like basically and the
Speaker 1: truth of the matter, and you just kind of feel
Speaker 1: like he's trying to find the right words to explain
Speaker 1: what happened, even though if he's telling the truth, this
Speaker 1: probably shouldn't be needing to do.
Speaker 2: This, And unfortunately, I feel like this sets the tone
Speaker 2: for the entire statement.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly, because I remember watching it for the first
Speaker 1: time because I covered this one on the Trail Went
Speaker 1: Cold several years ago, and when I watched the interrogation,
Speaker 1: I had these feelings that you did immediately.
Speaker 2: So the next part that we're going to cover. The
Speaker 2: next line is we got in a big argument and fight,
Speaker 2: and it was over money that she wouldn't get back
Speaker 2: to me. So the use of the word we indicates
Speaker 2: the partnership of some kind. So I'd say that there's
Speaker 2: a high problem ability that they didn't just meet that night.
Speaker 2: If they are indeed acquainted, they were known to each
Speaker 2: other prior to the events that would end her life.
Speaker 2: And I find this interesting that the subject says big
Speaker 2: argument and fight. Typically one would say one or the other.
Speaker 2: It's possible that in this person's personal dictionary, an argument
Speaker 2: is verbal and a fight is physical. The interviewer should
Speaker 2: definitely probe further here. And the subject says that the
Speaker 2: woman in question wouldn't give back money, but never says
Speaker 2: how she came into possession of that money. He never
Speaker 2: says that she took it from him or stole it,
Speaker 2: or even that he lent it to her. We are
Speaker 2: only getting part of the story here, and don't you
Speaker 2: find that a little bizarre?
Speaker 1: I do, yes, because once we learn the background of
Speaker 1: this person, it just seems very odd that they would
Speaker 1: be in possession of money at this particular time. And
Speaker 1: that's one of the story that has always been kind
Speaker 1: of a red flag to me. And I do see
Speaker 1: this sometimes where or if someone confesses to a murder
Speaker 1: and they always say, well, I didn't intend to kill
Speaker 1: this person. It was just a thing where we got
Speaker 1: into an argument in a fight and they fell over
Speaker 1: and hit their head. And there was one case that
Speaker 1: I covered on the Trail and Cold a couple of
Speaker 1: years ago about the disappearance of a woman named Bethany Decker,
Speaker 1: who was killed by her boyfriend Ronald roll Dan and
Speaker 1: they never found her remains, but there was a compelling,
Speaker 1: circumstantial evidence against him to charge him with murder, and
Speaker 1: one of the terms of the plea deal that was
Speaker 1: offered is that he would have to make a statement
Speaker 1: in court, a full confession about what happened. And even
Speaker 1: though he did, the victim's family was not satisfied because
Speaker 1: he used the whole thing, well, we got into a
Speaker 1: fight and I pushed her and she hit her head,
Speaker 1: and I didn't mean to. And they've always been skeptical
Speaker 1: of that because this guy was known for having a
Speaker 1: history of violence and abuse. But because they couldn't find
Speaker 1: her remains, they can't really prove or disprove his story.
Speaker 1: But they still kind of feel that, yeah, that's his
Speaker 1: way of like deflecting responsibility, where he tries to say
Speaker 1: that he didn't mean to kill anyone and that it
Speaker 1: was only an accident, and that could very well be
Speaker 1: the case here as well.
Speaker 2: I mean I will say here, like I've gone back
Speaker 2: and forth for sure on whether or not this is
Speaker 2: this is completely fabricated at a false confession, or this
Speaker 2: is completely fabricated and this person is indeed responsible. By
Speaker 2: the time we get to this, I may change my
Speaker 2: mind again because there's so much in here that says
Speaker 2: this is all fabricated. But there is just a few
Speaker 2: little nuggets that give me pause, and we'll get to that.
Speaker 2: But the money thing is definitely one of them. If
Speaker 2: he is indeed responsible, that money is not the motivation,
Speaker 2: because there's just the lack of specificity, and you'd think
Speaker 2: if money was so important, you would give us an amount.
Speaker 1: Yes, And I've always felt the same thing about this
Speaker 1: particular person. I don't have a concrete opinion on whether
Speaker 1: or not they're guilty, but I do believe that if
Speaker 1: they are, then the statement that they're making here is
Speaker 1: not the truth about what actually happened.
Speaker 2: And think about when you're telling a story, a true story,
Speaker 2: it should flow for memory. But this story has a
Speaker 2: lot of pauses. Like when you're looking at the transcript,
Speaker 2: there's a lot of dot dots and there isn't a flow.
Speaker 2: It's disjointed and there's a lot of fragments, and that
Speaker 2: shouldn't really be happening if it's coming from memory, and
Speaker 2: if it is an incident where somebody lost their life,
Speaker 2: and you're saying that you pushed her. Okay, well, if
Speaker 2: this resulted in her death, you'd think that he would
Speaker 2: remember that.
Speaker 1: I think so. Yeah, Like, once you learn the full contact,
Speaker 1: you would pretty much realize that this is one of
Speaker 1: the most memorable experiences that would have taken place in
Speaker 1: this person's life. So you think he would recall details
Speaker 1: a lot more vividly.
Speaker 2: Exactly. Typically, when you're telling a story, it shouldn't be
Speaker 2: something that requires that much effort. You often see that
Speaker 2: in deceptive statements. And I mentioned the money earlier. He
Speaker 2: doesn't tell us how much money. He doesn't tell us
Speaker 2: how she got that much money, and that seems like
Speaker 2: a very odd thing to me, especially when he's telling
Speaker 2: us that is his primary motivation for this fight. He
Speaker 2: jumps into the next part of the story. There isn't
Speaker 2: a lead up about why or what led up to
Speaker 2: the fight, or he doesn't say something to the effect of,
Speaker 2: she took the money, I confronted her, and she punched
Speaker 2: me rather out of the blue, she hauled off and
Speaker 2: punched me. The language she used here is odd. Did
Speaker 2: she out of nowhere punch him as he suggests, or
Speaker 2: was she defending herself. There's definitely a withholding of information
Speaker 2: here in my opinion. And then he says, I then
Speaker 2: dot dot dot, So he's pausing to think about how
Speaker 2: he's going to phrase this. If he was recalling it
Speaker 2: from memory, there wouldn't be the need to pause incessantly
Speaker 2: and rephrase as he does throughout. So this version of
Speaker 2: events seems deceptive. With the quote I then dot dot dot,
Speaker 2: not thinking dot dot dot pushed her think about recalling
Speaker 2: about event such as this. If you were punched in
Speaker 2: the face, you may react by pushing back. The pause
Speaker 2: in the inclusion of not thinking makes me believe there's
Speaker 2: a potential that this isn't in all how the event's transpired,
Speaker 2: and that this is deceptive, just like we've seen throughout
Speaker 2: the statement. And notice how casual not thinking is and
Speaker 2: how devoid of emotion this story is considering the gravity
Speaker 2: of it. The tone doesn't match the actions, and that's
Speaker 2: something to look out for.
Speaker 1: Yes, the whole thing about the twenty dollars bill has
Speaker 1: always been a red flag for me because when you
Speaker 1: hear the full context of who these people are, it
Speaker 1: does seem unlikely that they would have been in possession
Speaker 1: of a twenty dollars bill at this particular time, So
Speaker 1: it does sound like he's thrown that detail into the story,
Speaker 1: possibly to mask what he really did, like the real
Speaker 1: truth behind her death. And also when you learn the
Speaker 1: full context of when he's making this confession, I mean,
Speaker 1: people are going to act differently when they're confessing to
Speaker 1: the worst thing they ever did. But I do think
Speaker 1: that this is a context where he probably would be
Speaker 1: a lot more emotional. But I've seen the actual police
Speaker 1: interrogation video where he makes his confession, and he does
Speaker 1: do it in a very flat, unemotional tone most of
Speaker 1: the time, and you're kind of wondering this was true.
Speaker 1: Then I would expect like a lot more emotion from him.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the tone is very incongruous with what you would expect.
Speaker 2: You would expect there to be a lot of emotion
Speaker 2: when you're recalling something like this, but there isn't that.
Speaker 2: And he uses a lot of passive language as well,
Speaker 2: which is something to look out for, Like you know
Speaker 2: she fell, It's like, no, she didn't fall. You pushed her,
Speaker 2: and that's why she ended up where she was, if
Speaker 2: you were to be believed. So the next time we're
Speaker 2: going to analyze, is she fell backwards and her head
Speaker 2: dot dot dot. When she fell backwards, her head impaled
Speaker 2: on something sharp sticking out of the ground. So like
Speaker 2: I just said, she didn't fall backwards. This is passive
Speaker 2: language and it's used to minimize. So the subject admits
Speaker 2: to pushing her backwards, then he doubles down and takes
Speaker 2: himself out of the statement by following it up again
Speaker 2: when she fell backwards. This shows a lack of responsibility
Speaker 2: and distancing. So rather than being like when I pushed
Speaker 2: her backwards and she fell, he's like when she fell backwards,
Speaker 2: as if this was something that happened independent of anything
Speaker 2: that he did. And so I'm curious what he was
Speaker 2: going to say when he said, well, she fell backwards
Speaker 2: and her head dot dot dot.
Speaker 1: It is true. Like if you see this sense in
Speaker 1: just a void, it's making it sound like he's saying
Speaker 1: that she fell accidentally, like she tripped, and that he
Speaker 1: never touched her. But then you see the full context
Speaker 1: and he says we got into a fight and I
Speaker 1: pushed her. But at that particular point it does sound
Speaker 1: like he's afflecting responsibility, saying that, well, it's not really
Speaker 1: my fault. I only gave her a light shove, and
Speaker 1: she's the one who fell backwards and caused the fatal
Speaker 1: injury to her head. So yeah, it makes you wonder
Speaker 1: is he kind of deflecting responsibility from what he did
Speaker 1: or is this just not one hundred percent true.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he's not saying I am paled her head. That
Speaker 2: he's saying she fell backwards, like taking himself out of
Speaker 2: that statement completely, and he just doesn't claim responsibility, and
Speaker 2: he makes it the fault of the inanimate object, like
Speaker 2: that inanimate object impaled her. I didn't you know, Like
Speaker 2: he's not like he's saying, you know, it was my fault.
Speaker 2: This happened and her head was impaled as a result
Speaker 2: of my actions. He's really trying to take himself out
Speaker 2: of the statement and make it sound like an accident.
Speaker 2: So the next part is he said I then said
Speaker 2: are you all right? He doesn't seem panic when recalling,
Speaker 2: which should be like a really visceral and emotional situation
Speaker 2: where most people would rush to her side right away
Speaker 2: before asking are you all right? I think if you
Speaker 2: were to tell a story about an event and it
Speaker 2: was an accident, would you include something like this I
Speaker 2: don't know. It's not a typical flow of events during
Speaker 2: a chaotic moment in my opinion.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I always wonder how many of these incidents
Speaker 1: actually happen where someone is pushed and then just by
Speaker 1: pure luck or bad luck, they wind up getting their
Speaker 1: head impaled on something sticking out of the ground. Like
Speaker 1: you hear more details about this exact location where this
Speaker 1: allegedly took place, and you're thinking of them selves, Man,
Speaker 1: the odds of her falling down at this one spot
Speaker 1: that had a sharp object sticking out of the ground
Speaker 1: just seems very remote. It just seems like one of
Speaker 1: those one in a million things that could happen. So
Speaker 1: it makes you wonder is he deflecting responsibility and making
Speaker 1: this up to kind of rid himself of his own
Speaker 1: culpability and what happened And the fact that he's asking
Speaker 1: are you all right? Like you said, it just seems
Speaker 1: like a weird thing to say if you saw someone
Speaker 1: fell and potentially hit their head on something which caused
Speaker 1: an injury and killed them instantly, And it's almost like,
Speaker 1: if this isn't what actually happened, it's him once again
Speaker 1: deflecting responsibility, saying that hey, I didn't mean to kill her.
Speaker 1: I actually asked her if she was okay, So that
Speaker 1: means it was just an accident and this wasn't premeditated
Speaker 1: or anything. So it makes you wonder. Yeah, just changing
Speaker 1: the details to kind of deflect on what he actually
Speaker 1: did do.
Speaker 2: So the next line that we're going to analyze is
Speaker 2: I run over to her and she just mined a
Speaker 2: little bit and there was nothing else. So we've got
Speaker 2: a bit of a problem here at the beginning. I
Speaker 2: run should be iran, so present tense is often indicative
Speaker 2: of deception in a statement. And why would you run
Speaker 2: over to her? Like how far away could she be?
Speaker 2: The subject isn't a superhero that could like push her
Speaker 2: one hundred meters away? He admitted he pushed her, So
Speaker 2: it shouldn't require a run. It should be a step
Speaker 2: or two, should it not.
Speaker 1: Yeah, like if they got into like an altercation where
Speaker 1: he shoved her and she fell over, like she's not
Speaker 1: gonna fly like one hundred feet away, Like he's not
Speaker 1: gonna need to run over. She's going to be very
Speaker 1: close to him.
Speaker 2: Interesting, he uses the word just a lot. This is
Speaker 2: the first time we see it in the statement, But
Speaker 2: he uses it quite a bit, and it's what's referred
Speaker 2: to as a unique word, and it can often indicate
Speaker 2: withholding of information. So when he says she just mined
Speaker 2: a little bit, I question if that's indeed accurate. What
Speaker 2: does he mean by mind? It's not phrase in the
Speaker 2: context of someone lying there and dying. Why would it
Speaker 2: not make more sense that she raised her arms and
Speaker 2: waved her fingers. There's something soft about mind, and that
Speaker 2: can indicate deception in this context. So if she is
Speaker 2: indeed dead, which it seems like she potentially is, with
Speaker 2: there was nothing else, wouldn't we see more panic, more grief, regret, remorse.
Speaker 2: There's a very casual telling of events that potentially ended
Speaker 2: someone's life, and that's troubling. There likely was something else,
Speaker 2: and he's potentially leaving that out of the statement.
Speaker 1: Yeah, getting back to use of the word mind, I
Speaker 1: will say that the audio quality on the police and
Speaker 1: teror cation video isn't the best. So I had to
Speaker 1: watch that part six or seven times while I was
Speaker 1: making the train because I had to be absolutely sure
Speaker 1: what word he used, because I couldn't figure out what
Speaker 1: he was saying at first, and then once I watched it,
Speaker 1: a few times it's like, oh, he's saying mind, which
Speaker 1: even so is just a very weird phrase to go
Speaker 1: in there, just saying that she kind of mined and
Speaker 1: looked like she was alive for a little a few
Speaker 1: seconds before she died, and that is just a very
Speaker 1: odd phrase to use when you're making a confession to
Speaker 1: being responsible for someone's death. And yeah, the way he
Speaker 1: said like there was nothing else, like, he doesn't even
Speaker 1: make it sound like U he panicked a lot that
Speaker 1: this person who he caused her death and he didn't
Speaker 1: even like get down much and like tried to see
Speaker 1: if she was okay or move her body or anything
Speaker 1: like that. He just says she moved her head and uh,
Speaker 1: then she stopped. And I took that immediately as an
Speaker 1: indication that she was dead. And of course I could
Speaker 1: be a sign that he's totally fabricating this story and
Speaker 1: this isn't what happened.
Speaker 2: I would think if it was unintentional and this was
Speaker 2: a complete accident, like you pushed her and her head
Speaker 2: impaled on something sharp, which I don't believe him at all,
Speaker 2: But if that was indeed the case, you would see
Speaker 2: some shock because that is a very normal response when
Speaker 2: something like that happens, that it's an accident and you
Speaker 2: realize that you unintentionally ended somebody's life by your actions.
Speaker 2: But he's not shocked. We're not seeing any emotional reaction,
Speaker 2: and that leads me to believe that, like pretty much,
Speaker 2: everything he's saying so far is deceptive. Okay, so the
Speaker 2: next line we're gonna analyze is I hollered out for
Speaker 2: help too? Because Holmes Boulevard is right there. Nobody came,
Speaker 2: nobody yelled back or anything. So I question what year
Speaker 2: is this? Did they have cell phones landlines? Because I
Speaker 2: hollered out for help too, So the inclusion of two
Speaker 2: is interesting, as if he hollered in addition to something else. Also,
Speaker 2: why is he hollering for help on the street? I
Speaker 2: don't know, Like where this college is located. Is it rural?
Speaker 2: Did he not have access to a neighbor's home a phone?
Speaker 2: I don't know this This is incredibly suspect. And if
Speaker 2: someone heard his cries, wouldn't they approach him in a
Speaker 2: vehicle or on foot? Why would they holler back? So
Speaker 2: I question if he did indeed holler as he claims
Speaker 2: Like here, this appears deceptive and end quote. Nobody came,
Speaker 2: nobody yelled back or anything like I just said, why
Speaker 2: would somebody yell back? Wouldn't they see you and come
Speaker 2: to you?
Speaker 1: Like?
Speaker 2: What were you hoping to achieve just by randomly hollering?
Speaker 2: Notice that he doesn't say he waved his hands and
Speaker 2: jumped up and down and ran in front of an
Speaker 2: approaching car. So we're to believe that he just wandered
Speaker 2: onto the street and started hollering. In my opinion, this
Speaker 2: is deceptive and it never transpired.
Speaker 1: Well, without giving away the exact year just yet, I
Speaker 1: will say that this was the pre cell phone era,
Speaker 1: so he wouldn't have had one. Uh, there would have
Speaker 1: been payphones around, but I don't have any information about
Speaker 1: where the nearest payphone would have been to this location.
Speaker 1: And I'll just say that this incident supposed this supposedly
Speaker 1: took place at night, and it was in an outdoor area,
Speaker 1: but I don't I don't think it was all that
Speaker 1: far from many other houses or in many other places
Speaker 1: to get help. It wasn't like it was in a
Speaker 1: rural area or anything. So if he really wanted to
Speaker 1: get help, I don't think he would have had to
Speaker 1: have run far to the nearest house in order to
Speaker 1: call for emergency or medical assistance, or call to the
Speaker 1: nearest pay phone. So, yeah, that does strike me as odd.
Speaker 1: That's he hollers out for help and no one comes,
Speaker 1: and then after that he doesn't do anything else. He
Speaker 1: makes no attempt to find help for this person that
Speaker 1: he supposedly killed.
Speaker 2: And do you notice what's missing throughout you, Like, while
Speaker 2: he tells his story, he's talking about what happened. There's
Speaker 2: nothing else you know she was dead and how he's panicking,
Speaker 2: And he doesn't say, so, I got up, I ran
Speaker 2: out of the college, I ran onto the road. I
Speaker 2: was jumping up and down and waving my hands. He
Speaker 2: doesn't tell you what he's physically doing. He just says
Speaker 2: I was there and I was hollering. It just seems
Speaker 2: like if you were going to fabricate a story, that
Speaker 2: is how you would fabricate it, because if you were
Speaker 2: going to be recalling some thing from memory, you would
Speaker 2: be saying which you physically did. It would be imprinted
Speaker 2: in your memory because there would be so much emotion
Speaker 2: tied to the fact that this individual lost their life,
Speaker 2: Like he's playing it off as an accident, but no
Speaker 2: matter what the motivation he had, or if indeed this
Speaker 2: was premeditated murder or if it was an accident, or
Speaker 2: if he's even responsible, I would think that there would
Speaker 2: be like just an urgency and heightened emotional state shock.
Speaker 2: The recall wouldn't be so casual, don't you think.
Speaker 1: I think so, yeah, that even if he was fabricating
Speaker 1: the story to cover up his own complicity, that he
Speaker 1: would at least throw in some details of just saying
Speaker 1: that I ran, I looked for cars, but there was
Speaker 1: no one around. I went to a neighbor's house and
Speaker 1: knocked on the door, but there was no one home,
Speaker 1: like make it look like he tried to do more
Speaker 1: to try to save this person's life, but instead he
Speaker 1: just casually says I yelled, I hollered, but no one came.
Speaker 1: So that just really sounds like he had to come
Speaker 1: up with this story on the fly or something like that,
Speaker 1: and just because it wasn't actually the truth, it doesn't
Speaker 1: have any details to add to the believability of it.
Speaker 2: So the next line that we're going to analyze is
Speaker 2: I didn't want to leave her dot dot dot, I
Speaker 2: freaked out, dot dot dot, I didn't dot dot dot
Speaker 2: I said I don't know what to tell you. All.
Speaker 2: It's possible that he didn't know what to do and
Speaker 2: he did freak out, but he says, quote I didn't
Speaker 2: and trails off. I'm really curious what he was going
Speaker 2: to say there There is an I didn't and he
Speaker 2: trails off with what didn't he do? This is a
Speaker 2: pattern where he starts a sentence and then it goes
Speaker 2: against what I would assume is his better judgment to continue,
Speaker 2: and he rephrases, so this can definitely be indicative of deception.
Speaker 2: So it's interesting that he says, quote, I said I
Speaker 2: don't know what to tell you. He's not saying he's
Speaker 2: not saying I don't know what to tell you, but
Speaker 2: that he said that I said I I don't know
Speaker 2: what to tell you. He's not saying I don't know
Speaker 2: what to tell you, but that he'd already said that,
Speaker 2: And it's not an equal statement. They're two very different things.
Speaker 2: It's also an odd statement since they're asking for his
Speaker 2: version of events and that should come from memory. So
Speaker 2: the fact that he doesn't know what to say is interesting. Also,
Speaker 2: he's using past tense, as if he said this to
Speaker 2: them before. But since I only have a piece of
Speaker 2: the interview, it is possible that they had discussed this.
Speaker 1: Yes, I'm going to talk more about this when we
Speaker 1: share the details of the case. But there were prior
Speaker 1: conversations between the person making this statement and the police,
Speaker 1: and there is an additional person in the interrogation room
Speaker 1: at this point that he's telling to the first time.
Speaker 1: So that kind of is how this statement comes in here.
Speaker 1: But once you learn the full details about why he's
Speaker 1: making this statement, you're going to think that, Wow, he
Speaker 1: should really be more emotional or have better recall or
Speaker 1: more details. But just the way that he's just casually
Speaker 1: saying I didn't know what to do. I freaked out.
Speaker 1: But uh he isn't giving like more urgency. He's making
Speaker 1: it sound like even though this was an accident, he
Speaker 1: wasn't responsible. He just like kind of had this attitude that, well,
Speaker 1: she's dead, nothing I can do about it.
Speaker 2: All right, So the next line that we're going to
Speaker 2: analyze is I couldn't tell you all. I just freaked out.
Speaker 2: Uh so I dot dot dot not thinking dot dot dot,
Speaker 2: I freak dot dot dot, I trip dot dot dot,
Speaker 2: I just don't know what to do dot dot dot,
Speaker 2: I buried her. So when he says I couldn't tell
Speaker 2: you all, I believe him. I personally believe that the
Speaker 2: truth is leaking out here. He can't tell the investigators everything,
Speaker 2: and that's why we're seeing so much withholding. Either he
Speaker 2: isn't responsible at all and he doesn't have the details
Speaker 2: and that's why he's withholding, or he's fabricating and perhaps
Speaker 2: the truth of the events are far worse, and he
Speaker 2: fears that the truth could impact many things, from the
Speaker 2: way that investigators view him to the type of sentence
Speaker 2: that he may receive if, say, for example, sexual assault
Speaker 2: was included in the crime, or like I said, he
Speaker 2: can't tell them because he simply doesn't know. He again
Speaker 2: uses the word just with I freaked out, indicating that
Speaker 2: he is potentially withholding on his actions surrounding her death
Speaker 2: and that he did more than quote freak out. He
Speaker 2: again says that he wasn't thinking, and another use of
Speaker 2: just with I just don't know what to do. He's
Speaker 2: again withholding. Also ask yourself if the end result is
Speaker 2: you bury someone, This seems very calculated and well thought out.
Speaker 2: One has to move the body, get it to a vehicle,
Speaker 2: find a shovel, transport the body, and then dig a
Speaker 2: hole and bury the individual. The way that he tells
Speaker 2: the story, he just skips over all those details. And
Speaker 2: don't you find that a little bit perplexing?
Speaker 1: I do. And I'm not giving anything away because in
Speaker 1: a couple moments we're going to analyze this statement. But
Speaker 1: the person did say his age out loud when he
Speaker 1: said this incident took place, And when you hear this
Speaker 1: person's age, you're thinking, this is not someone who just
Speaker 1: casually decides to bury a body, and if they did,
Speaker 1: they would not be so careful about it and so
Speaker 1: like cautious that the victim's remains would not be found
Speaker 1: for many, many years. And it is kind of weird
Speaker 1: that he just says I picked up like, oh yeah,
Speaker 1: he does. Later on he gives like a more detailed
Speaker 1: version about how he buried. But the fact that he's
Speaker 1: not providing specific details in this particular statement is a
Speaker 1: bit telling, because you know, most people, once like they
Speaker 1: are there in a situation like this, are just not
Speaker 1: going to casually say within seconds or minutes, oh okay,
Speaker 1: I did this bad thing. I'm going to have to
Speaker 1: bury someone and just have the wherewithal to do it successfully.
Speaker 1: So I've always felt that this is the most troubling
Speaker 1: part of the confession, which doesn't hold water to me.
Speaker 2: It absolutely doesn't hold water. I just think I think
Speaker 2: if you were going to dispose of a body like
Speaker 2: you said, at the age of the potential perpetrator here,
Speaker 2: it would be very very difficult for them to be
Speaker 2: able to get the implements and just to be able
Speaker 2: to execute burying a body and to know what to do.
Speaker 2: This is pre Internet age. They're not googling how to
Speaker 2: dispose of a body or like where to do it,
Speaker 2: So it's very very strange. And again, if you're deciding
Speaker 2: to bury the body of somebody that you're saying that
Speaker 2: like they fell backwards and impaled their head, and that
Speaker 2: you're leading us to believe that this was an accident,
Speaker 2: then there should be more emotion attached to this, not
Speaker 2: just I buried her. There's nothing there. It's devoid of
Speaker 2: any shock, any grief, any remorse, there's no regret. There's
Speaker 2: just nothing. It's flat.
Speaker 1: Exactly when you hear the full context about what the
Speaker 1: relationship was between this person making the statement and the
Speaker 1: person who died, this just seems more unbelievable. And I'll
Speaker 1: just say that if I was the age of the
Speaker 1: person who's making this statement, and I had accidentally killed someone,
Speaker 1: I can tell you that my brain at that time
Speaker 1: would not have instantly gone to bury the body and
Speaker 1: cover it up within seconds or minutes after it happened.
Speaker 1: And I'm sure you'd probably say the same thing.
Speaker 2: No, I mean, my brain wouldn't have gone there either.
Speaker 2: But I suppose there are those individuals. If you're you know,
Speaker 2: there's the birthing of a serial killer or something like that,
Speaker 2: then perhaps they'd fantasize about a scenario such as that,
Speaker 2: and in fantasizing about those scenarios, they'd considered body disposal.
Speaker 2: I have no idea, but I assume we can't apply
Speaker 2: our thought process to the way that somebody who could
Speaker 2: be a killer, and especially if they're a objective was
Speaker 2: to murder. Then we're not going to be thinking in
Speaker 2: the same way that somebody whose thought process is like
Speaker 2: that would.
Speaker 1: Well, when you learn more about this person's background, I
Speaker 1: can say he does not seem like a young dexter
Speaker 1: morgan in trading. He doesn't seem like the type of
Speaker 1: person who would kill someone just for the thrill of
Speaker 1: doing it, just to see if he can get away
Speaker 1: with it. So I'm thinking that if he was guilty,
Speaker 1: he had an entirely different motive, rather than just because
Speaker 1: he was a budding serial killer.
Speaker 2: Dexter was who I thought of. Have you started watching
Speaker 2: the new Dexter.
Speaker 1: I know I haven't, but I remember the original series
Speaker 1: when they did flashbacks to him as a kid and
Speaker 1: his father trying to groom him to like, well, if
Speaker 1: you're going to be a serial killer, at least kill
Speaker 1: other serial killers so you can get that rage out
Speaker 1: in positive ways.
Speaker 2: Dexter Original Sin is so good. You should watch it.
Speaker 2: It like sticks so close to the source material, uses
Speaker 2: the same type of musical score, and Michael C. Hall
Speaker 2: does a narration, and every character on there has the
Speaker 2: like exact same looks or vibes as their inspiration from
Speaker 2: the original Dexter. It's really good.
Speaker 1: Okay, I'll have to check it out, all right.
Speaker 2: So the next line that we're going to do is
Speaker 2: I didn't know what to do. It was the wrong
Speaker 2: thing to do. I agree again, he says I didn't
Speaker 2: know what to do. For someone who didn't know what
Speaker 2: to do doesn't baring someone seem like a well thought
Speaker 2: out endgame after a murder, so it doesn't seem like
Speaker 2: one would casually stumble into it. Like we mentioned, his
Speaker 2: statements are incongruous to the actions that he took. So
Speaker 2: what is the it in it was the wrong thing
Speaker 2: to do? Is he referencing a murder, a rape, an accident?
Speaker 2: He doesn't say, he just agrees that it was wrong.
Speaker 1: Yes, I think that when you look at this person's
Speaker 1: age when this incident allegedly happened, you're gonna think that
Speaker 1: a normal person, if they accidentally killed someone, if they're
Speaker 1: going to panic and freak out, they're probably going to
Speaker 1: do something like run away and leave the body behind
Speaker 1: and just pray that no one finds the body, or
Speaker 1: just think well, if they find the body, I'll just
Speaker 1: say that I didn't do it. They're not going to
Speaker 1: instantly go to like, I'm going to cover this up
Speaker 1: by burying her because this is an arrow when they
Speaker 1: did not know about DNA yet, So no one at
Speaker 1: that age at that time is going to be thinking, well,
Speaker 1: if they find the body, they're going to find my
Speaker 1: DNA on them, so I better bury her. That doesn't
Speaker 1: really fit the scenario at all, So I do agree
Speaker 1: that it contradicts where he says I didn't know what
Speaker 1: to do, yet he knows to bury the body.
Speaker 2: Okay, So the next line that we're going to do is,
Speaker 2: but I was fourteen years old. I wasn't thinking. I
Speaker 2: then dot dot dot. I came home after that, but
Speaker 2: she was dead. He says over and over how he
Speaker 2: wasn't thinking, but his actions appear to be calculated. I then,
Speaker 2: what she says is often indicative of withholding of information.
Speaker 2: Then is skipping over what preceded it and the dot
Speaker 2: dot dot or paused where he rephrases it's likely a
Speaker 2: spot where something happened that he's excluding from the statement.
Speaker 2: And this again seems out of order. I came home
Speaker 2: after that, but she was dead. Firstly, what is the
Speaker 2: that he's referring to? And secondly, didn't he say he
Speaker 2: buried her already? So stating that she was dead seems
Speaker 2: redundant since it's out of order, and one often sees
Speaker 2: this in deceptive statements.
Speaker 1: Well, now we're at the point when he reveals his
Speaker 1: exact age at the time this incident took place, which
Speaker 1: is fourteen years old, and I'm sure you're all thinking
Speaker 1: to yourself, it seems very at a character for a
Speaker 1: fourteen year old to just have the wherewithal to bury
Speaker 1: a victim only minutes after they allegedly killed them. And
Speaker 1: like he said, it contradicts where he keeps saying I
Speaker 1: wasn't thinking, but he was thinking enough that he was
Speaker 1: going to bury the victim in order to cover up
Speaker 1: his crime. So it's a very crazy contradiction. And he says,
Speaker 1: I came home after that, and like, I'm wondering, what
Speaker 1: is the that he's referring to, because if it was
Speaker 1: just like an accident in a burial, it just seems
Speaker 1: that weird that he would throw it in there. Like
Speaker 1: that makes you wonder did something else actually happened? And
Speaker 1: he did go home after it took place, But it
Speaker 1: isn't the incident as he outlined it here in his confession.
Speaker 2: So the next line that we're going to do is
Speaker 2: definitely dead before I buried her. That I know because
Speaker 2: I checked her stomach and all that. So notice how
Speaker 2: there was no she was So when he takes her
Speaker 2: out of the statement, this is sensitive, so pay attention.
Speaker 2: So if he did indeed bury her, I would wonder
Speaker 2: if she was dead, because the fact that she's taken
Speaker 2: out of there and he uses the fragment definitely dead
Speaker 2: before I buried her is really bizarre. So what does
Speaker 2: he mean by quote that I know because I checked
Speaker 2: her stomach and all that. Firstly, one typically checks a pulse.
Speaker 2: Does he mean that he watched her chest to see
Speaker 2: if it went up and down? But we cannot extrapolate.
Speaker 2: We can only go off what people say. So I'm
Speaker 2: curious if there's any injuries to the stomach or why
Speaker 2: is he focusing on that rather than the pulse or
Speaker 2: her breathing or lack thereof. And the quote all that
Speaker 2: is he implying that he did other things that are
Speaker 2: lower on her body than her mouth or her chest,
Speaker 2: since he references the stomach, but he's not telling us
Speaker 2: what they are, so we can't be sure that he
Speaker 2: did anything at all to check to see if she
Speaker 2: was alive. So the use of the word that is
Speaker 2: interesting is distancing language. Rather than this, he says that
Speaker 2: this whole portion of the statement, in my opinion, seems
Speaker 2: potentially fabricated. This whole statement seems fabricated thus far.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I've always found that detail weird that the only
Speaker 1: thing he says is I checked her stomach, Like nothing
Speaker 1: about checking your pulse, And I guess he's trying to
Speaker 1: imply that he wanted to see if she was still breathing,
Speaker 1: if her stomach was moving. But you notice that the
Speaker 1: one thing he never mentions in the confession is checking
Speaker 1: your actual head, Because if someone fell down and hit
Speaker 1: their head out of a sharp object sticking out of
Speaker 1: the ground, I mean, I'm assuming if it happened so
Speaker 1: fast that you may not even notice that sharp object,
Speaker 1: You're just gonna see your landing her head and then
Speaker 1: wonder why she's not getting up. Yet he never anything
Speaker 1: about pulling her head up just to double check if
Speaker 1: there was any sort of injury here. It's like he
Speaker 1: has such great vision that at night he was able
Speaker 1: to tell that her head hit a sharp object sticking
Speaker 1: out of the ground, and that it was so deadly
Speaker 1: that it killed her instantly, so he didn't have to
Speaker 1: attempt any medical attention or go for help, just to
Speaker 1: get a professional to check if she was still alive.
Speaker 2: Oh, but he asked her if she was okay, and
Speaker 2: then he ran over to her, and it's like, sir,
Speaker 2: if this is indeed what happened. You would think you're
Speaker 2: telling a story like that somebody fell after you push
Speaker 2: them and they impaled their head. You'd think I ran
Speaker 2: over to them and I grabbed her. I grabbed her
Speaker 2: head to check and see if she was okay, or
Speaker 2: her neck, to see if she was breathing, she was bleeding.
Speaker 2: There was no details like that. How did you know
Speaker 2: that her head was impaled? And he doesn't give like
Speaker 2: we said before with the running, the part about hollering
Speaker 2: on the street. He doesn't say like I got up
Speaker 2: and I ran out of the college and I ran
Speaker 2: to the street. He doesn't say like I went over
Speaker 2: and I touched her. And he's lacking any sort of
Speaker 2: statements on like what physical actions he took. It's just
Speaker 2: so vague, just saying I checked her stomach. Who checks
Speaker 2: the stomach?
Speaker 1: Yeah, this really doesn't sound like the actions of a
Speaker 1: fourteen year old who is genuinely panicked that they killed someone.
Speaker 1: I mean, I can't say I've never been in that situation,
Speaker 1: so I can't say what I would do. But I
Speaker 1: don't think I would just like say, oh, i'm your
Speaker 1: check her stomach. Oh she's not breathing. She must be
Speaker 1: dead and then just leave it at that and then
Speaker 1: decide to bury her.
Speaker 2: I'm going to say that you wouldn't do this, and emotionally,
Speaker 2: you would have a reaction if somebody accidentally fell backwards,
Speaker 2: because you have the normal range of human emotions and
Speaker 2: we're just not seeing that here. Everything that we're reading
Speaker 2: so far has there's no panic, there's no emotion. It's
Speaker 2: just like he's describing like what he ate for lunch,
Speaker 2: you know what I mean?
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly. Just seems very casual.
Speaker 2: So the next line we're going to analyze is then
Speaker 2: after that, I sit there for about thirty minutes, thirty
Speaker 2: to forty five minutes, just didn't know what to do.
Speaker 2: So the whole statement then after that is very interesting.
Speaker 2: Each individual word shows missing time, and withholding there's a
Speaker 2: significant event or events that he's skipping over here, so
Speaker 2: then shows missing time. After also shows missing time, indicating
Speaker 2: there was an event preceding it. So we're looking at
Speaker 2: something that is just incredibly vague. So he's using distancing
Speaker 2: language with that, rather than saying exactly what happened, He's
Speaker 2: using present tense language with sit there and not sat there.
Speaker 2: He's recalling a past event, so he should be using
Speaker 2: past tense language. Present tense language is often in a
Speaker 2: deceptive statement, so we see the order of the story here.
Speaker 2: It's out of sain which we often see time references
Speaker 2: jumbled up in deceptive statements. He said that he's buried her,
Speaker 2: and now he's talking about the aftermath of her murder
Speaker 2: or this accidental death. I guess saying that he was
Speaker 2: sitting there for about thirty minutes, which is an interesting
Speaker 2: choice since statistically liars often picked the number three, so
Speaker 2: this would include thirty minutes, and quote about makes it
Speaker 2: even less precise. So quote just didn't know what to do.
Speaker 2: We see the inclusion of the unique word just, and
Speaker 2: we also see the fact that he took the eye
Speaker 2: out of the statement, so he's distancing himself from responsibility.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I always found that weird that he just said
Speaker 1: I sit there rather than sat there, even though he's
Speaker 1: describing an event that took place in the past, and
Speaker 1: when you just see the full context, it's like so
Speaker 1: weird that he can be calculated enough to bury this
Speaker 1: person's body and then run away, yet then'd be shell
Speaker 1: shocked enough afterwards to just sit there between thirty to
Speaker 1: forty five minutes. That's interesting. I didn't know that. Statistically,
Speaker 1: liars often picked the number three. So I'm guessing this
Speaker 1: is a common thing where if have to make up
Speaker 1: a story and come up with a timeframe, they'll usually
Speaker 1: say like thirty minutes or so, just they're just attracted
Speaker 1: to that word, that number for some reason.
Speaker 2: Yeah, thirty minutes, three o'clock. Yeah, it's just it's a
Speaker 2: typical number that liars will pick. I don't know why.
Speaker 2: So the next line that we're going to analyze is
Speaker 2: I went home, I got cleaned up. I regret it.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry it did happen. I regret pushing her. So
Speaker 2: he already said that he went home more out of
Speaker 2: order statements and time references that are off, So he
Speaker 2: skips over what he did after sitting there. He says
Speaker 2: he buried her, But we're getting no information on how
Speaker 2: or when that transpired. If this is true, he likely
Speaker 2: did go home and get cleaned up, but he's definitely
Speaker 2: withholding a great deal of information on what preceded that exactly.
Speaker 2: And although this sounds really strange, to stay with me.
Speaker 2: So the use of the phrase cleaned up could indicate
Speaker 2: sexual activity so washing, bathing, brushing teeth, These personal cleaning
Speaker 2: rituals can be indicative of sexual abuse or activity. So
Speaker 2: I question here if he is indeed responsible, that the
Speaker 2: potential motive could be that of rape and not related
Speaker 2: to the money at all. So quote I regret it.
Speaker 2: My question if he does, he's taking what he regrets
Speaker 2: out of the statement. So how much could he truly
Speaker 2: be feeling remorse if he can't say exactly what he
Speaker 2: did that he regrets. Does he regret cleaning up? That's
Speaker 2: what the sentence structure would have you believe, But clearly
Speaker 2: he means the death of the victim, but he's not
Speaker 2: saying that, so I can't be sure. And he doesn't
Speaker 2: say that it was an accident. He just leaves it
Speaker 2: out entirely. He uses really strange language here, and he
Speaker 2: doesn't say I'm sorry it happened. He uses present tense
Speaker 2: I'm sorry it did happen, which isn't the same thing.
Speaker 2: Is he apologizing for what he did or is he
Speaker 2: apologizing to investigators who may be giving him disapproving glances
Speaker 2: and affirming that it did indeed happen. He's lacked a motion,
Speaker 2: like we said, through this entire statement, and the way
Speaker 2: that he chooses to express remorse is suspect. Many killers
Speaker 2: express remorse, but people who make false confessions would have
Speaker 2: no reason to be remorseful, aside from wasting time of
Speaker 2: investigators or getting the families hopes up. He says that
Speaker 2: he regrets pushing her, but he doesn't mention that he
Speaker 2: regrets anything else, not the fight, not the fact that
Speaker 2: she died, that he chose to bury her and cover
Speaker 2: it up, simply that he pushed her. We can only
Speaker 2: believe he regrets what he tells us that he regrets.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the whole statement about him getting cleaned up. When
Speaker 1: you learn the full context of this case, you're going
Speaker 1: to wonder, like, is this part even true. I mean,
Speaker 1: it is possible that there was sexual abuse here that
Speaker 1: he's not talking about, and that's why he felt the
Speaker 1: need to clean himself up. Yet at the same time,
Speaker 1: if he actually buried someone, then obviously he would be
Speaker 1: pretty dirty and require a lot of cleaning. And when
Speaker 1: you see the circumstances of how he was living at
Speaker 1: the time, you would think that someone would have noticed
Speaker 1: something that if he had gotten if he had accidentally
Speaker 1: killed someone and buried their body. There would be a
Speaker 1: lot more warning signs with them, like he would be
Speaker 1: covered in dirt, he would be sweaty. And I haven't
Speaker 1: heard anything to indicate that someone saw him on that
Speaker 1: fashion on that particular night, which makes me wonder if
Speaker 1: this entire part of the story is completely fabricated. And
Speaker 1: it's interesting how he always uses the word her throughout
Speaker 1: this when describing the victim, like I regret pushing her.
Speaker 1: But you'll notice that there was only one moment in
Speaker 1: the entire statement where I had to bleep out the
Speaker 1: victim's name, And it's kind of a detached thing where
Speaker 1: he only uses the victim's name once during the entire statement.
Speaker 1: And when you hear that, you're like, yeah, that's kind
Speaker 1: of surprising when you learn the relationship between them. So
Speaker 1: it's kind of like he's deliberately not using the person's
Speaker 1: name to distance himself from what he did.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that can definitely be indicative of distancing. But if
Speaker 2: the perpetrator used her name in the beginning, like I remember,
Speaker 2: I thought this too. I was doing the Scott Peterson
Speaker 2: interview with investigators and just for practice, and I sent
Speaker 2: it to Mark and I was noting every single time
Speaker 2: that he said her rather than like my wife or Lacey.
Speaker 2: And I had the exact same thought that you did,
Speaker 2: because I thought, like, if you're continuing to say her
Speaker 2: rather than saying her name. But he said, if her
Speaker 2: name was used initially, then you can say her. But
Speaker 2: I still do think that if you're going to go
Speaker 2: a whole statement and you're only going to use that
Speaker 2: person's name once, if that person meant something to you
Speaker 2: and you're indicating that there was a relationship, and earlier
Speaker 2: on in the analysis, I said that we would indicate
Speaker 2: a partnership, and I thought that these two were known
Speaker 2: to each other. This wasn't just like a victim of
Speaker 2: opportunity or a chance encounter. Then you would think that
Speaker 2: somebody who would be remorseful, especially if they respond, would
Speaker 2: be using that person's name. It just it doesn't feel
Speaker 2: emotionally appropriate.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, especially when you learn the full context about
Speaker 1: why he's saying this.
Speaker 2: So the next line is I wish I could go
Speaker 2: back in time and not have done that. I wish
Speaker 2: I could turn time. If I could turn time back,
Speaker 2: I wouldn't just you know, I wish I could go
Speaker 2: back in time and not have done that. Again, what
Speaker 2: is that There's a great deal of information that he's withholding,
Speaker 2: So I think there's a potential that that could refer
Speaker 2: to rape or murder and not just an accident. He
Speaker 2: doesn't say accident, and we can only go off what
Speaker 2: the subject says, So based on his words, this is
Speaker 2: likely no accident. He doesn't say her name or express
Speaker 2: regret over her being dead. Notice, it's all about him.
Speaker 2: If I could go back in time, I would just
Speaker 2: dot dot dot.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: Again, he uses the word just he's withholding information, and
Speaker 2: you know he's assuming. The interviewer notes. By using this language,
Speaker 2: she's distancing himself from the act and the potential motivation.
Speaker 2: He doesn't anywhere say that this was a terrible accident,
Speaker 2: as I just mentioned, So we have to ask ourselves
Speaker 2: if there is a possibility that he intended to end
Speaker 2: her life. He's purposefully vague and in my opinion, trying
Speaker 2: to cover up what really happened and what was his
Speaker 2: true motivation if he was indeed in fault.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's kind of weird the phrasing. I wish I
Speaker 1: could have gone back in time and not have done that.
Speaker 1: And I'm thinking if this was legitimately an accident, that
Speaker 1: he would say more details that he would say, if
Speaker 1: I could do it over again, I would have been
Speaker 1: certain that she was dead, like I would have gone
Speaker 1: for help, and maybe if I had acted quicker, I
Speaker 1: could have saved her life. But it's like you're saying
Speaker 1: that all I wish I had not done that. That
Speaker 1: does kind of indicate that maybe he's did something else
Speaker 1: but just doesn't want to say it, and then he
Speaker 1: has great regrets about having done it. But it's just
Speaker 1: a weird phrase to use. If you are genuinely like
Speaker 1: not a fault, then it was genuinely an accident.
Speaker 2: The next line is it was all over money dot
Speaker 2: dot dot. And you know what money will do to
Speaker 2: you when you're a kid. I don't know dot dot
Speaker 2: dot you were a kid, dot dot dot. You had
Speaker 2: a certain amount of money dot dot dot. The money
Speaker 2: was valuable to you. Then you know, so the it
Speaker 2: he doesn't say what it is, was it the fight,
Speaker 2: was it pushing her? He doesn't say what money does
Speaker 2: to him. He pushes it onto the detective trying to
Speaker 2: relate with the statement, and you know what money will
Speaker 2: do to you when you're a kid, I don't know.
Speaker 2: Dot dot dot you were a kid, dot dot dot
Speaker 2: you had a certain amount of money, the money was
Speaker 2: valuable to you, then, you know, So why are you
Speaker 2: referencing childhood and money? This seems like a need to
Speaker 2: distract from what could be a real motivation or what
Speaker 2: were the real actions that he took. He doesn't say
Speaker 2: the amount of money that she had in possession. He's
Speaker 2: so nonspecific with the change from twenty dollars. So the
Speaker 2: subject takes himself out of the statement, distancing himself and
Speaker 2: further brings the detective in. So he's meandering and loses
Speaker 2: the plot here. He was fourteen, not seven, So the
Speaker 2: reference to him as a kid, is that appropriate or
Speaker 2: do you think that that's to minimize.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because that's this whole story, is that they got
Speaker 1: into a fight over money and that he pushed her
Speaker 1: accidentally and that's how she wound up dead. So he's
Speaker 1: pretty much saying that's the entire motivation, and he's trying
Speaker 1: to make it sound like, oh, if you're a kid
Speaker 1: or if you're a teenager, that a fight over money
Speaker 1: can escalate a lot worse than if you're an adult,
Speaker 1: and that's why they got into a physical altercation, which
Speaker 1: is kind odd that she's just trying to justify it, saying, well,
Speaker 1: you know what it's like if someone doesn't steals money
Speaker 1: from you or doesn't give you the correct money, you
Speaker 1: can drive you wild. And I'm thinking, really, is a
Speaker 1: fourteen year old going to act this way over a
Speaker 1: twenty dollars? And one thing he doesn't mention in the
Speaker 1: statement you'll notice is that he doesn't say what happened
Speaker 1: to the actual money, because he says that she didn't
Speaker 1: give him back the correct change from the twenty dollars,
Speaker 1: but he doesn't mention anything about checking her pockets or
Speaker 1: anything to collect the money. Even though this was supposedly
Speaker 1: the motivation for her death.
Speaker 2: I would go so far as to say that it wasn't.
Speaker 2: And then he's lying because it's completely nonspecific. Just all
Speaker 2: the details here nonspecific. He just feels like he's trying
Speaker 2: to distract when he's bringing the detective into it, Like,
Speaker 2: how does he know that money was valuable to the
Speaker 2: detective when he was a kid. He won't take responsibility
Speaker 2: by saying when I was a kid, money was valuable
Speaker 2: to me. He's distancing himself from what he's saying was
Speaker 2: his primary motivation, which I think is really odd.
Speaker 1: Well, I'll just say that once you learn the full
Speaker 1: context of how this statement is taking place, this statement
Speaker 1: about the money does make a bit more sense when
Speaker 1: you realize that it's not just a detective, that there's
Speaker 1: someone else in the room who is hearing this story.
Speaker 1: So I think that's why he's just talking about how
Speaker 1: you know that money was valuable to me back then.
Speaker 2: That might be the context that I'm missing, because it's
Speaker 2: just like, why are you meandering on about how you
Speaker 2: had a certain amount of money when you were a kid?
Speaker 2: To the detective, it's like, why don't you just say
Speaker 2: I had a certain amount of money when I was
Speaker 2: a kid, and that money was very valuable to me,
Speaker 2: and so I felt the under threat when she took
Speaker 2: this money or whatever. But he doesn't give any details
Speaker 2: like that. It just feels like an utter fabrication. So
Speaker 2: the next line is, but that's the way it was
Speaker 2: when I was a kid. The subject finally references himself
Speaker 2: as a kid, but again doesn't say money was important
Speaker 2: to me as a kid. He keeps it vague with
Speaker 2: but that's the way it was with me when I
Speaker 2: was a kid. Is fourteen a kid?
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 2: I think it's more of a teenager, but I guess
Speaker 2: it depends on the age the subject is when looking back.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, as we're going to talk about this is
Speaker 1: years down the line, so obviously the person saying this
Speaker 1: is no longer a kid. They are now grown adult,
Speaker 1: So that's probably why they were referring themselves to a
Speaker 1: kid at age fourteen, even though that would technically make
Speaker 1: them a teenager. And of course at that point they
Speaker 1: are old enough to know right from wrong.
Speaker 2: So I'm not sure if this next one is like
Speaker 2: a grammatical error or if this is I'm going to
Speaker 2: think that it's not, but I'll read the line every
Speaker 2: dime I got I depend on because most stuff like
Speaker 2: that I had to work for, so I depend on
Speaker 2: is present tense, So I don't know if he's referring
Speaker 2: to the past or the present, like right now, money
Speaker 2: is really important, like every dime I have, Like rather
Speaker 2: than saying every dime I have I depend on, he
Speaker 2: said I got or does he mean every dime I got?
Speaker 2: Past tense at that time, and then he's saying I
Speaker 2: depend on, I'm thinking that it's the misuse of present
Speaker 2: tens rather than him speaking about present tents. What do
Speaker 2: you think?
Speaker 1: That's what I'm thinking as well, because he is staying
Speaker 1: this statement years after the alleged incident took place, and
Speaker 1: I don't think he would say I depended on every
Speaker 1: dime I got way back when I was fourteen years old.
Speaker 1: So he's trying to say that, like any free thing
Speaker 1: I have right now, I had to work for. So
Speaker 1: but he's still trying to use it as a justification
Speaker 1: for his motivation, saying, you know how hard it is
Speaker 1: for me to earn money, so you can understand why
Speaker 1: I would have lost my temper and accidentally killed someone
Speaker 1: over money back when I was fourteen years old.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And he goes on by saying, because most stuff
Speaker 2: like that I had to work for. Most stuff like
Speaker 2: that you had to work for. Like what are we
Speaker 2: referring to here, Like we're knowing, Okay, So he's saying
Speaker 2: most stuff like that. Is he referring to money, is
Speaker 2: he referring to relations with women? He doesn't specify what
Speaker 2: most stuff like that is.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's kind of weird to me because we really
Speaker 1: don't know how true this story is and I don't
Speaker 1: know if he's trying to say that, like talk about
Speaker 1: even how emotional connections had to work for because I
Speaker 1: we're going to find out this person that he supposedly
Speaker 1: killed was someone who had a very strong connection to him,
Speaker 1: and maybe he's thinking about how it was very difficult
Speaker 1: for me to develop strong relationships with other people. That
Speaker 1: was something I had to work for. So it could
Speaker 1: be like a distancing himself again where he's saying that
Speaker 1: there's no way I would commit premeditated murder because this
Speaker 1: person was someone who was close to me.
Speaker 2: All right, So I'm going to give my conclusion here.
Speaker 2: I think the vast majority of the statement, as we've
Speaker 2: mentioned throughout, is fabricated. The time references are all off
Speaker 2: and the events are jumbled. There's missing time all over
Speaker 2: the place as well. The subject takes himself out of
Speaker 2: the statement. He uses passive language, the story lacks emotion,
Speaker 2: the tone is inappropriate, and it seems like he's trying
Speaker 2: to cloak what could be his real motivation, which if
Speaker 2: he isn'tdeed responsible. Based on these statements, I think could
Speaker 2: potentially be sexual in nature, but they're definitely not related
Speaker 2: to the money that he brings up throughout the entire statement.
Speaker 2: But given the context of the entire statement, it is
Speaker 2: entirely possible that it could be a balse confession and
Speaker 2: there are underlying motives or fantasies that drove the subject
Speaker 2: to confess. There's plenty of use of unique words such
Speaker 2: as just, and the fact that he doesn't say this
Speaker 2: was an accident at any point, and he doesn't give
Speaker 2: clear details. The whole account is vague. He skates over
Speaker 2: the part about burying her, and he gives no details
Speaker 2: on what should be a very memorable action. Taken this
Speaker 2: feels like an important part of the story, as is
Speaker 2: the part where she was impaled and by what, And
Speaker 2: like Robin said, he doesn't check her head. He offers
Speaker 2: no further clues. None of this feels like it's coming
Speaker 2: from memory. Basically, all of the events in here, in
Speaker 2: my opinions, seemed fabricated. And there's two possibilities here in
Speaker 2: my very non expert opinion, let's keep this in mind.
Speaker 2: Number one, this is a false confession by someone who
Speaker 2: came forward with very few details and no real knowledge
Speaker 2: of the crime, but they're somehow tied to her because
Speaker 2: like I said earlier, the use of us indicates a partnership,
Speaker 2: and I felt as though this is somebody who had
Speaker 2: known her in her life. Number Two, this is a
Speaker 2: suspect to confess, but with a completely inaccurate retelling of
Speaker 2: events in question, reframing them to put himself in a
Speaker 2: less culpable position. And I go back and forth on these.
Speaker 2: I'm not even going to say which one that I
Speaker 2: feel like is more likely, because I think that both
Speaker 2: options are equally plausible, and I think I'll have an
Speaker 2: opinion once you tell me the details of the case.
Speaker 2: But the one thing that I can settle on is
Speaker 2: this statement is fabricated. It is almost entirely deceptive.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, before we recorded this, you sent me like
Speaker 1: a draft of your statement analysis and you just wanted
Speaker 1: to ask me if I was on the right track,
Speaker 1: and I said that you were, because when I covered
Speaker 1: this case, when the trail went cold four years ago,
Speaker 1: I pretty much had these same feelings where I wasn't
Speaker 1: one hundred percent certain about whether the person making this
Speaker 1: statement was guilty. But either way, I do not believe
Speaker 1: that this is an accurate account of what actually happened,
Speaker 1: and that if the person who said it was guilty,
Speaker 1: then the victim's death took place in an entirely different fashion,
Speaker 1: and that he was not telling the full truth.
Speaker 2: If Mark was looking over this statement, you guys would
Speaker 2: get a way better result where he would tell you
Speaker 2: probably exactly whether or not this person did it or
Speaker 2: not he was lying this entire statement. And I'm really
Speaker 2: interested to hear the details the case.
Speaker 1: So now this would be a good time to end
Speaker 1: part one and part two. I will finally reveal which
Speaker 1: case it is to Jewels and give her the full details,
Speaker 1: and we can go back over this statement analysis and
Speaker 1: see if she's changed her mind or she still thinks
Speaker 1: she was dead on on what she believed about the statement.
Speaker 1: So join us for part two of our series about
Speaker 1: Jewels statement analysis.
Speaker 2: Robin, do you want to tell us a little bit
Speaker 2: about the Trail Went Cold Patreon?
Speaker 1: Yes, the Trail Cold Patreon has been around for three
Speaker 1: years now, and we offer these standard bonus features like
Speaker 1: early ad free episodes, and I also send out stickers
Speaker 1: and sign thank you cards to anyone who signs up
Speaker 1: with us on Patreon if you join our five dollars
Speaker 1: tier Tier two. We also offer monthly bonus episodes in
Speaker 1: which I talk about cases which are not featured on
Speaker 1: The Trail Went Cold's original feed, so they're exclusive to
Speaker 1: Patreon and if you join our highest tier, Tier three,
Speaker 1: the ten dollar Tier. One of the features we offer
Speaker 1: is a audio commentary track over classic episode of Unsolved Mysteries,
Speaker 1: where you can download an audio file and then boot
Speaker 1: up the original Unsolved Mysteries episode on Amazon Prime or
Speaker 1: YouTube and play it with my audio commentary playing in
Speaker 1: the background, where I just provide trivia and factoids about
Speaker 1: the cases featured in this episode. And incidentally, the very
Speaker 1: first episode that I did a commentary track over was
Speaker 1: the episode featuring this case. So if you want to
Speaker 1: download a commentary track in which I make more smart
Speaker 1: ass remarks about Jewel Kaylor, then be sure to join
Speaker 1: Tier three.
Speaker 3: So I want to let you know a little bit
Speaker 3: about the Jeweles and Nashty Patreons. So there's early ad
Speaker 3: free episodes of the Path Went Chili. We've got our
Speaker 3: Path Went Chili mini's, which are always over an hour,
Speaker 3: so they're not very many, but they're just too short
Speaker 3: to turn into a series, and we're really enjoying doing those,
Speaker 3: so we hope you'll check out those patreons.
Speaker 2: We'll link them in the show notes.
Speaker 1: So I want to thank you all for listening and
Speaker 1: any chance you have to share us on social media
Speaker 1: with a friend or d rate and review is greatly
Speaker 1: appreciate it. You can email us at the path Went
Speaker 1: Chili at Gmail dott. You can reach us on Twitter
Speaker 1: at the Pathwin. So until next time, be sure to
Speaker 1: bundle up because cold trails and chili pass call for
Speaker 1: warm clothing.
Speaker 2: Music by Paul Rich from the podcast Cold Callers Comedy