Saturday, 4 March 2017
Helen Bailey: Missing Person Police Call
Here we see how even in the initial police call to report a missing person, a deceptive subject gives away the information needed.
Investigators who are trained in detecting deception, never dismiss anyone as a "liar" but recognizes that even from liars, the reliable information comes out.
Before an investigation even begins, those trained can know the truth.
Ian Stewart’s initial call to Police
P: Hertfordshire police, how can I help?
I.S: Hello there, my partner has been missing since Monday and not contacted anyone. Said she was going away, hasn’t gone... ended up where she said she was going, so I’m... we’ve just decided we should report it.
a. We do not expect a missing person's call to begin with a greeting. The greeting is seen not only as a lack of urgency, but within analysis, it is called the "ingratiating factor"; that is, one may wish to 'ingratiate' oneself into law enforcement. This is the same as saying, "I am a good guy", which is unnecessary.
DeOrr Kunz spoke more about Search and Rescue, in detail, than about his missing son.
He both thanked and praised them for not finding DeOrr jr.
b. Who is this "we" that he speaks of?
c. Why did they "just" (timing) decide to call?
This may be a desire to be seen as timely, that is, that he called right away. It is a signal of delay, instead.
d. to "decide" indicates both hesitation and discussion, which may have included debate. Why?
e. "so": he feels the need to explain why he made the call, though he uses the plural without expiation. The making of this phone call is very sensitive to the caller.
P: What’s your partner’s name?
I.S: Helen Bailey
I.S: She left a note, she said in the note something like, I need sp, space and time alone. I’m going to Broadstairs, please don’t contact me in any way. But in Br, Broadstairs she’s got, we’ve got a a cottage down there but we s, people have been down there with neighbours and she hasn’t, she’s not there. I haven’t been there either.
a. "like": with a missing persons report, we expect him to read the note --or recite it from memory.
The elevated importance.
The note would likely have been read by the subject repeatedly, especially during the 'discussion' as to whether or not to call police.
"Like" is a classification and may reflect his 'interpretation' rather than what she wrote.
Wrote: a note is written. In his language, he did not say she "wrote" but said that she "said in the note." This is a minor difference, yet it is here and we must consider the possibility that she did not "write" this note. Although readily verified, the analyst remains open to varying possibilities brought on by the language itself. We listen; we do not interpret.
b. "we've got a cottage down there": if the pronoun "we" is about he and the missing person, there is unity.
The unity must be understood in context: of having a cottage.
c. "I haven't been there, either" is an unnecessary statement. Unnecessary information is very important.
The location of the cottage is now sensitive.
She is missing.
He is not.
He is on the phone and it is part of his priority to tell them where he was not.
It may be that police sensed this, intuitively:
P: And someone’s been to the cottage?
I.S: Someone’s been to the cottage, yeah. Her brother went there.
P: Does it look like anyone had been there?
I.S: No. No, we.. no, someone went in and it d, d, doesn’t look like anyone’s been there.
This sounds awkward to the ear. Deception often does. "Someone" (not her brother?) went in, he affirms, but it does not "look" (appearance) like "anyone's" been there.
P: Did Helen go in a vehicle?
I.S: No she didn’t, she left her car here. She did take her dog with her. She’s got a little Dachshund but she would get there by train or she she could possibly take a taxi. She does do that sort of thing.
P: And was that note a bit of a shock, were you expecting it at all?
Here, we don't know what prompted this question. He said he had a note.
I.S: No I wasn’t... well, yes it was a shock. She had talked about it but er it was still a shock. She has talked about wanting space as things just haven’t been going well for her recently or for us.
P: Ok, so she mentioned wanting space but she had never actually acted on it, she’s not left before?
I.S: She’s never done anything like this before, no.
Not, "she's never left before" but "done anything like this"; what did she "do" that caused this language?
P: And what’s her date of birth?
I.S: Oh crikey, gosh, you’ve thrown me there… 22nd, right, just let me double check, one second, oh God, sorry. Can you still hear me?
Note inclusion of:
P: I can still hear you, yeah.
I.S: I am sorry, I am just double checking, 22nd August 1964. Sorry, my just brain just went. Sorry.
The word "sorry" has entered his language four times during a call to police about his missing fiancé.
Not only is it important (once) but repetition tells us the importance of it is elevated.
He is sorry.
When someone repeats often how sorry he is, we should believe him.
P: And her eye colour?
I.S: Her eye colour? Oh my God, how do you forget these things? Sorry, God, that’s terrible.
a. answering a question with a question
b. Divinity repetition
c. "you" distancing language consistent with forgetting her eye color.
d. "sorry" again.
P: Are there any specific concerns, suicide or self harm, anything like that?
I.S: Well, I, I, would say no but she has, she has been very very anxious and very worried about lots of things and she is a very, she is a worrier… she is a she is a natural worrier.
P: This may sound silly, but she’s definitely not at home no?
I.S: No. (inaudible) I, I’ve literally checked everywhere. We have got quite a large house and I have literally checked everywhere.
With the cottage, the pronoun "we" was produced between him and the victim.
Here, the "large house" also produces the same unity.
I.S: And her phone is just dead, it not, when I say dead it just, it just doesn’t ring.
Note "dead" repeated and the need to explain the meaning of "dead"
P: She said nothing to you then, was she leaving the premises at the time?
I.S: No, no, she was… I left her here.
I.S: At some point I saw the note on my desk from Helen
Remember how the note from Helen "said" (spoke) rather than what she wrote?
Here, he tells us who the note is from: from Helen.
Would we even have thought the note may have been from someone other than Helen in a call to police about a missing person who left behind a note??
This is another linguistic indication that the "note" may not have been written by Helen.
P: From what I understand, from what we’ve discussed is that Helen was last seen on Monday 11th April. We’d like you to take me through what happened that day.
Here is where we get our information:
Where a missing person was last seen to a partner engaged is hormonally heightened. Listen carefully to his language.
A truthful person will tell us what happened. We can only tell what we do remember.
Be on alert when one tells us what did not happen, what they cannot remember, what was not said, and so on.
I.S: This is where I can’t remember very well.
The number one form of deception is missing information. Yet when one speaks, not remembering is high on the list.
a. "this" is very up close. The event is hormonally etched upon the brain. We have seen signals of anxiety in his language.
b. It is at "this" place (not "that") where he can't remember. He is placing himself close to the place where he stretched out time but can't remember...
c. "very well." He remembers, but just not 'very' well.
This is an example of the internal stress of direct lying and why one attempts to qualify to avoid such stress.
I’ll tell you what I can remember.
This is an unnecessary and important statement. A person can only tell what a person remembers. Here he is withholding information about the last time he saw Helen.
Here is where professionals recognize:
When one is deceptive and speaking about what happened, he is very likely to yield much valuable and critical information:
She went out in the car just to get some milk or something,
Instead of saying "she went out to her car" (note placing her at the car), he anticipates police asking, "Why did she go out to the car?"
This may not have been asked by police or anyone else without specific training.
He, himself, is worried that when he places her out at her car, the police are going to say, "Well, why did she go to the car?"
The more innocuous or 'unimportant' the reason, the more important it is to analysis:
milk and bits but came back almost instantly.
Here we have specific detail (unnecessary) but now timing:
We should consider that something happened to Helen there (remember the need to place her there?) and it caused a passage of time.
Was upset because something had happened and she said “I’m never going to drive again.”
"Was upset" has no pronoun. There is no person who was "upset" in this sentence. He removes her from it.
b. "because" is the need to explain why she was upset. He anticipates being asked, "Well, why was she upset?" and wishes to pre empt it.
c. "something had happened" further accentuates the passing of time. He did not say "something happened." He said that something "had" happened. This stretches time and now consider why he had the need to say "almost instantly."
He removes her from what happened, and elongates time.
d. "something" is left undefined.
Think now, how important this location is to him and about what happened.
He wants us to think it was very short in time, but his words betray him. By wanting us to think it was almost instant, we know it wasn't. He confirmed this in the imperfect past tense verb usage.
I.S: And at some point I had to dash out because I was late or I see, I could be late so I dashed out.
Here, the "double blue" (blue highlighting the highest form of sensitivity in analysis) is the most critical point of the statement:
he is now not only skipping time ("And at some point") with missing info ("And:), it is here, while he is with Helen that he is suppressing what happened.
By just looking at the color, it is here, he is likely telling the truth that he "dashed" (elevated emotion) to her.
I’m pretty sure Helen waved goodbye to me
This is often a very linguistic strong signal of the time of death.
Here we see him deceptively speaking, yet embedding his responsibility regarding his own actions that caused this phone call:
but when I think back I’m not so sure, so maybe she did, maybe she didn’t cos I was in a rush then. So then I went and I can’t remember what I did, what order I did this in but I def, definitely ended up at the doctors at some point and when I woke up, I was sort of woozy, a bit, I felt a bit like I’d been on morphine in hospital and then I remember thinking should I be driving but obviously I did so I either went to the doctors or the dump or maybe I went to the dump next day.
Even in lies, we get the truth.
Here he is lying about not remembering, admitting he did something to her, in urgency, and dumped her.
This was shown as live as it was recorded on a Policeman's Camera Vest.
I.S: Jamie,(son he lived with at the same property as Helen) The garage doors open.
P: I’m arresting you on suspicion of the murder of Helen Bailey.
I.S: You’re joking?
P.O: And of disposing her body in a manner which is likely to obstruct the coroner and of the theft of the money of Helen Bailey. You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence. Anything you do say may be given in evidence. Do you understand that?
I.S: I guess so.
P: Do you want to sit down?
I.S: Bloody Hell, why? What’s happened, have you found Helen? Where is she? Is that why the garage door’s open?
I.S: I remember bits of it. The first bit I remember is we loaded the car or Helen loaded the car with an old duvet and some boxes ready to take to the dump. So I either went to the doctors or the dump or maybe I went to the dump the next day (inaudible) I’m not sure.
Where the word "we" is used, there was unity.
The cottage, the house and the car, but not personally.