Analyst Chris Woodruff (UK) sent the following emergency call regarding a man discovering his wife was dead.
Even in this less than 60 second call, Statement Analysis already knows something about the case. The time savings and focus on such a case are invaluable to busy and often overworked professionals who live to obtain justice.
I. The Emergency Call
Police Emergency
Police: What is your emergency?
Subject: Ah, yeah, I have a dead body here, Harriots Lane in Ashtead please.
Police: What's happened Sir?
Subject: I don't know but it looks very nasty. Sh, she's been strangled I think.
Police: Do you live at this address? Or are you visiting this address?
Subject: Ah, Ah, I, err, it's my ex wife. She's got this cord around her neck.
Police: Ok, alright, we're gonna get police on their way and obviously we'll get an ambulance as well just to check. Umm
Subject: She's cold... She's dead.
Police: What's her name?
Subject: Sharon.
Police: And her surname?
Subject: Birchwood.
Let's look at a brief analysis and Chris' context of the case.
II. The Analysis:
Police Emergency
Police: What is your emergency?
Subject: Ah, yeah, I have a dead body here, Harriots Lane in Ashtead please.
The Greater Context: An adult male has found his wife, murdered. We now hold to the expectation that he will report his wife murdered.
The first thing we note is that his call begins with a pause. This shows a need to stop and consider what to say during a "high hormonal" moment.
It is unexpected.
Next, within this pause, what is the first word his brain has informed his mouth to use?
"Yeah"
This informal term of "yes" is to agree, in the affirmative. It is to "agree" with the recipient (police).
Yet, there is nothing to agree upon.
Ingratiation Factor
This is a simple point of Statement Analysis. The caller is "agreeing" to:
a. something not stated
b. police
This one simple word should be noted as a possibility that the caller has a psychological need to be "on the side of the good guys", which indicates to the contrary.
An easy sample of this is the guilty knowledge a parent of a "missing" child shows when he praises search and rescue for:
not finding his child. (DeOrr analysis)
With one word, we now now consider that the need to ingratiate suggests guilt or guilty knowledge of what he is about to say.
In analysis, every word, and sometimes even, every letter matters.
We've only cover his pause and the word "yeah" and already know there is "sensitivity" in the statement.
Sensitivity Indicator Number One: Pause
Sensitivity Indicator Number Two: Ingratiation Factor
Let's get to the first sentence to continue:
Ah, yeah, I have a dead body here, Harriots Lane in Ashtead please.
Next, note that his wife is not dead, but he, the caller (subject) has an issue.
He has a dead body there.
This is to measure the context with impact...
upon himself.
He is inconvenienced for having to deal with a dead body "here" (location)?
This is viewed as narcissistic. Was his wife an "inconvenience" which has been, historically, used to end lives via murder?
Social Introductions
Social Introductions tell us about the subject's perception of the relationship.
Question: Who is dead?
Answer: No one.
The victim is not his wife.
The victim is not even a person.
The dead body is "here" (location) and the caller wants it dealt with.
We now know, as the sensitivity indicators pile up:
The caller has dehumanized the victim.
This is a form of rationalizing, which leads to justifying. Murderers never really murder, in the language. This is why analysts look for victim blaming; justifying removal of the inconvenience.
Is he going to say, "You must find my wife's killer!" in any form?
Objection: he is in shock. He is disassociating from the reality.
Answer: "Dead body" indicates processing. Disassociation is a result of denial, not processing.
That she is without name (non person) and a "body", indicates the caller has long accepted her death.
The investigator analyst should now consider premeditated murder by the subject.
Ah, yeah, I have a dead body here, Harriots Lane in Ashtead please.
The dead body is "here" with specific detail.
We now know: the location is not only the element of the sentence, but a priority for him.
Come, remove it.
"please" is only given after the location.
He "agrees" with police ("the good guys") before anything is decided, and he devotes his words to location.
Police: What's happened Sir?
The best question and the most natural.
Subject: I don't know but it looks very nasty. Sh, she's been strangled I think.
He denies knowledge only to rebut/compare/minimize with the word "but."
Note what follows the word "but" as always important.
Does his wife look like she suffered?
No.
"it"
She is "it"
and...
"it looks nasty" as if he is calling a cleaning service for his location.
Sh, she's been strangled I think.
Regarding the cause of death, "it" has now become "she."
The depersonalization of the victim is to indicate the most severely negative relationship; often found in domestic homicide or acute abuse.
Question: What comes first, his speculation or her cause of death?
Answer: The cause of death.
"I think" is secondary, which is added after the conclusion of the matter.
He is showing us: I know how she died, oops, I better qualify that with "think" as an after thought.
Police: Do you live at this address? Or are you visiting this address?
This is an unusual question. This is not a question I would have thought to ask but is likely intuitively posed due to the bizarre nature of his dehumanizing language of the victim.
Subject: Ah, Ah, I, err, it's my ex wife. She's got this cord around her neck.
Who is "it"?
Remember, this is to process her death and processing overcomes natural denial and shock and takes place in time.
It is interesting that the either/or question is not answered by him. This is an indicator of script.
Script means he has rehearsed what was to be said, and it was interrupted by an unusual question.
Script indicates the need to withhold information. He blurted out what he needed to say, even at the expense of the question.
What did he reveal?
He revealed an "upgrade" in their relationship.
Ah, Ah, I, err, it's my ex wife. She's got this cord around her neck.
He how shows a technical upgrade of the relationship.
Lesser Context
The lesser context is founds in the sentence itself.
The Greater Context is a husband calling police to report finding his wife dead (or ex).
The Lesser Context has upgraded the victim from "it" to "my ex wife" which we now ask,
"What caused the relationship to improve in the subject's verbalized perception of reality?"
We look to answer our question by his language. This is what it means to let the subject guide you. He has the information; not us. This is why we interview using few words and do the listening.
What caused the relationship to improve?
She was a "dead body" and now she is his ex wife and she is now "she" in the context of having a "cord around her neck."
Psycho-linguistic Profiling:
He likes her with a cord around her neck.
This is literal.
Linguistic Disposition
When analysts are trained and become efficient at identifying linguistic disposition, they solve cases. They do deep analysis.
His linguistic disposition towards the victim is duly noted as such:
It sounds crass or like dark humor, but it is not. We must not project our emotions but listen and submit to the statement.
In the caller's verbalized perception of reality, he needs a mess to be cleaned up, but has a positive linguistic disposition towards his ex wife while she has a cord around her neck.
The LD towards her as a dead body is Negative. ("it" is "nasty")
The LD towards her, as his ex wife with a cord around her neck is Positive.
With "nasty" we may wonder (though influenced by the outcome) of the possibility of the subject either having help killing her, or having someone kill her.
Police: Ok, alright, we're gonna get police on their way and obviously we'll get an ambulance as well just to check. Umm
Subject: She's cold... She's dead.
Psycho-linguistic Profile:
It is likely that one of his complaints about his victim in the marriage was about sex.
She was "cold."
This is unnecessary information. He already reported a dead body. Heat dissipation is rapid.
Time has elapsed.
Police: What's her name?
Unnecessary to ask, but necessary for the "Incomplete Social Introduction" which has already indicted him in the murder.
Subject: Sharon.
Police: And her surname?
Subject: Birchwood.
Analysis Conclusion: Deception Indicated
The caller has guilty knowledge of his wife's murder.
Analyst should not conclude "he did it" but remain disciplined to that which we know. That he killed her is speculation. "Guilty knowledge" is the appropriate conclusion. Police would now take this call's analysis and focus everything upon the caller. He is the key to solving the case.
Guilty Knowledge means if he did not kill her, he knows who did and he is "pleased" at the results.
The Profile of the caller, even from less than 1 minute of information is of extreme animosity towards his wife and an acutely narcissistic disposition. He is inconvenienced at the "nasty" intrusion at his location while depersonalizing his victim.
Chris added that he watched a documentary about the case:
"Who killed Sharon Birchwood" Her ex husband, Graham Birchwood hired an ex Business Associate and Hit man to kill her. She was strangled to death. The hit man, 63 year old Paul Cryne flew from Thailand to Britain to carry out the murder for £30,000 on December 4th 2007.
Cryne was jailed for a minimum of 28 years and 6 months in 2010. Graham Birchwood was jailed in 2009. He had debts of £150,000.
Statement Analysis Training is available to learn Deception Detection, with a 100% accuracy expectation, in both seminar and at home content.
The "Complete Statement Analysis Course" is done at your home, at your pace and comes with 12 months of e support: personal attention to your progress.
Sign up through Hyatt Analysis Services.
Those of second language: the course is in English and being bilingual is of great advantage to your work.
Deception Detection seminars for law enforcement, with Advanced Seminars jointly with Det. (ret) Steve Johnson, both a certified Statement Analyst and a Handwriting Analysis Expert.
Advanced Training for Sex Crimes Units trained in deception detection as well as for Psychologists, therapists, counselors, social workers, Child Protective Caseworkers and Investigators.
Discernment for Journalists, bloggers, Human Resource professionals and professions where communication and lie detection is needed.
