I have a keen interest in and research statement analysis techniques used to train law enforcement in interviewing skills.
If I can just show one example extracted from Chase's interview on Feb 17th with my own interpretation:
CM: I’ve never talked, before this, this happened to Joseph, I’d never, never talked to Dan ever.
He states something happened to Joey. What's important here is what he doesn't state, the expected, that Joey possibly went off, of his own accord. So I'm expecting him to state 'before Joseph disappeared'. It's not only about detecting lying, because people don't like lying and avoid it if they can to avoid the tells, so it's focusing on what statements reveal. Speech is very fast and automatic and it reveals what our knowledge is, often with unintentional leakage.
He then goes on to say -
Didn’t even, I mean I knew of his existence, I knew his role in Joseph’s business, I knew um that Joseph was almost, had almost paid him off and I think he was paying him $50,000 for his part of the business, I think that was the number..
He doesn't say has. He's stating knowledge that Joey is dead.
Another example I quoted yesterday was Chase saying he thought Joey paid for lunch by card and they could look that up. They would have had no need to doubt he met Chase for lunch at that stage so he revealed the possibility and I believe likelihood that he didn't meet Joey, because he had even given consideration to alibiing himself.
.
That way maybe they won't think no one will notice if they do it again lol
