Expert Statement Analysis on Casey

[Searchfortruth]

I thought this was interesting, some points made by Mark M. on the 911 call...I did not copy the whole page, but a link is provided at the bottom...


911: Hi. What can you...can you tell me what's going on a little bit?
Casey: I'm sorry?
911: Can you tell me a little bit what's going on?
Casey: My daughter's been missing for the last 31 days.
911: And you know who has her?
Casey: I know who has her. I've tried to contact her. I actually received
a phone call today. Now from a number that is no longer in service.
I did get to speak to my daughter for about a moment. About a minute.

The first thing we see is that Casey answered a question with a question, "I'm sorry?" Answering a question with a question usually means the person was asked a sensitive question. This is a stall tactic giving the person time to think about how to answer the question. Remember Casey's mother called 911. Casey probably was not expecting to get on the phone.

http://www.statementanalysis.com/caylee/

 

[*Hayley*]

This could be a sign that Caylee "was" drugged when mom couldn't find a babysitter.

"There were certain times in the past where she would bring Caylee to parties where they would be drinking and playing poker. She would put Caylee down on a couch nearby, and she would sleep through the whole thing."

Who said this? AH? I can't remember? Maybe would should post who said it too?

Thanks

 

[krt]

In response to: Searchfortruth's post.......

There is another lie.......she tell's the 911 operator that NOW the number is disconnected???

In her interview Part 2 at Universal she stated that she got a call from her daughter from a "private number".

 

[Searchfortruth]

Just looking at the 911 call, Casey inserts "extra" words where she doesn't need to. I believe this is done by the person to fill in gaps, when a person lies they seem to be less comfortable with gaps of speech in the conversation, silence.

911: And you know who has her?
Casey: I know who has her. I've tried to contact her. I actually received
a phone call today. Now from a number that is no longer in service.
I did get to speak to my daughter for about a moment. About a minute.

 

[Marina2]

snipped:

First, she says I haven't talked to them and in the middle of her sentence she changes to "since WE were probably six or seven...

Ok.. who is the "we" in her head ??
Evidently her parents may know his parents?
Also when did the Anthony's move to Orlando? How old was Casey when they moved from Ohio? Was it before the age of 6?

I think it means Caylee's father. The statement:

I haven't talked to them since we were probably six or seven years old. Since we were little kids. That was probably the last time I saw ..


She says "I haven't talked to them since..." She doesn't include him in this so I think "we" refers to Caylee's father rather than her parents.

Nevertheless, it does represent a shift in pronoun usage. Seems she should have said "I haven't talked to them since I was probably six or seven years old. Since I was a little kid."

According to the FBI statement analysis paper this shows deception. IIRC, she has seen RP's parents since then. (If, in fact, this is who she refers to). This is where her deception lies.

Another point is where she uses the past tense when she states "That was probably the last time I saw..." She should have used the word "is" if this were a truthful statement.
Also, using the word "probably" shows noncommitment, another sign of deception according to FBI statement analysis. Either she last saw them then or she didn't...not "probably". She wasn't talking about days or months ago, she was talking about years. You don't mistake whether you've seen someone since you were a child or recently. No need for her to use "probably"

Casey was three when she moved to Florida.

 

[Marina2]

In KC's written statement she uses a lot of present tense verbs to describe what happened. She also drops the use of pronouns frequently.
These are signs of deception in her statement. We already know she was lying though.

 

[ibyoungr]

:blowkiss: Marina2

Thanks for reviewing the statement with me. However, when I see the word
"we", my first thought is Casey and Caylee's father. But then I started to maybe over-analyzing and thinking but Caylee's father would have seen his parents since the age of six and maybe she meant "we" as in her family.

However, the statement is interesting in many ways as it could stating that the incident with Caylee's father was not just someone she met at Universal as a one night stand but instead someone she knew since she was 6?

 

[justsaying]

:blowkiss: Marina2

Thanks for reviewing the statement with me. However, when I see the word
"we", my first thought is Casey and Caylee's father. But then I started to maybe over-analyzing and thinking but Caylee's father would have seen his parents since the age of six and maybe she meant "we" as in her family.

However, the statement is interesting in many ways as it could stating that the incident with Caylee's father was not just someone she met at Universal as a one night stand but instead someone she knew since she was 6?

The since "we were kids" makes sense to me, because when you are remembering you are seeing the two of you together as little kids playing, and would naturally use the "we". Just my thinking.

 

[scratchthatitch]

I tend to agree with the two posts above. KC is referring to herself and Caylee's father. That would make KC and the father the same age. How old is RP?

 

[waiting4change]

Thanks for this link. I had not seen this info. before and it will give me something to read while waiting for another doc dump

 

[Marina2]

:blowkiss: Marina2

Thanks for reviewing the statement with me. However, when I see the word
"we", my first thought is Casey and Caylee's father. But then I started to maybe over-analyzing and thinking but Caylee's father would have seen his parents since the age of six and maybe she meant "we" as in her family.

However, the statement is interesting in many ways as it could stating that the incident with Caylee's father was not just someone she met at Universal as a one night stand but instead someone she knew since she was 6?

Bold is mine.

Exactly. It also shows deception according to FBI statement analysis. Contrary to her statement, she has seen Caylee's paternal grandparents since she was a little kid. She knows who Caylee's father is and it's a big secret for some reason.

 

[ibyoungr]

Justsaying states
"The since "we were kids" makes sense to me, because when you are remembering you are seeing the two of you together as little kids playing, and would naturally use the "we". Just my thinking."


ok,,, after thinking about this and reading the posts.. I will settle that she is talking about her and Caylee's father. The post that convinced me was by poster "justsaying".

This makes sense.

 

[Searchfortruth]

The since "we were kids" makes sense to me, because when you are remembering you are seeing the two of you together as little kids playing, and would naturally use the "we". Just my thinking.

I wonder if she answered this question a certain way because she was used to throwing out these answers, about Caylee's father, because she had been questioned so much by her parents about this. Or maybe this is one of her few "truths" ?

 

[TotallyObsessed]

Q Zenaida give you any money that day?
A No. I would not have sold my daughter. If I wanted to really just get rid of her I would've left her with my parents and I would've left. I would've moved out. I would've given my mom custody.

I think this would truthfully read as follows if KC had told the truth- I have bolded the inserted text:

A. No. I would not have sold my daughter. I was not trying to get rid of my daughter If I wanted to really just get rid of her, I would have left her with my parents and I would have left. Instead, this horrible accident happened. I was not trying to get rid of my daughter I would have moved out. I would have given my mom custody like she wanted.

 

[Searchfortruth]

OK, I thought this thread was a good idea yesterday...it has occured to me that to try and find the deception in Casey's statements is like trying to find the criminals in a prison...they are EVERYWHERE ! You don't even have to try to find deception in her statement's, you could close your eyes and blindly point to any area on the page of her written statement and chances are that you would have your finger on a lie. I guess statement analysis works when you are not sure if the person is being truthful or not, in this case we know if her mouth is moving she's lying...

 

[Searchfortruth]

On Casey's interview with LE, this part where she talks about what she does when she can't find Caylee at Sawgrass, is interesting. She starts out in past tense, which is where she should be, as it happened in the past, but when she gets into the story she starts "making it up as she goes along" and by mistake uses some present tense language. A major indicator of deception is the switch from past tense to present tense.The past tense comes from memory, but when the person is struggling to make up the story they are so concentrated on giving the person the story that they forget to translate it into past tense. Now if she was really recalling what happened from her memory, she wouldn't have to translate from present to past tense, it would all come out as past tense, without any effort on the story tellers part.

Casey, "I got off work, left Universal driving back to pick up Caylee like a normal day."

She says, "driving back" instead of drove back.

Casey, "And I show up at the apartment, knock on the door. Nobody answers. So, I called Zenaida's cell phone and it's out of service. "

Again if she was recalling from her memory and it was an event that really happened, she would have said I showed up at the apartment and knocked on the door. Nobody answered. She goes back into past tense with "I called Zenaida's phone" then slips back to present tense with "it's out of service" which should be, it was out of service.

Casey, "So I sit down on the steps and wait for a little bit to see if maybe it was just a fluke, if something happened."

Her first mistake is "I sit down on the steps and wait for a little bit" when it should have been past tense, if it really happened. It should have been, I sat down on the steps and waited for a little bit.

Casey, "Noone showed up to the house so I went over to Jay Blanchard Park and checked a couple other places where maybe possibly they"would've gone. A couple stores just regular places that I know Zenaida shops at and shes taken Caylee before."

Another mistake she starts to make is not using "I" before her statements, ie; A couple stores. This shows that she is distancing herself from the statement somewhat.

These are just things I picked up, as a novice, from reading different articles on the subject. If someone with more knowledge has corrections or things to add, please feel free.

 

[Friday]

This is very interesting and I hope it is ok to post the link. Its just something to think about and may be fun to pick apart.

This gentleman has worked on such cases as Scott Peterson, OJ simpson, Jon Bonet Ramsey, Susan Smith, etc.

It looks like he is now working on the Caylee Case tooo!!!

He teaches interviewing techniques to Law Enforcents.

At the very least, it is a very interesting science of how to detect deception in defendants written and verbal statements.

Enjoy!

http://www.statementanalysis.com/cases/

What a great site! Thanks, Terilee. His analysis of the Ramsey ransom note gave me goose bumps at the end.

 

[Friday]

I don't have a problem with the words, "I'm sorry?" when someone wants you to repeat what you've just said. I think it is a southern thing, because I'm from the north and I always heard, "Excuse me?" or "Pardon me?" Or it could be just a more recent lingo thing.

What I do recognize/agree with, is that any of those can "stalling" phrases, used to buy time. I think we often, unconsciously, just repeat the question, thus giving the answerer more time to think of an answer. To be fair, sometimes the answerer asks out of habit, and if given a minute, can formulate the question and answer in their mind without repetition. I think this might happen when someone has something on their mind and wasn't really paying attention to the person who asked the question!

I have bpd family members, immediate and distant, who Casey reminds me of, and they do this constantly. Often to think of a lie, I'm sure! I have gotten very good at not repeating the question - gotten into the habit of not repeating, I guess you could say! It's amazing that if you can stand the few moments of (awkward) silence, you will find you don't need to repeat the question!

Overall, I do view the analysis of "I'm sorry?" and the like as stalling and it probably needs to be analyzed in the context of the situation, which I think this guy did accurately!

Great analysis of his analysis LOL I agree, particularly with your assumption that he was pointing out the use of "I'm sorry?" when used as a stalling tactic, which is how Casey used it in the 911 call. In fact, you could tell she was both stalling and even a little "frushtrated" at having to put up with questions from the 911 operator.

 

[Friday]

I think his deductions from speech patterns are very interesting, and possibly they are *right on* in a majority of cases, but I personally would never feel very confident in relying on these sorts of speech "clues". For example, I have read somewhere that using the word "honestly" or the term "to be honest" in a sentence is an indication that the speaker was not telling the truth at some point in the conversation and is now saying they ARE telling the truth. But the problem with this is, that a whole lot of people just use "honestly/to be honest" as speech pattern HABITS.

As another example, and this from my own life ... people tend to think that when someone is not meeting their eyes, the person is lying or being otherwise evasive. I grew up in a culture where it was considered impolite to make direct eye contact most of the time, members of that culture carried on conversations while looking at other things around them or looking at the ground, etc. I picked up this cultural norm from them at a very young age. It caused me problems later on, and I went years wondering why people kept not believing me when I was telling the truth. Then I ran across and read an anthropological article written about the culture I grew up in, and found out about the direct-eye-contact-is-rude thing. Took some work, and it was hard to do at first and made me very uncomfortable, but I managed to change that in myself so that I could look directly into someone's eyes when speaking to them.

So, not sure how totally valuable this type of deduction is.

I think it's very valuable in the hands of skilled person with adequate knowledge of the subject's natural speech patterns--for example, whether or not the subject habitually uses "absolutely: or "you know," etc. I don't think it's an infallible method of detecting deception, but I think it's an extremely useful and fascinating tool.

It must have been awful for you to have people mistake your cultural courtesy for being evasive or even dishonest. I would probably have attributed your lack of eye-contact to extreme shyness and/or introversion. :blowkiss:

 

[Friday]

Very interesting!

I say "I have no idea" a lot. I never thought it would be looked at as deception! Eek! I don't think I'm being deceptive when I say it. Hmmmm. People ask me questions at work and I say that a lot, because I really have no idea!

I'll bet if you were being asked about something extremely important by an LE official (or the president of your company), you would add something like, "but I'll look, or I'll ask around, or so-and-so might know the answer."