Misty's First Interview Statement Analysis

[TxLady2]

Liar!



Don't get me wrong I'm not about to defend Misty. I'm merely criticizing the conclusions of the interpretation of her statements and how they can't apply to everyone.

If these tactics were applied to me in my daily life I'd be accused of lying all the time. My short term memory sucks so I may go to the end and then back to the middle and not be lying.

4. Use of justification (why she saw the light and door) rather than reporting


That I don't get? If I were being interviewed I'd tell the cops why I got up. Why I went to the kitchen, how I found the door open.

Very early on in this people said she wouldn't have been able to see the kitchen light from where she was. She didn't have to see the light just the glow of the light which I'm sure was possible.

In the house I grew up in my bedroom was on the second floor and the kitchen was downstairs and away from the staircase. I could tell just by looking out my door in the middle of the night if the kitchen light was on, even if the doors were closed. The faint difference in light at that hour was detectable. In a mobile home I'd bet it's a lot easier.

JMO

I agree with you about the light... there is a wall between my bedroom and the living room, and a wall between the living room and kitchen. I can see the glow from a night light which is behind that wall from my bedroom. If it is turned off or burns out, I know without having to go look.
Also... in this interview, just before Misty makes the statement about not making it to the bathroom, I believe the reporter asks or makes a reference about the reason she got up in the first place.
The point is, I don't think LE needs a statement analysis to figure out that Misty has changed her stories over time.

 

[Concerned Papa]

I don't intend to offend any fans of this particular newest "expert" to come on the scene, but I view his article as flawed from the point of beginning.

Misty's First Interview Analyzed

"I didn't make it to the bathroom. I seen the kitchen light on and I walked in the kitchen and the back door is wide open. I go in the room and she's gone. And that's all I know. When I went to bed she was there and then when I got up and she was gone."

I don't have the context in which Misty spoke these words, but it appears that they were spoken a few hours after the initial 911 call, and were spoken to media.

http:///2010/05/mistys-first-interview-analyzed.html
BBM

My main problem with this guy is he seems to have "tweaked" at least one word in her alleged statement to support his rambling discourse of "analysis". He makes a big deal of her using the wording, "the back door IS wide open" in her FIRST interview.

You know the interview he means don't you?

-It's the one he doesn't have the context in which Misty spoke those words....

-It's the one that APPEARS (?) that they were spoken hours after the initial 911 call....

-and apparently APPEARS (?) they were spoken to the media.

-It's the one he doesn't know when or where it originated, but he's sure enough it was the FIRST interview to title his article as such.

Has this guy ever heard of a link? I for one would like to know where he got the statement with the usage of "IS" in reference to the back door.

In the first line of the 911 call she didn't say "IS":

911: "911, what's your emergency"

Misty Croslin: "Hi...umm...I just woke up...and our backdoor was wide open and I think...and I can't find our daughter"

http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Sidebar/2009/2/12/haleigh_911_transcript_part_1.html

She didn't say "IS" in the quote 72 hours after the 911 call:

February 13, 2009

"I put her to bed around 8 o'clock and I woke up and she was gone and the back door was wide open," Croslin said. "The last time I seen her was when I put her to bed. She was in her bed in front of the TV, and me and Junior was in, were in, my bed."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,492425,00.html

She didn't say "IS" in this interview with Greta Van Susteren:

February 13, 2009

VAN SUSTEREN: So, tell me what happened. You got up to use the bathroom, is that right?

CROSLIN: Yes. I got up to use the bathroom. I did not make it to the bathroom. I walked into the living room and noticed the kitchen light was on. And I saw the back door open. And when I saw the back door open, I ran back into the bedroom, and that's when I noticed she was gone.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,492185,00.html

I guess realistically, I'm getting a little burned out on "experts". The last one I heard said he had "solved the case" IIRC. I'll offer this newest expert some friendly advice. Don't pick your brain too hard on Misty, pal. Wait a day or two and she'll come out with a new version.

Most of us have had our hands full for the past 15 months trying to analyze WHAT she said as opposed to the words she used.

 

[Roze]

While statement analysis is not an exact science, I thought the articles were interesting and contained some good, general information. I know that was able to glean some useful information from them.

 

[Whisperer]

While statement analysis is not an exact science, I thought the articles were interesting and contained some good, general information. I know that was able to glean some useful information from them.

Thank you Roze..I am grateful to have been linked to the article you gave. I have learned a lot from it.

 

[Roze]

Thank you Roze..I am grateful to have been linked to the article you gave. I have learned a lot from it.

Glad you enjoyed it, Whisperer. It's something to pass the time until we have hard facts. And those seem to be far and few between.

BTW, I love your Avi and always enjoys your posts.

 

[Zoe Bogart]

Papa, he was analyzing this interview:

http://www.news4jax.com/video/18700882/index.html


I guess he didn't publish the link (only the picture) because his readers were the ones who furnished the link in the first place.

 

[Concerned Papa]

Papa, he was analyzing this interview:

http://www.news4jax.com/video/18700882/index.html


I guess he didn't publish the link (only the picture) because his readers were the ones who furnished the link in the first place.

Thanks, I listened twice just now and it sounds like "the back door WUZ open" to me, LOL. This is like much of the rest of this case. We each hear differently at times.

I don't want Roze or anyone else to think I don't appreciate any and all information in trying to understand what happened to Haleigh, because I do. I may have been too harsh on this guy in my post, but it gets extremely frustrating at times trying to process information and still having to be guarded against the self serving rehtoric that has come from all directions in this case, from the beginning.

Please know that I appreciate Websleuth members who search for and bring the truth from all aspects. I'm just a sometimes crabby old man who's trying to understand what happened to this beautiful little girl.

 

[aoibhinn]

I'm sure he would analyze the any interviews or statements that you were interested in. He seems open to suggestions.

I visited his blog after he did the 911 call analysis and posted a comment. I described how in rural parts of my country, Ireland, people often use the present tense when relating a description of past events. The older generation, especially, do this. I've heard this is ascribed to the fact that our version of spoken English is a direct translation of Gaelic (Irish) and it is very common to do that in spoken Gaelic. Furthermore, it seems that a lot of the folk involved in this case have Irish/English surnames. I looked into that and it appears these folk are descended from the Irish-Scot or Gaelic immigrants.

I thought this was interesting and ended my comment by saying that I would love to hear his opinions on the matter. My comment was deleted and checking through the remaining comments I found only those that didn't question this system in any way.

And while I have no doubt that Misty is lying, it's not very professional to delete those comments you don't like the look of or that may cast doubt on the procedure. If he is passing himself off as an expert on statement analysis and suggesting that it's a valid tool then he should be able to address queries such as the one I posted.

I almost forgot to add that I thank Roze for taking the time and trouble to submit the initial link. It is very interesting, after all. Just do your own research into it as well.

 

[LisaNY]

Hmmm, interesting article. I think this may be a proven method of detecting deception if the person making the statements can speak properly (meaning they use proper grammar). I am not trying to slam Misty, but she is uneducated, reportedly only went to school until 6th grade, and had reading disabilities. I am also not stereo-typing, I grew up in Fla and have a lot of family still there, I asked my nephew where my sister was, and he told me "she dun gone to the store" I don't think he was being deceptive. I do believe in freudian slips, but I don't know how accurate this type of analysis can be. MOO

btw - I think all the stories that come out of MC are lies, and based on lies, FWIW

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

H/T to Whisperer. This is not an analysis, per se, but questions that are raised as I read the above statement from Misty. I'm sure that others will have additional questions/comments regarding each of the points in Misty's statement.

1. The blanket was in the van they took.
What blanket? HaLeigh’s blanket? The “pee” blanket? Misty’s blanket? The blanket that Misty took down from the window? A blanket that Misty laundered that night?
If the blanket was in the van, where is the blanket now? Was the blanket already in the van when HaLeigh was taken? Did the people who took HaLeigh take a blanket when they took the little girl?
What van? To whom did the van belong? There have been several vans mentioned in this case. Was it the van that was parked in a different spot than it had been left (per Chelsea)? Was it the van that the perps were driving when they came to the place where HaLeight was sleeping? Was it the van that the perps drove to the place where HaLeigh was taken? Is Misty referring to a van that LE took for processing?
Who is they? Is it the people who took HaLeigh? In this case, does Misty know who took HaLeigh?

 

[debs]

Misty's statement is "....my blanket was in the van that they took." Misty washed the blanket from the window and Haleigh's blanket which she says smelled like pee. There is never any discussion as to what Jr was covered with, though we also then have Misty stating she covered Haleigh with a sheet.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Misty's statement is "....my blanket was in the van that they took." Misty washed the blanket from the window and Haleigh's blanket which she says smelled like pee. There is never any discussion as to what Jr was covered with, though we also then have Misty stating she covered Haleigh with a sheet.

If Misty said "my blanket", I'd want to know: Why is the blanket Misty's? Did she bring it from her (parents) home when she moved in with RC? Was it the blanket from the bed in the Master bedroom that Misty thought of as "her" bed? Was the blanket in a van that Misty drove frequently so she kept a blanket in the van for emergencies?

Each sentence in Misty's statement raises multiple questions. jmo

 

[YellowSubmarine]

That was the first part of her interview. It gets better.

1. The blanket was in the van they took.
2. If I was awake, I wouldn't have left them take her.
3. What would they want with a five year old little girl?
4. If they took me, I could have fought them.

According to Statement Analyses..It would appear like we are not looking at single person taking Haleigh.

This has always bothered me! If I had thought my child were kidnapped, I wouldn't think it was more than one person. It's always been odd to me that they "assumed" it was more than one person.

 

[YellowSubmarine]

If Misty said "my blanket", I'd want to know: Why is the blanket Misty's? Did she bring it from her (parents) home when she moved in with RC? Was it the blanket from the bed in the Master bedroom that Misty thought of as "her" bed? Was the blanket in a van that Misty drove frequently so she kept a blanket in the van for emergencies?

Each sentence in Misty's statement raises multiple questions. jmo

I'm goint to bump up the blanket thread and respond to this there . . . .

 

[Steely Dan]

BTW, Roze thanks for starting this topic. I'm criticizing the author not you.

I visited his blog after he did the 911 call analysis and posted a comment. I described how in rural parts of my country, Ireland, people often use the present tense when relating a description of past events. The older generation, especially, do this. I've heard this is ascribed to the fact that our version of spoken English is a direct translation of Gaelic (Irish) and it is very common to do that in spoken Gaelic. Furthermore, it seems that a lot of the folk involved in this case have Irish/English surnames. I looked into that and it appears these folk are descended from the Irish-Scot or Gaelic immigrants.

I thought this was interesting and ended my comment by saying that I would love to hear his opinions on the matter. My comment was deleted and checking through the remaining comments I found only those that didn't question this system in any way.

And while I have no doubt that Misty is lying, it's not very professional to delete those comments you don't like the look of or that may cast doubt on the procedure. If he is passing himself off as an expert on statement analysis and suggesting that it's a valid tool then he should be able to address queries such as the one I posted.

I almost forgot to add that I thank Roze for taking the time and trouble to submit the initial link. It is very interesting, after all. Just do your own research into it as well.

Well that makes me take him zero seriously, of course I was only taking him 10% seriously to begin with. Anyone who thinks their system for anything is fool proof I can't take seriously. It appears he believes so or wants everyone else to think so. JMO

This has always bothered me! If I had thought my child were kidnapped, I wouldn't think it was more than one person. It's always been odd to me that they "assumed" it was more than one person.

I use, and have heard a lot of people use, "they" for someone of unknown gender. If I came out and found my car had been hit in the parking lot I'd probably say to the cop; "I can't believe they didn't leave a note on my window." I don't think it's that odd. JMO

 

[Donjeta]

Hmmm, interesting article. I think this may be a proven method of detecting deception if the person making the statements can speak properly (meaning they use proper grammar). I am not trying to slam Misty, but she is uneducated, reportedly only went to school until 6th grade, and had reading disabilities. I am also not stereo-typing, I grew up in Fla and have a lot of family still there, I asked my nephew where my sister was, and he told me "she dun gone to the store" I don't think he was being deceptive. I do believe in freudian slips, but I don't know how accurate this type of analysis can be. MOO

btw - I think all the stories that come out of MC are lies, and based on lies, FWIW

IMO sentences like "she dun gone to the store" is not really what the blogger is talking about. It wouldn't be flagged as deceptive in a statement analysis context, in my opinion. Granted, the grammar is not correct according to the books but it's correct for the context. He's quite properly conveying the meaning, "she has gone to the store" in the grammar of his spoken dialect, and there's no difference between the tense and the intention. He's not really talking about a past tense event as if it was a present event, he's talking about the present time in present perfect. Mom left and she's still gone.

The statement analysis guy talks about a different situation. If he had been asked about his mom's whereabouts three days ago it might be significant if he'd described other events in past tense and then switches. ("She was at home, we were watching tv, she made breakfast, then she did the laundry, then she goes to the store")

It might be helpful to analyse some statements by Misty in which she is known to be truthful (have we got any???) and see if she uses present tense for past events or switches tenses abruptly.

But of course it's all futile in this case if Misty wasn't saying what the analysis says she was saying in the first place.

 

[LisaNY]

IMO sentences like "she dun gone to the store" is not really what the blogger is talking about. It wouldn't be flagged as deceptive in a statement analysis context, in my opinion. Granted, the grammar is not correct according to the books but it's correct for the context. He's quite properly conveying the meaning, "she has gone to the store" in the grammar of his spoken dialect, and there's no difference between the tense and the intention. He's not really talking about a past tense event as if it was a present event, he's talking about the present time in present perfect. Mom left and she's still gone.

The statement analysis guy talks about a different situation. If he had been asked about his mom's whereabouts three days ago it might be significant if he'd described other events in past tense and then switches. ("She was at home, we were watching tv, she made breakfast, then she did the laundry, then she goes to the store")

It might be helpful to analyse some statements by Misty in which she is known to be truthful (have we got any???) and see if she uses present tense for past events or switches tenses abruptly.

But of course it's all futile in this case if Misty wasn't saying what the analysis says she was saying in the first place.

I see what you are stating, and I agree. I just think that is the way she speaks, whether lying or telling the truth. I do not think she knows how to use proper pronouns, and the correct "tense". Although, on the other hand, if you look at the video of her with the UC she has no trouble speaking. It's very clear, that her statements regarding "the" night are rehearsed and definitely not truthful. MOO