This is what I thought too and posted about the other morning but got myself in knots and 'went round the houses' to explain, ha.
ETA: plus, if we change the She to I in those quotes that you posted, that's probably more like it.
I can't quote your original post in this one.
It is really very striking. Because he had no need to say it, it serves no purpose to his defence. So it jumps up and says 'look at me!'
Statement Analysis (SA) looks at what people say, and just as importantly, what they don't say when it is expected of them.
The other day I pointed out that we can tell there was no note simply because he said "my partner has been missing since Monday" Now we have the benefit of hearing him say he made up the note, but assuming this was a case with less evidence, it confirms how SA can be used.
Saying 'we were planning to get married' and then self-correcting to 'we are planning', should have told police straight away that he was involved. Maybe it did.
I was reviewing the 101 call again after watching the video I talked about yesterday, and I noticed that apart from when he was asked to give her name, he referred to Helen by name just once, and it's chilling to see where he used it, where he chose the appropriate moment to use it. (I'll also use this section of the call to highlight a few other points.)
And is she ever likely to be a victim of any sort of abuse that you know of?
No. Ive, no, shes a very strong person, be very hard to abuse Helen. Shed come back to you very strongly. She did, this is probably
she lost her husband well bout just over 5 years ago and thats how I met her, because I lost my partner and we met through a berea
bereavement group.
Oh I see, ok, um and
Just
Sorry
I dont know if thats relevant but I just thought you
should better tell you.
Oh yeah, I can pop that down, it all helps. Um it may seem a bit random, but is she likely to be involved or subjected to crime at all?
Did you say...Im sorry I heard the word crime but I didnt hear
?
Sorry. Repeats question.
No.
No, and could you describe her dog for me, if thats alright?
Its a miniature Dachshund. I mean its brown, its, the, its not, its not a wire hair its a smooth coat miniature Dachshund. So its pretty self-explanatory eh.
Is it male, female?
Its male.
Does it wear a collar or anything?
Yes it does. It wears a yellow collar with her telephone number and my telephone number on it, well it does when she, when were out wal
well it doesnt in the house but it does when were out yeah.
1. He places Helen's name next to the word abuse. We place words in a sentence to show how closely or otherwise we link them. For example I might say 'I went to the park with Fred' if I don't particularly like him or want to be associated with him, or 'Fred and I went to the park' if we're close. In this case it was an odd thing to say anyway 'be very hard to abuse Helen', I would expect him to say no and leave it at that, or if he wanted to expand on that, he could have said 'Helen wasn't a victim of abuse that I know about'.
2. This becomes even more sensitive because straight away (micro seconds) he links the question in his head to something entirely irrelevant. Helen lost her husband. He draws the operator to possibly entertain the idea that there could be a link between her husband and Helen being a victim of abuse. He's inserting someone else into the answer, to give himself distance from abuse.
3. Then he goes on to talk about the circumstances of how he was bereaved and met Helen, and to talk about himself. His life history is really not relevant to this call, it shows his priority on this call about Helen, and how he gets the operator to think about him. He knows it's completely irrelevant to her question and that's why he sheepishly says 'I don't know if that's relevant.' He creates a big big diversion so it is a very sensitive question, and he gives away that Helen was abused, by him. He's linked her with it and used her name.
4.Quite often asking someone to repeat the question is a ploy to give them thinking time before answering. It could also be that he didn't hear the question.
5. It's pretty self-explanatory eh? - except he hasn't given Boris' name once! Another clue to distancing and hence bringing another victim of his in to the spotlight. Admittedly the operator didn't ask his name but it would be the first thing I'd think of and it could help in the search, if I thought Boris was wearing his collar and tag.
6. 'Her telephone number' - it would have been appropriate here to have used Helen's name and said 'Helen's telephone number'. He doesn't use her name, which is unexpected and clear distancing, in a relationship with no problems between people in love and planning to get married.
And I'll also highlight another red flag for interest
And she said nothing to you then, was she leaving the premises at that time?
No, no, she was
I left her here.
I left her here. The word 'left' is unexpected and illogical language. You leave things behind that generally aren't alive, like keys or objects or things that can't move. 'Left' when it is used illogically, generally indicates there is information that has purposely been omitted. Such as why he would have 'left her here'..because she was dead.
Think about going out and leaving people or someone in the house - if you've said you were leaving them there it begs the question why you said that, there's an explanation missing, like you left them behind inadvertently. Left indicates possession or control. She was dead, and he obviously wouldn't want the operator to know that but his nanosecond choice of word is leakage. He should have said 'she was here'.
