Statement Analysis - more fun than crosswords!

?

The Murray’s live in a small village of a couple of hundred people.

Mr. Murrry was a drinker. He also had cancer and had threatened to kill himself. When he was found dead from antifreeze poisoning it was initially considered a suicide. Mrs. Murray was estranged from her husband and having a relationship with Nora Walsh, who abruptly ended their relationship shortly after Mr. Murray’s death. After a time Nora Walsh went to the police and gave a statement saying that Mrs. Murray had put the antifreeze in Mr. Murray’s Piat Do’r, (frankly I can’t see why there would be a need for additives). Mrs. Murray 42, had taken up with a 19 year old, Bob Klien. While the police where investigating a possible homicide, Nora Walsh burned to death in her apartment. Shortly thereafter this letter was found at the front door of the police station.

To whom it may concern:

I’m writing this confession letter to clear my concession and to give myself a peaceful life, I’m giving you some evidence and information about the fire that took place at 165 Dalton St. Marlbank the apartment that Nora walsh. Nora knew information about Ann Murray’s husband’s death. Nora was scarred for her life because of Ms. Murray. She told me that Ms. Murray killed her husband with Antifreeze. She asked me not to say anything at all. I guess I should tell you what happened before the fire started and how I know this. Bob Klien a good friend of Ms. Murrays was part of this too. The day the fire took place was when all the threats were made to me to dilever to Ms. Walsh. It was after a doctor’s appointment and I was walking cross the Bridge and tis Blonde gril came up to me and asked if I knew Nora and I said no. The gril told me to deliver it even if I didn’t know her or not. She told me to tell her to leave town or she was going to die a horrible death, and if she didn’t go by 7:00 pm something was going to happened. After she told me this, she started to turn away, I stoped her and asked where Nora lived she turned around and pointed and turned and continued to walk in the derection of Ms. Murray’s Place. Well Bob’s part in this was to hide inside Ms. Walsh’s home intill she left and to put candles all over put obsicles in her way and lit all the candles including the candle by her couch . He told me this as if this a big joke or something but I know is he did it to profection to make it look like careless smoking or something to that. All I can say is Bob not to sad about all this and he lied when he gave testimony to the police about his ware abouts he was with Nora during the day he got into an argument and he was around 165 Dalton St. All I can say is that it was ArsEn and he probably used articles that are burnable and -----------------------

P S Please don’t say anything

Take the time to analyze this statement. Can you give the investigators an idea of who to look for? All informants have motives. What do you think this writer’s motive is?

Analysis

If we break the story down into prologue, critical issue, and epilogue, we can see that the prologue leading up to the critical issue, “Well Bob’s part in this …” amounts to two thirds of the statement. This suggests, according to Sapir, that there is an 85% likelihood that the critical issues will have deceptive elements.

There are two reference points in terms of detection of deception, the detector and the deceiver. With reference to the detector we are hard wired to make sense out of symbols, words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, and stories. Stories are not a series of facts. They are web of distortion, deletions, and generalizations based on subjective perceptions. We read a statement with the compulsion to make closure, to make the story work, even if the story doesn’t work. This cognitive seduction is of our own making, not because of the deceiver’s skill. Reading a story we are faced with many choice points where we feel compelled to choose one possibility so that we can build on the story. In the case of “tis Bonde gril”, 1) she exists as a stranger, 2) as a known person with a hidden identity (Mrs. Murray), 3) or does not exist.?Often when my students read this prologue story they chose one of these options and then stick with it moving from linear thinking to circular thinking. In reading the statement we are compelled to make sense of the story with quick decisions on how “tis Blonde gril” fits into the scenario and choose exclusively one option. This tendency is different than confirmation bias. With confirmation bias we mesh the story with prior knowledge. During the reading our choice points in the story are creating the bias. This is what I refer to as comprehension bias. Or there may be a prior influence within the story such as the introduction of Mrs. Murray. The choice however then has the same effect as confirmation bias. The choice then becomes a presupposition that influences the way we interpret the rest of the story as we read it. Along the way there are many choice points that we make leading to an understanding of the meaning of the story. We then become resistant to other possible understandings and establish tunnel vision.?We presuppose elements of our linear first reading are factual.

Cognitive biases including peradolia, apophenia and patternicity - refers to the tendency to be influenced to perceive patterns: 1) that may not be there, 2) that may be there to the exclusion of other patterns, 3) are there as one of multiple patterns. A good statement analyst learns to identify multiple patterns, to allow oneself to be immersed in a morass of uncertainty while calmly and playfully considering endless possibilities,(lateral thinking). If you are addicted to expedient comprehension then you would not have the patience for multiple deconstructions/reconstructions.?

In the case of “tis Blond gril” there are?problems with the story. In a small town what is the likelihood that she would be anonymous and approach a stranger and ask that stranger to pass along the threat “she was going to die a horrible death”. The writer asks for directions although s/he, (the writer) indicates in the story familiarity with Walsh’s home. And there is another suspicious word that indicates post event knowledge - the word “horrible’.?It’s unlikely,(yet possible) that the conveyor of the threat would know how the victim would and did die. In short it is likely “tis Blond gril” didn’t exist, the story is fictitious, and the writer was creating a buffer between themselves and Ms Murray who may or may not have conveyed the threat to the informant,(writer).

Let’s look at the critical issue.?

“Well Bob’s part in this was to hide inside Ms. Walsh’s home intill she left and to put candles all over put obsicles in her way and lit all the candles including the candle by her couch.”

?In making sense of the story, as often my students have done, they ignore the facts, as with the circumstances of Nora Walsh’s death. If we know Nora died in a fire then we should immediately be aware that the writer’s version doesn’t make sense. You don’t put “obsicles” in the way to keep someone out. The deception then is that Bob didn’t wait until she left. It’s more likely he put “obsicles” in the way to prevent her from leaving. But why is that hard for us to see? Why when it is so obvious a pathetic attempt at reconstructing reality do we not immediately confront the obvious. Again our need for comprehension compels us to make sense of the story at the expense of excluding evidence to the contrary.?

So what is the informant’s motive? Note that the informant uses “the candle by the couch” indicating direct knowledge of the items. Does this mean s/he was there?

And what is the purpose of this version of events? It should be obvious now what the motive is. The key is a noun - “ArsEn”?

If, as the informant alleges Bob “waited until she left”, put “obsicles” in the way to prevent her from getting in he had no intent to kill, just to scare her off. If, however Bob was preventing her from getting out then it is murder, not “ArsEn” And if the informant was a witness to a murder s/he would be an accomplice.

The motive then is that the informant is waiting for a knock on the door and s/he is attempting to diminish the severity of the crime out of self interest.

With scant circumstantial evidence,( threats and motive), the accomplice’s cooperation is critical.?

Yes, Bob’s friend’s key testimony was critical in getting a conviction and a life sentence.