These are questions that are asked via email, postings, or personally.
Q. When did you first say you thought Ayla was deceased?
A. December 2011. It was based upon two things:
1. Behavioral Analysis: Justin DiPietro was not cooperating with police. Police had set up the immediate chance to address the 'kidnapper' via media, and cry out to Ayla. This is a natural and instinctive response from a parent. It does not need to be taught, or even coached (see Marc Klaas on Hailey Dunn). The only thing needed is to have someone facilitate the time and location and help the parent do two things:
a. Personalize the kidnapped victim. This makes the victim "human" to the kidnapper, in an attempt to cause, in the least, humane treatment of the victim. This is where the parent uses the child's name, over and over, and often speaks of a specific medication the child needs.
Justin DiPietro refused.
b. Direct appeal to the kidnapper, including using words of "understanding" and compromise.
Justin DiPietro refused. His statement said he was "emotionally incapable"; the most un-parentlike, and unmanly thing he could possibly say. This was the first signal that he was cowardly involved in the foul play she met. Later, he would confirm this by hiding behind his friend's mother.
2. His statement. His statement referenced Ayla in the past tense. It also said, "contrary to...floating around out there..." using the frightening word "floating."
I presented this statement to LSI's founder, Avinoam Sapir, who asked me what DiPietro did for a living. I told him that he did not work, but was going to a truck driving school. He said, "uh oh" because "truck drivers have their wheels solidly on the ground..." and will use phrases appropriately from this. He said, "searchers need to search water..." which was terribly sad.
Statement Analysis recognizes that a guilty parent will speak of the missing child in the present tense, as they attempt to conceal the crime, but, if they let their guard down, may slip into past tense language. It is something that an innocent parent of a missing child will not do early on in the investigation.
Sadly, within the first weeks of Ayla Reynolds hitting the news, we saw that the father was behaving guilty and his statement indicated that Ayla was dead.
News reports following this only confirmed the Statement Analysis.
Q. Why don't you post sources?
A. Next question.
This is silly, but I will answer it.
If someone wishes to share information, but does not want to be quoted, there is a reason to keep the source confidential. It could be, of course, that the source is lying, which is why we use Statement Analysis. S/A will not pick up error, but willful deception.
They could fear for their jobs.
They could fear repercussions. Remember, we are in a case where someone was not afraid to spill the blood of a child, lie, and seek to cash in on it.
They could fear loss of friendships, reputation, and so on.
Yet, they may care enough to want the information out there.
Q. Who failed their polygraphs?
A. We have heard conflicting reports but it is likely safe to say that both Justin DiPietro and his sister Elisha DiPietro failed theirs. Technically, we say their answers are "sensitive" as they were unable to say that they passed the test.
The conflict is this: some reports say that girlfriend, Courtney Roberts, also failed her polygraph, while other reports say she refused to take it.
However, police were comfortable enough saying that "all three" were deceptive. The means of the deception were withholding information.
One news report, in particular said that all three took the polygraphs and that police would have to give the results.
Q. Didn't Justin DiPietro say "I told the truth" about the polygraph?
A. Yes, he did. He was deceptive in his response about passing it, however. Let's look directly at his statements and use analysis to determine the truth. Statement Analysis not only shows truth and deception, but also gives additional information from the words a person chooses to employ.
“I asked for a polygraph on day one,” DiPietro said today during an interview with the Morning Sentinel. “I’ve taken one, and the results, I was never allowed to see them. It’s something you’re going to have to ask law enforcement about.”
Statement Analysis deals with what someone says, and what someone does not say. It is here that one expects to hear, "I took it and passed it" allowing the topic to end naturally. DiPietro does not. By avoiding "I passed" he is seeking to avoid the internal stress of a direct lie. He is aware that the interviewer has no interest in seeking the marks on a paper, the way a man with a heart condition wants only to hear the results of the EKG, and not attempt to read the erratic lines on a paper.
Justin DiPietro avoided the question most relevant to taking a polygraph, indicating that "did you pass?" is a sensitive question. This will cause a Statement Analyst, like a common reader, to conclude that he failed. DiPietro gives further indication of his failure of the polygraph.
The Sentinel wrote, "DiPietro, 24, was told how he did on the test, Steve McCausland, spokesman for the Department of Public Safety, said. He said he was baffled by DiPietro’s statement that he didn’t know the results.
“He knows how he did, because we told him,” McCausland said. “To say that he didn’t know, is just not true.”
DiPietro said, “I know I went in there and smoked it. I told the truth and that’s that.”
When asked if police told him the results, DiPietro said. “They can tell me whatever they want. Again, I didn’t physically see the results.”
Here is further confirmation that he failed. He also shows himself as an accomplished liar, meaning that he was trained to lie in childhood, via Neglect. All children lie, and those who's parents neglect to correct them suffer many, many consequences later in life. I spend a good deal of time persuading business owners just how dangerous the liar is. Because honest people project honesty, they struggle to believe that someone is a "true liar"; that is, one who will fabricate reality and be as bold a liar as DiPietro is. This boldness in lying, also seen by his mother and sister, remove doubt of his capability of hurting a child. He was raised in violence and violence is part of his language. This is why he excused Ayla's black eye as "she got into a fight." Toddlers do not "get into fights." His lie was to cover child abuse, yet it is his words chosen that reveal his own reference point.
When Billie Jean Dunn is challenged about violence, perversity, and so forth, she hurls insults with the two elements most near and dear to her: sex and violence. For her, sex and violence are organically connected. It is her reference point.
Finally, DiPietro was challenged plainly, with the question, "Did you fail the test?" as the reporter saw how he dogged the question and would not speak plainly.
Did police tell you that you failed the polygraph?
He said, “That’s all irrelevant. I wanted to see the results myself. They’re not letting me see them. Why don’t they let the public see them?”
He could not bring himself to say, "No, I passed the polygraph" and then did exactly what career liars do: he felt the sting of not being believed and issued his own challenge: 'Why don't police let the public see the polygraph results?'
This is the centerpiece of interview strategy when dealing with a habitual liar: gain as much information as possible, show the obvious deception, and watch how they react in anger to the challenge.
Q. Why do liars get so upset when challenged about lying?
A. Because they hold the world in contempt.
This is core to their personalities.
Think about it: the subject has been lying since the earliest days of speech and have two things:
1. An expectation that he/she will get away with it
2. An expectation that he/she is smarter than the audience.
As the audience grows from the parent and siblings to school mates and teachers, confidence in lying grows. He/she (as I consider Justin DiPietro and Billie Jean Dunn) grows in success of lying, which cements in the practice. Many believe that by age 7, the habit of lying is so deeply ingrained that it cannot be changed. Should one undergo a religious conversion, the liar will always be acutely aware of how quick and how easy the lies comes. It will be a source of lifetime pain.
Liars expect others to believe them, subordinating others to being "less smart" than the liar, himself or herself. This is where, by age 18 or so, the contempt for others, especially authority, is seen. This is why liars struggle to hold jobs; they are always 'smarter' than the supervisor, the boss, the customer, (etc) and will always blame others.
This is also why police, with some skill, can get an obvious liar to take a polygraph, even though it means failure.
Billie Jean Dunn and Shawn Adkins refused to take polygraphs, but police challenged Dunn, who, unlike Adkins (she described Adkins as having a form of mental retardation) could not bear the challenge, so she showed up, stoned, in an attempt to beat it. When this did not work, her pride was such that she had to go through with the test: she failed.
It is the additional words that give us information, which is why we say the shortest sentence is best. Look at Sentence A, from DiPietro, versus B, a sample response.
Sentence A. “I know I went in there and smoked it. I told the truth and that’s that.”
Sample B. "I passed the polygraph. I told the truth."
With Sentence A, we have indicators of weakness:
“I know I went in there and smoked it. I told the truth and that’s that.”
Even "I know I told the truth" is weaker than "I told the truth." To say "I know" is to affirm, leading us to ask, "Why the need to affirm?" It is weak.
“I know I went in there and smoked it. I told the truth and that’s that.”
What does he "know"? Here we see more additional and unnecessary words. In order to take the polygraph, he will have to "go in" to take it. Is he only asserting that he "knows" that he went "in there"?
“I know I went in there and smoked it. I told the truth and that’s that.”
To "smoke it" reveals his own reference point. These words are substitutes for "I passed it" and to "smoke it" will likely elicit thoughts of junior high math tests (immaturity) or marijuana or crack cocaine use, but in any case:
a. It reveals his world
b. It avoids saying "I passed it."
“I know I went in there and smoked it. I told the truth and that’s that.”
This portion, "I told the truth" is likely true, yet he feels the need to surround it with additional language revealing additional information.
This statement, "I told the truth" in spite of the weakness before and after, (“I know I went in there and smoked it. I told the truth and that’s that.”) tells us, with certainty, that there were some portions of the polygraph that Justin DiPietro told the truth on. I can think of two questions in which he likely passed:
a. "Do you live at ______ ?" was likely passed.
b. "Do you know where Ayla is now?" may have also been passed.
When a victim is thrown into moving waters, the subject can truthfully say, "I don't know where she is at" (not "at" is used: see Mark Redwine's statement revealing the same) since the body would be moved by water.
I think that Shawn Adkins did not tell the precise location, purposely, to Billie Dunn, on where he dumped Hailey's remains, at Dunn's insistence, so that she could later pass this portion of a polygraph.
Q If the others also failed, why can't they be arrested?
A. This is something only the DA's office can answer.
Q. Will a Grand Jury hear the case?
A. I believe so.
Q Soon?
A. I believe so, perhaps by July, if not sooner.
Q. What charges do you expect the three to face?
A. I think that Elisha DiPietro and Courtney Roberts are going to face some form of child abuse charges, which, upon indictment, would likely lead to the removal of their own children from their custody.
This will cause them to think long and hard about sticking to the story that police said did not pass "the straight face test."
Both will be faced with losing custody of their own children for the sake of maintaining their story.
Q. Do you think one of them will break?
A. Yes, but only if...
If both have criminal involvement, they will have to stay to their story, or...
If an attorney convinces them that they will be safe if they all stay to the same story...
If one or the other does not have criminal involvement, this one will save her own child from being removed from their care. In Maine, a child is worth money to a non-worker and the mother, if she plays the system right, can get lots of benefits, at the expense of workers, far more than other states and far more than most people know or believe.
Q. Are you saying that they are cold hearted and only interested in money?
A. Yes.
If either cared about Ayla, even if they believed it was unintentional, they would have told police the truth. It is incredibly calloused, beyond what most of us can believe, to hold to a lie, this long, and pretend that someone entered that home, spilled Ayla's blood, while everyone slept, and then took her to teach Justin a lesson, but left no DNA evidence, and Ayla has never been seen since.
It is ridiculous.
They also must be incredibly calloused to know that DiPietro bought life insurance against a toddler's life...against her life, while sparing the life of his other child. (He has at least one other child of whom, reportedly, he did not buy a policy against her life.)
Q. Do you believe that the life insurance policy is the motive for the crime?
A. Yes, at least in part.
I need to explain this, however.
Pat Brown did a good job on this, but I do not have her quotes. Basically, what she said is a bit more digestible for some:
She said that it may not have been his sole motivation, but, as he grew embittered over making child support payments and she acted out, it was a subtle influence upon him.
In this sense, it is a motivation.
Why did he not purchase a policy for her?
Why did he not purchase a policy for his other child?
Can you imagine how badly the blood of the other mother ran cold when she first read about this?
I believe that the arrest of Breana Roberts is related to this.
I believe that DiPietro deeply resented having to pay child support, and his feelings towards Trista were conflicted. I think that Courtney Roberts (based upon the Angela Harry fictional account) was jealous of Trista and was in competition (What, on God's green earth, were they competing over?") and fueled the fire.
Breanna Roberts had a large and expensive amount of drugs in her apartment. In Maine, cash is hard to come by.
Someone had to owe money for that cache of drugs.
Justin DiPietro made a 160 mile round trip to Portland the night in question, you know, the "normal" night, according to Phoebe, and given the connection, through the Roberts, to the drug apartment connected with his own lack of education, and reported inability to hold a job (one source described it this way: Justin would land a menial job and feel he was too good for it, and would bicker with superiors and have to be reminded that he was a minimum wage worker, which would infuriate him and he would walk off), and need for child support payments.
Resenting Trista, resenting the money Ayla was costing him, seeing how that the oxy trade in Maine is financially rewarding (see the Florida fireman driving up once per month), along with a really bad drug debt (drug wholesalers do not take credit cards and do not make polite phone calls reminding buyers of their debt), conspired with a selfish, immature, hot tempered bully, who was increasing in both violence and in de-sensitiivty towards Ayla (see black eye, twisted legs during changing, broken arm untreated) in which he, thinking he was smarter than everyone else, telegraphed his plans texting the mother "worrisome" messages about someone taking Ayla.
Liars are not known for patience.
Impatience along with the increasing needs of the toddler, came together for one very large payoff.
Just as he had "feared", Ayla did go missing. A mere 6 weeks after buying the policy?
For those who think that buying life insurance policy against a toddler's life, while being a single, unemployed, frustrated father, and a "kidnapping" in Maine are just a coincidence, they must remove all sense and logic to embrace such folly.
Q. What do you think is going to happen in the case?
A. I expect, after so much time passing, that this will go to the Grand Jury, who will hear evidence of violence in the home. They will learn that a significant amount of Ayla's blood was found, and the attempt to clean it up. They will hear the implausible deceptive story. They can ask questions. They can use common sense.
I expect indictments to be handed down, and that we will see all three in handcuffs.
When this happens, the State will step in and intervene on behalf of the children of Roberts and Elisha DiPietro, and remove custody, temporarily, until some form of reason takes over.
Q. What if your analysis is wrong?
A. If someone entered the home and kidnapped Ayla, and Justin DiPietro has told the truth, I will post here, as well as seek out media, to publicly apologize, and never post analysis again.
Think of what you and I learned of Baby Ayla's life in summation.
At 7 months, Ayla met her father. Whatever motive the mother had for telling the father, matters little, for it will be the source of regret for the rest of her life.
Reports that under Justin DiPietro's care, she had a black eye, and then leg injuries. The explanation for the black eye was deceptive, (above) and from child abuse investigations, the leg injuries sound very much like the angry wrenching done on the leg when changing a diaper.
She then had a broken arm, left untreated for 24 hours. I have seen this before and each time it had to do with substance abuse: Neglect and Substance Abuse are twins. Where there is smoke, there is likely a source of fire somewhere.
Then we learned that a significant portion of her blood was found in the basement of the home she stayed at, with her father.
Then we learned that 6 weeks before this obviously battered child went missing, a life insurance policy was purchased against her life; betting that should she die, the father would stand to gain more money than he's ever seen in his life. That he bought it against her is shocking, but to do so while single and unemployed is even more shocking; but to make it even more bizarre, he did so for only one of his two children. Then he communicated his fear of her being "taken" in one of the safest States in America.
Then, surprise, surprise, the 911 phone call is made.
What are the odds?
But the story's continuity remains on course:
After calling 911, an innocent parent will cooperate with police and call out to the child and to the kidnapper. This father would not.
Only when challenged by Trista, he responded, and showed his hand.
Lies and failed polygraphs.
He then bitterly challenged Nancy Grace.
Like bullies are known to react, she accepted his challenge, yet he hid himself in the bathroom and refused to come out. His friend's mommy is his leader. He and his brother go 2:1 to beat someone up. How dare anyone question the Soprano wannabes of Waterville, Maine? Birds of a feather.
Ayla never had a chance.
The DiPietro apologists have their cause in life, shamefully defending the indefensible, fulfilling a need to be oppositional, forgetting that Justin DiPietro is not the victim here.
Ayla is.
Let us hope that the District Attorney will have the courage to seek justice for Ayla and not fear the private sector attorneys, nor the media glare. Let them see what Alex Hunter did in Boulder, Colorado, and how his legacy is now one of cowardice, and how Mary Lacy is now seen as self-congratulartory, to the excess of lying, and not of justice.
0 comments:
Post a Comment