Hailey Dunn: A Profile of Neglect

by Peter Hyatt

What was the home life of Hailey Dunn like?

What led this 13 year old girl to be closer to counselors than her own mother?

Why did Hailey Dunn tell her friends that she feared living with Shawn Adkins?

What is to be made of a grown man wearing, buying and selling, trading masks, and making vile videos of blood and of killing?

What are we to think of a mother defending and loving the only named suspect in the disappearance of her daughter?

What impact would a mother's stripping for money have upon the psyche of an 11 or 12 year old girl?

What does it mean that Billie Jean and Shawn Adkins had a New Year's Eve party while Hailey was "missing"? Is it just gossip to appeal to the National Enquirer types, or is it an element in this case? Did Nancy Grace raise the issue for ratings, or does it matter in the investigation?

Everything matters in a missing child case.



Some claiming to be neighbors of the Dunns have written some unflattering things about Hailey and about the family in general.

We don't know Hailey and don't know what she was like, but we can apply logic to what we have learned about the family, and how children suffer under similar circumstances, and speculate on what it must have been like to have been under the roof of Billie Jean, Clint, and for the past 3 years, Shawn Adkins, by what we have learned about them, mostly from them, and understand the particular challenges that a child like Hailey would face.

From what the police affidavit has told us, from what Billie has (including via statement analysis), told us, what Shawn has told us via video and statements, along with what Clint has revealed, let's draw a composite on what Hailey may have faced in her young and tragic life.

1. Drugs
2. Alcohol
3. Violence
4. Sexuality
5. Neglect


What is the life of a child of drugs?

It is a vicious roller coaster of love and affection when mom is high, to running for shelter when mom comes down. It means having to beg steal or borrow things from girlfriends, to keep from being ashamed, so that mom can use her last few dollars for street drugs. It means, even when mom is straight for awhile, she can't count on the money for new sneakers for cheer leading because Shawn may take it for his drugs. Some days she had plenty, and some days she had to go to the counselor for lunch money.

Drug moms often go to extremes. A year of neglect means a year of guilt,therefore, the drug mom will often overcompensate on Christmas and birthdays, giving the child "everything she wants" to alleviate the lingering guilt of neglect.

Drugs may cost mom her profession and drop the household income from that of a nurse to that of a secretary. The notion that it was just a bounced check on the license is thin excuse.

What else does drugs mean?

It means a life of lying.

Mom lies as addicts do, which is ad enough, but what is worse is that the child learns to first accept lies, and then to imitate lying.

The child will imitate her mom.

Drugs mean a life of jeopardy.

Clint said that Billie bought an ounce of cocaine for re-sale. This meant that she would be making contact with dangerous people: buyers and sellers both, who don't give written receipts, guarantees of satisfaction, and who see weakness, will exploit it with violence. Drug dealers don't accept IOU's and they don't float loans. They don't deliver $10,000 drugs on someone's word.

What if Billie had sold cocaine to a man who decided, later, that he was ripped off and decided to pay Billie a visit, only to notice pretty little girl, Hailey?

Would protection be up to Shawn? Would Shawn put on a scary mask and scare the bad man away? Would Shawn be awake long enough to protect Hailey? Besides, Clint reported, Shawn snorted away the purchased cocaine himself.

Drugs and selfishness are twin sons.


2. Alcohol

Mixing alcohol with drugs changes the landscape. If drugs make them 'mellow', what does alcohol do?

Clint's mother said that she feared that Hailey was raped by Shawn and then killed when she threatened to tell.

What made Hailey's own grandmother say such a thing? Why did these words enter her mind?

Alcohol is used to lower the resistance of children who are being preyed upon.

Predators will often mix vodka, for instance, with fruit juices, freeze them and serve as a snack or treat.

We know from Shawn Adkin's choice of words, he watched movies, but "looked at stuff", with the key word, "look", as in with pornography, at photos and videos of killing and of blood. For the sadist, it is their porn which excites them.

Pornography, in whatever form, is used to desensitize children, and to lower the resistance. What shocked once, causes a yawn later, and this is the grooming that takes place.

Why would a 25 year old man go after a 35 year old woman with children?

What attracted Billie to Shawn? We learned that she met him through the very source of his blood lust videos and pictures: MySpace. This means that her description of being surprised was disingenuous at best, while on Nancy Grace. She attempted to portray the material as 'true crime' stories, and not the sick and twisted perversion it is.

When Hailey was reported missing, Shawn was able to join the conversation and talk about the killing of a deer.

This was an indication that he may have been aroused at the thought of killing, and may be that instinctive response from Clint's mother. She may have no proof, no logical reasoning, and may have known that even if she were to plead with Clint, Clint would not likely do anything, anyway, and just blurt out the frustrated fear that was deep within her.

Shawn said that Hailey was promiscuous. Did he know this first hand? If so, it is likely that alcohol played a role in this.

3. Violence

What we do for a hobby, we often fuel with peripheral interests such as magazines, or DVDs, etc, and then follow through with experience and fulfillment. This is natural.

For example, if a woman gets food magazines delivered to her home, she may enjoy the magazines, but it is not until she makes the meal for her family does she receive her fulfillment.

The same goes for other hobbies and interests. If a man gets Golf Digest magazine and instructional DVDs and videos sent to his home, the satisfaction comes when he is on the golf course.

This is the reason why child pornography is against the law. It fuels interest which leads to 'satisfaction' of that which is fueled.

Shawn fueled his interest with videos, masks and "stuff", and it is likely that brutally killing a deer once may have satisfied him, now made him yawn.

Did he receive "satisfaction" at the cost of Hailey's life?

Shawn's interview recently revealed that he enjoyed that people fear him. Think it through: what is the purpose of a scary mask if not to scare? It is a thrill for him, which is why he puts it on his face, trades and collects them. His prior threats were memorable and it may be that he made good on his threat to take away Hailey's life.

Billie's defense of him is provocative.

Who said that Billie Jean Dunn had a party on New Year's Eve?

Shawn Adkins did.




Police reported that he told them that they had a party. He told police that they should be looking at him and Billie.

What the (*&*&(?

Why would he say these things?

He enjoys it.

He gets a thrill from it. He is taunting the police. This tells me that he disposed of the body well, and is confident that they won't find it.

He is reliving the thrill.

He told police that they had a party, and then under questioning from Nancy Grace, via Statement Analysis, Billie confirmed it.

Why would they celebrate??

There is a violence used to control that is the heart of domestic violence. It is more common than most of us may realize.

But there is another violence that is rare and deeply frightening:

it is the violence of perversion: Someone who enjoys violence.

This is Shawn Adkins.

This is the Shawn Adkins that Billie first met on MySpace, of whom she says she loves, and even after threatening to kill, she subjected Hailey to.

4. Sexuality.

Billie said she wanted to be Hailey's friend. A 13 year old girl who's mother is her "friend" and not a boundary setting mother is one who will allow the 13 year old freedom for trouble.

Stripping.

Strippers I've interviewed had much in common. They all had substance abuse issues. They all had stories of early childhood sexual abuse.


They all had young daughters who emulated them and dressed provocatively, even at a young age.

Stripping likely played a much bigger role in Hailey's life than many will think:

a. Shawn's jealousy.

Shawn is a grown man who wears masks. Shawn is immature. Shawn is violent. Clint told us that men watching his girlfriend take off her clothes made Shawn very jealous.

Jealousy and violence are an explosive combination. This could not have been good for either Hailey nor for David. Domestic violence, as well shown by the writings and radio broadcasts of expert, Susan Murphy Milano, is bad enough when it is just for control, but add in the element of jealousy by an immature and insecure mask wearing drug user, and the results can be fatal.

b. Age level inappropriateness.

It is common for the daughters of strippers to not only dress inappropriately but for them to watch DVDs and movies that are not age appropriate. "Sex and the City" parties with 11 year old girls may shock the sensibilities of most mothers, but this is what happens. The 11 or 12 year olds want to watch it, but their mothers all say "no" but there is always that one mother, who is not so much a mother, but wants to be her daughter's "friend" who gives in, so as not displease her "girlfriend". Everyone thinks her mother is the "cool" one, but as parents quickly recognize and rebound, that house becomes the one to avoid. Marybeth's mother seemed to understand this when she said she wouldn't let Marybeth sleep over there any more since she learned that Billie let Hailey and her daughter walk the streets at night.

c. View of men.

The stripper views relationships with men on how she might manipulate and control them, by using sexuality.

The lesson is that sex is nothing more than a biological itch to be scratched, and discount all the wonder and beauty found within love. Rather, she would only teach that a woman is an object, and that men should be performed for.

This would be an early and deeply taught lesson about male-female relations that the young Hailey would receive. It is the Billie Jean that Clint described, needing to always walk on eggshells and pacify her; even to the point where he thinks if he doesn't report truthfully about her, she will tell him where Hailey is.

Thus far, it is not working.

Billie could teach her daughter how to use men, and in reality, how to be exploited by them. It is not as the "Pretty Woman" Hollywood world. Police officers and Social workers on the ground will tell you that the stripper is often prostituted out, and will likely suffer physical abuse, disease, drug abuse, and so many other maladies that have no resemblance to Hollywood's glamorous views.

Billie, working as a stripper, not only incited the anger of a man-child immature insecure monster, she also taught her daughter a terribly disrespectful view on how men and women should treat one another.

5. Neglect

Clint seemed to know so little about his own daughter. Although he searched early and often, he was not close to her. It is not just that Hailey kept from him her fear of Shawn, but that he never sensed her fear?

Hailey was 10 years old when Shawn Adkins came into her life. How, in the course of 3 years, could he have not sensed his daughter's fear??

He now complains that police haven't contacted him in 3 weeks? Is he kidding?

Most fathers would have all but camped outside the police station and, compared to their missing child, would not give a damn what dirty laundry his ex will air: his sole purpose is to find his daughter.

Passivity meant neglect to Hailey.

Hailey couldn't share her fears with her mother, who, as a "friend" was likely, as Dr. Lillian Glass eloquently portrayed, as a "rival" more than a daughter.

She couldn't talk to her father; he was busy self medicating with marijuana, day and night, and was listless and dull. Going to his house meant watching TV.

It appears, however, that she did have counselors whom she trusted.

Dedicated professionals have likely been a source of information for investigators, even while Clint waits for police to call him.

note: (by the time of my interview with Clint, police didn't know of the cocaine connection of Billie Dunn, a valuable piece of information that would need to be explored in the event of a drug revenge kidnapping, until I informed them. Note to Marc Klass: This is why nothing is insignificant in a missing child investigation.)

Drugs, Alcohol, Violence, Sexuality and acute emotion numbing Neglect all conspired to form the life of 13 year old Hailey Dunn.

What are most 13 year old girls like who have grown up under these circumstances?

Very few are able to rise above.

When Billie Jean said that Hailey had some problems striking out at others, it is a terrible minimizing of what deep, internal hurt that Hailey felt within.

Girls will often turn their rage within, upon themselves, and go into a life of self-abusive behavior. They are unable to ever accept why they were not important enough to mother and father; which is the lingering impact of Neglect.

Neglect leaves invisible bruises and scars that last a lifetime and can dictate the paths of life like a powerful source, turning rage outward at first, but inward mostly. The neglect would eventually lead her to choose a man who may "punish" her, just as Neglect punished her. She would have little self-worth, drawn from the fact that those charged with loving her, loved their drugs more, and gave their best to the drugs, and not to her.

When she needed sneakers, she had to wait; there were pills to be purchased.

When she needed someone to talk to, she had to wait until he was out of the fog of his high.

When she needed protection, all she found was fighting and anger and harsh words.

When she needed attention, it was not to be found.

When she needed a father, a father could not be found.
When she needed a mother, a mother could not be found.

It reminds me of the comforting words from Psalm 27:10

"Though my father and my mother should forsake me, yet the Lord will gather me up." (Geneva)

It is no wonder why strangers sacrifice much to search in the cold, while her mother sits at home, enjoying her favorite TV shows.

Let the Billie and Shawn defenders save their passion for Hailey. They desperately want an alive Hailey to come home, but they must listen to Billie's own references to Hailey:

in the past tense.

When a mother of a missing child speaks of the child in the past tense, she is revealing her knowledge that her child is dead.

Susan Smith did it.

Casey Anthony did it.

Billie Jean has done it repeatedly.

It is time to think of something else for Hailey:

Justice.

Justice for Hailey.

Arrest them both.

Shawn said "look at us both" when he taunted police. It's time to take his advice.

Arrest them both and watch how quickly they turn on each other rather than "answering questions for each other." Watch how the self-first of drug addicts rises to the surface and self-preservation reveals where they can find Hailey.

They both failed polygraphs for good reason.

Justice for Hailey Dunn.

"We" In Statement Analysis

by Peter Hyatt

“We” is a pronoun that has specific meaning.

We have previously seen that each individual has a personal, subjective, internal dictionary. This means that in an interview, we must seek to enter into the subject’s personal dictionary in order to understand their reality.

So that if someone says “the boy was…” we need to learn what a “boy” is to the subject.

Is the boy a young child in school?
Is the boy an older child, with developed intelligence such as a 12 year old?
“Support our fighting boys in the war!” would indicate a male over the age of 18.

To each subject, the word “boy” may indicate a slightly different reality and it is only by context and our questions that we can enter into the subject’s personal internal dictionary and understand what is meant.

There are, however, two exceptions to the personal, internal, subjective dictionary that each of us has: articles and pronouns.

Articles and Pronouns are not part of our internal dictionary. The word “a” is used when a topic or item is first introduced, for example, but thereafter is referred to with the article, “the”. This is universal to all of us.

Pronouns are also universal, as they are something we learn very early in life; for some, predating speech. (the child who reaches with his hands to indicate “my” or “mine” will show understanding of the pronoun even before being able to properly enunciate the words.

The pronoun, “we” is important in investigations. 

1. It indicates cooperation.

In the example of the young women who, disheveled and crying, reported that she had been sexually assaulted.

"He threw me in his car, drove to the woods, he assaulted me and we drove home..." was recognized as a deceptive statement.

There is no "we" between assailant and victim (note that the "we" was used after the alleged assault) which when confronted, the young woman admitted breaking curphew with a young man whom her father had disliked.

2. It indicates plurality.

If the subject is said to have supposed to have been alone, but says “we ate dinner”, the pronoun, “we” is not open to interpretation: it means more than one, and it is not something a subject can later claim it wasn’t what was meant. As simple as this sounds, when caught, subjects who have claimed to have been alone attempt to rely on "I meant to say "I"" as an excuse.


3. It is also an indication of weakness when it appears in a statement.

“We were thinking how strange this seemed…” is not a strong statement but may even be deceptive.

“I thought it was strange” is a strong statement; first person singular, past tense.

Why do some use the word “we”?

Christopher Dillingham wrote in “Dissecting Pinocchio”

“by saying “we” rather than “I”, many liars feel that less attention will be paid to their role in an event. It also adds some perceivedcredibility, because Pinocchio is implying that he has witnesses to his “good behavior.” He also gets to dissociate himself from the others’ bad behaviors."
The use of the term “we” also implies a cooperative effort. If “we” did something together, than “I” don’t share all the blame because I didn’t do it alone.”

False Witnesses and "we"
The use of "we" is often a good give away when a false witnesses comes forward; especially in a case that has the public's attention. The "witness" is nervous. She is reporting things that she did not personally see, so she slips into the "we" to speak for herself and others, perhaps a husband or friend. The "give away" is when she tells us what another thought or felt. The exception to this is a standard principle: When husband and wife are in the room together, and one is speaking for both.

Sometimes a false witness will use the "we" to describe himself and the crowd that was present. When this arises, it should be flagged for possible deception. Once flagged, if deception is present, we are likely to find an increase in qualifiers and sensitivity along with the "we" that is present.

Change in Pronoun
We need to pay close attention to the subject’s change from “I” to “we” in an open statement because it may be an attempt to divert attention away, or it may be a means to attempt to persuade that something is true.

Any change in pronoun is to be noted as important, possibly sensitive.

We always note when someone purports to speak for another, including what others thought. This is sensitive. Unless the subject can say that she knows what another thought because the other told her so, we should flag the sensitivity for review or follow up questions.

First person singular, past tense, establishes commitment. The employment of the first person plural weakens the commitment. Note this, in particular, in any eye witness statements.

It is also a signal of a bad relationship if it comes before the introduction . This is sometimes a clue to motive in disappearances.

In an open statement (one of which the subject is editing freely), when a person is introduced, we expect to have a proper social introduction.

“Kathy, my wife, said that we should…” would be considered a proper social introduction.

An improper social introduction should be flagged as a possibly bad relationship.

“And so I told the wife that we should…” would indicate that this is a bad relationship with no social introduction and the use of the article, “the” rather than “my” in the first statement.

Consider that this is a situation where the subject is talking to law enforcement. (If his wife is known by police it is not necessary for him to introduce her; similar rules apply when speaking to a journalist, or at an Emergency Room; that is, any professional setting where name and address is needed).


If we find that the word “we” enters a statement prior to the social introduction, it is likely a very bad relationship and should take careful note of this as possible motive if it is a missing person’s report, homicide or injury.

When is "we" appropriate? 

If the subject is speaking for another, for instance, a parent, if the parent is in the room, it should be considered appropriate.

However, if one spouse speaks for the other and the other is not present, it should be noted. A spouse may say "my husband said" but when the statement is such that one spouse tells us what another spouse saw, felt, thought, etc, it is a strong indication of deception and it would likely be confirmed in the langage itself (increase in sensitiviy indicators/qualifiers)

If a spouse tells us what another spouse said, felt, saw, etc, where the other spouse is deceased, it should be considered unreliable information and the investigator needs to continue digging. This is the "weakness" where the spouse seeks to sound credible by adding in the spouse. In fact, in a deceptive account, the more sensitive the information the more likely we are to have the subject use "we" repetitively in a statement, giving the appearnace of being "afraid" to speak for oneself. This absence of "I" is an indicator that the account is not reliable and the analysis should proceed on alert for deception.

Lying Is Stressful

Lying causes internal stress and people will say almost anything to avoid it. Among its stress is the issue of remembering all the lies told previously.

Sometimes deceptive people will go back and forth from the "I" to "we" without 'keeping track' of their words and get caught.

When the subject should be speaking for herself, the "we" is less reliable and should be noted.

Review some of the analysis for the pronoun "we" in statements. Note in particular, the statemnts of Tiffany Hartley, who, even when alone and not speaking for another, slipped into the "we" often.

http://seamusoriley.blogspot.com/2010/10/hartley-transcripts-from-jane-velez.html
Sometimes a witness wants to become part of a famous case and will read what the subject claimed to have happened, and attempt to duplicate it as a "witness" and will, by necessity, need the perception of strength by using the "we" and speak for another; sometimes a spouse. Did a witness attempt to buttress credibility by its employ? Did a subject speak for a spouse who was not present (even deceased) and unable to speak for himself? Did the subject rely heavily upon the "we" rather than the "I"?

Separating spouses often gives very different accounts.

Every statement begins with circling the pronouns.

"We" is one which should always catch our attention.

It may show cooperation, plurality, and often times, weakness.

Tiffany Hartley: Nancy Grace Gender Bias?

By Peter Hyatt

Statement Analysis is best done with little information; so that the analysis is not influenced.

When analysts work on statements from investigators the statements are to be received with only the allegation; no evidence, no suspicions, no history, no thoughts of investigators, etc.

However, when a case is ongoing, it is to be expected that commentary will become part of the analysis, especially as time passes and more information comes to light. Reference points are noted as well as the development of "memory" by the subject.

so many have wondered why media has gone so softly

First person singular, past tense, establishes commitment to a text. But when a subject has repeated a story often enough, the subject can now work from "memory" in a fabrication. This is often seen by the self-affirming phrase,

"like I said" or "as I said before".

It does not mean the subject is speaking from truthful, experiential memory.

Below is the transcripts from the Nancy Grace show in plain text; quotes in italics, and Statement Analysis and commentary in bold type.





UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Just released a frantic 911 call from that bizarre shooting.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Officials say gunmen approached on boats and opened fire on the couple. Tiffany managed to dodge the bullets. But David was hit in the back of the head.

UNIDENTIFIED 911 DISPATCHER: What`s your husband`s name?
TIFFANY HARTLEY, SAYS HUBBY WAS KILLED BY PIRATES ON JET SKI: David. Hartley.

UNIDENTIFIED 911 DISPATCHER: OK. Ma`am, were you shot at?
HARTLEY: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED 911 DISPATCHER: Did you see anybody?
HARTLEY: There were three boats.

This is the initial indication that something is wrong. The question is: Did you (singular) see anybody? In Statement Analysis, when someone does not answer the question, it is flagged as a sensitive question. The expected response would include a singular pronoun, providing ownership, such as "I saw three boats".

Mark McClish has identified "3" as the "liar's number" in his research. There very well may have been 3 boats, but we simply make a notation about the number "3" and continue. This has been discussed previously in analysis; however, we must not miss that Tiffany did not answer the direct question, and when she did, she dropped the pronoun.
1. The question: Did you see anybody? is a sensitive question. "Anybody" refers to humans, not boats.
2. The missing pronoun means that Tiffany does not take ownership of her answer, which means that we cannot either.
3. That there were 3 boats is now in doubt. She did not say that she saw "anybody", nor did she say that she herself saw 3 boats. We, therefore, cannot say that there were 3 boats. We can only say what we are told. This is why it is vital to listen to what the subject says, and not interpret. She didn't say "I saw 3 boats". We do not say that she saw 3 boats. This is an indication of fabrication. This is only the initial 911 call. Tiffany has yet, to date, gone on various talk shows. We are working from this 911 call. Therefore: 

We conclude that identity in this story is a highly sensitive topic to Tiffany Hartley.



UNIDENTIFIED 911 DISPATCHER: Three boats?

HARTLEY: Three boats. And they came back looking at me.

Note that initially we have repetition (reflective language) which is not to be considered reliable. "three boats". Next she said that something began: "and they came back looking at me".

"they", grammatically, would refer to "three boats". Note that boats cannot "look".

Note also that they were "looking at me". "Me" is the speaker, Tiffany. 3 boats were looking at Tiffany. Since boats do not look, this is flagged for deception, along with the missing pronoun and the liar's number and the avoidance of the answer. This means that we have 4 indicators of deception already, even as the call had just begun.

Next is a clip from Anderson Cooper show that was played on the Nancy Grace show:

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: The Good Samaritan who helped Tiffany Hartley out on the water.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She was frantic, crying, sobbing. I mean, she looked very, very jittery.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: The Mexican authorities questioning whether or not it happened the way the victim says it happened here.

HARTLEY: They know the pirates are out there. We knew that. We knew that they -- you know, there`s a possibility of them being there.

Tiffany Hartley responds to the challenge that Mexican officials question whether or not it happened the way she says it happened. Note her answer does not include an affirmation that it happened the way she said it did, rather, she avoids the question (in the form of a challenge) and changes the topic to what Mexican officials know about the area (pirates there) and that she and David knew that pirates were there. Note the order of her knowledge:

They knew.
We knew.
We knew (repetition means further sensitivity)
"possibility".

This shows that Tiffany Hartley first affirmed the knowledge of drug activity, but then quickly sought to remove herself from such knowledge. The repetition and self-weakening show that drug activity is sensitive to Tiffany Hartley. (See Pat Brown's input)

I believe in my heart that they went back and took him. And they`re hiding our jet ski. They`re hiding him. And we just pray that we get him back. And when you`re looking at the end of a barrel of a gun, and wondering if they`re just going to shoot you, too, and wonder if your families are just going to never know where you are.


GRACE: That was Tiffany Hartley this morning, just a few hours ago on the NBC "Today" show.

To Will Ripley, reporter with CNN affiliate KRGV, this couple were real adventurers. And to my understanding they set out on jet skis at the reservoir there on the Texas shore to look at a partially submerged, centuries-old church.

And now I understand authorities are questioning her story. I don`t -- I don`t agree. I watched her on the "Today" show, and I believe her.

Nancy Grace believes Tiffany Hartley because she saw Tiffany on the Today Show. Please see analysis of Tiffany Hartley's appearance on The Today Show


GRACE: You know, and it`s quite a lure. I mean I traveled, I don`t know how far, to try to go dive to see an underwater statue of Christ. So this is a big, big attraction for water lovers and adventure seekers.
And the story she tells is so scary. But I was watching her I really believe she`s telling the truth. And I resent authorities questioning her story. I know his body has not been found. I know there`s no sign of the jet ski.

That does not disturb me. Looking at her, I believe this woman. We`re going to replay that sound of her speaking earlier today.

Notice that Nancy Grace emphasizes the visual of Tiffany Hartley as the basis for her belief. This is vital to understanding the case.

This is what Susan Murphy Milano has been saying: Had Tiffany Hartley been a man, the story would have been questioned and a full scale investigation would have been done.

Susan will be on The Peter Hyatt Show soon. Stay in touch for the announcement.


To Alexis Weed, tell me her story in a nutshell, Alexis. Don`t embellish. I want to hear what she said.

ALEXIS WEED, NANCY GRACE PRODUCER: Nancy, she said that her -- she and her husband David were traveling on their jet skis. It was ambushed by several boats with gunmen. She said that the gunmen opened fire on both of them, that one of the gunshots from these men struck her husband in the head.

She then went over to her husband, jumped off her jet ski, went to check him, flipped him over. He was -- had this gunshot in the back of the head. She decided she better flee because she had a gun pointed at her head, she said. She fled and then went to the shore and went back to the U.S. side.

It would stand to reason to question the story about the cruelty of Mexican Pirates who:

fired without warning
killed for no reason
did not demand money
pointed a gun directly at her...
have a reputation for cruelty that included beheading and delivering the remains...

Since they are known to kill men, women, and children:

Why was Tiffany Hartley spared?

To a former prosecutor's mind: why wouldn't Nancy Grace even question this? Why would she have "resentment" towards anyone who did question the story? Nancy Grace, herself, uses the word "story". This suggests the ratings versus credibility argument that comes up from time to time on her show.

Casey Anthony was not afforded such a free pass. Certainly Nancy Grace has, at least in the past, asked some tough questions of some of her guests, including Crystal Sheffield.

Why does Tifffany Hartley get a pass from Grace?


GRACE: And this is what else I heard. I heard her say three boats of pirates, drug runners, approach her. That, first of all, she hears bullets. And they`re hitting in the water around her. She turns to see three boats approaching.
Her husband goes down. She goes back, risking her own life to save her husband. She pulls him up. She sees that he`s shot. She pointed right here. And tries to lift him. And the pirates come up to her.

They look down at her, pointed the gun right at her, and they`re talking, she doesn`t know what they`re saying, and they leave. She leaves in a hail of bullets. She said she felt God telling her, you`ve got to go now, you`ve got to go now, you`ve got to go now, and she did.

"a hail of bullets" but not a single hit on her or her jet ski. Yet, the former prosecutor does not raise a doubt.


Take a listen to Tiffany Hartley who survived an alleged pirate attack. Her husband shot in the head. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HARTLEY: When I looked back -- after I had seen some bullets hit the water next to me, I looked back to check on David, and I saw him fly over the jet ski. He had been hit.

Note: chronological order is always viewed in Statement Analysis. A person recalling from memory does so in order. If something is out of chronological order, it is flagged for deception.

1. I looked back First person singular, past tense. Reliable.

2. "after I had seen some bullets hit the water next to me"

3. He had been hit

4. He flew off the jet ski

she is out of chronological order.

I quickly turned around

The story now has editorializing rather than a simple account. She didn't just turn around, she did so "quickly"


and went to him and jumped off my jet ski.

"and went to him" is added by Tiffany. Where else might she have gone? This is unnecessary and makes her account sound more like a dramatized story. 

And I had to turn him over because he was face down in the water. And turned him over and he was shot in the head.

We note that whenever an account has "so, since, therefore, because" it is to be noted as sensitive since the subject is no longer simply telling us what happened, but "why" something happened. This indicates sensitivity as the subject feels the need to explain actions.

Note that "turn him over" is repeated, which is sensitive. Why it is sensitive, at this point, we do not know, but when a subject repeats a word like this, a skillful interviewer will hear the repetition and focus questions upon it.


And that`s when a boat came up, one of the boats came up to me, and had a gun pointed at me, trying to decide what to do with me. And then they left. And that`s when I tried saving David and getting him onto my jet ski.

Note that "a boat" came up, one of "the" boats (previously identified). This is unnecessary. We would not expect that "a" boat was not one of the 3 she mentioned. It is unlikely that there were 3 boats; only one. But here we have a strong indicator of deception:
"trying to decide what to do with me"

When a subject tells us what another was thinking, it is deception.

NOTE: trying to decide what to do" is found within her sentence and it is likely truthful. This is an indication that the subject(s) on the boat and Tiffany Hartley did communicate. This is why she is expressing the other subject(s) thoughts.

But I just -- I couldn`t get him up. And I just kept hearing God tell me, you have to go, you have to go. So I had to leave him. So I could get to safety.

As police will often say, when God is brought into a statement, it is a sure signal that deception is present. Here, she stated that she "just kept hearing" (note tense) "God" "tell her" that she had to go. Note that she does not say why God did not warn them not to go jet ski in a place where she knew drug cartel pirates were, nor does she say why God didn't tell her a few minutes earlier so that David could be spared. She has now claimed Divine intervention for herself; but not for her husband.


He would never, ever put me in a position of danger. And we hadn`t heard anything of -- anything going on over there. We had heard about the pirates, but we didn`t know -- you know, we just hadn`t heard anything recently.

When a subject tells us what didn't happen, what wasn't said, what wasn't seen, or what wasn't thought, it is called a 'negation' and it is an offering of critical information that is highly sensitive to the subject. Here Tiffany, although not challenged, anticipates that she has said that they "knew" this was a drug area, and that people would naturally ask why David would expose her to such danger. Note now the sensitivity above and why she went from "they knew", "we knew" to the reduced "possibility" of being in harm's way.

1. He would never, ever put me in a position of danger

The word "never" is not to be accepted as a substitute for the word "no" and is, in fact, a weak denial. According to Tiffany, David Hartley did, in deed, put her in a position of danger, just to get a snap shot of a church. Tiffany knows that her story, as told, accuses David of this, therefore, she addresses it in the form of the highly sensitive negation.

This statement may suggest that drug involvement was part of September 30th.

Why?

Pat Brown's theory is that they went to buy drugs, likely a wholesale purchase, in order to sell them on the street at a tremendous mark up. She believes that they were shot at on land, not on a jet ski, and that David, hit, told her to run. She ran, got on her jet ski and took off, leaving him behind to die. That Tiffany Hartley offers to us that David would "never ever" put her in harm's way tells us that David either put her in harm's way, or had done something in the past to make her feel frightened; in some kind of "danger". This may be an indication of drug involvement, or it may be an indication of domestic violence. (Recall that she spoke of his size; meaning that his large size next to her small size is in her mind as she told her story. This may be in her mind if she felt intimidated by him. Research into his background, especially close friends or ex girlfriends, could confirm or deny this possibility.)

Tiffany told us, via negation, that David put her in danger. (we also know this from her story: she reported that they even spoke of the possibility of being kidnapped before they went.

How many husbands do you know would go into an area of such immense danger as to show the need for kidnap preparedness, with their wives?

And we hadn`t heard anything of -- anything going on over there. We had heard about the pirates, but we didn`t know -- you know, we just hadn`t heard anything recently

First: we hadn't heard anything;
Next: "anything" is repeated; sensitivity
Then: hadn't heard anything "recently" qualifying her answer.

This is what deception looks like.

GRACE: Hearing that woman, there is no doubt in my mind that this is what went down. You were just seeing her speaking a few hours ago on the NBC "Today" show.

This speaks for itself.

Out to the lines, Latoya, South Carolina, hello, Latoya.
LATOYA, CALLER FROM SOUTH CAROLINA: Hey, Nancy. I just want to let you know, I love your show, I watch it every night.

GRACE: Thank you, dear.

LATOYA: My -- my question is, just to clear this all up, because I believe her, too. But has she taken a polygraph test?
GRACE: I don`t know. Let`s go to Lieutenant (INAUDIBLE) Garza with the Zapata County Sheriff`s Office.

Lieutenant, thank you for being with us. I doubt she`s in any frame of mind right now to take a polygraph.


This is a statement of prejudice. It would be of interest to ask Nancy Grace how many males who had just "lost" their wives or girlfriends, were not "in any frame of mind" to take a polygraph.

In a murder investigation, what frame of mind should exist to take a polygraph?

Nancy Grace: Was Marc Klass in any frame of mind to take a polygraph when his daughter went missing?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, ma`am. One hasn`t been provided to her, or offered at this time.

"provided" to her is soft language.


GRACE: Well, I`ve got to tell you something, Lt. Garza, I really believe her. And the fact that the body has not been discovered yet, and that the jet ski has not been discovered, that doesn`t concern me at all.

Can`t you look at this lady and tell she`s telling the truth?


No need for science. Just have Nancy Grace look at someone and we can bypass the polygraph, statement analysis and interviewing skills, and get an answer from Nancy. No need for hundreds of hours of interview training. No need for linguistics. No need for polygraphy training.

Just have Nancy Grace look at someone and we can know if they are telling the truth or not.

This is what Susan Murphy Milano has been saying:

The media would not treat Tiffany Hartley this way had she been a man and the victim a woman. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I was here actually when Miss Hartley came into the office. And we also had a witness out there corroborating Mrs. Hartley`s event of a boat chasing her into the U.S. side of the lake.
GRACE: Let me go to Dr. Leslie Austin, psychotherapist joining us out of New York.

Leslie -- Dr. Leslie, you can size somebody up in a heartbeat. What do you think?

A trained psychotherapist will know that what Nancy Grace claims is not only impossible, but irresponsible and the height of judgmentalism. Sociopaths, addicts, and so many others are able to fool professionals with impunity. Dr. Leslie is faced with a dilemma: does she speak truthfully and cause Nancy Grace to become angry, dismissive, and possibly insulting? (this could lead to no further invitations back to the show). Or, does she agree with Nancy, in the face of both science and common sense?
DR. LESLIE AUSTIN, PSYCHOTHERAPIST: I find her totally credible. I absolutely believe her. I just wonder why they started shooting first rather than trying to capture them and rob them. But I find her completely credible.

Note the weakness in the assertion by the additional words she calls upon:

"totally" credible"absolutely" believe her
This weakness in assertion is seen with two additional words and then the weakness leaks out with the following statement in which she "wonders" why they would shoot first and not rob. This belies her agreement with Nancy Grace as she shows the incredulous nature of the story.


GRACE: Well, they`re drug runners. Why ask why? Why do they act like animals? I don`t know. Why do they kill people? I don`t know. Do I need an excuse? Maybe they only wanted the jet ski.

AUSTIN: No. But there was a history of people being robbed there. I mean it`s just something that I wondered about.

GRACE: So what are you --

AUSTIN: But she is absolutely credible.
GRACE: -- trying to say, because she`s not robbed, she`s lying?

AUSTIN: No, no, no. I find her completely credible. I just don`t understand the scenario yet. But she is totally believable. There is no way this woman is lying.

Nancy Grace attempts to humiliate those who disagree with her. Note the sacrifice of dignity by many who repeatedly go on her show for the publicity.



GRACE: Unleash the lawyers, Ken Hodges, Raymond Giudice, Richard Herman.

Weigh in, Herman.

RICHARD HERMAN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Nancy, her story sounds ridiculous to me. Why would they aim a gun at her and not shoot her and not take her jet ski? Pirates just don`t come up to people and shoot them for fun of shooting people. I don`t know what went on here. It`s tragic. This man apparently is dead. But the story sounds absolutely ridiculous.

Note that the first description by Richard Herman is that her story sounds "ridiculous". This is how far apart two views are:

Herman says her "story" sounds "ridiculous" but Grace says "she" is credible.

The difference?

Richard Herman is addressing the story;
Nancy Grace is addressing the woman.

Refer to Susan Murphy Milano. What is ridiculous to one is "absolutely" credible to another because the other "looked" at Tiffany Hartely.

Is this because Hartley is a woman?

GRACE: No, no. Because I have prosecuted cases where victims were murdered, were gunned down just for the hell of it.

What about it, Giudice?

HERMAN: Why didn`t they shoot her?

GRACE: I don`t know.

RAY GIUDICE, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Let me tell you.

GRACE: I don`t know. I don`t know why they didn`t shoot her. I only thank God in Heaven. They didn`t.

What about it, Raymond?

GIUDICE: My two concerns are. Every picture I see in him --

GRACE: Your concerns?

GIUDICE: He`s wearing a floatation device, a life jacket. Secondly, those jet skis are designed to float. There is no reason that that body and that jet ski in a lake, not out in the ocean, have not been found yet.

Ray Giudice is not focused upon Hartley, the woman, but upon the forensics of her story. This, along with Richard Herman's view, are in stark contrast to Nancy Grace's view of looking at the person of the story, rather than the story and its details.



GRACE: Ken Hodges, what do you make of it?
KEN HODGES, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I think the most compelling thing to support what you say is that an independent witness observed it and corroborated what she said. It needs to have a full investigation and hopefully it will reveal what you`ve said that she was a victim of a horrible crime.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED 911 DISPATCHER: OK. So you more or less know where he is?HARTLEY: Yes, but he`s -- he`s --

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED 911 DISPATCHER: OK. What`s your name?
HARTLEY: Tiffany Hartley.


UNIDENTIFIED 911 DISPATCHER: Are you sure that your husband got shot?HARTLEY: Yes, in his head.

Note that the 911 Dispatcher appears to have questioned the veracity of the caller.



(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: We are taking your calls, out to Cheryl in Georgia, hi, Cheryl.

CHERYL, CALLER FROM GEORGIA: Hey, Nancy. How are you?

GRACE: I`m good, dear. What`s your question?

CHERYL: I have a couple of questions. If I was going to go on a jet ski vacation I wouldn`t like go near borders of, you know, where they were, where it was dangerous. And also, if boats were coming towards them, why didn`t they shoot at her? Is there a life insurance policy on her husband?

GRACE: To Will Ripley, reporter with KRGV. Will, it`s my understanding from what she says it all happened so fast they just came up and started shooting, which that`s the way drug runners do. What about the rest of the questions?

Nancy Grace appears to know the MO of drug runners; how they shoot and operate.
RIPLEY: Well, one thing you need to remember about this couple is that they lived in Reynosa, Mexico for two and a half years before moving back to the Texas side of the border and they`ve only lived here in McAllen for the past five months.

So these are people who are familiar with Mexico and also Falcon Lake is not very clearly marked. I mean, because there is no, you know, physical basically boundary line you can cross into Mexico and if you happen to miss the buoy you may not even know you`re in Mexico.

And this lake is -- this reservoir is a drug runner`s paradise. We have smuggling going on so much because there`s really not enough law enforcement out there.

GRACE: Well, you know, Will Ripley, something you said is absolutely correct. The only way you can tell you`re going over the water border are there are some buoys and they are very far apart. You don`t know that you`re crossing the border.

Note that the question of the life insurance policy was not answered by the respondent, nor was it addressed by Nancy Grace.