So welcome back to our latest series of The Path with Chili. We're recording this just a few days before Christmas, and once again, since Ashley is busy, she has a newborn baby and a family to take care of. Is just going to be me and Jewles doing this particular episode, but we're going to do something a little different from the norm because I'm not going to say the case we're covering right now, because at the moment, Jewles doesn't
even know it. I have deliberately not told her any details about it except provided her with a statement that was said by one of the people connected to this case. Because Jewels is going to be performing a statement analysis in this episode, Jules, you want to tell everyone what that is?
Yes, okay, So statement analysis has been something I've been interested in since I started Briddle Me That years ago. I no longer do the podcast, but one person that I had interviewed for one of my episodes was Mark McLish and he was the most interesting person that I interviewed.
I thought it was so fascinating how you could break down just simple words that we take for granted, how they're put together and punctuation pronouns used time references and you could deduce whether something is false or whether it's true. It's a pretty simple system and when I was interested in learning about the technique, I reached out to Mark and he let me do the training for free. He was incredibly supportive. He looks at statements for me whenever
I have something that I have a question when I'm practicing. Unfortunately, for this one, our timing just didn't really align, so he couldn't double check my work. So I want to preface this and say I was certified, but I am in no way an expert here. There could be some of you listening who know far more than I do, and that's okay. You can have your opinion on the way that this is structured. And in the show notes
will provide the statement. So if you want to go and do your own analysis, you're more than welcome to. And I just want to give you guys a little bit of information about who Mark McLish is. So he's literally written the book. He's written three of them. One of them is don't be Deceived, the other one is I Know You're lying, and ten ways to spot a liar. So he is a grandfather in the industry, he spent
twenty six years in law enforcement. He worked in the Secret Service as well as the Marshall Service, and he spent a great deal of time training in statement analysis because he was the lead instructor on interview techniques and that's where he developed the system of statement analysis. He also worked on developing the software that would detect deception
and statements. So he retires hired in two thousand and nine as a supervisory Deputy US Marshal, So he now gets presentations on statement analysis as well as providing training to military and law enforcement agencies. Another fun fact about him, I think it's taekwondo that he's a black belt in. I think he was like head of ground training techniques or something related to that. So our own Ashley Wellman, has a black belt in taekwondo, so I just thought that was an interesting tie in.
I actually didn't even know that about Ashley, so that don't be my surprise. So that's cool to hear. So when you interviewed Mark McLish on riddle me that was it in relation to any particular case or was it just a general conversation about statement analysis.
No, I believe it was. This was like four years ago or something at this point, maybe even five, But I believe it was the Faith Hedge Peth case and the nine to one one call I believe was what we went over.
And what's interesting is that's a case there has since been an arrest and it turned out not to be face roommate who made the call, but rather a completely random predator who was never on the rate as a suspect. So if you kind of interesting to go back and listen to that and see how much is analysis was close to the facts.
Yeah, and I think there can be a lot of different things that can go into why somebody is reacting the way that they are with a nine to one one call. But I think a lot of us, when looking at that case, were wrong. I know I was wrong. I thought that there had to have been some involvement of the roommate, given her behavior, the fact that it was unlocked, and the way that she spoke on that nine to one one call, and then what seemed like
a lack of cooperation with law enforcement. I don't know if it was a lack of cooperation or just the fact that she wasn't talking to the press, she wasn't giving any statements, and so we were left to wonder and all we really had to go off of was that nine one one call.
Yeah, And it's been different in varying cases, where sometimes a nine one one call er was guilty and other times they were completely innocent. You just kind of can't react to how people are going to act and that particular situation. But the good news about the case we're going to talk about is it's still on SOLT, So we still can't technically know if jewels statement analysis is going to be right or wrong, because the truth is still murky. So what we did is I deliberately didn't
tell Jewels any details about the cases. I just gave her a one paragraph statement that was made by someone connected to this case in a police interrogation room, and without knowing any of the context of what he was talking about any details of the case, she performed a
statement analysis and what he said. So what we'll do is we'll read the statement and then Jewels will give her own statement analysis, and when she's done, I will provide her the context when this statement was made and then share all the details about the featured case, and then we'll find out at the end if Jewels has changed her opinion or not, or if she still thinks
she's right on the money. So I'm just going to read the statement out word for word now, and I'll just say is that this is made by an individual while they're in a police interrogation room. So let me just pull it up here. So here it is word for word. Oh, I think it was in the original one you sent me yesterday, so I'll just pull that up. I just got your final one now that I just
want to get the word for word one. Okay. So I'm going to read a word for word, and I'm going to bleep out the name of the victim here because we don't want to give that away quote. Okay. Basically, the truth of the matter is me and Blank went to the old College and we got in a big argument and fight, and it was over money that she wouldn't give back to me. It was some change of a twenty dollars bill. She hauled off and punched me.
I then, not thinking, pushed her. When she fell backwards her head and paled on something sharp sticking out of the ground. I then said, are you all right? I run over to her, and she just mined a little bit, and there was nothing else. I hollered out for help too, because Holmes Boulevard is right there. Nobody came, nobody yelled back or anything. I didn't want to leave her. I freaked out. I didn't. I said, I don't know what to tell you all. I couldn't tell you all. I
just freaked so not thinking, I freaked, I tripped. I just didn't know what to do. I buried her. I didn't know what to do. It was the wrong thing to do. I agree, but I was fourteen years old. I wasn't thinking. I then I came home after that, but she was dead, definitely dead before I buried her. That I know because I checked her stomach and all that. Then after that, I sat there for about thirty minutes, thirty eight to forty five minutes, just didn't know what
to do. I went home, I got cleaned up. I regret it. I'm sorry it did happen. I regret pushing her. I wish I could go back in time and not have done that. I wish I could turn time. If I could turn time back, I wouldn't just you know, it was all over money, and you know what money will do to you when you're a kid. I don't know. You were a kid, you had a certain amount of money, the money was valuable to you then, you know. But that's the way it was with me when I was
a kid. Every dime I got I depend on because most stuff like that I had to work for. So, Jules, let's hear your statement analysis on this.
Oh, this is just the most bizarre statement right from the jump. As soon as I started reading it, I'm like, Okay, it starts with okay basically, so like we're already looking at a problem because we're not just hearing the truth. We're hearing basically what happened, And so I'm gonna analyze. Okay, basically, the truth of the matter is me and Blank went to the old college that part first, Okay, So okay, the subject is taking time to think about what they're
going to say. So statements like I swear to God or like the subject used here the truth of the matter often indicate deception. There's an obvious need to convince, and it doesn't always mean deception. If someone feels as though they aren't being believed, they may use these declarative statements. I don't know the discourse between the interviewer and the subject prior. But to me personally from the jump, we're looking at like a high high probability of deception. As is,
this isn't a good start. The use of the word, like I said, basically it's suspect. Is this what happened? Or is it basically what happened? It could potentially indicate withholding of information or that this isn't at all what happened and it's just a fabrication. The subject mentions the old college. What's the old college? We know this is familiar since he used the definite article with the rather
than a so is this his old college? The location's vague, but perhaps this is somewhere known to everyone in the area. But the lack of where within the college that they ended up it just isn't giving enough details. There's withholding of specifics such as where did you go in the old college and what was the objective?
Well, and I started sharing details about the case, I'll go more into what the old college was, and you'll find out that this was a place that was close to where h this supposed crime took place and that the police did check out the site of this supposed old college but found no corroborating evidence to support this
person's story. But yeah, it is kind of a bad sign, especially when you learn the full context that he's starting it off by just using phrases like basically and the truth of the matter, and you just kind of feel like he's trying to find the right words to explain what happened, even though if he's telling the truth, this probably shouldn't be needing to do.
This, And unfortunately, I feel like this sets the tone for the entire statement.
Yeah, exactly, because I remember watching it for the first time because I covered this one on the Trail Went Cold several years ago, and when I watched the interrogation, I had these feelings that you did immediately.
So the next part that we're going to cover. The next line is we got in a big argument and fight, and it was over money that she wouldn't get back to me. So the use of the word we indicates the partnership of some kind. So I'd say that there's a high problem ability that they didn't just meet that night. If they are indeed acquainted, they were known to each other prior to the events that would end her life. And I find this interesting that the subject says big
argument and fight. Typically one would say one or the other. It's possible that in this person's personal dictionary, an argument is verbal and a fight is physical. The interviewer should definitely probe further here. And the subject says that the woman in question wouldn't give back money, but never says how she came into possession of that money. He never says that she took it from him or stole it,
or even that he lent it to her. We are only getting part of the story here, and don't you find that a little bizarre?
I do, yes, because once we learn the background of this person, it just seems very odd that they would be in possession of money at this particular time. And that's one of the story that has always been kind of a red flag to me. And I do see this sometimes where or if someone confesses to a murder and they always say, well, I didn't intend to kill this person. It was just a thing where we got into an argument in a fight and they fell over
and hit their head. And there was one case that I covered on the Trail and Cold a couple of years ago about the disappearance of a woman named Bethany Decker, who was killed by her boyfriend Ronald roll Dan and they never found her remains, but there was a compelling, circumstantial evidence against him to charge him with murder, and one of the terms of the plea deal that was offered is that he would have to make a statement
in court, a full confession about what happened. And even though he did, the victim's family was not satisfied because he used the whole thing, well, we got into a fight and I pushed her and she hit her head, and I didn't mean to. And they've always been skeptical of that because this guy was known for having a history of violence and abuse. But because they couldn't find her remains, they can't really prove or disprove his story.
But they still kind of feel that, yeah, that's his way of like deflecting responsibility, where he tries to say that he didn't mean to kill anyone and that it was only an accident, and that could very well be the case here as well.
I mean I will say here, like I've gone back and forth for sure on whether or not this is this is completely fabricated at a false confession, or this is completely fabricated and this person is indeed responsible. By the time we get to this, I may change my mind again because there's so much in here that says this is all fabricated. But there is just a few little nuggets that give me pause, and we'll get to that.
But the money thing is definitely one of them. If he is indeed responsible, that money is not the motivation, because there's just the lack of specificity, and you'd think if money was so important, you would give us an amount.
Yes, And I've always felt the same thing about this particular person. I don't have a concrete opinion on whether or not they're guilty, but I do believe that if they are, then the statement that they're making here is not the truth about what actually happened.
And think about when you're telling a story, a true story, it should flow for memory. But this story has a lot of pauses. Like when you're looking at the transcript, there's a lot of dot dots and there isn't a flow. It's disjointed and there's a lot of fragments, and that shouldn't really be happening if it's coming from memory, and if it is an incident where somebody lost their life,
and you're saying that you pushed her. Okay, well, if this resulted in her death, you'd think that he would remember that.
I think so. Yeah, Like, once you learn the full contact, you would pretty much realize that this is one of the most memorable experiences that would have taken place in this person's life. So you think he would recall details a lot more vividly.
Exactly. Typically, when you're telling a story, it shouldn't be something that requires that much effort. You often see that in deceptive statements. And I mentioned the money earlier. He doesn't tell us how much money. He doesn't tell us how she got that much money, and that seems like a very odd thing to me, especially when he's telling us that is his primary motivation for this fight. He
jumps into the next part of the story. There isn't a lead up about why or what led up to the fight, or he doesn't say something to the effect of, she took the money, I confronted her, and she punched me rather out of the blue, she hauled off and punched me. The language she used here is odd. Did she out of nowhere punch him as he suggests, or was she defending herself. There's definitely a withholding of information
here in my opinion. And then he says, I then dot dot dot, So he's pausing to think about how he's going to phrase this. If he was recalling it from memory, there wouldn't be the need to pause incessantly and rephrase as he does throughout. So this version of events seems deceptive. With the quote I then dot dot dot, not thinking dot dot dot pushed her think about recalling about event such as this. If you were punched in
the face, you may react by pushing back. The pause in the inclusion of not thinking makes me believe there's a potential that this isn't in all how the event's transpired, and that this is deceptive, just like we've seen throughout the statement. And notice how casual not thinking is and how devoid of emotion this story is considering the gravity of it. The tone doesn't match the actions, and that's something to look out for.
Yes, the whole thing about the twenty dollars bill has always been a red flag for me because when you hear the full context of who these people are, it does seem unlikely that they would have been in possession of a twenty dollars bill at this particular time, So it does sound like he's thrown that detail into the story, possibly to mask what he really did, like the real
truth behind her death. And also when you learn the full context of when he's making this confession, I mean, people are going to act differently when they're confessing to the worst thing they ever did. But I do think that this is a context where he probably would be a lot more emotional. But I've seen the actual police interrogation video where he makes his confession, and he does do it in a very flat, unemotional tone most of the time, and you're kind of wondering this was true.
Then I would expect like a lot more emotion from him.
Yeah, the tone is very incongruous with what you would expect. You would expect there to be a lot of emotion when you're recalling something like this, but there isn't that. And he uses a lot of passive language as well, which is something to look out for, Like you know she fell, It's like, no, she didn't fall. You pushed her, and that's why she ended up where she was, if you were to be believed. So the next time we're going to analyze, is she fell backwards and her head
dot dot dot. When she fell backwards, her head impaled on something sharp sticking out of the ground. So like I just said, she didn't fall backwards. This is passive language and it's used to minimize. So the subject admits to pushing her backwards, then he doubles down and takes himself out of the statement by following it up again when she fell backwards. This shows a lack of responsibility
and distancing. So rather than being like when I pushed her backwards and she fell, he's like when she fell backwards, as if this was something that happened independent of anything that he did. And so I'm curious what he was going to say when he said, well, she fell backwards and her head dot dot dot.
It is true. Like if you see this sense in just a void, it's making it sound like he's saying that she fell accidentally, like she tripped, and that he never touched her. But then you see the full context and he says we got into a fight and I pushed her. But at that particular point it does sound like he's afflecting responsibility, saying that, well, it's not really my fault. I only gave her a light shove, and she's the one who fell backwards and caused the fatal
injury to her head. So yeah, it makes you wonder is he kind of deflecting responsibility from what he did or is this just not one hundred percent true.
Yeah, he's not saying I am paled her head. That he's saying she fell backwards, like taking himself out of that statement completely, and he just doesn't claim responsibility, and he makes it the fault of the inanimate object, like that inanimate object impaled her. I didn't you know, Like he's not like he's saying, you know, it was my fault. This happened and her head was impaled as a result
of my actions. He's really trying to take himself out of the statement and make it sound like an accident. So the next part is he said I then said are you all right? He doesn't seem panic when recalling, which should be like a really visceral and emotional situation where most people would rush to her side right away before asking are you all right? I think if you were to tell a story about an event and it was an accident, would you include something like this I
don't know. It's not a typical flow of events during a chaotic moment in my opinion.
Yeah, And I always wonder how many of these incidents actually happen where someone is pushed and then just by pure luck or bad luck, they wind up getting their head impaled on something sticking out of the ground. Like you hear more details about this exact location where this allegedly took place, and you're thinking of them selves, Man, the odds of her falling down at this one spot that had a sharp object sticking out of the ground just seems very remote. It just seems like one of
those one in a million things that could happen. So it makes you wonder is he deflecting responsibility and making this up to kind of rid himself of his own culpability and what happened And the fact that he's asking
are you all right? Like you said, it just seems like a weird thing to say if you saw someone fell and potentially hit their head on something which caused an injury and killed them instantly, And it's almost like, if this isn't what actually happened, it's him once again deflecting responsibility, saying that hey, I didn't mean to kill her. I actually asked her if she was okay, So that means it was just an accident and this wasn't premeditated
or anything. So it makes you wonder. Yeah, just changing the details to kind of deflect on what he actually did do.
So the next line that we're going to analyze is I run over to her and she just mined a little bit and there was nothing else. So we've got a bit of a problem here at the beginning. I run should be iran, so present tense is often indicative of deception in a statement. And why would you run over to her? Like how far away could she be? The subject isn't a superhero that could like push her one hundred meters away? He admitted he pushed her, So
it shouldn't require a run. It should be a step or two, should it not.
Yeah, like if they got into like an altercation where he shoved her and she fell over, like she's not gonna fly like one hundred feet away, Like he's not gonna need to run over. She's going to be very close to him.
Interesting, he uses the word just a lot. This is the first time we see it in the statement, But he uses it quite a bit, and it's what's referred to as a unique word, and it can often indicate withholding of information. So when he says she just mined a little bit, I question if that's indeed accurate. What does he mean by mind? It's not phrase in the context of someone lying there and dying. Why would it not make more sense that she raised her arms and
waved her fingers. There's something soft about mind, and that can indicate deception in this context. So if she is indeed dead, which it seems like she potentially is, with there was nothing else, wouldn't we see more panic, more grief, regret, remorse. There's a very casual telling of events that potentially ended someone's life, and that's troubling. There likely was something else, and he's potentially leaving that out of the statement.
Yeah, getting back to use of the word mind, I will say that the audio quality on the police and
teror cation video isn't the best. So I had to watch that part six or seven times while I was making the train because I had to be absolutely sure what word he used, because I couldn't figure out what he was saying at first, and then once I watched it, a few times it's like, oh, he's saying mind, which even so is just a very weird phrase to go in there, just saying that she kind of mined and looked like she was alive for a little a few seconds before she died, and that is just a very
odd phrase to use when you're making a confession to being responsible for someone's death. And yeah, the way he said like there was nothing else, like, he doesn't even make it sound like U he panicked a lot that this person who he caused her death and he didn't even like get down much and like tried to see if she was okay or move her body or anything like that. He just says she moved her head and uh, then she stopped. And I took that immediately as an
indication that she was dead. And of course I could be a sign that he's totally fabricating this story and this isn't what happened.
I would think if it was unintentional and this was a complete accident, like you pushed her and her head impaled on something sharp, which I don't believe him at all, But if that was indeed the case, you would see some shock because that is a very normal response when something like that happens, that it's an accident and you realize that you unintentionally ended somebody's life by your actions.
But he's not shocked. We're not seeing any emotional reaction, and that leads me to believe that, like pretty much, everything he's saying so far is deceptive. Okay, so the next line we're gonna analyze is I hollered out for help too? Because Holmes Boulevard is right there. Nobody came, nobody yelled back or anything. So I question what year is this? Did they have cell phones landlines? Because I hollered out for help too, So the inclusion of two
is interesting, as if he hollered in addition to something else. Also, why is he hollering for help on the street? I don't know, Like where this college is located. Is it rural? Did he not have access to a neighbor's home a phone? I don't know this This is incredibly suspect. And if someone heard his cries, wouldn't they approach him in a vehicle or on foot? Why would they holler back? So I question if he did indeed holler as he claims
Like here, this appears deceptive and end quote. Nobody came, nobody yelled back or anything like I just said, why would somebody yell back? Wouldn't they see you and come to you?
Like?
What were you hoping to achieve just by randomly hollering? Notice that he doesn't say he waved his hands and jumped up and down and ran in front of an approaching car. So we're to believe that he just wandered onto the street and started hollering. In my opinion, this is deceptive and it never transpired.
Well, without giving away the exact year just yet, I will say that this was the pre cell phone era, so he wouldn't have had one. Uh, there would have been payphones around, but I don't have any information about where the nearest payphone would have been to this location. And I'll just say that this incident supposed this supposedly took place at night, and it was in an outdoor area, but I don't I don't think it was all that far from many other houses or in many other places
to get help. It wasn't like it was in a rural area or anything. So if he really wanted to get help, I don't think he would have had to have run far to the nearest house in order to call for emergency or medical assistance, or call to the nearest pay phone. So, yeah, that does strike me as odd. That's he hollers out for help and no one comes, and then after that he doesn't do anything else. He makes no attempt to find help for this person that he supposedly killed.
And do you notice what's missing throughout you, Like, while he tells his story, he's talking about what happened. There's nothing else you know she was dead and how he's panicking, And he doesn't say, so, I got up, I ran out of the college, I ran onto the road. I was jumping up and down and waving my hands. He doesn't tell you what he's physically doing. He just says
I was there and I was hollering. It just seems like if you were going to fabricate a story, that is how you would fabricate it, because if you were going to be recalling some thing from memory, you would
be saying which you physically did. It would be imprinted in your memory because there would be so much emotion tied to the fact that this individual lost their life, Like he's playing it off as an accident, but no matter what the motivation he had, or if indeed this was premeditated murder or if it was an accident, or if he's even responsible, I would think that there would be like just an urgency and heightened emotional state shock. The recall wouldn't be so casual, don't you think.
I think so, yeah, that even if he was fabricating the story to cover up his own complicity, that he would at least throw in some details of just saying that I ran, I looked for cars, but there was no one around. I went to a neighbor's house and knocked on the door, but there was no one home, like make it look like he tried to do more to try to save this person's life, but instead he just casually says I yelled, I hollered, but no one came.
So that just really sounds like he had to come up with this story on the fly or something like that, and just because it wasn't actually the truth, it doesn't have any details to add to the believability of it.
So the next line that we're going to analyze is I didn't want to leave her dot dot dot, I freaked out, dot dot dot, I didn't dot dot dot I said I don't know what to tell you. All. It's possible that he didn't know what to do and he did freak out, but he says, quote I didn't and trails off. I'm really curious what he was going to say there There is an I didn't and he
trails off with what didn't he do? This is a pattern where he starts a sentence and then it goes against what I would assume is his better judgment to continue, and he rephrases, so this can definitely be indicative of deception. So it's interesting that he says, quote, I said I don't know what to tell you. He's not saying he's not saying I don't know what to tell you, but that he said that I said I I don't know
what to tell you. He's not saying I don't know what to tell you, but that he'd already said that, And it's not an equal statement. They're two very different things. It's also an odd statement since they're asking for his version of events and that should come from memory. So the fact that he doesn't know what to say is interesting. Also, he's using past tense, as if he said this to them before. But since I only have a piece of the interview, it is possible that they had discussed this.
Yes, I'm going to talk more about this when we share the details of the case. But there were prior conversations between the person making this statement and the police, and there is an additional person in the interrogation room at this point that he's telling to the first time. So that kind of is how this statement comes in here. But once you learn the full details about why he's making this statement, you're going to think that, Wow, he should really be more emotional or have better recall or
more details. But just the way that he's just casually saying I didn't know what to do. I freaked out. But uh he isn't giving like more urgency. He's making it sound like even though this was an accident, he wasn't responsible. He just like kind of had this attitude that, well, she's dead, nothing I can do about it.
All right, So the next line that we're going to analyze is I couldn't tell you all. I just freaked out. Uh so I dot dot dot not thinking dot dot dot, I freak dot dot dot, I trip dot dot dot, I just don't know what to do dot dot dot, I buried her. So when he says I couldn't tell you all, I believe him. I personally believe that the truth is leaking out here. He can't tell the investigators everything,
and that's why we're seeing so much withholding. Either he isn't responsible at all and he doesn't have the details and that's why he's withholding, or he's fabricating and perhaps the truth of the events are far worse, and he fears that the truth could impact many things, from the way that investigators view him to the type of sentence that he may receive if, say, for example, sexual assault was included in the crime, or like I said, he
can't tell them because he simply doesn't know. He again uses the word just with I freaked out, indicating that he is potentially withholding on his actions surrounding her death and that he did more than quote freak out. He again says that he wasn't thinking, and another use of just with I just don't know what to do. He's again withholding. Also ask yourself if the end result is you bury someone, This seems very calculated and well thought out.
One has to move the body, get it to a vehicle, find a shovel, transport the body, and then dig a hole and bury the individual. The way that he tells the story, he just skips over all those details. And don't you find that a little bit perplexing?
I do. And I'm not giving anything away because in a couple moments we're going to analyze this statement. But the person did say his age out loud when he said this incident took place, And when you hear this person's age, you're thinking, this is not someone who just casually decides to bury a body, and if they did, they would not be so careful about it and so like cautious that the victim's remains would not be found
for many, many years. And it is kind of weird that he just says I picked up like, oh yeah, he does. Later on he gives like a more detailed version about how he buried. But the fact that he's not providing specific details in this particular statement is a bit telling, because you know, most people, once like they are there in a situation like this, are just not going to casually say within seconds or minutes, oh okay,
I did this bad thing. I'm going to have to bury someone and just have the wherewithal to do it successfully. So I've always felt that this is the most troubling part of the confession, which doesn't hold water to me.
It absolutely doesn't hold water. I just think I think if you were going to dispose of a body like you said, at the age of the potential perpetrator here, it would be very very difficult for them to be able to get the implements and just to be able to execute burying a body and to know what to do. This is pre Internet age. They're not googling how to dispose of a body or like where to do it,
So it's very very strange. And again, if you're deciding to bury the body of somebody that you're saying that like they fell backwards and impaled their head, and that you're leading us to believe that this was an accident, then there should be more emotion attached to this, not just I buried her. There's nothing there. It's devoid of any shock, any grief, any remorse, there's no regret. There's just nothing. It's flat.
Exactly when you hear the full context about what the relationship was between this person making the statement and the person who died, this just seems more unbelievable. And I'll just say that if I was the age of the person who's making this statement, and I had accidentally killed someone, I can tell you that my brain at that time would not have instantly gone to bury the body and cover it up within seconds or minutes after it happened. And I'm sure you'd probably say the same thing.
No, I mean, my brain wouldn't have gone there either. But I suppose there are those individuals. If you're you know, there's the birthing of a serial killer or something like that, then perhaps they'd fantasize about a scenario such as that, and in fantasizing about those scenarios, they'd considered body disposal. I have no idea, but I assume we can't apply our thought process to the way that somebody who could be a killer, and especially if they're a objective was
to murder. Then we're not going to be thinking in the same way that somebody whose thought process is like that would.
Well, when you learn more about this person's background, I can say he does not seem like a young dexter morgan in trading. He doesn't seem like the type of person who would kill someone just for the thrill of doing it, just to see if he can get away with it. So I'm thinking that if he was guilty, he had an entirely different motive, rather than just because he was a budding serial killer.
Dexter was who I thought of. Have you started watching the new Dexter.
I know I haven't, but I remember the original series when they did flashbacks to him as a kid and his father trying to groom him to like, well, if you're going to be a serial killer, at least kill other serial killers so you can get that rage out in positive ways.
Dexter Original Sin is so good. You should watch it. It like sticks so close to the source material, uses the same type of musical score, and Michael C. Hall does a narration, and every character on there has the like exact same looks or vibes as their inspiration from the original Dexter. It's really good.
Okay, I'll have to check it out, all right.
So the next line that we're going to do is I didn't know what to do. It was the wrong thing to do. I agree again, he says I didn't know what to do. For someone who didn't know what to do doesn't baring someone seem like a well thought out endgame after a murder, so it doesn't seem like one would casually stumble into it. Like we mentioned, his statements are incongruous to the actions that he took. So what is the it in it was the wrong thing
to do? Is he referencing a murder, a rape, an accident? He doesn't say, he just agrees that it was wrong.
Yes, I think that when you look at this person's age when this incident allegedly happened, you're gonna think that a normal person, if they accidentally killed someone, if they're going to panic and freak out, they're probably going to do something like run away and leave the body behind and just pray that no one finds the body, or just think well, if they find the body, I'll just
say that I didn't do it. They're not going to instantly go to like, I'm going to cover this up by burying her because this is an arrow when they did not know about DNA yet, So no one at that age at that time is going to be thinking, well, if they find the body, they're going to find my DNA on them, so I better bury her. That doesn't really fit the scenario at all, So I do agree that it contradicts where he says I didn't know what to do, yet he knows to bury the body.
Okay, So the next line that we're going to do is, but I was fourteen years old. I wasn't thinking. I then dot dot dot. I came home after that, but she was dead. He says over and over how he wasn't thinking, but his actions appear to be calculated. I then, what she says is often indicative of withholding of information. Then is skipping over what preceded it and the dot dot dot or paused where he rephrases it's likely a spot where something happened that he's excluding from the statement.
And this again seems out of order. I came home after that, but she was dead. Firstly, what is the that he's referring to? And secondly, didn't he say he buried her already? So stating that she was dead seems redundant since it's out of order, and one often sees this in deceptive statements.
Well, now we're at the point when he reveals his exact age at the time this incident took place, which is fourteen years old, and I'm sure you're all thinking to yourself, it seems very at a character for a fourteen year old to just have the wherewithal to bury a victim only minutes after they allegedly killed them. And like he said, it contradicts where he keeps saying I wasn't thinking, but he was thinking enough that he was going to bury the victim in order to cover up
his crime. So it's a very crazy contradiction. And he says, I came home after that, and like, I'm wondering, what is the that he's referring to, because if it was just like an accident in a burial, it just seems that weird that he would throw it in there. Like that makes you wonder did something else actually happened? And he did go home after it took place, But it isn't the incident as he outlined it here in his confession.
So the next line that we're going to do is definitely dead before I buried her. That I know because I checked her stomach and all that. So notice how there was no she was So when he takes her out of the statement, this is sensitive, so pay attention. So if he did indeed bury her, I would wonder if she was dead, because the fact that she's taken out of there and he uses the fragment definitely dead before I buried her is really bizarre. So what does he mean by quote that I know because I checked
her stomach and all that. Firstly, one typically checks a pulse. Does he mean that he watched her chest to see if it went up and down? But we cannot extrapolate. We can only go off what people say. So I'm curious if there's any injuries to the stomach or why is he focusing on that rather than the pulse or
her breathing or lack thereof. And the quote all that is he implying that he did other things that are lower on her body than her mouth or her chest, since he references the stomach, but he's not telling us what they are, so we can't be sure that he did anything at all to check to see if she was alive. So the use of the word that is interesting is distancing language. Rather than this, he says that this whole portion of the statement, in my opinion, seems
potentially fabricated. This whole statement seems fabricated thus far.
Yeah, I've always found that detail weird that the only thing he says is I checked her stomach, Like nothing about checking your pulse, And I guess he's trying to imply that he wanted to see if she was still breathing,
if her stomach was moving. But you notice that the one thing he never mentions in the confession is checking your actual head, Because if someone fell down and hit their head out of a sharp object sticking out of the ground, I mean, I'm assuming if it happened so fast that you may not even notice that sharp object, You're just gonna see your landing her head and then wonder why she's not getting up. Yet he never anything about pulling her head up just to double check if
there was any sort of injury here. It's like he has such great vision that at night he was able to tell that her head hit a sharp object sticking out of the ground, and that it was so deadly that it killed her instantly, so he didn't have to attempt any medical attention or go for help, just to get a professional to check if she was still alive.
Oh, but he asked her if she was okay, and then he ran over to her, and it's like, sir, if this is indeed what happened. You would think you're telling a story like that somebody fell after you push them and they impaled their head. You'd think I ran over to them and I grabbed her. I grabbed her head to check and see if she was okay, or her neck, to see if she was breathing, she was bleeding. There was no details like that. How did you know
that her head was impaled? And he doesn't give like we said before with the running, the part about hollering on the street. He doesn't say like I got up and I ran out of the college and I ran to the street. He doesn't say like I went over and I touched her. And he's lacking any sort of statements on like what physical actions he took. It's just so vague, just saying I checked her stomach. Who checks the stomach?
Yeah, this really doesn't sound like the actions of a fourteen year old who is genuinely panicked that they killed someone. I mean, I can't say I've never been in that situation, so I can't say what I would do. But I don't think I would just like say, oh, i'm your check her stomach. Oh she's not breathing. She must be dead and then just leave it at that and then decide to bury her.
I'm going to say that you wouldn't do this, and emotionally, you would have a reaction if somebody accidentally fell backwards, because you have the normal range of human emotions and we're just not seeing that here. Everything that we're reading so far has there's no panic, there's no emotion. It's just like he's describing like what he ate for lunch, you know what I mean?
Yeah, exactly. Just seems very casual.
So the next line we're going to analyze is then after that, I sit there for about thirty minutes, thirty to forty five minutes, just didn't know what to do. So the whole statement then after that is very interesting. Each individual word shows missing time, and withholding there's a significant event or events that he's skipping over here, so then shows missing time. After also shows missing time, indicating there was an event preceding it. So we're looking at
something that is just incredibly vague. So he's using distancing language with that, rather than saying exactly what happened, He's using present tense language with sit there and not sat there. He's recalling a past event, so he should be using past tense language. Present tense language is often in a deceptive statement, so we see the order of the story here. It's out of sain which we often see time references
jumbled up in deceptive statements. He said that he's buried her, and now he's talking about the aftermath of her murder or this accidental death. I guess saying that he was sitting there for about thirty minutes, which is an interesting choice since statistically liars often picked the number three, so this would include thirty minutes, and quote about makes it even less precise. So quote just didn't know what to do.
We see the inclusion of the unique word just, and we also see the fact that he took the eye out of the statement, so he's distancing himself from responsibility.
Yeah. I always found that weird that he just said I sit there rather than sat there, even though he's describing an event that took place in the past, and when you just see the full context, it's like so weird that he can be calculated enough to bury this person's body and then run away, yet then'd be shell shocked enough afterwards to just sit there between thirty to forty five minutes. That's interesting. I didn't know that. Statistically,
liars often picked the number three. So I'm guessing this is a common thing where if have to make up a story and come up with a timeframe, they'll usually say like thirty minutes or so, just they're just attracted to that word, that number for some reason.
Yeah, thirty minutes, three o'clock. Yeah, it's just it's a typical number that liars will pick. I don't know why. So the next line that we're going to analyze is I went home, I got cleaned up. I regret it. I'm sorry it did happen. I regret pushing her. So he already said that he went home more out of order statements and time references that are off, So he skips over what he did after sitting there. He says he buried her, But we're getting no information on how
or when that transpired. If this is true, he likely did go home and get cleaned up, but he's definitely withholding a great deal of information on what preceded that exactly. And although this sounds really strange, to stay with me. So the use of the phrase cleaned up could indicate sexual activity so washing, bathing, brushing teeth, These personal cleaning
rituals can be indicative of sexual abuse or activity. So I question here if he is indeed responsible, that the potential motive could be that of rape and not related to the money at all. So quote I regret it. My question if he does, he's taking what he regrets out of the statement. So how much could he truly be feeling remorse if he can't say exactly what he
did that he regrets. Does he regret cleaning up? That's what the sentence structure would have you believe, But clearly he means the death of the victim, but he's not saying that, so I can't be sure. And he doesn't say that it was an accident. He just leaves it out entirely. He uses really strange language here, and he doesn't say I'm sorry it happened. He uses present tense I'm sorry it did happen, which isn't the same thing.
Is he apologizing for what he did or is he apologizing to investigators who may be giving him disapproving glances and affirming that it did indeed happen. He's lacked a motion, like we said, through this entire statement, and the way that he chooses to express remorse is suspect. Many killers express remorse, but people who make false confessions would have no reason to be remorseful, aside from wasting time of
investigators or getting the families hopes up. He says that he regrets pushing her, but he doesn't mention that he regrets anything else, not the fight, not the fact that she died, that he chose to bury her and cover it up, simply that he pushed her. We can only believe he regrets what he tells us that he regrets.
Yeah, the whole statement about him getting cleaned up. When you learn the full context of this case, you're going to wonder, like, is this part even true. I mean, it is possible that there was sexual abuse here that he's not talking about, and that's why he felt the need to clean himself up. Yet at the same time, if he actually buried someone, then obviously he would be
pretty dirty and require a lot of cleaning. And when you see the circumstances of how he was living at the time, you would think that someone would have noticed something that if he had gotten if he had accidentally killed someone and buried their body. There would be a lot more warning signs with them, like he would be covered in dirt, he would be sweaty. And I haven't heard anything to indicate that someone saw him on that fashion on that particular night, which makes me wonder if
this entire part of the story is completely fabricated. And it's interesting how he always uses the word her throughout this when describing the victim, like I regret pushing her. But you'll notice that there was only one moment in the entire statement where I had to bleep out the victim's name, And it's kind of a detached thing where he only uses the victim's name once during the entire statement. And when you hear that, you're like, yeah, that's kind
of surprising when you learn the relationship between them. So it's kind of like he's deliberately not using the person's name to distance himself from what he did.
Yeah, that can definitely be indicative of distancing. But if the perpetrator used her name in the beginning, like I remember, I thought this too. I was doing the Scott Peterson interview with investigators and just for practice, and I sent it to Mark and I was noting every single time that he said her rather than like my wife or Lacey. And I had the exact same thought that you did, because I thought, like, if you're continuing to say her rather than saying her name. But he said, if her
name was used initially, then you can say her. But I still do think that if you're going to go a whole statement and you're only going to use that person's name once, if that person meant something to you and you're indicating that there was a relationship, and earlier on in the analysis, I said that we would indicate a partnership, and I thought that these two were known to each other. This wasn't just like a victim of
opportunity or a chance encounter. Then you would think that somebody who would be remorseful, especially if they respond, would be using that person's name. It just it doesn't feel emotionally appropriate.
Yeah, yeah, especially when you learn the full context about why he's saying this.
So the next line is I wish I could go back in time and not have done that. I wish I could turn time. If I could turn time back, I wouldn't just you know, I wish I could go back in time and not have done that. Again, what is that There's a great deal of information that he's withholding, So I think there's a potential that that could refer to rape or murder and not just an accident. He doesn't say accident, and we can only go off what the subject says, So based on his words, this is
likely no accident. He doesn't say her name or express regret over her being dead. Notice, it's all about him. If I could go back in time, I would just dot dot dot.
You know.
Again, he uses the word just he's withholding information, and you know he's assuming. The interviewer notes. By using this language, she's distancing himself from the act and the potential motivation. He doesn't anywhere say that this was a terrible accident, as I just mentioned, So we have to ask ourselves if there is a possibility that he intended to end
her life. He's purposefully vague and in my opinion, trying to cover up what really happened and what was his true motivation if he was indeed in fault.
Yeah, it's kind of weird the phrasing. I wish I could have gone back in time and not have done that. And I'm thinking if this was legitimately an accident, that he would say more details that he would say, if I could do it over again, I would have been certain that she was dead, like I would have gone for help, and maybe if I had acted quicker, I could have saved her life. But it's like you're saying
that all I wish I had not done that. That does kind of indicate that maybe he's did something else but just doesn't want to say it, and then he has great regrets about having done it. But it's just a weird phrase to use. If you are genuinely like not a fault, then it was genuinely an accident.
The next line is it was all over money dot dot dot. And you know what money will do to you when you're a kid. I don't know dot dot dot you were a kid, dot dot dot. You had a certain amount of money dot dot dot. The money was valuable to you. Then you know, so the it he doesn't say what it is, was it the fight, was it pushing her? He doesn't say what money does
to him. He pushes it onto the detective trying to relate with the statement, and you know what money will do to you when you're a kid, I don't know. Dot dot dot you were a kid, dot dot dot you had a certain amount of money, the money was valuable to you, then, you know, So why are you referencing childhood and money? This seems like a need to distract from what could be a real motivation or what were the real actions that he took. He doesn't say
the amount of money that she had in possession. He's so nonspecific with the change from twenty dollars. So the subject takes himself out of the statement, distancing himself and further brings the detective in. So he's meandering and loses the plot here. He was fourteen, not seven, So the reference to him as a kid, is that appropriate or do you think that that's to minimize.
Yeah, because that's this whole story, is that they got into a fight over money and that he pushed her
accidentally and that's how she wound up dead. So he's pretty much saying that's the entire motivation, and he's trying to make it sound like, oh, if you're a kid or if you're a teenager, that a fight over money can escalate a lot worse than if you're an adult, and that's why they got into a physical altercation, which is kind odd that she's just trying to justify it, saying, well, you know what it's like if someone doesn't steals money from you or doesn't give you the correct money, you
can drive you wild. And I'm thinking, really, is a fourteen year old going to act this way over a twenty dollars? And one thing he doesn't mention in the statement you'll notice is that he doesn't say what happened to the actual money, because he says that she didn't give him back the correct change from the twenty dollars, but he doesn't mention anything about checking her pockets or anything to collect the money. Even though this was supposedly the motivation for her death.
I would go so far as to say that it wasn't. And then he's lying because it's completely nonspecific. Just all the details here nonspecific. He just feels like he's trying to distract when he's bringing the detective into it, Like, how does he know that money was valuable to the detective when he was a kid. He won't take responsibility by saying when I was a kid, money was valuable to me. He's distancing himself from what he's saying was his primary motivation, which I think is really odd.
Well, I'll just say that once you learn the full context of how this statement is taking place, this statement about the money does make a bit more sense when you realize that it's not just a detective, that there's someone else in the room who is hearing this story. So I think that's why he's just talking about how you know that money was valuable to me back then.
That might be the context that I'm missing, because it's just like, why are you meandering on about how you had a certain amount of money when you were a kid? To the detective, it's like, why don't you just say I had a certain amount of money when I was a kid, and that money was very valuable to me, and so I felt the under threat when she took this money or whatever. But he doesn't give any details like that. It just feels like an utter fabrication. So the next line is, but that's the way it was
when I was a kid. The subject finally references himself as a kid, but again doesn't say money was important to me as a kid. He keeps it vague with but that's the way it was with me when I was a kid. Is fourteen a kid?
I don't know.
I think it's more of a teenager, but I guess it depends on the age the subject is when looking back.
Yeah, yeah, as we're going to talk about this is years down the line, so obviously the person saying this is no longer a kid. They are now grown adult, So that's probably why they were referring themselves to a kid at age fourteen, even though that would technically make them a teenager. And of course at that point they are old enough to know right from wrong.
So I'm not sure if this next one is like a grammatical error or if this is I'm going to think that it's not, but I'll read the line every dime I got I depend on because most stuff like that I had to work for, so I depend on is present tense, So I don't know if he's referring to the past or the present, like right now, money is really important, like every dime I have, Like rather than saying every dime I have I depend on, he said I got or does he mean every dime I got?
Past tense at that time, and then he's saying I depend on, I'm thinking that it's the misuse of present tens rather than him speaking about present tents. What do you think?
That's what I'm thinking as well, because he is staying this statement years after the alleged incident took place, and I don't think he would say I depended on every dime I got way back when I was fourteen years old. So he's trying to say that, like any free thing
I have right now, I had to work for. So but he's still trying to use it as a justification for his motivation, saying, you know how hard it is for me to earn money, so you can understand why I would have lost my temper and accidentally killed someone over money back when I was fourteen years old.
Yeah, And he goes on by saying, because most stuff like that I had to work for. Most stuff like that you had to work for. Like what are we referring to here, Like we're knowing, Okay, So he's saying most stuff like that. Is he referring to money, is he referring to relations with women? He doesn't specify what most stuff like that is.
Yeah, it's kind of weird to me because we really don't know how true this story is and I don't know if he's trying to say that, like talk about even how emotional connections had to work for because I we're going to find out this person that he supposedly killed was someone who had a very strong connection to him, and maybe he's thinking about how it was very difficult for me to develop strong relationships with other people. That
was something I had to work for. So it could be like a distancing himself again where he's saying that there's no way I would commit premeditated murder because this person was someone who was close to me.
All right, So I'm going to give my conclusion here. I think the vast majority of the statement, as we've mentioned throughout, is fabricated. The time references are all off and the events are jumbled. There's missing time all over the place as well. The subject takes himself out of the statement. He uses passive language, the story lacks emotion, the tone is inappropriate, and it seems like he's trying to cloak what could be his real motivation, which if
he isn'tdeed responsible. Based on these statements, I think could potentially be sexual in nature, but they're definitely not related to the money that he brings up throughout the entire statement. But given the context of the entire statement, it is entirely possible that it could be a balse confession and there are underlying motives or fantasies that drove the subject
to confess. There's plenty of use of unique words such as just, and the fact that he doesn't say this was an accident at any point, and he doesn't give clear details. The whole account is vague. He skates over the part about burying her, and he gives no details on what should be a very memorable action. Taken this feels like an important part of the story, as is the part where she was impaled and by what, And like Robin said, he doesn't check her head. He offers
no further clues. None of this feels like it's coming from memory. Basically, all of the events in here, in my opinions, seemed fabricated. And there's two possibilities here in my very non expert opinion, let's keep this in mind.
Number one, this is a false confession by someone who came forward with very few details and no real knowledge of the crime, but they're somehow tied to her because like I said earlier, the use of us indicates a partnership, and I felt as though this is somebody who had known her in her life. Number Two, this is a suspect to confess, but with a completely inaccurate retelling of events in question, reframing them to put himself in a less culpable position. And I go back and forth on these.
I'm not even going to say which one that I feel like is more likely, because I think that both options are equally plausible, and I think I'll have an opinion once you tell me the details of the case. But the one thing that I can settle on is this statement is fabricated. It is almost entirely deceptive.
Yeah. Well, before we recorded this, you sent me like a draft of your statement analysis and you just wanted to ask me if I was on the right track, and I said that you were, because when I covered this case, when the trail went cold four years ago, I pretty much had these same feelings where I wasn't one hundred percent certain about whether the person making this
statement was guilty. But either way, I do not believe that this is an accurate account of what actually happened, and that if the person who said it was guilty, then the victim's death took place in an entirely different fashion, and that he was not telling the full truth.
If Mark was looking over this statement, you guys would get a way better result where he would tell you probably exactly whether or not this person did it or not he was lying this entire statement. And I'm really interested to hear the details the case.
So now this would be a good time to end part one and part two. I will finally reveal which case it is to Jewels and give her the full details, and we can go back over this statement analysis and see if she's changed her mind or she still thinks she was dead on on what she believed about the statement. So join us for part two of our series about Jewels statement analysis.
Robin, do you want to tell us a little bit about the Trail Went Cold Patreon?
Yes, the Trail Cold Patreon has been around for three years now, and we offer these standard bonus features like early ad free episodes, and I also send out stickers and sign thank you cards to anyone who signs up with us on Patreon if you join our five dollars tier Tier two. We also offer monthly bonus episodes in which I talk about cases which are not featured on The Trail Went Cold's original feed, so they're exclusive to Patreon and if you join our highest tier, Tier three,
the ten dollar Tier. One of the features we offer is a audio commentary track over classic episode of Unsolved Mysteries, where you can download an audio file and then boot up the original Unsolved Mysteries episode on Amazon Prime or YouTube and play it with my audio commentary playing in the background, where I just provide trivia and factoids about the cases featured in this episode. And incidentally, the very first episode that I did a commentary track over was
the episode featuring this case. So if you want to download a commentary track in which I make more smart ass remarks about Jewel Kaylor, then be sure to join Tier three.
So I want to let you know a little bit about the Jeweles and Nashty Patreons. So there's early ad free episodes of the Path Went Chili. We've got our Path Went Chili mini's, which are always over an hour, so they're not very many, but they're just too short to turn into a series, and we're really enjoying doing those, so we hope you'll check out those patreons.
We'll link them in the show notes.
So I want to thank you all for listening and any chance you have to share us on social media with a friend or d rate and review is greatly appreciate it. You can email us at the path Went Chili at Gmail dott. You can reach us on Twitter at the Pathwin. So until next time, be sure to bundle up because cold trails and chili pass call for warm clothing.
Music by Paul Rich from the podcast Cold Callers Comedy