Saturday, February 17, 2018

The Increase of Insight: 911 Call Revisited

Principle:  Social Introductions indicate the subject's perceived disposition of the relationship at the time of the statement. 

For example:

"I was told by my manager, Priscille, to have the report fully typed up; no shortcuts."

This is a statement made to me many years ago.  Priscille was a perfectionist who treated a $10 theft no differently than a $10,000 theft.  She pressed upon her investigators principle above any pragmatic circumstance.  This was consistent with the principles of Statement Analysis. In spite of many differences, the well educated high powered criminal has the same human nature as the low level pick-pocket and the same indicators of deception and guilt.  

Note how I introduced her:  "my manager, Priscille."

Priscille was both feared and loved.  She was feared that in the sense, an investigator who lowered a standard, no matter how personally close, could expect a cold rebuke.  She was loved in that she was respected for her honesty.  If she was wrong, the same response could be expected from her.  Justice was what mattered. 

1.  Possessive pronoun:  "my"
2.  Her title, "manager"
3.  Her name, "Priscille"

All three indicate that from the subject's perspective, in this case me, personally, the relationship is very positive. 

We use this principle in many ways, noting contextual exceptions, but overall, it is a powerful indication of relationship. Some of those advanced in analysis will grasp the reason why passivity entered the statement with "I was told..." I gave away the answer in the longer description that followed. 

Incomplete Social Introduction

I did not say, "I was told by the manager to have the report fully typed up; no short cuts." 

Here, passivity and the Incomplete Social Introduction tell a very different story.  The perception of the relationship indicates a very poor relationship.  The "manager" has no name and has no connection to me, the subject.  This is a "bad relationship" at this point in the statement.  Even if you think you know otherwise, or that someone with the case file says, "no, they are very close", if you want 100% accuracy in analysis, submit to the principle, and let the statement unfold. 

That which did not make sense at this point of the statement, will come together, perfectly like a puzzle with all pieces, once the full analysis is completed.  

Human nature is complex. 

This teaching is applicable in many ways, but one, in particular, stands out:


Domestic Assault 

Domestic Homicide

In domestic assaults and homicides, the social introduction used can solve the case.  It requires strict submission to the statement, believing the statement over all else.  This is where the accuracy unfolds itself as we avoid interpretation or even the attempt to synthesize information from outside the statement with that from within.  

"Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks." 

Another principle we often discuss is the yield of information with repeated analysis of the same statement. 

The principle states that once an intellectual and emotional connection with a statement has been broken, the same statement may yield, upon repeated analysis, up to 40% more content.  

The decoupling of intellect/emotion from a statement is key.  

Steve Johnson, Detective (retired) has analyzed a particular 911 call many times.  It is a most unusual call and his analysis has always been accurate.  

Yet, in an advanced training with both talented and experienced investigators/analysts, Steve made a point of which I am not certain he, himself, caught. 

Team Analysis is in play with the "40% Principle" even without the intellectual-emotional disconnect. 


Simply because other analysts follow other scents on the trail to truth. 

When we work through a statement, it unfolds word by word, and what is discovered by one, may have an elevated reaction (increased hormone or emotion), including "aha!" moments. 

With the "aha!" moment, it is very difficult to move away from it because it left an imprint upon the brain. 

Yet, the person seated next to you noted the point, agreed with it, but did not have the same intellectual-emotional  reaction.  This analyst is "on" for another point. 

Hence, Team Analysis is a marvelous short-cut to deeper content analysis which leads to the natural revelation of the subject in the psycho-linguistic profile.  Steve is a proponent of repeated analysis and inspires investigators to revisit statements routinely. 

"Iron Sharpens Iron"

In our training, new enrollees are often impressed with how others are willing to generously share both knowledge and encouragement.  

Analysis without such formal challenging from professionals can readily go astray, as one of us is susceptible  to emotional persuasion at any time.  Working with others is not only challenging, but is a factor for accuracy.  That "no man is an island" is proven throughout history as stand-alones have none to correct error.  The safety found in a multitude of counselors  is abandoned  upon the singular, howbeit romantic, individualist. The ability to appeal to the larger, with any given point in analysis, is to expedite learning and accuracy. 

Up Next:  

The 911 Call


The insightful point from Det. Johnson.  

For training in Statement Analysis, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services. This training is done in your home, at your pace and includes 12 months of e support.  As an investigator, you will not submit a report with error, when you take advantage of our support.  The expectation is 100% accuracy in detecting deception. 

If your department would like to host a 2 Day Seminar of Statement Analysis and Handwriting Analysis by Hyatt and Johnson, please email 

References and Evaluations upon request. 

We hold a distinct seminar for those who work in Sex Crimes Units, as the language of victims is often with unique distinctive points that warrant deeper analysis.  

Social Services:  Child Protective and Adult Protective Statement Analysis seminars are both one and two day.  

Friday, February 16, 2018

Congratulations: Arizona HIDTA


Congratulations to the training team at HIDTA, Phoenix, Arizona February 2018 class.  

This is a special group of professionals.  

We had a great range among us; some of who were newly hired, while others came with decades of experience to offer to all. The most experienced were, at times, the most enthusiastic for learning. This, by itself, inspires more learning. 

The team was enthusiastic, intelligent, generous, and even cut short a break to tackle something quite challenging. 

They are the first single day training seminar to attempt Anonymous Author identification.  

                              They were successful!  

We had some from Puerto Rican's National Guard, while others brought with them law enforcement experience from around the country.  Those who speak more than one language hold a marvelous tool that can be used in more settings as their learning goes. They shared their experiences and brought regionalism into the difficult challenge of identifying an anonymous threat. 

The administrative team of HIDTA Phoenix is vested in their students and run a terrific program. Students are well trained, but also depart with encouragement and wisdom for their careers.  The enthusiasm and love of investigation is pronounced. 

I highly recommend HIDTA for those who are eligible to apply for its wide array of training.  

I would have enjoyed staying later, as the next day came instruction on surveillance and warrant seeking...a timely learning. 

...and this public acknowledgement is a reminder of something only the attendees know to remind me of.

Yes, it is in writing.   

Congratulations to administrators and students both.  

Threat Level Analysis: Weapon to School

This is publicly released information from the police department. 

When we communicate we reveal four things about ourselves:

1.  Our Background
2.  Experiences
3.  Priority
4.  Dominant Personality Traits

Here is a short hand written note of a threat.  

Statement Analysis not only can access the threat level, but also give insight into the author's priorities and personality.  

This is often seen in the many "fake hate" posts of deception you may find here at the Statement Analysis Blog. 

We note several things about this threat:

1.  Where did the subject begin the statement? (priority) 
2.  What is the threat?
3.  What is the linguistic commitment to the threat?
4.  Linguistic Disposition to those under threat.  

We measure the strength of the commitment. 

"I will" is crossed out and re-started. This author has a need to be heard (frustration, likely being reduced to status of "no consequence" to others). 

"I will bring a GUN" linguistically commits strongly with the pronoun "I" and without any qualifications (negotiation) added.  

The emphasis of the capitalization is noted that this writer (most often male) has a need to be heard and believed.  Generally, this is considered a weakness because we discern it within the language. 

Here, the weakness is not in the wording chosen.  

Unless interrupted, this subject (author) intends to do what is stated.  

Note that the writer has a need to be heard and believed but is firmly committed to this action. 

Should the author experience humiliation of some form, it is likely he/she will carry this out. 

Linguistic Disposition:

this is the actual wording (not sarcasm, nor interpretive positions) towards the potential victims.  The author wrote:

"ugly ass kids" and "teachers bitch"

This is a "negative linguistic disposition."

Recall the fake hate letters where the "KKK" is polite?  This is what a negative linguistic disposition sounds like.  

We often find passive aggressive insults from female authors more than male, and are often low threat assessments.  

"Be Prepared Bitches!" is a "positive linguistic disposition" in spite of the word "Bitches" because the language chosen has forewarned the recipients. 

This is an indicator that the author may be female, rather than male (more females show human empathy than males in anonymous threats) and is a "pause" towards carrying out the next step of the threat. 

What is the threat?

The threat is to bring a gun to school.  This is something the author is committed to. 

The author tells us "why" but it is not a threat to shoot others. 

The author has very likely been hurt by a fellow student's contact with a teacher, with feelings of betrayal. 

The author is strongly committed to bringing a gun to school, but to use it is something different.  

Once at school, if she were to experience something very humiliating, she could open fire.  

She is seeking attention, desperately, and it is likely that without intervention, she would bring a weapon to school.

The threat is not to shoot, but to obtain attention by her commitment of being seen with lethal force.  This indicates that the author has been deeply frightened and humiliated. 

The threat to bring a gun to school is high. 

The threat to shooting is not,  but the assessment is:

1.  at the time of the writing/delivery
2.  without possible trigger (humiliation) that she could experience while with a gun. 

The author is conflicted and she is not sociopathic.  She has human empathy and is seeking attention. It could escalate. 

Cultural Impact 

She lives in a day where she grows up with Hollywood and music entertainment's message:  if you are insulted, violence is the remedy. We also see, culturally, an acceptance of violence among females, including for "entertainment" purposes. In some music cultures, sexual activity and violence is routinely linked. 

Media information: 

11 year old girl arrested for putting this note under the principal's door.  Recall she added "teacher's bitch" (singular).  The news reported that she claimed in a written confession that she was made to put the note under the door by another girl, who said she would get her friend to fight her if she didn't.  

She reliably reported what she intended to do:  bring a gun to school.  

Guns are readily available to illegally obtain if one can get money.  If she was able to obtain a gun, she intended to bring it to school.

Therapeutic Response?

That she showed empathy enough to warn the recipients indicates that she did not intend to use it.  With good family support, she could respond positively to professional intervention. 

The danger is in someone possessing.  Should it be loaded, the unpredictable possibility of a humiliation trigger, such as a physical fight between girls, could thus cause her to use it. 

For training in Statement Analysis: 

Tuesday, February 13, 2018

Advanced Analysis: Unintended Recipient

An aspect of analysis is the "Unintended Recipient."

A basic  example of such:

a suspect speaks to a visitor in jail, with the visitor being the "intended recipient", while scripting his language towards the police, who, he knows, are recording his conversation.  

We are able to profile, in some cases, the identity of the "unintended recipient" based upon the language by the subject, in Advanced Analysis.  
Det. (ret) Steve Johnson 

Cindy Anthony spoke to her daughter, Casey, in jail knowing that each video would end up on television later that night.  While Cindy spoke, Casey was her "intended recipient" of information, but the national television audience was targeted as the formally, "unintended recipient."

In one of these conversations, Casey revealed that her daughter's remains would be located "very close" to the home.  

Another way of seeing this is if a seasoned and intelligent investigator gives a speech and the transcript shows him to be anything but intelligent, since he is intelligent, the answer must, by necessity, lay elsewhere. 

We note "scripted language" and "narrative building", which police often call intuitively, "story telling." 

Analysis used:  Linguistic Disposition of his audience reveals that the normally strong vocabulary used by the detective is not employed and we find that the transcript was of a speech given to junior high students.  

We may learn what the Detective thinks (linguistic disposition) of young teens in the analysis.  His speech is very different than the one he gave to peers.  

The Senate Judiciary Committee released a redacted top secret email Monday that Obama administration National Security Advisor Susan Rice appears to have sent herself just minutes after President Donald Trump took office.

The email contains Rice’s impressions from a January 5, 2017 meeting on “Russian hacking during the 2016 presidential election” between then-President Barack Obama, then-FBI Director James Comey, and “intelligence community leadership.”
In Unintended Recipient analysis,  we note "unnecessary information" as well as to note "scripted language". which is essential to unintended recipient analysis. 

Full text is here

This is a portion of the email: 

President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities ‘by the book.’ The president stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.” 

Here is the email again with emphasis added. 

President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities ‘by the book.’ The president stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.” 

The Unintended Recipient:  national audience.  

Question:  Does the email reveal consciousness of guilt?

Doing things "by the book" is an unnecessary statement in context. That it is repeated is to increase sensitivity.  That this is information given to the FBI is unnecessary information. 

Why would a president need to tell law enforcement to work "by the book"?

Answer:  as unnecessary information, it is deemed 
doubly important.  As it is repeated, the sensitivity level goes up.  That the subject (author) had the need to accentuate this from the President via the word "stress" is to increase it even further. 

It is akin to the surveilled crime boss saying, "Remember guys, we don't steal or break any laws in our business..." while speaking into the known tipped off  hidden recording device. 

The focus is Susan Rice (author) clearing her boss, President Obama.

The word "stress" is repeated (sensitive) and it is also unnecessary. There is no reason for the President to tell the Director of the FBI:

1.  you don't do anything illegal 
2.  I need to repeat this to you
3.  In fact, I need to stress this to you.  

This is, in effect, a form of distancing from both James Comey and the intelligence community.  

To clear him, the unnecessary information is given new accentuation: 

a asking about
b. initiating 
c. or instructing

This is to expand the President's denial of "not" going "by the book" moving to Unreliable.  Please see prior analysis of President Obama's denial of interfering with law enforcement investigation into Hillary Clinton. 

a.  "asking about" is now seen in light of inquiry confirmed by the Strzok-Page text messages in which "POTUS" wants to know everything they are doing. 

b.  "initiating" This unnecessary emphasis invites investigators to learn of an initial action taken by the President. 

c.  "or instructing" now brings the President to a point of authority.  This unnecessary expansion of the denial suggests that portions of the investigation may have been not at the request, but the directive, of President Obama.  This is the type of unnecessary information that literally guides investigations into areas they may not have considered.  

It is to push the denial from "collusion" and "interfering" to actual authority and leadership.  

This is something that will likely involve the Tarmac meeting between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton in which investigators sought to learn the "leaker" rather than the investigation of criminal conspiracy between the husband of one under investigation, and the ultimate authority in indicting Hillary Clinton. 

The language is beneath the profile of Susan Rice.  She is well educated and highly intelligent.  This is consistent with some other talking points of hers that have been analyzed.  She is put into a position of discomfort.  The repetition may be seen as rudimentary and unlike what we would expect from her. 

Analysis Conclusion:  

The email reveals consciousness of guilt. 

The email suggests that both Susan Rice and President Obama are very likely willing to blame James Comey and the intelligence community in a future investigation or Grand Jury appearance. 

It extends the possible culpability of President Obama from collusion and interference, to actual direct responsibility in ordering  some aspects of the investigation.  

The investigation is likely plural, including not only the illegal home server, deletion of 30,000 emails, the use of "bleach bit", physical destruction of communication devices, but also into the Uranium One sale to Russia, Russian collusion into aborting the sitting president (Trump) as well as the donations to the Foundation which led to face-to-face meetings with Secretary Clinton as well as favorable outcomes to the donators.  

Sunday, February 11, 2018

Jordyn Dumont: 911 Call Repost

3 year old Jordyn Dumont died, according to the autopsy, of blunt

 force trauma. William Joseph McCullen was arrested 1 day after 

making this call. 

Although the call is short, it is useful.


The analysis is of an emergency call in which the caller's words 

are placed into a category of expectation: 

We expect the caller to facilitate the flow of information in order to 

located the "missing" child. 

Let's listen to his words: 

Operator:  911 where is your emergency?

Caller:   "Yes ma'am . My oldest daughter, I was taking a nap, I just

 woke up & I can't find her anywhere."

The question is "Where is your emergency?" which speaks to 


Callers in distress may or may not answer this immediately.  Those

who do not skip the question about location and go right into 

the priority:  Missing child.

"Excited Utterance"

Where one begins is to show priority. 

What does this short, one statement response tell us?

Listen to what he tells you. 

Consider what he has told us and what his priorities are:  

1.  "Yes, ma'am"  begins with politeness.  Politeness in a dire 

emergency is not what we "expect", formally,  as we measure our 


against what is given to us.  To be polite is "ingratiating" oneself

to whom?  To authorities.  

2.  The location is not given.  

This, itself, cannot become a conclusion as some callers will 

prioritize without listening:  let me tell you what is first and 

foremost on my mind:  my missing daughter!  We flag this as 

'avoidance' but, in context of a missing child, we do not give it 

a very high or weighty importance to it.  It could be argued that he 

is so concentrated on his daughter, that he skipped this information.  We still, however, flag the question about location as "sensitive" because he did not answer the question.  

3.  "My oldest daughter" tells us

a.  the daughter is his ("my") giving relationship.

b.  he has at least another daughter 

c.  the other daughter (s) is younger 

But here, he stops himself.  This is "self-censoring" and is an 

indication that he is not only beginning this call with the need

to be seen as favorably by the police (ingratiating) but he is 

withholding (even suppressing) critical information in the context

of a missing child.

d.  His oldest daughter does not have a name. Although the possessive pronoun is here, her name is not.  This is his initial call to the police and they do not know who she is.  

4.  "I was taking a nap" is to supplant "my daughter" from the 

priority of the call. 

"I" is now before the concern for the child. 

5.  "...taking a nap" is akin to not only shifting priority and attention

away from child and towards self, it suggests alibi building.  

Whatever happened to her, you can't think I did it because I was 

taking a nap. This priority is seen in that he chooses to yield this 
information before he reports about Jordyn. 

6.  "I just woke up"  is unnecessary information.  If he was napping

he was asleep.  

Unnecessary information is very important for us and he now gives 
us the question:

"If you were not asleep, what were you doing?"

We might not have thought to ask him what he was doing had he himself not provoked this question.  This is what deceptive people often do:  they think they are pre-empting questions when they are, in fact, teaching us what questions need to be asked. 

This caller has a need to convince ("need to persuade") police that he was asleep, suggesting that he was not asleep.  He has a need, as an alibi, to convince them that he could not be responsible because he was taking a nap.  With this additional and unnecessary information, he is said to likely be doing something other than taking a nap. 

He literally plants the seed of doubt, himself, into the audience. 

7.  "I can't find her anywhere."

Since he cannot find her "anywhere", she cannot be found.  Since she cannot be found "anywhere", why bother to search for her?  This is not a desperate father wanting his daughter found.  

His priority comes from his words:

1.  That you, the police, view me, the father,  in a positive light. 
2.  That you, the police, understand, I have to withhold information from you. (self censoring) 

3.  That you, the police know that whatever it is you find out, it wasn't me that caused it because I was napping.

4.  That you, the police, if you doubt I was napping, you must understand that I had to be napping because I just woke up.  

5.  Since I just woke up, I have not wasted any time.  

(Analysts:  this is, in a sense, a black hole or temporal lacunae of time passing by that he jumps over).  

6.  That a child is missing is only 6th in my priority.  It is very low in importance.  This is why we do not necessarily flag someone who answers/does not answer the location question.  Some innocent callers have the wherewithal to give the location immediately yet will not break off the statement and go right to the missing child.  

7.  that you, police understand that I am a 'good guy' who wasted no time and have looked for her everywhere.  This is the "Ingratiating" factor. 

We saw this with DeOrr Kunz who lavishly praised authorities for not finding his son.  

To learn Statement Analysis, contact Hyatt Analysis Services for training.  

Our training is for law enforcement and non law enforcement.  It is done in seminar form and our Complete Statement Analysis is done at your home, generally in under 12 months. 

The expectation is 100% accuracy in lie detection.  

Friday, February 9, 2018

Domestic Shooting Statement

This was posted to our Facebook and is redacted. I do not know the origins. 

 Let's take a look... 

 In Statement Analysis, we recognize that even with deceptive statements, most deception is via withheld information, not from direct fabrication when a subject is in the Free Editing Process of choosing his own words. This is why we teach to have confidence in the words.  

The speed of transmission. 

Some analysts use the phrase "in less than a microsecond" and others use "less than a millisecond" and it is not simply for effect.  

If a subject has an internal personal dictionary of 25,000 words and is asked, "What did you do today?", he cannot tell us everything he did. It is not only impossible, but it would never end.  Therefore, to answer the question, he must go into his internal dictionary and choose:

a. what information to give; what information not to give
b.  what order to present the info in
c.  what words to use
d.  where to place each word next to another 
e.  what verb tenses to use
f.  what pronouns to use

This incredible speed of transmission gives us our accuracy in analysis.  

"Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks" is this truth recognized from antiquity.  It is not simply the speed of transmission from the brain to the tongue of, for example, 25,000 words. 

  This does not accurately reflect what is happening. 

Other than wikipedia quoting, there is no tangible measurement to accurately define how quick the brain scans through not only thousands and thousands of words, but the details, experiences, attendant thoughts and hormonal responses associated,  that accompany each and every word, as well as the rapid processing of potential consequence for using each word. This goes well beyond the speeds of transmission cited. 

"Abundance" does not define simply 25,000 to 35,000 words.  That is just the beginning.  For us, there is no accurate measurement of this speed, and when or if an accurate measurement is found in science, it will amaze us.   

Where did our subject choose to begin his statement?  Would he say, "I shot my wife Susan by accident""? 

"I was messing around with the laster and I pointed it at my wife."

This is where the subject began the statement about what happened.  He begins with the pronoun "I" which means he is "psychologically in" the statement.  For analysis, this is an indicator that even if lying, we are very likely to obtain reliable information from the statement. 

We believe him.  

This is not only where he began (priority) but is also a Hina clause; an explanation as to "why" something happened, while explaining "what" happened. 

Instead of "I shot my wife accidentally" the subject began with an explanation of why, very likely to pre empt being asked why the firearm was aimed at her.  

"Messing around" is to use language associated with carelessness, or lack of intent, contextually. But we do not interpret.  Those who interpret do not maintain 100% accuracy in detecting deception but fall prey to those who are clever enough to rely upon the expectation of interpretation by recipients in order to deceive. 

"I pointed it at my wife" is, on its structure, reliably stated.  If it is not true, it is a most rare of lies. 

She is, at this point, "my wife" which is incomplete, though we do not know if he used her name just prior to this, but within his recall:  it is an incomplete social introduction.  

"She looked down." 

This is a very important statement.  This, too, is reliable, and we should believe him. 

What is missing?

What is missing is what happened from the time he pointed "it" (the laser) at his wife. 

Here we find the possibility of why her name is not in the statement.  He takes ownership of her, but without a name. 

What did he say that caused her to look down?

Stark in absence is all communication, yet we are given hints towards what may have been said. 

"She looked down" is to indicate what he, the subject, saw.  What did he see?

He saw her eyes. 

This is an indication of verbal communication withheld from the investigator at this point in the statement. 

We communicate much with our eyes.  Husbands and wives can engage in entire conversations without a word, simply by "the look."

A look from a wife can indicate:

a.  pain
b.  anger
c.  desire
d.  love
e.  shock
f.  fear
g.  warmth
h.  rage
i.  humiliation
j.  reverence
k.  and so much more. 

That he included following her eyes (down) should strongly suggest to the investigator that his words may have caused this action. 

What he says next shines more light into this:

"She looked down and I was a (expletive) idiot"

It is likely that expletives were used towards his wife.  

"and I pulled the trigger."

There is nothing in the structure of the sentence to doubt his word. 

"I was just being an idiot."

We now know more about him from this sentence. 

The word "just" is a dependent word, meaning that it needs another thought (or more thoughts) to be complete. 

He is comparing himself as being an idiot to other things he has been.  It is difficult for us to enter his personal subjective meaning but we can spot his reference point for "just" being an idiot.  

He has very done bad things, since his reference point of "idiot" is one who points a laser guided weapon and pulls the trigger upon his wife.  This is reduced, via the comparative reduction of the word "just" from other things he has done and likely said.  

Collateral interviews would likely reveal the things he has done that caused him to classify himself as "idiot" here.  

It is very likely that he had threatened this before, perhaps many times. 

It is also an interesting paradoxal  insight into his personality.  If this is idiotic behavior, we are likely seeing one who does not take personal responsibility for his own actions in spite of "I pulled the trigger."

Context and Persuasion:  In Jest?

Recall the setting:  "messing around" is often foolish, inadvertent, without intent, etc.  It is a minimizing word in the context of what happened. He does not say he "accidentally" pulled the trigger.  

This paradox is within human nature and he will highlight it further for us, as we listen to him and believe him. 

"I never wanted to harm her."

I believe him. 

To "harm" (minimizing word we often find in child murders, especially by sexual predators) her would mean she would live with the consequences of what was done to her.  In other words, she would survive harm.  

This is intent.  

This is why "I was just being an idiot" and he was "messing around" were employed. 

It is why we believe the subject's choice of words, rather than interpret them. 

"I love my wife to death."

Exactly the point. 

It is why he aimed it at her, why he caused her to look down, and why he pulled the trigger.  

It is why he did not lie outright about "accident" in any form.  

Intent and motive are evidenced by his words, and it is in the words that were spoken to her, that caused her to look down, that would bring the case into focus. 

It is interesting that he does not use her name but takes ownership, via the possessive pronoun, "my" in two places:

1.  While pointing the weapon at her
2.  While she is no longer alive. 

For training in lie detection, in Law Enforcement Seminar, or in home study, visit Hyatt Analysis Service

Trainings held in house, and online.