STATEMENT ANALYSIS OF DAVID BAIN'S STATEMENTS

Statement analysis is not interpreting what the person says, its really listening to their words.

Your words will betray you.

I am not trained in statement analysis. I have read about it on a number of websites.

This is an attempt to make comments that a trained analyst might make.

Some of David Bain's statements have been recorded, so its possible to subject them to statement analysis.

When David first rang 111 he spoke to an emergency telephone operator who put him through to Ambulance officer Thomas Dempsey. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a transcript of this important initial conversation.

David Bain's 111 emergency call to Ambulance officer Thomas Dempsey on the morning that five of his family members were found shot in the Bain family home was played to the court.

Bain: They're all dead, they're all dead.

Dempsey: Who's that?

Bain: They're all dead. I came home and they're all dead.

Dempsey: Whereabouts are you?

Bain: Every St

Dempsey: [In-audible] Every St?

Bain: 65 Every St. They're all dead.

Dempsey: Who's all dead?

Bain: My family, they're all dead, hurry up.

Dempsey: Every St, that runs off Somerville St?

Bain: Yes

Dempsey: The number you're calling from?

Bain: 454

Dempsey: 454?

Bain: 527

Dempsey: 527

Bain: Yes

Dempsey: And your last name?

Bain: Bain

Dempsey: Bain. OK, we're on our way. OK, sir? We'll be there very shortly.

Although this transcript is very short, there are some patterns that can be recognized.

Also, what is not said can be significant.

In the US, regarding domestic murder telephone calls to the Police, there is specific guidelines to follow that place the caller in one of two categories: Guilty Caller or Innocent Caller.  A study by Dr. Susan Adams is of great value, especially when combined with the principles of SCAN.

Read more:on SCAN  http://www.verify.co.nz/scan.php#ixzz34J7ujSCI

Dr. Adams' study is available on page 22 of the following FBI Bulletin:
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/2008-pdfs/june08leb.pdf

AND ALSO

https://leb.fbi.gov/2008-pdfs/leb-june-2008

In the US the emergency number is 911. 911 transcripts are very useful sources for statement analysis.

The caller's words are when the event is fresh, untainted by conversations with lawyers etc.

"It is not unusual for homicide offenders to contact 911 without revealing their involvement in the murder."

The study examined transcripts from one hundred 911 calls, in which 50 were innocent and 50 were guilty.

The study found that there were specific differences that helped distinguish innocent callers from guilty ones.

Three key points are:

What was the call about?

Who was the call about?

How was the call made?

What was the call about?

No request for help for victims.

The caller's words indicate he is reporting a crime.

"Was the caller requesting assistance? If not, why not? Was the individual simply reporting a crime? Almost twice as many innocent callers (67 percent) in this study asked for help for the victim than did guilty callers (34 percent)."

Who was the call about?

Repetition

"Guilty callers also resisted through repetition. People who do not tell the truth tend to repeat words or phrases.8 Through repetition, a guilty person can gain time to think of a reasonable answer to an unanticipated question or may avoid answering altogether. "

The phrase 'They're all dead' is repeated no less than 5 times.

He initially resits answering the question Who's that? By responding with They're all dead.

15 per cent of the callers in the study included repetition. All were guilty.

Who was the call about?

Attitude Toward the Victim’s Death

"People can survive horrific injuries, such as gunshot wounds to the head and stab wounds to the heart. Therefore, a 911 caller should demand help for the victim, even if survival appears doubtful. The caller should not accept the victim’s death before the person’s actual condition becomes known "

"The surviving family members cannot accept the fact that their loved one is dead, and they want every lifesaving measure attempted, even demanding medical help for individuals in full rigor."

"However, a caller stating that a victim is dead without absolute proof (e.g., decapitation) would raise serious questions."

Acceptance of death is clearly indicated by the repeated phrase “They're all dead".

"In the homicides in which mortality was not obvious, 23 percent of the callers accepted the death of the victim.

Of this total, all were guilty of the homicide."

Relevance of Information

"Many guilty callers provided rambling information, instead of concise points; confusing, rather than clear, details; and extraneous information, instead of relevant facts. These details, although, irrelevant to the dispatchers’ questions, frequently related to the criminal act. People who provide more information than necessary may be attempting to convince someone of a deceptive story, rather than simply conveying truthful information."

"They're all dead. I came home and they're all dead".

In statement analysis a short sentence is the best sentence.

When a caller gives additional unsolicited information it is significant.

The caller gives us additional information (I came home) introducing an alibi.

"I came home" is information irrelevant to the Ambulance officer, though important to the caller, because that is his alibi.

"Forty-four percent of the 911 homicide callers included extraneous information in their call. Of those, 96 percent were guilty."

How was the call made?

The caller's voice is modulated. The caller showed emotion, however this is not an indicator of innocence despite lack of emotion being an indicator of guilt. 65% of guilty callers on the study showed emotion.

Therefore the fact he showed emotion is irrelevant.

Level of Cooperation

The caller was somewhat co-operative in providing address and number, but resisted through repetition , not answering the question and providing unclear responses.

"Innocent callers co-operated so more frequently than guilty callers, who resisted full cooperation by not responding to the dispatchers’ inquiries concerning the criminal act, failing to perform CPR as instructed, repeating words, and providing unclear responses."

Additional comments:

This analysis suggests the caller was deceptive. Statement analysis is not a slam dunk. It may indicate that it would be useful to interview the subject in more depth.

Some more of David's statements will be analysed in a later post.