This is a link to an article about a man who left his daughter in a burning car as he ran from police. According to the article he has been stopped previously with his daughter in the car with drugs. We only have one quote to work with from the father.
“I just know that the car wasn’t on fire when I got out the
car. I would have stayed in that car with my daughter. I would have never got
out the car while the car was on fire. I seen sparks coming from under the
tires when I tried to stop and I couldn’t stop at that point. I don’t know why
what happened to the car were I couldn’t stop”
This quote is his verbalized perception of reality. We enter into the statement believing him; believing that he is de facto not guilty. We believe what he tells us, until he convinces us otherwise. His language will guide us.
Here is the quote with analysis.
“I just know that the car wasn’t on fire when I got out the car.
Where a person begins shows priority. Statements that begin with “I” are more likely to have truthful information even if the statement is deceptive. The shortest sentence is best. The expected would be, “The car was not on fire when I got out” or “The car was not on fire”.
The subject begins with “I” – he is placing himself psychologically in the statement.
Next he says “just” – this is a dependent word. He is comparing two things – what he knows to what he doesn’t know or to what the troopers/officers know. He has weakened his knowledge by using “just” before it. He can’t “know”, he “just knows”.
There are rules to the use of articles (a, an, the) in sentences. If I said, “The man called.” I don’t need to introduce the caller. The listener knows who called. If I said, “A man called.” I would need to tell you who that man is and probably why he called. The use of “the” implies the items/person has been introduced and is known.
Here we have “the car”. He understands that officers/listeners know what car he is talking about.
What is his priority? What he knows.
when I got out the car.
His next priority is time. He limits the car not being on fire to “when I got out the car”.
His priority is knowing the car was on fire.
He doesn’t ‘know’, he “just knows”. When did he “just know”? When he got out the car.
I would have stayed in that car with my daughter.
What is his priority?
- 1. What he knows
- 2. Time
- 3. Would have stayed.
A reliable denial has 3 parts:
- * The pronoun “I”
- * Didn’t or did not
- * The allegation
A reliable denial would be, “I didn’t take the money.” Here he says, “I would have
stayed”. “Would have” is
future conditional. The incident has already happened. We also have a change in
language. What was originally “the” car is now “that” car. He is distancing
himself from the car, which burned with his daughter inside.
with my daughter.
“With” is a form of distancing. It could be geographical distance or psychological. In this sentence, “I” and “my daughter” could not be farther apart. There is distance between him and his daughter. He did not use her name, which is considered an incomplete social introduction. So we have distancing by the use of “with” and by the lack of her name. The two combined is indicative of a “bad” relationship. Was she a pawn to him? Did he resent her?
What do we know about the victim? That she is the subject’s daughter. Do we know her name? Her age? Anything about her? No, we don’t.
His priority?
- 1. What he knows
- 2. Time
- 3. Would have stayed
- 4. With my daughter
He doesn’t say he would have saved her or gotten her out of the car,
but rather he says, “I would have stayed with. . .” Does he mean he would have stayed in the
burning car? Does he mean he would have stayed and watched her burn? Would he
have let authorities know she was in the car while he stayed with her?
I would have never got out the car while
the car was on fire.
He again uses the future conditional tense. This event has happened; it is not something that might happen in the future. “Never” is not a substitute for “did not”. The car is back to being “the” instead of “that” car. Again time is sensitive to him – “while”. In his verbalized perception of reality, he doesn’t say, “I would have never got out the car while the car was on fire without my daughter”. He can’t say that because he got out of the burning car without his daughter. The simplest sentence would be, “I didn’t know the car was on fire.” Or “It wasn’t on fire when I ran.”
Was the car stolen? He doesn’t claim the car, so was it his?
I seen sparks coming from under the tires
We have a change of language. It is no longer “fire” it is now “sparks”.
Question: What causes the change of language? ‘
Answer: The location of the “sparks”. The car was on fire, but the sparks are “coming from under the tires.”
The sparks weren’t coming from the tires, but from under the tires. Is he saying the road is on fire?
when I tried to stop and I couldn’t stop at that point.
Time is again a priority for him and is associated with “I tried” and “I couldn’t”. His inability to stop is a priority for him. It’s not his fault that he couldn’t stop the car.
Given he dropped drugs from the car, his choice of “at that point” is interesting. Were some of the drugs the injectable kind?
I don’t know why what happened to the car were I couldn’t stop”
What is told in the negative is doubly important. I’m not certain if this is bad reporting on the quote or if he stumbled on his words here.
He does not say “My car was not on fire when I ran.” And we cannot say
it for him. Deception Indicated
His family supported him until they saw the video. They pushed to have the video made public and are no longer supporting him.
His family supported him until they saw the video. They pushed to have the video made public and are no longer supporting him.
