An explanation of the "liar's number" being three--
This is an observation initially made by Mark McClish and I have seen it in play several times over the years.
It is when a subject is fabricating reality; the rarest form of deception and must choose a number. Since it is not true, but a fabrication, an underlining need to persuade exists in the subject's language.
Why "3"?
The number 2 may appear to be too small to be persuasive, but the number 4 may be too excessive.
Over the years, analysts have found that when someone is inventing a false narrative, this number has shown up.
"3 men attacked me" (Charlie Rogers' fabrication in which she was charged with making a false report). I have seen it in the "fake hate" attacks that became popular over the last decade.
The account of David Hartley's murder from 2010 was another one where the subject (Tiffany, his wife) was indicated for deception and used the number 3 in her fabrication.
It is something that should only indicate that the analyst needs to "check for more information" as its oversimplification and overuse will lead to error. There should be indications in the language that the subject was not working from experiential memory.
This is one such case, broadly covered, that had the number "3" in it, and the language was not experiential.
The Disappearance of David Hartley
On September 30th, 2010, David Hartley and his wife, Tiffany, went to Falcon Lake, Texas, to, according to Tiffany, take a few pictures of the ruins of a sunken church. She alone, returned alive.
Tiffany said that she and David discussed the risks beforehand, knowing it was a high drug area, with Tiffany going as far to say that David even warned her that she could be kidnapped, or held hostage by the Mexican cartels and even killed when they went to take a picture.
Tiffany continued to talk to media which revealed more information.
In her quest to portray him as a good husband, she portrayed him as a man willing to risk his own wife's life for a photo.
When Tiffany emerged from Falcon Lake, she went to a phone to call 911 and report that her husband had been shot and killed.
She began her call with, "Hello?"
She contacted the Denver Post and then went on a media tour, stopping at all the major networks. Pretty, petite, and now a new widow, she was a ratings draw and her story of her last moments with her husband were riveting, though, perhaps, familiar.
Here are some transcripts from several televised appearances:
Reporter: Just released a frantic 911 call from that bizarre shooting.
Reporter: Officials say gunmen approached on boats and opened fire on the couple. Tiffany managed to dodge the bullets. But David was hit in the back of the head.
911: What`s your husband`s name?
Hartley: David. Hartley.
911: OK. Ma`am, were you shot at?
Hartley: Yes.
We do have the expectation that this question would produce information beyond a one word answer. This is due to the extreme rarity of such a claim, and the powerful impact.
911: Did you see anybody?
"anybody" is human. A human shot and killed her husband.
Hartley: There were three boats.
This is the initial indication that something is wrong. The question is: Did you (singular) see anybody? In Statement Analysis, when someone does not answer the question, it is flagged as a sensitive question. The expected response would include a singular pronoun, providing ownership, such as "I saw three boats".
1. The question: Did you see anybody? is a sensitive question. "Anybody" refers to humans, not boats. This suggests "scripting" as an answer.
It takes more effort to change the language of a question than it does to answer it with the interviewer's simple words. This effort is a measure of sensitivity.
Awkwardness is seen in language that does not proceed from experiential memory.
2. The missing pronoun means that Tiffany does not have psychological presence in her answer.
3. "There were 3 boats" is passive. Passivity can be used to conceal identity.
We look to understand why she didn't answer the question of seeing people or a person, as we examine more of her words.
911: Three boats?
It likely sounded odd to the 911 operator, as well.
HARTLEY: Three boats. And they came back looking at me.
Note that initially we have repetition (reflective language) which is not to be considered reliable. "three boats". Next she said that something began: "and they came back looking at me".
"they", grammatically, would refer to "three boats". Note that boats cannot "look" at her; people do.
Note also that they were "looking at me". "Me" is the speaker, Tiffany. 3 boats were looking at Tiffany. Since boats do not look, this is flagged for deception, along with the missing pronoun and the liar's number of fabrication and the avoidance of the answer.
The analyst should now consider why the subject has removed humans from the event.
Next is a clip from media
Reporter: The Good Samaritan who helped Tiffany Hartley out on the water.
Male: She was frantic, crying, sobbing. I mean, she looked very, very jittery.
Reporter: The Mexican authorities questioning whether or not it happened the way the victim says it happened here.
Hartley: They know the pirates are out there. We knew that. We knew that they -- you know, there`s a possibility of them being there.
Hartley responds to the challenge that Mexican officials question whether or not it happened the way she says it happened. Note her answer does not include an affirmation that it happened the way she said it did, rather, she avoids the question (in the form of a challenge) and changes the topic to what Mexican officials know about the area (pirates there) and that she and David knew that pirates were there. Note the order of her knowledge:
They knew.
We knew.
We knew (repetition means further sensitivity)
"possibility".
This shows that Hartley first affirmed the knowledge of drug activity, but then quickly sought to remove herself from such knowledge. The repetition and self-weakening show that drug activity is sensitive to Hartley.
When someone is a victim of a crime, the hormonal response is significant. It is a most frightening thing to have a gun pointed at you. It is up close and it is personal. This is reflected in the language. The expected truthful response is first person pronouns. Second person pronoun usage, "you" is distancing language, as if having a gun pointed at you is a universal experience.
Host: That was Tiffany Hartley this morning, just a few hours ago on the "Today" show.
This couple were real adventurers. And to my understanding they set out on jet skis at the reservoir there on the Texas shore to look at a partially submerged, centuries-old church.
And now I understand authorities are questioning her story. I don`t -- I don`t agree. I watched her on the "Today" show, and I believe her.
You know, and it`s quite a lure. I mean I traveled, I don`t know how far, to try to go dive to see an underwater statue of Christ. So this is a big, big attraction for water lovers and adventure seekers.
And the story she tells is so scary. But I was watching her I really believe she`s telling the truth. And I resent authorities questioning her story. I know his body has not been found. I know there`s no sign of the jet ski.
That does not disturb me. Looking at her, I believe this woman. We`re going to replay that sound of her speaking earlier today.
Notice the host emphasizes her visual of Tiffany Hartley as the basis for her belief.
Crime Advocate Susan Murphy Milano said at the time that had Tiffany Hartley been a man, who emerged from Falcon Lake claiming his wife had been shot and killed, he would have been ask to polygraph immediately.
His story would have been questioned and a full scale investigation would have been done.
Susan publicly called upon Tiffany to polygraph.
Host: tell me her story in a nutshell, (reporter). Don`t embellish. I want to hear what she said.
Reporter: "She said that her -- she and her husband David were traveling on their jet skis. It was ambushed by several boats with gunmen. She said that the gunmen opened fire on both of them, that one of the gunshots from these men struck her husband in the head.
She then went over to her husband, jumped off her jet ski, went to check him, flipped him over. He was -- had this gunshot in the back of the head. She decided she better flee because she had a gun pointed at her head, she said. She fled and then went to the shore and went back to the U.S. side.
It would stand to reason to question the story of Mexican Pirates who:
fired without warning
killed for no reason
did not demand money
pointed a gun directly at her...
have a reputation for cruelty that included beheading and delivering the remains...
Since they are known to kill men, women, and children:
Why was Tiffany Hartley spared?
Host: "And this is what else I heard. I heard her say three boats of pirates, drug runners, approach her. That, first of all, she hears bullets. And they`re hitting in the water around her. She turns to see three boats approaching.
Her husband goes down. She goes back, risking her own life to save her husband. She pulls him up. She sees that he`s shot. She pointed right here. And tries to lift him. And the pirates come up to her.
They look down at her, pointed the gun right at her, and they`re talking, she doesn`t know what they`re saying, and they leave. She leaves in a hail of bullets. She said she felt God telling her, you`ve got to go now, you`ve got to go now, you`ve got to go now, and she did.
"a hail of bullets"
Susan Murphy Milano commented on this: "Not a single hit on her or her jet ski. They scored a perfect head shot of David, while speeding on a jet ski, but in a spray or hail of bullets, not a single one even grazed the heroine of the story's jet ski."
Host: "Take a listen to Tiffany Hartley who survived an alleged pirate attack. Her husband shot in the head. Take a listen."
(VIDEO)
Hartley: When I looked back -- after I had seen some bullets hit the water next to me, I looked back to check on David, and I saw him fly over the jet ski. He had been hit.
"To check on David" is to explain why she did something, without being asked. This is a very sensitive part of the statement. It is often an attempt to preempt a question, such as "Why did you look back?"
We often find that this unnecessary addition will teach an investigator to now question the account, precisely at this location of the statement.
In the statement, the subject is marking time.
Note: chronological order is always viewed in Statement Analysis. A person recalling from memory does so in order. If something is out of chronological order, it is flagged for deception.
1. I looked back First person singular, past tense. Reliable.
2. "after I had seen some bullets hit the water next to me"
3. He had been hit
4. He flew off the jet ski
The subject is out of chronological order. This is another point that is not likely coming from experiential memory.
I quickly turned around
The story now has editorializing rather than an account. She didn't just turn around, she did so "quickly", which is not necessary to report in such a high hormonal consequence event. It is in these small additional and unnecessary words that we find the need to persuade that is evidenced here.
and went to him and jumped off my jet ski.
"and went to him" is added by Tiffany. Where else might she have gone? This is unnecessary and makes her account sound more like a dramatized story.
She went to him first, and jumped off her jet ski second. Order of language that comes from experiential memory is chronological.
Example of how this gets lost when one is not speaking from experiential memory--
Example: Casey Anthony's car reeked with the rotting corpse of her daughter, she said,
"Dead squirrels climbed up into the engine."
Note how Casey's order of events is not possible. This is because she was fabricating.
Tiffany:
And I had to turn him over because he was face down in the water. And turned him over and he was shot in the head.
We note that whenever an account has "so, since, therefore, because" it is to be noted as sensitive since the subject is no longer simply telling us what happened, but "why" something happened. This indicates sensitivity as the subject feels the need to explain actions.
Note that "turn him over" is repeated, which is sensitive. Why it is sensitive, at this point, we do not know, but when a subject repeats a word like this, a skillful interviewer will hear the repetition and focus questions upon it.
And that`s when a boat came up, one of the boats came up to me, and had a gun pointed at me, trying to decide what to do with me. And then they left. And that`s when I tried saving David and getting him onto my jet ski.
Note that "a boat" came up, one of "the" boats (previously identified). This is unnecessary. We would not expect that "a" boat was not one of the 3 she mentioned. It is unlikely that there were 3 boats; only one. But here we have a strong indicator of deception:
"trying to decide what to do with me"
When a subject tells us what another was thinking, it is deception. The "boat" was not thinking, but a person. This is to conceal the identity of the person, which alerts investigators to inquire about the subject's knowledge of the shooter.
Note that "trying to decide" has the element of time--- it takes time passing to contemplate, and here we have both words, "trying" and "decide."
NOTE: trying to decide what to do" is found within her sentence and it is likely truthful. This is an indication that the subject(s) on the boat and Tiffany Hartley did communicate. This is why she is expressing the other subject(s) thoughts. This ability to discern may have come, perhaps, even on dry land, rather than the story of being chased by 3 boats.
The word "left" here puts the author's thoughts at the point of their departure. This is what she is thinking of. It is an indication of withheld information. Specifically, right here, she is withholding information. It is likely the identity of the assailant (s).
But I just -- I couldn`t get him up. And I just kept hearing God tell me, you have to go, you have to go. So I had to leave him. So I could get to safety.
Note the use of divinity in Statement Analysis. For her, it was divine instruction that told her to leave.
The description of this scene may remind some of the movie, "Titanic."
This use of divinity raises the likelihood of deception, as well as introduces a form of justification or the easing of a conscience for the one deceiving.
Element of time in a statement:
"just kept" is to continue to mark time in a statement. This should be contrasted with the account of her allegedly fleeing amidst a hail of bullets.
Next she has the need to defend David. This is where liars lose track of their stories and with each appearance on a different network, the inevitable took place:
He would never, ever put me in a position of danger. And we hadn`t heard anything of -- anything going on over there. We had heard about the pirates, but we didn`t know -- you know, we just hadn`t heard anything recently.
When a subject tells us what didn't happen, what wasn't said, what wasn't seen, or what wasn't thought, it is an offering of critical information that is highly sensitive to the subject. Here Tiffany, although not challenged, anticipates that she has said that they "knew" this was a drug area, and that people would naturally ask why David would expose her to such danger. Note now the sensitivity above and why she went from "they knew", "we knew" to the reduced "possibility" of being in harm's way.
1. He would never, ever put me in a position of danger
The word "never" is not to be accepted as a substitute for the word "didn't. "
According to Tiffany, David did, in deed, put her in a position of danger, just to get a snap shot of a church. Tiffany knows that her story, as told, accuses David of this, therefore, she addresses it in the form of the sensitive negative.
This statement may suggest that drug involvement was part of September 30th.
Why?
Pat Brown theorized that they went to buy drugs, perhaps wholesale, in order to resell at profit.
She postulated that David was shot on land, not on a jet ski, and that David, hit, told her to run. She ran, got on her jet ski and took off, leaving him behind to die. It is the location of being on the water where the deception is present. Over time, this has become, in my view, likely accurate in the location of the shooting.
Tiffany later, in attempting to improve David's image, told news broadcasters that David had discussed with her the dangers, including the specific of being possibly kidnapped on this trip to capture a photo of a submerged church. This was a reliable statement on its form.
How many husbands would go into an area of such immense danger as to highlight the need for kidnap preparedness, with their wives?
And we hadn`t heard anything of -- anything going on over there. We had heard about the pirates, but we didn`t know -- you know, we just hadn`t heard anything recently
First: we hadn't heard anything;
Next: "anything" is repeated; sensitivity
Then: hadn't heard anything "recently" qualifying her answer.
Host: Hearing that woman, there is no doubt in my mind that this is what went down. You were just seeing her speaking a few hours ago on the "Today" show.
Out to the lines, Caller: My -- my question is, just to clear this all up, because I believe her, too. But has she taken a polygraph test?
A proper question in a murder case.
Host: "I don`t know. Let`s go to Lieutenant Garza with the Zapata County Sheriff`s Office.
Lieutenant, thank you for being with us. I doubt she`s in any frame of mind right now to take a polygraph.
In a murder investigation, the frame of mind does not preclude taking a polygraph.
Lt : No, ma`am. One hasn`t been provided to her, or offered at this time.
"provided" is soft language.
Host: Well, I`ve got to tell you something, Lt. Garza, I really believe her. And the fact that the body has not been discovered yet, and that the jet ski has not been discovered, that doesn`t concern me at all.
Can`t you look at this lady and tell she`s telling the truth?
In analysis, we listen to the words used; not the appearance.
Susan Murphy Milano said on broadcasts repeatedly:
The media would not treat Tiffany Hartley this way had she been a man and the victim a woman.
Lt: Yes, I was here actually when Miss Hartley came into the office. And we also had a witness out there corroborating Mrs. Hartley`s event of a boat chasing her into the U.S. side of the lake.
Host asked lawyers to opine:
Defense Attorney 1: "... her story sounds ridiculous to me. Why would they aim a gun at her and not shoot her and not take her jet ski? Pirates just don`t come up to people and shoot them for fun of shooting people. I don`t know what went on here. It`s tragic. This man apparently is dead. But the story sounds absolutely ridiculous.
Note that the first description by Defense Attorney 1 is that her story sounds "ridiculous".
The two views are contrasted:
Attorney 1 says her "story" sounds "ridiculous" while the host says Tiffany is credible.
The difference?
Attorney is addressing the story;
The host is addressing the woman.
Host: No, no. Because I have prosecuted cases where victims were murdered, were gunned down just for the hell of it.
What about it, (Attorney 2)
Attorney 2: My two concerns are. Every picture I see in him --
Host: Your concerns?
Attorney 2: He`s wearing a floatation device, a life jacket. Secondly, those jet skis are designed to float. There is no reason that that body and that jet ski in a lake, not out in the ocean, have not been found yet.
Attorney 2 is focused upon the details of the story.
Investigators initially said that they could not find any connection between David and Tiffany Hartley and the Mexican drug cartels and she did not take a polygraph.
A year later, she was re-interviewed by the news (who claimed that they were contacted by Tiffany) and she spoke about her apartment in Mexico and said that she had rented her apartment from someone in the drug cartel.
The 911 call and the interviews are useful for study.
The use of "3" here is noted with the language used that did not proceed from experiential memory.
Greta Van Susteren interview link
