Tiffany Hartley's "Last Moments With David" from Fox News

Fox News aired this interview with Tiffany Hartley, though the video ends abruptly.

In analysis, we use the same principles that we have used on each statement from each case we have viewed over the past year. This week, on The Peter Hyatt show, we will touch upon some of the analysis here.

Quotes are in italics, with Statement Analysis following in Bold Type.

The show began with a clip from the 911 call. For reference, please see prior analysis.

http://seamusoriley.blogspot.com/2010/10/911-calls-and-statement-analysis.html
Dispatcher: Are you sure that your husband got shot?
Law enforcement has claimed that the entire 911 tape has been released to media. This is being verified now. Note that something within Tiffany's voice or words triggered enough doubt in the operator to cause her to ask if David was really shot.

Tiffany: Yes, He got hit in his head.
Dispatcher: OK
Tiffany: Yeah

Note that in deceptive 911 callers, absent is asking for assistance for the victim.


Dispatcher: Was he thrown out of the jet ski that he’s in the water or something?
Tiffany: Yeah, He was thrown off the jet ski and I couldn’t pick him up to get him on mine.

Note reflective language

Dispatcher: Ma’am were you shot at…
Tiffany: Yes

Dispatcher: On the Mexican side

Why was this asked? What was said previously to lead the operator to ask for confirmation?


Tiffany: Yes

Dispatcher: or the us side? So it was on the Mexican side? OK,

Tiffany: Huh?

Dispatcher: Did you see anybody?

Tiffany: There were 3 boats

Note that since Tifffany did not answer the question, the question "did you see anybody?" is sensitive. Note also the number 3 as the "liar's number" (McClish)


Geraldo: To skeptical flea bitten cynical old crime reporters like me her story at first seemed far-fetched. Why would Mexican pirates attack this young American couple? Was there trouble in paradise before his disappearance? Was there an insurance policy? Is he really dead? Would Tiffany take a lie detector test? Hard questions. I know folks and I apologize for them ahead of time. But after cases like California’s Scott Peterson or South Carolina’s Susan Smith we have learned not to trust. But things do seem to have turned around for embattled Tiffany Young, and with her missing spouse’s mom, Pam Hartley by her side. Tiffany joins Kimberly and me and Craig from an undisclosed location in South Texas. Welcome both of you, my condolences to both of you. Tiffany you have answered the question so often. I have seen you on various programs on this and other networks. I just want you to tell me now what you have been telling, but anything else you want to update? Did it happen exactly as you told authorities? Is there anything you would like to do to amend the story you have told so far Tiffany?

Note that Geraldo, in his opening statement, asks some great questions; but they were asked rhetorically, and not directly to Tiffany.

1. Why would Mexican pirates attack this young American couple?
2. Was there trouble in paradise before his disappearance?
3. Was there an insurance policy?
4. Is he really dead?
5. Would Tiffany take a lie detector test?

Answers to some of these would be helpful

Tiffany: I stand on what I’ve told you. Everything I said is 100 and 10% true. Uh, there’s nothing, nothing else hiding from there. I have spoken the truth and I am holding. I mean, I, I can’t tell anybody else what else happened. Because I am telling everything I can.

Note that in Tiffany's internal subjective dictionary, there is something that can be "110% true", which should be noted. What would 100% truth look like to her? We saw this same with OJ Simpson who's internal dictionary did not mean that 100% truth was complete and full truth.

Note next that there is "nothing else hiding" with "nothing" repeated (sensitivity). Since "nothing" cannot hide, we would want to explore withheld information. I mean, I, I can’t tell anybody else what else happened. Because I am telling everything I can.

Stuttering "I" shows anxiety, which is to be expected given circumstances and being on television. But then note that she "can't" tell anything else; this means that there is a limitation to what she "can" tell. This limitation may be due to knowledge or consequence. Tiffany then added "I am telling (present tense) everything I can".
Note that Tiffany is telling us that she cannot say more.

Note that whenever anyone concludes with "and that's all I know" it is a signal that the subject is withholding information, deliberately, and wishes to end the stress of answering questions. We saw this with Misty Croslin, a mere 12 hours after Haleigh was reporting missing.

Truthful people do not say this, or anything like it. Why?

Because truthful people will not feel satisfied in traumatic situations because they constantly search their memories, often losing sleep, to attempt to recall any detail, no matter how small, that may aid the investigation.

Any sentence that attempts to portray that someone has exhausted their memory, especially so early on (This was October), is an indication that they wish the line of questioning to end, and are deliberately withholding relevant information regarding the case. It is deception by withholding.

Geraldo: So is David dead Tiffany?
Tiffany: I truly believe that, yes.

Note that every word added to "yes" shows sensitivity.

Is David dead?

a. yes. This is strongest.
b. I believe he is dead. This initiates weakness as "believe" allows for others to believe something else. It qualifies the answer of "yes", thus weakening it.
c. "truly believe" goes even further to weaken the word "yes" as it shows that she not only "believes" but has an internal subjective dictionary of not only believing, but "truly" believing. It is likely that teachers, family, or close friends will identify that Tiffany was not known for always telling the truth.

The response to David being dead is weak and unreliable. This should have been explored. The fact of his death is highly sensitive to Tiffany and an interviewer would want to find out why. It is statements like these that she has made that have caused many to question if David is really dead, or part of an insurance scam of sorts, or that he was left to die by Tiffany, and could have survived. This should make David's family suspicious.


Geraldo: Did he sink to the bottom? What, what happened when he slipped from your grasp?

Journalists and investigators should not ask compound questions as they allow the subject to pick and choose which to answer.

Tiffany: When I had to leave him, behind, he was shot in the head, and he had a life vest on so he was floating, on the top of the water.

Geraldo asked about his body positioning. Tiffany first offers a negation: information not sought: that she had to leave him. This shows a high level of defensiveness and sensitivity. She said that he was "floating" and adds the strange wording "on the top of the water". This is why some have questioned, as did Pat Brown, whether or not the shooting actually took place in the water, thinking that, perhaps, it took place on land during an attempted drug buy.

Geraldo: And I can’t image what that must have been like when turned around. I know you say God told you to turn around. But, just describe briefly if you can what that moment was like, the moment you had to let him go.

Tiffany: Awful, because I know I had to leave him in Mexico waters, and there was, I couldn’t get him up. I couldn’t get him on my ski. I couldn’t help him. Just like any other wife or husband, just the, feeling, that you can’t help ‘em, and that you have to leave them behind and knowing you, you may never see them again.

Tiffany answers the question with "awful" but immediately offers an answer where no question was asked: "I had to leave him (note repetition= sensitivity) in Mexico waters. This is a topic she repeated often as a reason why it could not be properly investigated. The oft-repeated "on the Mexico side" showed just how much this was important to Tiffany, believing that she could not be investigated due to jurisdiction issues. It is repeated in every interview.

"just like any other wife or husband" attempts to persuade, and not report. How many other wives or husbands do we know who have had a spouse shot in Mexican waters and was forced to leave him or her behind? Yet, Tiffany attempts to persuade that this is "just like" any other spouse. It is phrases like these that cause more questions and demands for polygraphs.

Note next the use of the 2nd person, "you", rather than "I" had to leave him and "I" may not see him again. This runs away from commitment. If the subject refuses to commit, we cannot commit to the statement either. "You" may not see him is different than "I" may not see him again.


Geraldo: Why Tiffany there? Why were you there?

Tiffany: Because my husband wanted to get photos of the church. He loved history. That’s, he talked about it, all the time. To me and other friends of his he had talked about it. It was something that he wanted to do before we left.

Note the inclusion of "other friends". Tiffany believes that when others are asked, they will confirm that David loved history. Yet, he loved history so much as to risk his wife's life, exposing her, as she said elsewhere, to potential kidnapping, just to get a photo?


Geraldo: And, and Pam you are in this awful situation where standing by your daughter in law means you are admitting to yourself and to your soul and your husband and your family that your son is dead?

Pam: I believe everything Tiffany has said. If you knew her there would be no doubt. I mean its, technically she’s my daughter in law, but I think of her as my daughter.

It is easier for David's mother to acknowledge Tiffany more than acknowledge David's death. This is an expected and truthful response from a grieving mother. It is also why we flag past tense language from a mother who's child is missing. Mothers do not accept death as a possibility unless there is overwhelming evidence. When a mother (or father) speaks of a missing child in the past tense, it is an indication that they possess knowledge that the child is dead. It can be guilty knowledge, or it can be knowledge that has come from the police.


Kimberly: Tiffany I have a question for you. Did you at all discuss with your husband that perhaps it might be dangerous to go into that area? Cause there have been reports, previous reports, of Americans running into trouble there, on having uh encounters with gang members in that area?

Tiffany: Uh, we did discuss it. Uhm, I asked him even before the weeks when he was talking about it, if that was safe because we had heard about the pirates. And, we hadn’t heard anything, lately, and he hadn’t seen anything on the news lately, so he assured me that it would be fine. But, we were jsss, in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Most deception is by withheld information rather than fabrication. Note that Tiffany uses a reference point in time: "lately" they hadn't heard anything. This is important. In another interview, she said that they discussed what to do in the event of a kidnapping. This means that Tiffany is telling the world that David was so incredibly selfish and reckless that in exchange for a photo, he was willing to put his wife's life at risk.

This should infuriate his family.

But notice something else:

She fails to mention that they had been at the lake a few weeks prior. This is something that came out much later and when known, Tiffany felt the need to write publicly in order to "clear" some things up.

Geraldo: And you say there were three, three vessels, were they, did they seem to be acting in concert? Do you think this was an organized criminal action or was it just three boat loads of punks looking to score a jet ski from American tourists who came too close to them?

Tiffany: I think that when we came by and were heading to the church they had spotted us, and, they came to check us out, and yeah, our jet skis are, very fast, I mean, both of them, David’s was faster than mine, and yeah, maybe they would have, just, if we stopped, maybe they would have just taken the jet skis. I don’t know. I can’t, I don’t know what they would have done. Maybe they would have killed us both. I, I can’t tell you.

Note that here they "spotted us" but in another interview, she added on the details that they waved and were "friendly, very friendly" (which indicates intimacy with someone on the boat). In answering the question about contact prior

Kimberly: Tiffany, what do you say to the people, that, how were you able to escape, if they were you know, firing at you that you weren’t injured in any way?

Tiffany: I, I can’t explain it except for that God was protecting me. David put himself in between me and the other boats. Uhm, and maybe they were just shooting to scare us, I, I don’t know. All I can tell you is that I truly believe in my heart, my husband was protecting me and God was protecting me. That’s all I can explain.

Note that she "can't" explain but then does with the explanation of divine protection; offered for her, but not for David. This should cause investigators to look for narcissistic traits (like shopping sprees weeks after husband killed, or television appearances, network after network, mere days after the shooting). "All I can tell you" is, again, restrictive.

Does she believe her story of David putting himself between her and the shooting?

Her own answer: "I truly believe in my heart my husband was protecting me."

Note that "my husband was protecting me" is the shortest sentence. She weakens it with "believe", which allows for other beliefs;
"truly" weakens belief, which now, as 2nd qualifier, weakens the statement even more; but then she adds a 3rd, "in my heart" which...

3 qualifiers in one statement show that Tiffany is being deceptive when she portrays her husband as having given up his life for her. The "true belief" is only in her "heart". It can be understood this way: if you asked a friend about her marriage and she said,

"I am happy", it would have a confident ring to it as there appears no need to buttress it.

If she said, "I am very happy", the word "very" would indicate sensitivity. Why? We would need to ask why, but, perhaps it is because she was previously unhappy, or that the happiness was unexpected.

If she said, "I am very very happy" you would see even more sensitivity attached to it, but if she used 3 qualifiers and said,

"I am very, very ,very happy" you might ask her:

"Who are you trying to convince; you or me?". So it is that Tiffany has used 3 qualifiers about David's death; weakening the statement about a murder.

This is an insult to David's memory, just as it is an insult for her to weave a story about him being so unbearably calloused and selfish as to risk his wife's life just for a snap shot of a flooded church.

The limitation and restriction of knowledge speaks to deception.

Tiffany Hartley is deceptive about the events of September 30th, 2010, at Falcon Lake.


His family should be outraged.