Friday, August 26, 2011

Statement Analysis: Steve Powell

Steve Powell is the father of Josh Powell, the only Person of Interest in the disappearance of Susan Cox, his wife.  Josh Powell has not cooperated with police and gave an alibi of taking his young sons out camping, at midnight, when his wife disappeared.  

We have covered his statements and have shown deception.  Recently, he and his father have disparaged the victim, an indication of guilt.  Analysis of recent statements by both show deception.  Below are more quotes from Steve Powell, along with statement analysis in bold type. 

Was Susan Cox in love with, or sexually attracted to her father in law, Steve Powell? 

Statement Analysis gets to the truth.   Not only do we find whether or not he is telling the truth or lying, but analysis can show an emerging psychological profile, including flagging projection, on the part of the subject, revealing more about him than he may have intended. 

He said: 'Susan was very very sexual with me, very flirtatious. She would do a lot of things to me, we interacted in a lot of sexual ways.

Note that "very" is sensitive; but here it is repeated, increasing the sensitivity (repetition). The word "very" is repeated three times in one sentence. 
Note that "with" shows distance.  "We were sexual" would be indicative of closeness rather than distance. 
Note also that "with me" is not necessary, meaning that it is additional information and 
now deemed to be doubly important. 
Note that it is "to" him, and "with him" making her responsible for the actions (in his statement of reality; not in reality), but then reduces the interaction to sexual "ways" (meaning other interactions as well).

Taking all indicators together:   Steve Powell is deceptive about Susan's behavior with him.  There was not closeness and the only "we", or cooperation is in interaction, but the specific sexual references are deception.  The need to repeat "sexual" shows the weakness.  

Steve Powell is lying about Susan Cox.  Susan Cox did not act sexually towards him.  This language comes from imagination, not from personal experience. This means that he knows he is being deceptive; he is not self deceived into thinking Susan was flirting with him, in spite of his ego.  She did not flirt with him and in order to be seen as deceptive, he must know he is lying. 

He does.  

'I think it is pretty likely I was falling love with her, and there is no doubt in my mind that the feeling was mutual.'

Analysis Question:  Was Susan Cox in love with Steve Powell?

Please note weakness of:

1.  "think"   He only thinks, not knows, and leaves room for others to "think" otherwise.  This is the first indicator of weakness.  We do not declare deception on one indicator.
2.  "pretty" now reduces:
3.  "likely" allowing for other possibilities.  "Likely" is weak, but "pretty likely" is even weaker, but to only "think" that it is "pretty" "likely" is 3 indicators of weakness in the one sentence. 
4.  "no doubt" is also weak, as he wants the audience to accept what he says as fact, but:
5.  "in my mind" is added, making the expectation of acceptance even weaker.
6.  "the feeling was" is passive.  This is another indicator of weakness.   It is not that she was in love with him, but only the "feeling" that was mutual; removing responsibility (ownership of feelings).  

Deception indicated:   he was not in love with her; nor was she in love with him.  

'There was really a disconnect between the Susan who was a faithful, loving wife, and the Susan who was a very flirtatious, sexual being.

His deception continues.  Note that "really" is an additional word, weakening the assertion.  Note that there is a change of language regarding Susan; going from a "faithful loving" "wife" to a "being."  This is an indication that he is lying.  Note that a "being" is gender neutral.  This may be projection on the part of the subject.  That he uses a gender neutral may show confusion on his part. 

'Father-in-law, daughter-in-law flirting with each other, maybe some sexual touching or whatever. 

Note the dropped pronouns.  He does not say that he and his daughter in law were flirting "with each other" additional and needless words; emphasis noted as continued weakness found within deception.  

Lying is stressful and humans will avoid the stress when they can.  When a subject removes himself from the statement, we should remove him from the reality.  
He does not say that Susan touched him sexually, nor that he touched her sexually, as this would be a direct lie, and would cause him stress.  Note that he does not lie, he only says "some sexual touching" without stating who touched whom.  He relies on his audience to interpret his words.   Statement Analysis listens to what is said.  People mean what they say.  Do not interpret; just listen.  He did not say which father in law and which daughter-in-law flirted, and so the analyst cannot say who did it.  This is deceptive dropping of pronouns to remove himself in order to refrain from a direct stressful lie.  Conclusion:  deception indicated. 

Susan Cox did not touch him, sexually. 

And I enjoyed it, frankly. Susan was a joy to be around in so many ways, not just those ways,' he told Good Morning America.

Note that the sentence begins with "And" indicating that there is missing information here. 
Note the additional word "frankly" here, as indicator that he has withheld, or been less than "frank" with information and here, he is being frank:  he enjoyed his fantasies about Susan, fantasizing that she, like others, was interested in him.  He is not lying.  This is how a subject is deceptive without telling a direct lie.
Note that "those" (distance, rather than "these") is distant from what the main topic is supposed to be, indicating a disconnect between his words and reality.  He is revealing himself

Steve Powell said his son was unaware of the relationship between he and Susan, saying: 'Josh wasn't aware of a lot of these things at first because the first two or three years of his marriage - it was really pretty much not something that really came to light.
'We interacted in a lot of sexual ways because Susan enjoys doing

The volume of qualifiers used shows deception in his statement.  Note:
"a lot of these things"
"pretty much"

all reduce commitment to the text, leaving open other possibilities.  

His language shows long term, habitual deception, likely from childhood.  He is narcissistic and confused

Analysis Conclusion:

Susan Cox did not touch, nor act in a flirtatious way with Steve Powell.  Steve Powell is deceptive about his former daughter in law, Susan Cox.  

Steve Powell has sexual issues, including a narcissistic confusion.

Prior analysis showed a violent temper, which is not surprising when one thinks so highly of himself and may then have a partner who does not think so highly of him.  

Domestic violence is likely something Josh Powell grew up with, and Susan married 
He is disparaging the victim, with deceptive language, even under the guise of feigning love for her.  He did not love her, as love seeks its object's highest good, and investigators likely have concluded that Steve Powell knows what Josh Powell did to Susan, and now has reason to disparage her, publicly.  

No comments:

Post a Comment