Death By Child Abuse: Chad Evans

Kassidy Bortner

wrongfully convicted?

                                                          Analysis by Peter Hyatt

             In 2000, 21 month old Kassidy Bortner died from injuries consistent with child abuse. 

Chad Evans, Kassidy's mother's boyfriend,  was found guilty in the death of his girlfriend's almost 2 year old daughter, Kassidy.  Evans has a groundswell of suppor, including a book and website in support of him.     

        Did he harm Kassidy which led to her death?

Statement Analysis gets to the truth.  We employ the same techniques in the same manner, in all cases. 

Here is an interview last year found here.  Note in the article that it states it is the first time in 9 years he has addressed the murder charges.  This is an exert from the article: 

"Evans admits he might have credibility issues with the public, since he was convicted of murder, along with several other offenses related to Kassidy's death, by a Strafford County Superior Court jury on Dec. 21, 2001.

"There's a complete and total lack of evidence that I killed Kassidy," Evans said from a small room that adjoins the visiting area of the state prison, a large cafeteria-like space with New Hampshire-centric paintings splashed along its walls."

We note that he frames the words "I killed Kassidy" without the apparent entrance into the language of another.  This is not generally found in the language of the innocent. It is sometimes found when one person enters the language of another, such as, "You say I killed Kassidy", but not when an innocent person chooses his own words. 

Upon request, I have done Statement Analysis of the transcript of the initial police interview with Chad Evans.  Underlining, italics, and color is added for emphasis, with Statement Analysis in bold type. 

Please note: 

If Kassidy died later, from injuries, the subject can say "I didn't kill her" as the subject may not believe that he caused the death.  We saw this in the case of a man who gave drugs to a sheriff's daughter, who later died.  He was able to say "I didn't kill her" because she did not die in his presence.  She died later, from the drugs he gave her.  

Note in the article he gives a reliable denial about the death, but not about the injuries.  He violates the 3 component principle of a reliable denial:

""I don't know the answers to what happened," Evans said. "All I know is I didn't kill Kassidy. I know that I didn't intentionally, maliciously hurt her."

The denial, "I didn't kill Kassidy" is strong and indicates that she was alive even if not conscious,  after leaving his presence, but his denial about hurting her is not a reliable denial. 
The inclusion of both is critical to understanding what happened and what his role was. 

He does not deny knowing what happened to her, however, only that he does not know "the answers."  This is not to say "I don't know what happened", which would have been stronger.  Instead, he says he does not know "the answers."  This is how additional wording, that is, words in which, once removed, still leave a complete sentence, give us additional information.   

Also note that within this statement:  He denies motive, but not the action. 

He did not "intentionally" or "maliciously" hurt her, but this presupposes that he hurt her, with admission of doing something, but not believing with certainty that she died from his direct actions.  His denial does not work unless you first assume he harmed her; which puts him in the place of child abuse.  Did she die as a result of child abuse?  This will be evidenced in his own language. 

We have seen this in the language of child abuse where a child beaten or shaken to death did not die immediately, but lingered on life support for several days.  The subject who is guilty can say "I didn't kill her" but not able to use the same strong denial on "hurting" or "harming" or "hitting" her.  

To use anything less than death is minimization and is consistent with child abusers.  

Some issues to look for, linguistically, when investigating or accessing child abuse:

1.  Minimization of the event 
2.  Distancing language, including dropped pronouns
3.  How the subject relates to the victim:  after the assault, is there a change in how he relates to her?
In other words, does he use her name before the death, but then afterwards, distance himself and de-personalize her by avoiding her name? Context is key. 
4.  Blame.  Child Abusers often find ways to blame others, sometimes even subtly blaming the child.  This is sometimes seen in the language where the adult "had to" do something and the child struggled. Many leg injuries come from being wrenched during the diaper change where the child struggled. 

Question for Analysis:  

Did he physically abuse Kassidy?

A website dedicated to Casey Evans is where you may find the full transcripts and other articles is found here:  http://www.chadevanswronglyconvicted.org

                      Transcripts from Police Interview 

RL:  Good deal. Okay. We - we're investigating the death of KASSIDY. Tell us what went

on the last day or so with, with KASSIDY?

Note the  purpose stated by the interviewer, RL is to investigate the death of Kassidy. This allows the topic or reason for the interview is clear to Evans (the subject) 

 CE is the subject.  

The victim's name is "Kassidy"; 21 months of age, therefore, we note when (and how) the name "Kassidy" is used by the subject, particularly because the subject is in a role of caretaker.  

He does not say "tell us what happened" which is the most commonly used phrase.  This is the best question.  Instead, he tips his hand by saying "tell us what went on", which is to suggest something ongoing, rather than a single event. 

Analytical Interviewing teaches the Interviewer to speak as little as possible to not influence the Subject.  This is true in investigatory interviews, employment interviews, assessments, intakes, journalistic interviews, screenings, therapy, and so on. 

CE:  Um, just the last day or so?

RL:  Oh you can, you can go back two weeks.

Interviewers should avoid telling a subject where to begin his account; instead, allowing for the subject to choose what is most important to him.  It works out this way: 

CE:  Lets see. I'll just go back yesterday and if you want to know anything else you

can ...

This is a signal that the subject has relevant information about abuse that goes "back" further than just "yesterday" but he wishes to limit the information.  The word "just" is key. 
The word "just" is used when comparing two or more things, with the lesser being used.  If I want to sell you a car that is $10,000 but I know that this amount is a struggle for you, I first show you a car for $15,000 which you cannot afford.  Then, upon seeing your disappointment, I say "Well, this one is just $10,000.  I use the word "just" to compare. 

Traffic officers should note that when someone says "I just had two drinks officers", the word "just" means that in the subject's mind, he is comparing the number two with a greater number. 

RL:  Yeah.

CE:  ... ask me.

RL:  We'll, we'll interject. Yesterday being November, November 8.

mistake. Officers should become comfortable with silence.  The pressure for giving information is with the subject.  Interjections, finishing sentences, and so on, not only remove this pressure, but suggest information for the subject. 

Training removes this both by principle, and by practice.

CE:  Yeah. Being Monday, was that Tuesday.

RL:  Huhuh.

CE:  Tuesday. Thinking about it. Just got up in the morning, had breakfast. Actually she, you

know AMANDA was a little late so we put cereal in a baggie for her whatever. Went to

JEFF'S house for the day because I had to work and AMANDA is working at Old Navy.

Please note that when one is asked "What happened?" and tells us "why" something happened, the information should be considered highly sensitive.  This is noted in the sensitivity color coding blue, being the highest.  Where there is more than one blue sensitivity indicator, the sensitivity should be considered vital.  

Also note that dropped or missing pronouns mean the information is likely unreliable.  This is distancing language and he is removing himself from commitment. 

Note the use of "we":  who put cereal in a baggie?  Both together?  If not, the use of "we" is often indicative of one who wishes to share guilt.

Pronouns:  Please note that when he said, "she", he recognized the need for clarification and said, "you know, Amanda"; therefore, this use of "she" is specifically Amanda, not Kassidy. 

Kassidy is referred to as "her"

We will now look to see when he uses Kassidy's name.  In child abuse cases, there is often distancing language between the abuser and child.  We often find in child abuse cases, the use of greetings/salutations, such as "good bye, I love you" etc as signals of a troubled relationship.  Since we all say "good night, I love you" to our children, there is generally no need for us to include this in our statements.  When we find them, therefore, we take note of them as they often attempt to persuade that the relationship is good. 

The need to persuade indicates weakness in the relationship.  

RL:  Okay. And JEFF just - JEFF being, what's his last name?

CE:  MARSHALL.

RL:  MARSHALL.

CE:  JEFF's her well they're not really related yet but he's been going out with his  sister for a year.

CE:  So any ways, went to - Ah so she went to JEFF'S house and I - AMANDA was suppose

to work till 8 and then, actually she was working 5 to 11. Her schedule got kind of

screwed up I don't know. But I told her, you know JEFF didn't want to watch KASSIDY the whole time I guess, and I told her it wouldn't be a big deal I'd pick her up

when I because I had to pick up KYLE, my son. 

Dropped pronouns indicate distancing language; it is unreliable as the subject wishes to distance himself from the statement.  Here, we see that he does use the pronoun, "I", indicating that this is not a "habit of speech" to drop pronouns.  Please also note that pronouns are instinctive in human language and do not become confused. 

Note that "told" is used rather than "said."  "Told" is generally firmer, and more of a one-way communication, often found in arguments.  

Note the need to explain why something was done:  "when I because I had to pick up..." is sensitive when someone is asked "what?" and not, "why?"

It is given our color blue as the highest sensitivity.  It means that the subject anticipates being asked why he did something before being asked.  It is very sensitive information and often key to solving a crime or mystery. 

Note that in reference to "Jeff", we have the name used:  "Kassidy"

Note next that the statement in {   } was written by the subject, years later, in commenting on the transcripts.   Note the elevated sensitivity indicators:

Actually, the original plan was for Kassidy to just  stay overnight at Jeff's but a day or so earlier, I offered to watch Kassidy because I didn't like the way care was going at Jeff's. I had no idea here that the police thought Kassidy was beaten to death so I wasn't needlessly trying to get Jeff in trouble.]

"Actually" is used when comparing two or more events. 

Note he gives his reason why he offered to watch Kassidy, though not asked.  This means he anticipated being asked why.  

In his original answer, he could not remember what the plans were (note the broken sentences and changes in pronouns), yet, almost 10 years later, in commenting or annotating the transcripts, he "remembers."

Having "no idea" is not credible, in any form.  We have all ideas on just about anything and everything.  It is to distance himself.  He explains, in the negative, about "not" trying to get Jeff in trouble.  This is very sensitive. 

Note that he was not asked "why" but went to it, making it very sensitive.  Note the context:  disparage another.  Note the words he used:  "care was going" is made as ongoing, but without explanation.  Was she not being watched?  Was it rough handling?  Plain, short sentences are best indicators of truth. 

RL:  Huhuh.

CE:  And, and so I - I picked her up. In the evening went to pick KYLE up, then we went to,

well from there I talked with KYLE'S teacher for a minute, then we went home. I'm

sorry I just - you know what keeps going through my mind right now is I keep flashing

back to like you know coming in here and having the other detective or whatever ...

Pronouns are instinctive. 

The stuttering "I" by non-stutters shows increase of tension.  The pronoun "I" is used by humans millions of times, and like the pronoun, "we", is instinctive, with the brain telling the mouth in less than a microsecond, what to say.   Two "I's" show increase in tension, Three or Four indicates anxiety, 5+ suggests nervous breakdown, personal homicide. 

In all homicide statements, we note the words "I'm sorry" if they enter the language of the suspect for any reason whatsoever.  This is often found within the guilty, as the brain 'leaks' out what is there, in spite of the attempt to control the flow of information. For more, see Casey Anthony.  

"You know" is a habit of speech that indicates an acute awareness of the interviewer's presence of question.  Like all habits of speech, we note when it appears, and when it does not appear.  When it appears, we note the topic that caused it, and we note if it is repeated, as repetition is noted as sensitive. 

The name "Kyle" is used in direct relation to the subject.  This is the expected closeness in parent or caretaker/child statements.  

He had just learned she died, and his mind flashes where?

It goes to the police.  I expected him to say his mind went back to the last time he saw Kassidy alive.  His concern is not "her", but himself in his relationship to the police. 

RL:  Huhuh.

CE:  ... just tell me that she was dead and it just like hey rewind, rewind, rewind. Because you

know I mean last night fed them, her and KYLE and we were playing. I gave her a bath,

gave KYLE a bath and put her to bed, I put KYLE to bed. I did her alphabet with her

before she went to bed and now I get a phone call today telling me she's dead, you know

I mean. 

Here, she is "dead"; we now look to see what language he employs about Kassidy. This is key to understanding death by child abuse. 
Will he remain "close" to "Kassidy" now that he has been told she is "dead"?  Or, will he distance himself from her, and de-personalize her?  This is what the guilty do.  

A good study is the death of Logan Marr.  In the interview process, Sally Scofield was the foster mother responsible for her death.  In the interview, once the child abuse began, Scofield avoided using Logan's name, or any knick names.  

In comparison, at the same seminar, I listened to the mother of a baby, "Jake" shaken to death.  The mother (innocent) continually used her son's name, post death.  (the babysitter shook him, causing his death).  This contrast in language was striking. One could not bring herself to use the child's name; the other could not stop using her child's name. 

Note reduction/comparison with the word, "just":  What is he comparing being told that she was dead with?  This is to have the thought that something was done to her by his own actions that compares with death. 

Note:  "her and Kyle" is clearly distancing language for the subject.  It is not "Kassidy and Kyle" as he uses only one name but a pronoun for the other. 

Pronouns are instinctive and pre-thought.  They simply flow from us without having to consider which to use. This speed of transition is what gives Statement Analysis such high success rates.

Note "fed them" drops pronoun, and "I gave her a bath" continues without her name, in context, while even continuing to use Kyle's name.  This is awkward. 

 In this short answer:

Kyle is mentioned three times by the name, "Kyle"

Kassidy is mentioned 9 times:   none by name, all by "her" or "she":  

What is pronounced about this distancing language is that several times they are both in the same sentence, (same activity) yet he avoids using Kassidy's name, even while using Kyle's name.  It is that Kassidy is dead and he, without pre-thought, as words are processed in less than a microsecond, avoids using her name.  This is consistent with the need to distance himself from her, and de-personalize her. 

To the subject, the relationship between him and Kyle is very much stronger than the relationship between him and Kassidy.  

In doing his own analysis on his own statement, years later, he wrote:  

I guess this is what shock is.  I felt numb all over while talking to them. I had just kissed Kassidy good-bye for the day earlier that morning and now these officers were telling me she was dead.  How could this be?

Please note that he does not claim to be in shock; he only can "guess":  If the subject reduces commitment to the text, we cannot say it for him.   This is what is said in either uncertainty, or when one does not wish to lie outright and can only give a weak commitment.  Later, when confronted, can use the defense that he only was guessing. This is a reduced commitment to emotions.  We note the location of emotions within a statement. Because it takes humans time to process emotions:

Emotions in the logical portion of a story is often an indication of artificial placement of the emotions.  Emotions in the 'after' portion of the account are more consistent with experiential memory.  

Please also note that when a subject uses a question in an open statement, it is often an indication that he is reliving the event and may be questioning himself, in the moment.

In child protective interviews, we note "kissed" as well as "good morning", "I love you" and such, as indicative of a poor relationship.  When a mother, for example says, "I'm a wonderful mother!" we generally ask if she has been investigated for child abuse.  It is a linguistic signal that she has been accused of being "less than wonderful" by someone. 

Please note that within familiar homicides, such phrases of departure, including kissing goodbye, often match the time of death or the time of infliction of injury that led to death.  

This has been thoroughly researched (LSI).

RL:  Huhuh. It's hard. It's hard. Okay so you went to pick up KYLE?

CE:  Yeah.

RL:  Where does, where does KYLE (inaudible)

CE:  He's, he's three. He goes to Christ Crossroad Kindergarten, it's a division of Tri-city

Christian Academy in Somersworth. 

RL:  Huhuh. Who's, who's KYLE'S mom?

CE:  TRISTEN, TRISTEN is my ex-wife.

Note the name and title.  This indicates a positive, or at least, working or cooperative relationship between estranged or divorced parents.  She is "my" ex wife, and her name is used:

This is a complete social introduction and indicates a good relationship in Statement Analysis at the time of this statement. 

RL:  You, you picked KYLE up and you stayed and talked to the teacher?

CE:  Yeah just for a minute. She was telling me about what KYLE is doing.

Note present tense verb.  This indicates that he is vested in Kyle, as if Kyle's "doings" are going on for him, even during this interview.  The language shows, at the time of the statement, that he had a good relationship with Kyle.  

Strong bond noted which is likely confirmed in the pronouns:  

RL:  Huhuh.

CE:  And then we went home. (Inaudible)

He did not take Kyle home:  "we went home" shows a strong bond between subject and Kyle at the time of this statement.  

 The word "we" indicates unity or cooperation.  It is another in a series of linguistic indicators of just how close he was to Kyle, from his perspective and highlights the distancing in contrast to his relationship with Kassidy. 

He was strongly bonded with Kyle, with the distance between him and Kassidy highlighted. 

RL:  You picked KASSIDY up before or after KYLE?

It almost feels as if the detective is trying to get him to use Kassidy's name.  Here, the Interviewer uses Kassidy's name.  Since Reflective Language is easiest, it is expected that he will now answer back using Kassidy's name.  This is called "parroting" language and it is a pattern we all follow.

"Did you take my wallet?"

"No, I didn't take your wallet" is not reliable simply because it is parroted language.  We now expect hi to say the name "Kassidy" along with the words "picked up", and the word "Kyle" parroting back the Interviewer's language.  It is common and it is expected.  

CE:   I picked her up, I picked her up and then I went to get KYLE.

He does not use Kassidy's name, even in a leading question where he could simply reflect back the Interviewer's language.  

To this analyst, given my years experience in child protective services, and the well researched statistics, the distancing language is indicative of child abuse.  It is rare to see someone avoid a child's name this often.  Even abusive parents will use their child's name in a Reflective Language statement, reflecting back the words of the Interviewer, employing the Interviewer's words.  

The activity is also repeated, making it sensitive.  Police should not be on high alert that something happened when he picked her up.  His brain produced the repetition:  it is critical information.  

RL:  Okay. How was KASSIDY when you picked her up?

Another use of Kassidy's name in  an opportunity for the subject to simply enter the language and reflect back with "Kassidy was fine" or "Kassidy was upset", and so on.  We expect him to parrot back her name to the Interviewer.  If he does, it is not to be taken as close language, but only as parroting. 

If he does not use her name during parroting language, the distance he seeks to create between him and Kassidy is extreme and is found in the language of child abusers.  

In the course of a decade, I conducted more than 5,000 interviews, with many being child interviews.  How one relates to the child as a victim is key to understanding what happened.  

CE:  (Inaudible) I've been sitting and thinking about things that, kind of feeling guilty like

maybe I could of prevented things if I had just taken her to the hospital.

This is a critical point of the interview.  

1.  The question is avoided:  this means that the question of "how was Kassidy?" was sensitive to the subject. 

2.  Body posture enters his language, with "sitting", meaning that for the subject, tension is increasing.  

3.  Note the inclusion of "guilt" in the language should be taken along with "sorry" above. 

4.  Note embedded, "I could of prevented things" does not come from the Interviewer's language (entering into the language of another) 

RL:  What happened?

This is the best question.  

Since he did not answer the direct, "What was Kassidy like?", this open ended question allows the subject to begin his statement wherever he wishes.  If he chooses not to answer it a second time, statistics say that he will answer it if asked a third time.  This question is so sensitive to the subject that the subject wants to end the interview:  

CE:  She just was acting funny. You know I don't even know if I want to continue. I do but I

don't.  I don't want to like, I don't know anything so I don't want to get...

This is a strong indication that the question, "What was Kassidy like?" is very sensitive to the subject.  Something, at this point of time within the statement, is so severe that the subject, who avoids Kassidy's name, wants to completely avoid talking about Kassidy at the time he picked her up.  

He does not answer it, but suggests his own guilt instead.  Here, the principle of repetition in analysis is in play:  he does not know if he wants to continue.  

Something happened at this time that is very sensitive and connected to reason for the interview:  Investigation of Kassidy's death.  

He was simply asked, "How was Kassidy?" and twice, he does not answer.  This, in context of a murder investigation, is a very bad signal.  

In child abuse deaths, we often find that the killer wishes to blame someone else; sometimes even the child. 

Here he signals that there will be consequences to his actions.  The consequences are in the context of:
a dead child. In the face of the death of a child, what consequence would be so acute that it enters his language, and allows him to consider stopping the flow of information into the investigation of a dead child?

This is key. 

 Please note carefully what follows in his response: 

RL:  Huhuh.

CE:  ... anyone in trouble. You know first AMANDA didn't give me her car seat, she didn't

leave it at, at JEFF'S house so I had to strap her in the back seat which I'm, I'm probably

gonna get a ticket for telling you guys this because it's against the law.

Truthful people tell us what happened, so that when someone tells us what did not happen, it is very sensitive.    

1.  He says "first Amanda didn't..."   By using "first", it indicates that there should be a "second" and even possibly a "third" in his list.  It is in the negative, making it important.  It may be a subtle shifting of blame  

This is another "cluster of blues" in which an analyst knows something very important happened here, as the subject has a very strong need to explain why he did something.  That he is being interviewed in the death of his daughter and states he was worried about getting a seatbelt ticket is not credible.  

Something happened at this time, in the car, or at this time period, that is directly related to the investigation.  

The guilt here, in this time period, is acute.  First, he blames Amanda for what she did not do:  give him the car seat.  By blaming her, he is signaling that he has a reason to cast blame.  He "had to" strap her in because Amanda didn't give him the car seat.  This is then amended to she didn't "leave" it.  This is unnecessary information (the latter) which makes it important to the subject.  In child abuse, there is often such intense guilt that the guilty will often seek:
a.  to reduce it by 'spreading it around' as seen in pronouns 
b.  minimize it by changing its language often from 'death' to 'harm' of sorts
c.  distance himself from it by dropping pronouns
d.  conceal responsibility by using passivity 

Note the willingness to accept a "ticket" as a staged contrast. Getting a ticket for not using a car seat is set in contrast against homicide.  This is not only extreme distancing, but also sets up the subject as "accepting some responsibility" and even "making friends" with police, psychologically. 

2.  What happened when he strapped her in?

Note "so" explains why, but add this to the pronoun, "I" (strong) in this sentence:

"so I had to strap her in the back seat" is something he "had" to do:  He is justifying his actions in the back of the car towards Kassidy.  While strapping her in, her behavior was such, in his mind, that he "had" to do something.  

This is when child abuse took place.  This is likely where he hurt her, possibly, on previous occasions and suggests struggle not only here, but in other times, such as feeding.  

   It is likely that Kassidy struggled with him. 

Note the doesn't want to get anyone in trouble, in a death investigation,  yet he blames Amanda for not giving him the car seat.  Note that which is in the negative as important:  he "doesn't" want to get anyone in trouble but then mentions Jeff. 

He reports what did not happen, what was not given to him.  Truthful people simply tell what happened, with little or no need to explain "why" they did something. 

There is hyper sensitivity regarding the condition of Kassidy when he "had to" put her in the car seat.  This may be a subtle blaming of the victim. 

Truthful people tell us what happened.  They should not feel the need to explain why they did something.  The "why" is how cases are solved.  This shows that the person may think to himself, "they're going to ask me about this, so I better explain why I did something..."

The "consequence"?  A ticket?  Blame of Amanda for not giving him the seat?  Since the   context is a dead child, this is not credible.  The flow of information that he considered stopping is due to precisely what he did when he picked Kassidy up. 

We have a hyper-sensitive portion of the statement for him:  

RL:  No we're not gonna give you a ticket for that.

CE:  But I just strap her in because I had to get KYLE, the school closes at six. I didn't have

time to go buy one or anything so I strapped in. But like JEFF brought her out to me out

to the car, he has this big feddish about seeing the house or something, and I just grabbed

her and put her in the car. And I was driving down the road and she wasn't talking, but

she's kind of a quiet kid. Like my sister spent the weekend with her and she spent six

hours straight with her and KASSIDY sat in the chair the whole time, didn't move,

didn't, you know which is kind of weird for a little baby to do you know. Not to be all

over. 

1.  Note the word "just" is used to compare something downward, such as if I wanted to sell you a car for $15,000, so I first show you a car for $20,000, and than say, "Okay, that is too much but this one is just $15,000" knowing that I am triggering a comparison to the more expensive $20,000.

In this statement, he "had to strap her in" and gives his reason ("because"), yet now repeats it again, but adding the word "just", indicating that he is comparing it to something else.  

Note that he has changed from past tense verbs to present tense. 

2.  Note the word "because" as a need to explain why he did something. 

3.  "So" again explains why he put her in the car seat. 

4.  Her name is avoided again, until Kassidy is not with him.  She is "Kassidy" in relation to Jeff, and now she is "Kassidy" when with his sister.   This avoidance indicates child abuse. 

5.  Note the language, "I grabbed her" indicates rough handling. 

6.  Note Jeff's "feddish" is attempt to blame Jeff.   Earlier, he blamed Amanda for not giving him the seat.  

7.  Note he calls his daughter a "kid" 

8.   Note that he reports what she did not do, rather than what she did do:  "she did not" talk. 

Yet, he feels he must justify her not speaking by calling her a quiet "kid" and gives a story of her being quiet at his sister's. 

Note that he is out of chronological order in his statement.  He had strapped her in because he "had to" but then goes back to "grabbing her" from Jeff because Jeff would talk to much about seeing a house. 

9.  Note the sentence beginning with "And" indicates missing information.  We must note where the missing information is:

"I just grabbed her and put her in the car."   "And..."

Note that he "just" grabbed her, meaning that the grabbing is being compared to something more than just grabbing.  "Just" seeks to minimize, via comparison.  Its reduction is noted in relation to his handling of Kassidy. 

This is likely where Kassidy was injured, so much so, that she did not speak while he drove.  One should question if she was either shaken, or finally shoved into the car's seat.  This description suggests trauma to the child that could be shaken baby, or pressure directly to her front.  The seat of the car could have caused injuries to the back of her, as well as to her head.  

LM:  Sure ...

CE:  But I look back and I was driving up on the Spaulding Turnpike and I looked back in my

car she's being extra quiet. And she's just sitting there like leaning forward like this, like

where the on the seat belt. I'm like what the hell is wrong with her. And like she was.

kind of drooling, which she doesn't usually drool unless she's cutting a tooth or

something. I'm like what the hell. So actually I - then I called JEFF up on the phone. I.

said, you know I was kind of joking when I said this I said "What the hell did you do,

beat this kid or something?" And he, he started laughing or whatever and he said "No

why?" And I'm like I don't know she's acting strange like laying against the seat and

whatever. And he, so any way he said you know whatever so I just was like all right.

"Well I just was pretty cautious after that wanted to watch her, you know what I mean.

Note first that he began with "I look back" in the present tense.  This is then changed to the past tense.  Since the event is past tense, a reliable statement will work in the past tense.  The change to present tense is significant.  Alternating between tenses is indicative of deception. 

Note "look back" changes to "looked back" (past tense) which changes to "she's being" which is present tense.  He doubles up on this activity, making it very important. 

Note the inclusion of emotions, again, in the "perfect" or logical portion of the story.  This is another indication that he is editing his own story, and has placed them there artificially.  In truthful accounts, events are given and then emotions are in the 'after' portion, as it takes time to process information from event to emotion.  He is not credible in this part of his statement. 

Note "sitting" is both indicative of increased tension for the subject (body posture in a statement, sit, stand, stood, etc, indicates an increase in tension.  "My boss told me to be at work at 9" versus, "My boss stood and told me to be at work at 9."

Note the emotions in a statement are entered in several places by him; always in the active part of the event.   Emotions in a statement can be indicative of truth, however, it often depends on where the emotions are. 

Humans take time to process emotions.  This means that in truthful statements, the emotions are found in the "after event" portion of a statement of "what happened?" and not in the "perfect" or "logical" portion of an answer. 

Here, the emotions appear to be placed artificially since they are in the "perfect" or the "logical" part of his answer.  This is another indication of deception.  

Note the inclusion of the word "phone" often links someone to the crime scene (McClish).  Here he said, "I called Jeff on the phone" with the words "on the phone" unnecessary.  

Note "like laying" not only has body posture, but only describes what she was "like" rather than if she was laying on the car seat. 

Continue to take notice of when "you know" enters his vocabulary as it shows acute awareness of the question or the interviewer.  The topics in which it arises is critical.  

CE:  Because she's not, you know ...

CE:  You know. So I'm like all right whatever. So then I picked KYLE up, brought her

home, and I, I started feeding KYLE. He wanted something different and she wouldn't,

she wouldn't I tried - I mean her grill cheese she wouldn't eat whatever. I was like what

the hell. So I gave her a banana and she mowed it, half of it and then didn't want the rest

which was kind of ... because she's got a really good appetite for a baby that young. So I

thought it was   a little strange. But any way so she ate her banana or whatever and then.

You know I fed her, fed KYLE, then we went upstairs, and you know I played with - It's

hard because you know KYLE is a boy he's three and she's you know 20 months a girl

you know. So they don't like to do the same things so I tried separating them to do

different things with her.

The avoidance of her name here is actually awkward.  "So then I picked  Kyle up, brought her home..."

 shows  a greater than usual (in child abuse cases) distance in his language.  Alone, this suggests a very poor relationship, and given her age, it gives the appearance of one who very much is antagonistic towards a child.  He dislikes her immensely. Her mother would likely shine light on this:  did he call her names?  Did he blame her for things going wrong in life?  Crying?  Disruption? 

Note the dropped pronoun but only when bringing Kassidy home.  This is very sensitive time period and he is psychologically distancing himself from her, even when the wording is so awkward.  

Follow the pronouns:  Note the break:  "she wouldn't, she wouldn't, I tried..."  Broken sentences  show "self censoring" as he stopped himself.  This is missing information and his frustration is very high at this point in his story:  "tried" in the past tense, indicates failure.  

"Whatever" and "what the hell" show his frustration.  It is likely here that Kassidy was assaulted again. 

"But" refutes what came before it. 
"Any way" may be that he forced food into her, getting his way. This is actually a frightening description. 
"Or whatever" suggests something else.  It gives the listener the feel that Kassidy was to blame for whatever he did to her. 

Note that he blames her age and being a girl.  I am a father of six children, with four of them being born within a very close time period.   Boys and girls at this age play together.  This is a very sensitive time period for the subject who is telling us of his explosive anger, even blaming Kassidy for being a girl.

HIs love of Kyle and animosity towards the "girl" who's name he cannot bring himself  to say in connection to himself, is striking.  

The "cluster of blues" tells us that something very bad happened here, just as it happened in the car.  When he "tried" to separate them, there were likely injuries that matched this description:  grabbing, kicking, or throwing.  

LM:  If he's anything like your size I'm sure he's ...

CE:  Yeah he's a tank you know.

LM:  Sure.

CE:  But he's, hopefully be tall.

LM:  Yeah.

CE:  But yeah he's very physical.

Note the proud description of his son.  Note the absence of anything kind towards Kassidy.  

LM:  Sure.

CE:  He's real aggressive. But any ways so you know I played with him for a few minutes and

then I go play with her and then you know him and then her. One of the things that's like

she is - JEFF I don't know if you guys met JEFF yet or anything, he's kind of a big guy,

about your size but heavy set. You know about - probably 240 or whatever. He stepped

on her the other day, like on her foot. So she's having a hard time walking. And so like

what I eventually I would just carry her around, you know what I mean?

Verb tense:

"I played with him" but, "I go play with her" shows unreliability, as well as distancing language (the word "with" between people).  He told us he played with Kyle, but he did not tell us that he played with Kassidy.  This is an example of following the language.  

Chronological order:  when someone speaks from experiential memory, it will be in chronological order, like a parade going by our eyes.  Here, 

1.  I played with him
2.  I "play" with her (present tense)
3.  "then her" breaks chronological order. 

Deception indicated. 

Note that he does not say he carried her around.  He only says what he "would" "just" do (future/conditional tense) and reduction.  It is likely he injured her leg and impaired her ability to walk, which added to his frustration of having to pick up this child.  

LM:  Huhuh.

CE:  She doesn't like to walk any way she likes to be held. But usually I don't want to baby

her, you know I make her walk do her thing but she was hurting so I carried her from her

room. 

LM:  Sure. Sure, no problem.

CE:  Yeah. I think that was actually - Yeah. So we just pretty much, we played, did our thing

and then my roommate came home probably at, I was probably home half, half an hour or

so before he got there.

RL:  Who's your roommate?

CE:  His name is TRAVIS HUNT.

RL:  TRAVIS HUNT?

CE:  Yeah.

RL:  And he lives with you?

CE:  Yeah.

RL:  Where does he sleep?

CE:  I have four bedrooms in my house.

RL:  Okay.

CE:  And he has a, uh, kind of like a downstairs kind of apartment.

RL:  Okay. 'What does TRAVIS do for work?

CE:  He is an assistant manager at one of my restaurants. Been friends with him for about 10

years.

RL:  Huhuh. When was the last time you saw him?

CE:  What do you mean?

RL:  When was the last time you saw TRAVIS?

CE:  This morning he went to work.

RL:  Okay. Did you talk to him since, does he know that KASSIDY ....

CE:  Well I called. I don't think he knew that she was dead. 

RL:  Okay.

CE:  He might. I called my wife because TRAV, myself and a bunch of us we were suppose

go do something tonight.

RL:  Called your wife?

CE:  Yeah.

RL:  Your wife being?

CE:  TRISTEN

RL:  TRISTEN

CE:  Well my ex-wife.

RL:  Yeah what...

CE:  That's just recently.

RL:  What were you gonna do?

CE:  Well usually on, on Thursday nights we go to Banana's in Portsmouth, have a few

appetizers ...

LM:  Yeah.

CE:  ... whatever and then after that we go work out at my friend BRUCE'S house. Like I

couldn't get a hold of BRUCE to tell her that I'd probably be late because I didn't know

how long you guys were going to talk ...

LM:  Huhuh.

CE:  .... or whatever. But I didn't feel like doing anything. You know she goes "What's the

matter?" I mean we don't get along at all right now.

RL:  And she's still gonna go to Banana's with you?

CE:  No, no not her.

RL:  Oh!

CE:  No, no. She - All our - See we just recently split up. All our friends are mutual friends.

I couldn't get a hold of them so I called her to see if she could get the message across

because I didn't want to tie up your phones, you know. But yeah we still, we still talk

and everything and we just - a lot of times don't get along about stupid things but. So

anyway I told her. I started crying and she started crying, Oh my God.

RL:  Now you said you called JEFF?

RL:  Is JEFF the, the baby sitter?

CE:  Well he wasn't actually.

RL:  Yeah what's, what's that situation there?

CE:  JEFF is AMANDA'S well soon to be brother-in-law.

RL:  Sister's boyfriend.

CE:  Yeah, there in you go. And - But he's been watching her because she hasn't been able

like just checked with a couple day care she said she can't get in them yet. I get her into

one and then she checked into one down here that had openings but it was too close to the

road so she didn't want it. So JEFF, he's a landscaper... 


Here, I have included a portion of his commentary on his transcripts to indicate that he is continuing to be deceptive.  As humans, we process our words in less than a micro second.  Even courts see this "rushing" as reliable in "Excited Utterance":  That he even has a need to explain his answers suggests deception and makes it highly sensitive, in itself.  Note, years later, the entrance of Kassidy's name, even while subtly disparaging or blaming her:  "potty training"

[Again, I am rushing my thoughts. You cannot imagine how fast everything seems and slow at the same time.  When I said, "I get her into one and then she checked into one." What's in my brain but unable to make it to my lips is that I tried to get Kassidy into one - Cross Roads, where Kyle goes, but because Kassidy wasn't potty trained, the director, Sue Edgar, couldn't take her. 

This is another perfect example of my mouth moving too fast for my mind to process. Run on sentences, leaving key words out, mistaking my facts. 

These are the exact things that make Statement Analysis so trustworthy.  We look to see what words are processed quickly, and what self censoring (broken sentences) indicate.  


What I was trying to say is, “Amanda has been trying to get Kassidy into professional daycare and is on several waiting lists. Jeff has been watching Kassidy until a spot opens up. With schools starting back in September daycares traditionally fill up then. Trying to get in during months of Oct and November is tougher. I tried to get Kassidy into Kyle’s daycare program at Crossroads Kindergarten but she wasn’t old enough, which Mrs. Edgar, understanding our situation, was willing to make an exception on, However, Kassidy also wasn’t yet potty trained and Mrs. Edgar couldn’t make an exception for that. Amanda thought she found a daycare with an opening right in Kittery, but the daycare was too close to the road and the road was very busy so she didn’t feel comfortable with that.” It is so much easier to think and respond when you didn’t find out about your child’s death just hours earlier.

RL:  Okay.

CE:  .... this time of year he doesn't have a lot to do so he's been watching her.

RL:  Okay. So the reason JEFF is watching her is because they, they can't get I mean day care

is a problem. ..

CE:  Right.

RL: Today is she on any waiting list or anything?

CE:  To be honest with you, you know she just, she - we haven't been together all that long.

I really, there's a lot of things that I mean are going through my head right now that I'm,

that you know that I just don't know. But one of the things that you know she doesn't,

we don't, I don't really tell her how to run her kid and I don't really, we did get into

a ton of conversations you know I tell her how she should ... You know but I don't know

her, like with my wife I guess is what I'm getting at is I followed up everyday. Like did

you get this day care thing, have you done this and you know. With her I felt like I kind

of raised one, one (inaudible) not raised but you know what I mean kind of, I don't want

to do that again. 

He made it very clear that he raised one (in spite of being only 3 and with his mother) and had no intention of raising another.  This is harsh language for one being interviewed by police in a murder investigation. 

Follow the pronouns.  Note the language of deceptive (statistics) with:

To be honest with you" is a signal that he has not, to this point, been honest with the Interviewer. Here, he wants to emphasize honesty. 

Dr. Paul Ekman says that "I don't remember" is the number one form of deception in court.  Pronouns are instinctive and trustworthy.  

Here is a memory test we give investigators.  

Since "I don't remember" is so common, and after a few weeks, or even months, one might forget something, let's take this test:

Think of something that happened to you. 

Think of something that happened to you at least 10 years ago; not a few weeks, or a few months, or even a few years:  Choose something that is at least 10 years old.

Be ready to tell the story. 

Ready?

If you are asked to tell what happened, would you begin with the pronoun, "I" or the pronoun "we"?

It is likely that you recall whether or not you were alone or with others and would not struggle with pronouns. 

Therefore, struggle with pronouns indicates deception.  

Note the change of pronouns.  He struggles to complete a sentence with straight pronouns.  

Note that he reports what did not happen. 

Note communicative language tells us that the "kid" and how to raise her was a source of stress for the subject.  

We often find this subtle shift of blame to others in guilty statements. 

At this point, there is enough to indicate Chad Evans for deception and for assaulting Kassidy during the time period in which he put her into the car but there was more when he got them home. 

Can you imagine referring to a dead toddler as "her kid"?  I cannot.  

Investigators, prosecutors and the judicial system were correct in finding him guilty.  

There are more transcripts, a web site and a book dedicated to proving that he did not do it.  The preface begins with a reference to Dennis Dechaine, of whom Statement Analysis has shown was deceptive and guilty in the death of Sarah Cherry (12), which is not been wise.  

If you continue to work through the complete interview, you will see a similar pattern of deception.  

Chad Evans severely injured Kassidy, who later died.  For us, (Statement Analysts and Readership) we go by the subject's own words to guide us.  Here he has guided us through a very sensitive time, that is, when he was putting Kassidy into the car.   The extreme sensitivity surrounding this is noted and likely where the most serious injuries were incurred, though in his statement, more injuries are to come.  

This does not rule out any ongoing abuse, including neglect, and rough handling, by himself or others, but shows where a major event took place that led him to being interviewed by police in her death.  

His distancing language from Kassidy is striking and is something found in child abuse cases.  It is especially noted against the back drop of his own son, of whom he uses his son's name regularly, while avoiding, in the extreme, Kassidy's own name.  This is indicative of distancing due to the stress of internal guilt.  

It is difficult to comprehend why anyone would be fooled by Casey Evans.  With only a portion of the interview, under the question, "What happened?" he has given us many deceptive indicators and the need to explain away not only his activities, but his answers, years later. 

Police and the legal system worked. 

Kassidy was a very abused little girl who deserved better.  Whether others abused her as well does not excuse what Chad Evans did to her, nor does it mitigate his guilt.  

Like Dechaine, he has his followers without discernment. 

In waiting for the DNA results, Dechaine's own attorney, after claiming that Dechaine never saw or laid eyes on Sarah Cherry, said, 

"this could backfire on us."

Indeed. 

Our words give us away.  One might study Statement Analysis for decades and the principles will not be suspended:  we all give ourselves away.  It does not teach us how to lie because as soon as we enter the Free Editing Process (where we are talking freely, using our pronouns, broken sentences, and so on) we give away the truth. 

Deception is indicated in those who have the will to deceive.  Repeating error is not lying.  

Chad Evans' physical abuse of Kassidy contributed to, if not directly caused, her death.  His language reveals how he viewed Kassidy, in the reference point of how he viewed his own son, who was only 14 months older.  He, in his mind, had raised one child (his son was only 3) and did not want to raise another.  His view on gender should not be lost. 

RL:  You already went through it. Let's go back to, to your relationship with what is it,

AMANDA?

CE:  Yeah.

RL:  Yeah. How did you guys meet?

CE:  We met, we met through JEFF.

RL:  Through JEFF. Now were you and JEFF friendly through high school?

CE:  Yeah. No, no, no I just met JEFF he, he is a landscaper for my restaurants.

RL:  Oh really

CE:  Yeah. (Inaudible)

LM:  How long have you guys been together?

Not a well worded question. 

CE:  AMANDA and I?

LM:  Yeah.

CE:  Not very long. I mean I just met her I think it was July we went on a date to a concert. 

RL:  What concert?

CE:  You would ask that. Sting. 

RL:  What?

CE:  A group called ........ Sting It's like a .. .

LM:  Local group?

CE:  No it's, well it's kind of local. They're, they're, they're a lot like Pearl Jam (inaudible)

LM:  Oh yeah.

CE:  I'm really into alternative rock.

LM:  Sure.

CE:  ... stuff.

LM:  I listen to Limp Bizkit

CE:  Yeah.

LM:  Stuff like that.

CE:  Right. They're a lot like that, yeah ...

LM:  This is the stuff you listen to when you're working out.

CE:  You got it. And that's what we listen to. But it was down at Hampton Beach though.

He still considers that a "we" exists between him and Amanda, as we see in the word, "we."

RL:  Yeah. How did that, that relationship develop? I mean did you know what was going on

in her life? Did she know that you were separated?

CE:  Yeah, you know to be honest with you, I don't know, I mean the whole thing is so weird

when I think about it. We, you know I met, I mean I've been friends with JEFF, I've

been talking to him about kind of what happened in my life with my wife and you know

he'd been talking. You know he had a similar situation with an ex-girlfriend and ...

Note the phrase "to be honest with you" in the interview as one used by deceptive people.  It indicates that in some place or places, he has not been honest and now he wants to be believed.  

His pronoun "errors" are self-censoring. He wants to point guilt away from him onto Jeff but the pronoun "we" betrays him, which is seen in his self 'correcting' of the pronoun.  Pronouns are instinctive and pronouns do not lie. He seems to show more remorse over casting a blaming shadow upon Jeff than he shows empathy for his victim.  "I've been friends with Jeff" also indicates that there is now distance; he knows that after this, there will be no friendship.  ("with" between persons)

He spoke as if he was "done" raising a child, and wasn't going to do it again.  His child was three, not twenty three, and it is obvious that the baby stage is something he did not want to do, and his actions led to the accomplishment of this very thing.  Often, shaken baby syndrome happens in a moment of anger to silence the child.  It works.  It also causes brain damage and death.  

In reading his words, the pronoun 'mistakes' are almost cartoon like as he attempts to persuade, while being deceptive.   His distancing language from Kassidy is provocative as it shows that   he did not like Kassidy, especially in some form of comparison as a reference point, to his own child.  

Update:  The subject is gaining an audience of those who lack discernment.  In reading readers' comments here, it is clear that even those new to analysis did not struggle to discern deception. 

 Chad Evans had also been convicted of domestic violence against women:  his ex wife and Amanda.  In 2011, he admitted causing "some bruises" to 

Kassidy's face by squeezing it too hard.  

Birth:  Feb. 4, 1999 Biddeford York County Maine, USA Death:  Nov. 9, 2000 York Village York County Maine, USA Kassidy Caitlyn Bortner was the daughter of Amanda J Bortner. Her grandmother was Jacqueline M Nicholson-Conley. Her grandfather was Paul F Conley. She had a aunt Jennifer Bortner, uncle Joshua Caleb Bortner, uncle Scott Paul Christian Conley, and uncle Charles H Bortner, III. She was a innocent, beautiful girl who's life was taken by her mother's boyfriend in acts of rage. Because of her death, the "Kassidy Bortner Act" was passed in the state of New Hampshire. The Act is intended to help protect children from all forms of child abuse and violence. It helps to make people and the State of New Hampshire be held accountable for their actions towards children.  (bio by:conley)  Burial: Buckfield Village Cemetery Buckfield Oxford County Maine, USA Plot: new 124 Created by: conley Record added: Dec 31, 2008 Find A Grave Memorial# 32538741

Added by: conley Added by: conley