Professional Analyst Says Fred's Statement to Police is Deceptive

I've been communicating with a professional forensic statement analyst for a while about Fred Murray's statement to police about the events leading up to his daughter's disappearance. Since some of this has come to light on other messageboards, I figured I would take the time to share what he discovered.

Peter Hyatt is an expert at finding the hidden subtext behind a person's words. Check out his analysis of a statement related to the Amanda Knox case.

Back in January, we exchanged messages about Fred's official statement to police. Here is what he said:

It is going to take considerable time to dig into it, but something is very wrong.    

Note the dropped pronoun "I" in the first paragraph, and then its appearance later. 

Note that in 29 lines, he takes 25 to introduce his daughter going missing.  The overwhelming number of deceptive statements have lengthy introductions. 

There is something very bothersome about it.   

Do police suspect him?  Is he just a lousy father, or is there more? 

They should suspect him. 

It may be that he is deceptive due to purchasing alcohol, driving under the influence, etc, but the focus of that statement is he, himself, and not his missing daughter. 

At the Quality Inn, he wishes "not" to be there.  Was there anything untoward about their relationship? 

Hyatt shared Fred's statement on a blog devoted to analysis.

Here's what other investigators picked up on:

Missing pronouns.
Pronoun changes from "We" to "I" to "They"
No social introductions.
"Asked" then Told"
"A couple of beers"
Jumps in time.
Explaining. 

Yeah missing pronouns all over the place and out of order time line...sounds like 3/4 fabrication and an argiment took place...I told..she told...etc 

Ok.. I have re-read the statement twice and it is truly hard to follow. The "tale" he tells is so out of order that it makes no sense. This is the first I've heard of this case and I think it makes it even more difficult to follow. 

Although, maybe I would be assuming as I read through the statement if I did have some knowledge or background. I'm going to read the other comments now and see if I can piece it together : 

"at first he stated no" ahhh -- is he talking about himself in third person briefly? 

who was driving throughout all of this?? was he having her drive his car? why would he need to ask her to take him back to the hotel if it was his car? 

why does he call his hotel room "the" room instead of his room. is it because he always intended to share it with his daughter? 

why did she have a friend accompany them?? did she not want to be alone wit her father? 

why does he remember to clearly her slumped over walking back to her dorm???? after spending night in his hotel room with him. why did he know so clearly that she was still asleep when he woke up? 

The one thing that really stood out to me from this statement was the sensitivity surrounding drinking and the time he spent with his daughter and her friend. He is precise of about the number of drinks everyone had (says he had 2, which Peter has indicated is the usual number given by those who have had more than 2 (though it would also be given by those who had 2). His uncertainty about going to the liquor store with the girls and when that occurred, suggests possibly he had way more than 2 and forgot, and/or confirms the sensitivity concerning alcohol and his time with his daughter and her friend and a need to be evasive or not forthcoming about it. I also see this to some extent in the statement "that is why I came up that weekend" -- that he feels a need to give a reason why he was visiting his daughter may indicate his intent in going there is questionable (though not necessarily in the context of explaining to the police his reasons for visiting) 

Another thing that jumped out at me is his desire to suggest repeatedly that he wanted to be taken back to the hotel, but the girls wanted to stay/go out. This happens twice in the statement. First when he asks to be taken back to the motel but his daughter had him go pick up her friend and then end up at the restaurant (bar?) and again when he says he asked to be taken back to the motel and he told them it was too late to go out. This looks a little like victim blaming but also just doesn't make sense -- a parent might be talked out of going back to the hotel by his college age daughter, but for this to come up twice to me suggests he's aware that he needs to explain why he's hanging out partying with college girls (going to the restaurant, out then back again, then to the liquor store??? Good grief). 

Missing pronouns. 
**that** is why I came up that weekend
Justifies why he was there. Akin to alibi building.

An astute analyst also noted something that about that interview with Fred on Montel:

Past tense used a few times. One time when he went to say “we were buddies, he stopped and switched to “we’re buddies”. This is at 3:15 in the video if anyone else wants to list to this part.