When DiPietro was asked to clarify whether she passed or failed the exam, DiPietro repeated her initial statement, adding that she's not concerned how her response will be received by the public.
When asked, she did not respond with a direct answer, indicating that the question, "Did you pass or fail?" is sensitive.
"I mean, I did fine. It's what it is. People are going to take things how they take them, and they're going to call us liars, if they want to call us liars, but I know the truth, and we know the truth, and we know we didn't do anything wrong. We want Ayla home. We love Ayla."
A change of pronouns should be viewed for deception. "I know the truth and we know the truth and we know..."
"We didn't do anything wrong" suggests that she believes that some accident took place. Please also note that she does not say she didn't cause the disappearance. Whatever happened, she does not deny, but does not believe it to be "wrong":
She indicates that they did something, but that what happened was not "wrong", which has moral echo. This is similar language heard in child molesters who believe they did not "harm" the child or do something "wrong": it would be interesting to ask her what they did, that they believe is not wrong.
The same cagey responses were from her brother. Neither are able to say
"I didn't cause Ayla's disappearance"
and "I passed the polygraph"
Note repetition of "liars" making it sensitive.
Wanting Ayla home is not the same as "I didn't kill Ayla" or "I did not lie to police" or "I wasn't a part of Ayla's disappearance."
Internal stress from lying is avoided whenever possible, this is why she avoids direct lying and instead minimizes, but not that she does not say "I love Ayla" but switches to the weaker sharing of responsibility using "we" instead of "I" beginning at the point of introducing "liars", which she allows people to use. This is something that innocents resist. They do not allow for guilt that is not theirs.
Once the topic of "lying" is introduced, the first person singular, "I" disappears. She does not uses Ayla's name when she uses the pronoun "I"; only the "we".
Liars cannot hide, even when they think they are clever enough to deceive.
Deception indicated.
DiPietro said she stands by her belief that Ayla was abducted.
"Someone took her," she said. "That's why (police) haven't found her yet."
This is a truthful statement and she can say it without lying. "Someone" did take her out of the house, though police believe they know that Justin DiPietro did it. He would be "someone." Please note, however, the confidence she shows as the reason why they have not found "her", not Ayla, yet.
In late January, Department of Public Safety Spokesman Steve McCausland announced that investigators had discovered an undisclosed amount of Ayla's blood in the home.
McCausland also said there is no evidence to support the family's claim that Ayla has been abducted, and he said the three adults who were with Ayla the night before she was reported missing -- DiPietro; Ayla's father Justin DiPietro; and friend Courtney Roberts -- are withholding information. DiPietro said she's unsure how investigators came to those conclusions.
"I would love to know," she said.
This we can also believe to be true: it would be a huge boost to their defense and their strategy. Thus far, we see confidence in the body not being found.
She added there are some aspects of the forensic investigation that her family feels were incomplete.
"There were things they didn't fingerprint in (Ayla's) room that we felt they should have," she said.
"were things" is past tense: do not these things still exist to be fingerprinted?
Please note that she uses the pronoun "we" rather than what she, herself thinks.
DiPietro said a table that was located directly beneath the bedroom window wasn't fingerprinted, along with other pieces of furniture.
She said the family learned that the window to Ayla's room was unlocked the night of her disappearance.
"We did not know it was unlocked ... which is something we thought was weird because (the window) was always locked," she said.
Elisha DiPietro cannot speak for herself. She has now revealed to us, via Statement Analysis, why the police said she is deceptive with them, through the means of withholding information.
Note she reports what 'they' did not know; in the negative; and then what "we" thought, as in group-think: Not what she didn't know, and not what she thought. ...read more
http://seamusoriley.blogspot.com.es/2012/05/statement-analysis-of-elisha-dipietro.html
