there are schools of thought on speech patterns, psychology of speech, linguistic forensics and statement analysis. LE are no stranger to reading between the lines. Would be far more odd if no one was examining what has so far been stated. IMO this should be done with a fine tooth comb, and repeated with brush, fingers, perhaps even scissors or a razorblade if we wanted to really see what was behind the words.
the way that people speak is very telling. rhetoric, specifically, is a very powerful tool of persuasion, and if you have a working understanding of rhetoric you will know when a salesman is trying to sell you something.
a good salesman might mimic your mannerisms, gestures, and even your figures of speech, for example, to lower your subconcious and instictual guards, and cultivate trust via relative understanding and a sense of familiarity. We all do this naturally to a degree, but one who is trained in rhetoric, or a veteran salesman worth his salt, for example, knows how to use language as a tool.
And, actually, this is my own area of expertise. Within that specialty, there are many subspecialties. I don't have enough context to say anything definitely about RT's utterances. I also specialize in written communication and aid in forensic diagnostics of mental illness.
I will say just one thing: compared to many people, RT was not reticent to be on camera and televised talking about the disappearance. Sure, there were some "um's" (not always present even in a shy person's speech) but in general, he seemed eager to talk (and yet...had not yet laid out any coherent appeal to the public regarding how to find his wife or detailing the circumstances under which she disappeared). Emphasis on the word "detail."
Fine tooth comb is exactly how it's done. A cultural context is also needed. Since RT and Barbara are roughly from my own language community, I only wish I had some video of the two of them together (in order to see both of them in action, as it were).
Interesting, too, that despite his interest in photography (and possible possession of a 360 camera, which I doubt until there is actual evidence of it (since people use that term to describe the panorama ability of smartphones)...there is no video of the hike or any video at all (sent to family) of anything.
It takes me a while to leap past "literal meaning of words as commonly understood within community of speakers" to any other interpretation. Cops tend to be automatically think about what the literal meaning of words might be hiding. Cops look to trip people up, I know that all people sometimes misspeak. It's a yin-yang kind of thing.
But I do know this: something doesn't add up with the timeline for that day and known actions and events. If RT can't accurately estimate time of day and time of calls, then I'm doubtful of his other abilities to measure and recount properly. Some people always guesstimate. And I mean...pretty much always, as far as linguists can tell (and psychologists and psychological anthropologists). Doesn't mean I don't believe his other statements, just means I bring doubt to those next.
Which led me back to the basics (mapping where people were when they said things and mapping the places they are talking about).
Did RT know exactly where they had gone, after they crossed the highway? What do his pictures show? Did SAR have those pictures? Did LE have them early on? Who was in control of the camera when the pictures were first shown? When was the phone taken from RT and looked through thoroughly (if it was). I can picture a policeman sitting in the front of the car with RT (not the back), going through each picture (not taking notes, not intimidating RT in any way, just doing what the policeman does best: remember things and ask more questions).
That would have guided the search very well. And still, they didn't find her. She had 3 hours to be away from where RT last saw her...huge search radius.
I'm now doubting that they hiked as far as I initially thought he said, but I'll save that for another post.
Thanks for your post.
