Statement Analysis®: Jeff Hanson Revealed

by Grace4Ayla on August 25, 2013

The world was first made aware of Jeff Hanson early on in the case of missing toddler Ayla Bell Reynolds. Hanson introduced himself via his blogs as Ayla’s step-grandfather and the official spokesperson for Trista Reynolds and the Reynolds family. Over the past several months, utilizing various websites and media outlets, Jeff Hanson has played a significant part in almost every notable leak of information in this tragic case. Most recently, Jeff Hanson was the first to reveal Trista Reynold’s intention to release the “unequivocal evidence” of her daughter’s death, which was presumably at the hands of the child’s father, Justin DiPietro.

In this article, I will dissect Jeff Hanson’s own words using the tool of Statement Analysis. What exactly has this so-called spokesperson revealed in his words? Let’s see if we can find any indicators of deception or leakage, shall we?

Statement Analysis Pt. 1.

Answers4Ayla says: February 11, 2013 at 5:46 pm
Trista met with Maine State Police last month and was shown photos of items found at the dam in Waterville. Trista could not identify the items as Ayla’s.

MSP also asked Trista not to release the details as it could jeopardize their case against the perpetrator(s), but was informed of unequivocal evidence that prompted the State Police’s conclusion that Ayla is no longer alive. Subsequently leading to the withdrawal of the $30,000 reward.

There will never be real closure, even when the guilty are exposed, but perhaps there can be some solace from knowing that Ayla’s suffering ended over a year ago and have faith that she now resides in the light and basks in the radiance of love.

In this statement, we see Jeff explaining Trista’s meeting with Maine State Police (MSP) on Jan. 3, 2013. Note that he claims Trista was “shown photos” of the river evidence, yet she was “informed” of the “unequivocal evidence.” In later comments, he also claims she was shown photos of this evidence as well. Why the change of reality between the statements? Deception indicated.

John P says: February 11, 2013 at 10:17 pm
I would be interested as well Jeff. We have been studying asperation for a few posts now. Jeff if you can speak on it do you feel the Aspiration posts explain the spots reported by Heidi, and was the dried saliva or some other form of DNA found other than the blood? I understand, as does MM, if you are unable to answer.

Answers4Ayla says: February 11, 2013 at 11:00 pm
Addie, MMama, JohnP: First and foremost: Trista, Becky, and I were In my truck after the Bubbles and Balloon Vigil in Waterville – in a spot off the road where two detectives on Ayla’s case were “debriefing Trista” (behind the scenes of that day is another story, but I can tell you Trista had an agenda) . One of the detectives was telling Trista about Justin’s explanation of how Ayla’s blood was found in his basement and the lieutenant told Trista that “it was more than a small cut would produce”. I asked the lieutenant directly “how much more” and he said “more than a cupful”.

Knowing what we know now [unequivocal evidence].. Bourget saying “it wasn’t necessarily blood” could be construed as true, but it is also misleading.. and of course he does not specify an amount. That is all I can tell you.. and that is all I know. I have no idea what actually went on in that house that night.. in retrospect if I had not published MSP findings on the next day (after the B&B Vigil), Trista may have been able to get more out of Justin, but he rabbited (don’t blame him really). And MSP’s explanation in telling Trista these details was that there was a “leak” and that a newspaper in Boston was going to publish them on Monday anyway. They just wanted Trista to know first.. hope this answers your questions..

[I’m beginning to think that what MSP has shown Justin (and lawyer) are not the same things they have revealed to Trista.. This is not a court case.. yet. MSP is not under any disclosure laws They can tell or show us whatever they want.. if only to gauge our reactions].

Again, we can see Jeff referring to the “unequivocal evidence” as being “shown” to Justin, yet it is “revealed” to Trista. This is in agreement with his previous statement, but still differs from his later claims. Also note that in his last statement, he puts the word “tell” in front of “show.”

Jeff is also relaying information about the first time he and Trista heard about the blood evidence. Note that Jeff says he asked the lieutenant directly, and he uses the word “said” to describe the response. This is a change of language from what he originally reported in February of 2012 where he stated, “We were also told by the lead investigators that it was more than a cupful.” Jeff changes back to using the word “told” in later comments. Deception indicated.

Answers4Ayla says: February 12, 2013 at 4:57 pm
I just spoke with Trista, apparently the Items found at the damn are not off limits:

The photos found at the damn were of two blankets (both about the size of a single bed). One was brown and pink checkered and the other was white with the words “God Bless” Trista also said it had Angles on it with blue coloring. Trista could not identify the items as Ayla’s and Justin had no response.

CG says: February 12, 2013 at 5:01 pm
were they bloodstained?

Answers4Ayla says: February 12, 2013 at 5:15 pm
Not visibly…

I find it interesting that Jeff misspells the word ‘dam’. Here, we can see Jeff using one of the classic liar’s tricks. When asked an outright question, he doesn’t quite answer it. He could have said, “No, not visibly.” By answering vaguely, Jeff may want us to infer that Trista was told there was blood evidence on the items; after all, they are considered “evidence.” Why else would MSP be showing them to Trista at this late date? If LE thought Trista could identify them as belonging to Ayla, wouldn’t they have shown them to her sooner? Deception indicated.

Statement Analysis Pt. 2

Answers4Ayla says: February 17, 2013 at 2:38 pm
Mainelady4Ayla, The photos of the blankets were the only items from the dam shown to Trista. There may have been other items that MSP found at the dam, I do not know.

The majority of the photos shown to Trista however, were from around the Dipietro’s property.

Here we see the first mention of “photos” shown to Trista.

Answers For Ayla says: February 22, 2013 at 8:52 PM
Anon; Trista was shown a projected slideshow of the photos that MSP had that led them to believe that Ayla is “highly unlikely” to be alive..

Answers For Ayla says: February 26, 2013 at 2:29 PM
Stlll no Clue; 1 Photo was of the blankets found at the dam. The other “30-40″ photos that were shown to Trista were taken on the Dipietro’s property.

On a side note; Derek (If he does not cancel again) and Courtney are next in line to see the “slideshow” for reasons I’m sure you guys are aware of.

Answers For Ayla says: February 22, 2013 at 10:33 PM
Anon; I meant to imply that LE is trying to enlist their help through disclosure, as the Deprtiro’s are not communicating with them. It may very well be their last chance

Now the photos have become a “slideshow.” An interesting development, indeed. Was the “slideshow” actual pictures, or a graphic recreation using software like PowerPoint? He doesn’t say. I note that Jeff states that Courtney Roberts and Derek Tudela will be shown the slideshow “next.” He also implies that Derek has already cancelled at least one appointment to view the slideshow. This statement directly contradicts that of police spokesman, Steve McCausland, who told the media that this evidence was never shown to Courtney Roberts, and only shown to “family members.” In later comments, Jeff also stated that both Trista’s new fiance, Alex, and his mother, were present at the “slideshow,” yet they are not “family members” either. Deception Detected

Answers For Ayla says: February 27, 2013 at 12:02 PM
Yeah I read that too Anpn 11:00; but despite what you may have read in the papers, MSP does not believe the “nothing happened” story and are working behind the scenes to find out more.

It’s not rocket science (where the hell is that guy when you need him)? to figure out that the Dipietro’s are not cooperating with them if they are still soliciting other sources to find out what really happened to Ayla…

Here, Jeff is confronted with his earlier claim that the DiPietros are not cooperating with the police, despite McCausland’s claims to the contrary. I note he uses the word “soliciting” to describe law enforcement’s efforts to find out what really happened to Ayla Reynolds, yet there is no reward. Does Jeff think investigators are bribing people for information? What else could they solicit information with? Perhaps immunity or a plea deal? If investigators believe that the slideshow illustrates what really happened to Ayla, then why would they still need to “solicit” other sources to “find out?”

Answers For Ayla says: February 25, 2013 at 5:04 PM
Anon 1:18; I’m done, Tori told me to cut it out

Anon 1:32; Negative, but you can believe MSP is using other tactics, with us as well as the paternal side.

Anon 4:45; We would welcome it, and we have extended the olive branch many times, I suspect their lawyer may have had something to do with the reason/s that they are not speaking publicly.. at least directly anyway.

Now we see a tiny bit of leakage in Jeff’s words. If investigators believe, as Jeff states later, that Trista is “100% not a suspect”, what reason would they have to use “tactics” with her?

Answers For Ayla says: February 25, 2013 at 7:36 PM

IThinkIWillCallMyselfChickenLittle.. wow, say that 10 times fast…

Anon 1:32 mentioned “Justin and/or his family???”

I meant that MSP is using everything within their power to extract information from the Dipietro’s family (as well as their circle of friends). MSP does not believe the Dipietro’s version of what happened to Ayla.. (and now, neither do we).

This should come as no surprise to anyone. including the Dipietro’s.

I cannot say how Trista has been involved as she has signed a non-disclosure form, only that she has helped MSP in their discovery process.

But I am 100% sure (what’s with all the percentages lately anyway)? that Trista is not a suspect. as I am sure you are too.

Jeff says he is “sure” Trista is not a suspect. He doesn’t say she is innocent, not guilty or that she had nothing to do with any crime. He also does not say perpetrator, or co-conspirator, or person of interest…you get my drift.

Answers For Ayla says: February 28, 2013 at 8:14 PM

autumn; Trista was told everything you have learned about Ayla’s blood being found in Justin’s basement on 1/28/12. I posted most of that information on the next day and sent the site’s information to the local media who we had been working with.. they in turn called Steve McCausland for verification.

In this article Steve says: “The testing has not been completed and more work remains, but we have found samples of Ayla’s blood,”

MSP told us that more than a cupful of Ayla’s (not someone else’s) blood was found in Justin’s basement (on 1/28/12). So if this statement to the press was true back then (1/29/12) and they were still testing more “samples”.. how much more of Ayla’s blood did they find?

But because of what MSP could report to the press, you can only assume that MSP may have told us about the amount of Ayla’s blood found.. but I was there, I was told this directly by MSP and I know what I heard.. and these guys were serious.

In this comment we see Jeff use totally different language when describing what he was “told” about the blood than he did on February 11 (above). Why the change in reality if he is describing the exact same conversation? Deception indicated.

From the BDN article 8/21

“On Jan. 3 of this year, Trista was shown selected specific and probable causes regarding the blood found by MSP in their investigation.”

The story changes again. Now, not only has Trista seen photos of the dam evidence, a slideshow of 30-40 pictures of blood evidence, but she was shown specific and probable causes regarding the blood found. Wow, that was one heck of a show MSP put on for her! Yet again, we see Jeff change the terminology of what Trista “saw,” with no reason for the change of reality. Deception indicated.

In conclusion, I do not expect to see a whole lot of truth in the expected blog posts and press conference on September 24, 2013. Nothing Jeff has said about the evidence itself or the subsequent intention to release it inspires any confidence that he has told the truth so far.

Previous post:

Next post: