Lena Lunsford and Joanne Evans Interview - communications study

   

This is the only interview with Lena, and her mother Joanne regarding the disappearance of Aliayah. The police have made it very clear that Lena is a suspect by how closely they have been following her. Most parents and spouses are suspects so this doesn’t surprise me. Joanne states during the interview, "She (Aliayah) never leaves the house", looks two times at Lena, "unless an adult is with her, uh," she takes a deep breath, looks around, and pauses, "she wouldn'ta, she wouldn'ta, came out in the yard, or the road, for that matter, (pause) with out her mother." says last part shaking her head back and forth no.  

    The "no" movement Joanne makes with her head is what we call repeating, complimenting behavior in interpersonal communication. It is done unconsciously, it backs up her words and validates her statement. Joanne wants it known she does NOT think that her granddaughter got up and walked off, not without her mother at least. She wouldn‘t go anywhere without an adult…or her mother. We can see what appears to be suspicion in Joanne toward Lena in the statement, as she looks at her twice. She knows that kid didn't walk out on her own accord, and fears that some one took her, or worse that her own child might be responsible. At the end while she is shaking her head she is driving her point home, that point is that she thinks someone took Aliayah out of that house. Another thought or possibility here is that Joanne is possibly looking at Lena for reinforcement of facts, to make sure she is say the right thing, or an attempt to gain approval from Lena about what she is saying.

Joanne says later We love her", (Lena lets out a breath), "we miss her", “We language” is being used through out this interview and sends the message, "We are in this together". They share the responsibility of the circumstances and occurrences in any given situation (Alder & Proctor, 2005). I am not surprised to see that Joanne and Lena are using “we language," and sharing responsibility. Lena's children were Joanne's responsibility, and that responsibility was newly shared with Lena when she was recently released from prison shortly. Up until a few months before Aliayah Lunsford's disappearance, Joanne had raised Aliayah all of Aliayah's life. I am sure the housing transition had to have been difficult for the kids, but especially for Aliayah, who had never known anything other than grandpa and grandma.
    In this statement Joanne wants who ever has Aliayah to know that this child is loved, and cared for. She is not abused or neglected and has a family that wants her to come back, Joanne wants her back. If she ever gets her back, she wont let her go again. Notice that Joanne speaks for Lena, and speaks more than Lena does in the video. In my opinion this is possibly because she is more concerned than Lena is about the child being missing.
    On the other hand, it is also possible that Lena is having trouble communicating for herself due to being in shock, and is allowing her mother to step in for her. This doesn’t mean that Lena is guilty though for her child’s demise. Often parents feel guilt, and remorse in cases where they loose a child. I call it “The woulda, coulda, shoulda’s”, it is natural for parents to blame themselves when something like this happens. Even in cases where children die naturally, parents will still blame their selves.

    Lena   "Bout 9 - 9:30, I went back in to wake her up and she was gone."
I hate when people read too much into statements, and sift for guilt. The last part though "she was gone" sits funny with me. "She was gone", not "missing" not "vanished" or "disappeared", but "gone", it must be noted that I could be reading way too much into it, the word gone is not one I like to associate with a three year old though.

Lena: "They're doing every thing they possibly can," takes a deep breath, "BUT the more people we can get to help, the more chances of bringing her home." deep breath.

    The lack of physical movement from Lena during this interview and the sugary high tone in voice is often a telltale sign of dishonesty. People try harder not to fidget or move when lying, they believe they will look guilty. Imagine your own tone of voice, if you can, when you respond to a friend who is asking if her pants make her look bad...You raise your voice, in an attempt to sound and look genuine and caring to your friend, and then you say, "What? No, not at all", you still sound like a liar to someone trained to notice though. Now I think this statement could elude to various emotions or motives for Lena, likely regarding the police and the investigation. The statement probably has nothing to do with her feelings regarding her child's disappearance, she is talking about the cops and their investigation. She might be talking high as a way to try to sound persuasive and elicit help from the public. She might have a strained high voice because she inherently distrusts police and feels they won’t help her due to her criminal history, but she feels desperately and is attempting to do what she must, she has to have their help (plausible IMO). However, something about this sounds strange to me personally, and I think the statement is totally scripted or rehearsed, this is something the cops said to her. This statement makes me think that the cops told her to ask for help on television and were probably having to convince her to go on television and plead for help, she did it because they wanted her too. The things parroted in the statement above were not conjured up in her own mind, but said to her prior to the interview. I have never been in her position, but I would imagine that if this should ever occur it would take a small army to get me off TV. However, I haven't been there, and I hope I am never there.

Lena: "We want her home", another exhale, she shakes her head in a no motion making the statement.

Many “Lie detection experts” will say that this is indicative of deception because as the statement is made Lena is shaking her head no. When people see this and interpret it on their own while watching the news they would think that she is lying due to the physical and verbal contradiction. Who knows what she is thinking though? The interview appears fairly rehearsed or scripted to me.