STEPHAN STERNS STATEMENT ANALYSIS

STEPHAN STERNS STATEMENT ANALYSIS

__________________________________________________ 

Stephan Sterns,

38 years old

DOB: 4/22/86

  QUESTION: "WHAT HAVE YOU BEEN FEELING LATELY?"

   STERNS: " Anxiety mostly. Money problems lately. Ativan since

Saturday."

     Noted: odd response to an open-ended feelings-question. 

While one might expect there to be a palpable level of anxiety 

surrounding the alleged "missing"/"disappearance" of a child

whose life one has been in for 7 years, his level of distress seems

muted at best. His emotions, kind of like his words, are rather

rehearsed and flat-lined/non-expansive. Not an answer one

would expect/what is normal in response to this question. While

it, by itself, proves nothing, it is a red flag to be more aware

on responses to further questions, not guilt or conviction.

______________________________________________

QUESTION: "WHAT DID YOU DO WHENEVER YOU ARRIVED

AT JENN'S PLACE?"

STERNS: " Made dinner, made Ramen, BUT it was time for HER

to go to bed, BUT, we had just barely started watching SISTER 

ACT. BUT, she had a certain range of a bedtime."

Of note: The detective is asking Sterns DIRECTLY what HE, not what WE, they, us, were doing, what STERNS was doing, his activity in a timeline-like-matter. When he answers this, he is using distancing language in the absence of accountability that would be attached to the ownership of of the pronoun "I." This pronoun is missing entirely, despite the question requiring only "I" responses. It's both distancing language and refusal of accountability. 

    When asked statements where one expects to hear the actions

of of "I", the suspect speaking, and pronouns present are HER, WE;

with a complete absence of "I" statements. This is red flag #2. The changing of pronouns in the telling of a story is always reason to pause or revisit in present or future interview with the subject. Another "red flag" are the number of qualifying words and statements exist in Sterns's responses. Words like "BUT"; a word he usually as a "qualifier" at least three different times in this short response alone.

_________________________________________

   QUESTION: "EARLIER YOU SAID SNUGGLE/CUDDLE TIME, CAN YOU Tell me what you mean by that; specifically?"

  STERNS: "No, snuggle-cuddle time, and I just mean we lay there

and let her mom Rest In Peace. Maddie is very co-dependent. She needs human presence around her."

OF NOTE: Odd/mortality reference in the phrase "Rest In Peace"

Though Sterns is partially referencing Jenn Soto in his statement,

her name, and or, any pronoun, specific to her name are absent.

Jenn is reduced to merely "mom." As though mom was the only part of Jenn's identity. An implication of superiority on his part as well. 

   Sterns was asked a direct question about what certain defined behavior was and he avoided this topic almost all together. He almost immediate shifts the blame and the point of focus onto Maddie. Implying he needs to be there for Maddie, the way she needs oxygen to breathe; very dramatic and presumptuous. Blames, without any proof, reason, or example, that Maddie is "co-dependent."

  Complete avoidance of specificity of question.

________________________________________

QUESTION: "You slept where on Sunday night?"

 STERNS: "......typically set 3 alarms.: 7:30am , snooze three times, while WE get ready on time. On the third snooze, she needs to get ready. Brush her teeth, brush her hair, get backpack together."

Of Note: Complete avoidance of responsibility/any accountability for his literal own behavior. 3 is a number often associated, according to research, correlated with dishonesty. While nothing is ever 100%, the more times the number three presents itself, the more attention one might to pay attention to the dishonesty. Unsure with the pronoun"WE" to whom he is referring. It doesn't belong as a pronoun here where it should be singular. Additionally, it sounds mechanical, lacking any affect, or real relevance in terms of what the detectives asked.