My conclusion is this:

Rebecca Nelson would not pass a polygraph.

She is deceptive about:

1. Their relationship was violent, and Rebecca is a violent person herself.
2. Money. this is a major theme and when the last of his money was gone, she was done with him. (She likely had not only spent but stolen)
3. His depression
4. Alcohol
5. I think she may have been unfaithful to him. This is significant.

I don't know how the investigator missed these cues; only that he caught the nonsense of "never" argued.

She is a violent person. Note the language of how "normal" she is after an altercation.

The interview is very poorly conducted and she would NOT pass a polygraph. There was either a struggle over the gun, or she directly shot him. As she reports it, it DID NOT HAPPEN.

Statement Analysis shows that she is lying and being, overall, deceptive. Statement Analysis cannot say "why" someone is lying, but we can know that she is lying AND she has reason to lie.

I cannot explain why the investigator showed zero interest in learning about infidelity.

Forensics and other clues can help learn why she would need to be deceptive, but she is deceptive.


By Peter Hyatt