SPEAKER_01 0:00

On Tragedy, we cover cases that involve real people and real events. Episodes may include discussions of violence, criminal behavior, and loss. We share these stories to honor those impacted and to raise awareness that they may not be suitable for all audiences. Listener discretion is advised. Joining us today is Jack Fox, a professional statement analyst who specializes in examining language for patterns, omissions, and subtle shifts that may reveal hidden information. Jack has worked with investigators and legal professionals to help interpret statements in both active and cold cases, offering insight into what people say and sometimes what they don't. Before we begin, we want to remind listeners that statement analysis is a linguistic and behavioral tool, not a determination of guilt or innocence. The insights shared in this conversation are meant to guide understanding and spark further inquiry, not to accuse or assign blame. Everyone discussed in this episode is presumed innocent unless proven otherwise in a court of law. With that in mind, Jack joins us to help unpack the statements connected to the disappearance of Michael John Olson, exploring what language can and can't tell us about that night. This is Tragedy, a true crime podcast. Today's conversation is one we are really looking forward to, as we hope to shed some light on Michael John Olson's disappearance by speaking with Jack Fox. Jack is well known as the guy behind the Never a Truer Word channel on YouTube. And welcome to the podcast.

SPEAKER_02 1:53

Hey Alyssa, Michael, thank you very much for having me. I can't wait to talk about this fascinating uh set of statements that we have.

SPEAKER_00 2:00

I know we've been talking about you for a week now, looking forward to this interview. So I'm really happy you're with us. I'm very honored.

SPEAKER_01 2:06

Members of the family are like, when is this happening? We're ready for this. Um, but before we discuss Michael's disappearance, please tell us about you and what led you to developing an expertise in statement analysis.

SPEAKER_02 2:21

I could give you guys a really fancy story, which would all be true, and saying is what I do is find lies and deception and what people say, lying would not be to my benefit. Um, about how I have always been fascinated in how words can be used to influence people. Um, my I had a long career working in radio, um, which involves a lot of influencing people through your words because words, when you're a radio presenter or a radio show producer, are one of the few tools you have. Um so I thought I could get an advantage over everyone else by using words in a smarter way than everyone else. So studied the psychology behind words and how people respond to different words and so on, um, in order to give myself an advantage there. I moved on to doing some marketing work uh and also some management work as well. And again, the influence of words in those situations was crucial to me and the things I was trying to do. I dabbled in hypnotherapy as well for a while. And um, again, that's all about how words can influence a person, very directly influence a person. I could tell you all that, and it's all true. And I've, you know, I've always been interested in how words influence. Um, I could also say that when I was a kid, my mum hated me for my pedanticness, if that even is a word. Um, because if she was laying down the law or she was trying to tell me off for something, I'd be parsing her words and trying to find the loophole in what she said to let me do what I wanted to do, or just be the smartest kid in the house. And that's kind of what I do now is I just parse every single word in a statement or someone gives in an interview in order to go, why did they choose that word? Because no word we use is accidental. And then try and work out the motivations behind the person talking. Uh, are they deceiving us? Are they telling us the truth? Uh, what are you, why are they telling us these words? Why have they chosen these words to use to try and just get a deeper understanding of what they say.

SPEAKER_01 4:14

And if you walked into an elevator with someone and you had maybe five floors to describe to them what you do, what would you say to them?

SPEAKER_02 4:23

I can listen to what someone says and to say whether they're telling the truth, the whole truth, or nothing but the truth, and what are they hiding?

SPEAKER_00 4:30

I can tell you've been asked that question before because that's a perfect answer to it.

SPEAKER_02 4:34

I think we've only got to the first floor, though. The rest of it's embarrassed silence. Because now they're terrified of the floor. Yeah, now they've heard what you said. I get that all the time. People are like um comment under my videos and they're like, I've I've written this five times and deleted it five times to try and get the words perfect. And it's like, chill, chill, don't worry. It's so funny.

SPEAKER_01 4:56

So, how do you typically establish a linguistic baseline when analyzing statements from witnesses or associates, specifically for us in a missing person's case?

SPEAKER_02 5:07

Um, so I don't, um, and this is slightly differently. I know in body language baseline is very important. So, what does someone look like when they're calm and relaxed and, you know, feel in control and comfortable? Um, and then they notice deviations away from that. Um, whereas what I do is slightly different because I'm looking at individual words. Um, and the way that we talk, we've got two modes of talking. One is like an autopilot mode, um, which is the one we use most of the time. You know, when you're sitting talking to someone and the words are just coming out, you might you don't think about which words you're going to use, and then just those words come out. And what happens in that state, you're you're relaxed, you're not on guard. Um, and therefore um you're just you're picking words as you would. You know, your brain controls your breathing, your brain is in charge of those words as well. And what it will typically do, because your brain looks after you, is just choose the best words that it feels are appropriate in that situation. There's another state we're in where we're deliberately choosing our words, which is maybe what I'm doing now because I'm thinking this is a very complex um concept that I've got to get across to people. So I'm going to make sure that I use the right words very deliberately. Um, but also if we're lying, um, if we're hiding something, if we're stressed and nervous, that is the mode we're more likely to use because we are hoping that we are making an impression with our words and choosing our words a little bit more carefully. So I don't try and baseline, I'm just looking at why is this person chosen that word and then coming up with possibilities. Nothing that I come to is concrete. You know, I can't say with 100% certainty this person is telling the truth or this person is lying. But what I can do is spot patterns. The more words I hear from someone, the better. You know, hearing someone talk an answer to one question versus a 15-minute interview, for example, or a two-hour police interview, I will get more and more and more data the more someone talks.

SPEAKER_01 7:02

Is there a particular case that you have outlined that just you just found really, really interesting or something that maybe would be fairly well known? We should probably explain to our listeners. Uh you are not in the United States, um, but I know you have covered some United States cases. There's something that really stood out to you in your work?

SPEAKER_02 7:20

Um, yeah, the um the it's a classic one, um, the John Burnet Ramsey um case, uh, because there are so many people did talking um around that. So you've got John and you had Patsy talking, and they they spoke quite a bit at times. John still speaks now. Um, we've got all sorts of words involved in that case as well. So there is the 911 call um that that was made. There's the ransom note as well. So it's it's like um, I mean, it's a very tragic case. So I don't want to do it light by saying it's like a treasure trove of words and statements to analyze, but there are so many um words and statements there for me to look at. So that that really is one for me. Sometimes, you know, there are cases where it's all about evidence, DNA evidence, fingerprint evidence, CCTV evidence, and there's I feel like there's nothing in those for me to look at, but the John Bene Ramsey case just has so many layers of of words inside it.

SPEAKER_00 8:14

It's not really for the show, but um, I I didn't realize until you said it that you had looked at that ransom letter for that case. And that ransom letter I've read many, many times, and I would love to hear your your perception of that one. You can find it on YouTube.

SPEAKER_01 8:28

That's right.

SPEAKER_00 8:29

I'm gonna go look for that that episode.

SPEAKER_01 8:31

Well, and for me, that one really resonates because I lived in Boulder, Colorado, when that happened. Um, so that's I think that for me is like one of the foundational things that happened in my life that brought me to this obsession we'll say I have with true crime.

SPEAKER_02 8:46

So Well, uh funnily enough, I've nothing like that has happened near me. Uh the only thing that's in today's like local um press websites is at the top of my road, a guy was spotted running naked yesterday and banging on the cars on the road. That is the nearest I've come to true crime in my life. You are you're certainly way more experienced than me. I'm kind of worrying. I'm gonna lock my door from now on.

SPEAKER_00 9:11

Well, he could have just watched uh a rerun of old school that could have done it as well.

SPEAKER_01 9:15

Did they do that in that movie?

SPEAKER_00 9:16

Streaking across the cross, streaking across the quad. Yep.

SPEAKER_01 9:21

That is very exciting. I have a nice visual now.

SPEAKER_02 9:25

I trust me, whatever your visual is, that someone doing that at the top of my street is not going to live up to it.

SPEAKER_01 9:33

So in this particular case, we have um a couple of statements. One is from fairly uh close to when Michael John Olson went missing, and one is more recent. So my question is do you consider differences, you know, in statements that are made, let's say 20, 30 years ago versus statements that are made within the past five or so years?

SPEAKER_02 9:55

Yeah, yeah. You really have to look at um so many things on this. For example, when we come to look at these statements, there are contradictions in them, they they don't match. Um, but there's been a long passage of time in there. Um, so you know, is that acceptable? Or are there too many contradictions that make the make someone go, hmm, that's very interesting. Um also uh memories fade. Um, but liars have a chance to rehearse a story. So um, if we took a statement from 1979 with someone telling a false story, um then the first time they tell it, it might be rough, it might have some uneven edges in it because deception and lying is a hard, hard thing to do. It's not easy at all. Therefore, um over time, if they've told the story a few more times, it may become smoother, it may become more believable over time if they've rehearsed their story and told it a lot um in the intervening years. So, yes, you do have to look at that passage of time um from the first time to the most recent time. Um, I think that's one of the things that is great about 911 calls. I love listening to them because they're if they're deceptive, you know, if it's a guilty person or someone hiding something making that 911 call, it's the first time they've told the story. So it's the most likely time that it will be their flaws at all.

SPEAKER_01 11:17

And they're under some level of trauma in that moment as well. So extremely stressful situation.

SPEAKER_02 11:24

Yes, and that's we can spot trauma sometimes in the words, and we can spot what's causing them trauma. Um, so for example, um, if I was phoning up um reporting a child missing, well, am I stressed because the child is missing, or am I stressed because I'm telling a story um about a child being missing? And we can try and spot the things that cause uh the stress while that person's talking.

SPEAKER_01 11:47

I would like to ask one more kind of foundational question before we really dig into the statements that we have. Um, and this is around emotional language. So, what role does emotional language or the absence of emotional language play in assessing someone's credibility?

SPEAKER_02 12:04

Um, so the biggest thing I see with emotional language is when people use it to persuade us um of something. I always say the truth is uh sounds like the quickest line from A to B. Um so if I say I was upset, that's a very simple sentence, and you know exactly what I'm talking about. I is me, was means it's in the past, and upset tells you what I felt in the past. If I say I was extremely upset, I just couldn't believe it, I haven't added anything more to that content. The you know, the the understanding is still the same. It's I, it was, and it was upset, but then I've added more emotion around it. Now, again, what I notice causes questions rather than draws conclusions, but why do they feel the name, then they need to persuade us with those extra words that they were upset?

SPEAKER_01 12:56

I think you talk about that sometimes, and I don't know if I'm giving myself away, but I mean sometimes I think maybe I say too many words or I hear you like in a work call and you'll be like, I don't understand why somebody said this piece of it because it didn't really add anything to the context or the understanding. I think that's what you're getting at. That's correct.

SPEAKER_02 13:14

Yeah, but also I think we need to um remember that not all deception is malicious. So you could be using emotional words um when talking to a partner, for instance. There I'm not no partners or names mentioned here in the conversation, but you could be using those words. And what you really want to do is get a message across so you don't feel that saying that what you did upset me would be strong enough to get that message across because you really want the person to believe that um you they have upset you. Therefore, you might turn the severity, the emotion up by adding in these extra words, which, as you say, don't do anything to um change the content of the message, but they do change the severity of the message. Um, and that that can be why someone would put in those extra words, um, which without being deceptive, you know, without so I'm not saying if someone says I'm very upset compared to I'm upset, I'm not saying they're lying. I'm just saying they really want to persuade us how upset they are. And then ask the question is that because they're not upset and they just put it on?

SPEAKER_01 14:15

Um, or is that because they truly are upset and want us to know that so we have a couple of statements from a person who's very close to Michael John Olson's disappearance. We have one from very close to the day he went missing, and then we have another one that's from a we think we believe to be about five years ago. So, where does it make sense to start for you?

SPEAKER_02 14:40

Um, it would make sense to start with the very first statement um from 1979. All right, great.

SPEAKER_01 14:46

We have but we happen to have this is a witness statement that was provided to us when we had a good document release from the West Palm Beach Police Department. And I'm going to just read the statement exactly how it is. And this was taken and signed on December 18th, 1979, which is roughly maybe two and a half weeks. Uh, we know that Michael John Olson went missing either late into the hours of November 30th or very early morning, December 1st, 1979. So I will read this statement and then um we'll have you tell us what you think. So this is a typed and um signed statement, and it reads like this On Friday, November 30th, 1979, I went to the dog track at about 7.15 p.m. and got a table in the clubhouse. Michael Olson got there at about 7.35 p.m. and another person got there at about 8 p.m. We stayed at the dog track until about 1.15 a.m. Then Michael and I went to the wild side bar on Okeechobee Boulevard. After we left the wild side, we went back to the dog track and picked up Michael's car. I parked my van at the church on Cherry Road just west of Congress Avenue and we went in Michael's car to Mr. G's. We stayed in Mr. G's until they started to close and had turned on the lights. When we left, and Michael dropped me off at my van. I last saw Michael driving towards Congress on Cherry Road. I had to be at work at 9 or 10 a.m. He never showed up. Michael was wheeling some of the races at the track, and I believe he wound up losing, but I don't know how much. He seemed to like the job here a lot and got along with everything that I know of. I never heard him say anything about going anywhere else or home. He seemed happy here. And that's the conclusion of this witness statement.

SPEAKER_02 16:54

Well, um what I will say here is I don't know the question that led to him providing that statement or whether it was many questions um or whether it was compiled for him through, you know, that he had an interview and they pulled out, you know, the the best bits of the interview to put all this together as a statement for him. I'm guessing the person who who signed this didn't type this out, so it's um it's been typed for him. However, um the first thing I noticed when I read this was where the story starts, which is the night before Michael went missing. Um now that's unusual because um if you think about where the story should naturally start, it's when Michael didn't turn up for work. Um there could be a small lead-in. I was out with Michael the night before, was expecting to see him at 10 o'clock, but he didn't show up. But there's so much detail about the night before and this person spending that time with him the night before, um, and very little detail about um Michael being missing. Um interesting as well that the uh we have the story about the dog track, then we have something which I'll come on to talk about um a lot of bars and cars, um, and then we go back to the dog track um as if the dog track really is the focus of this story and not Michael being missing himself. Um then we have this detail that seems really unnecessary about the movement of vehicles, it's extremely detailed um about how they moved vehicles last night. Um, and I'm like, why? Why do we need all this detail? And there's no real explanation um for why these vehicles moved, uh, why they were in certain cars, why they both didn't just take their own car or so on. The detail in the car, uh in the cars and the car movement really um caught my eye um as well. Um there is a lot more detail about and a lot more times as well around the dog track than there are about the bars. Um so you know, we've got the time um that this person arrived at the dog track, the time Michael got there, the time the third person got there, and the time of when they left the dog track at 1.15. And then the bars are all there's no times associated with them. The nearest there is when Mr. G's closed, um, but there's no actual time put into that. And then times arrive again when it comes back to work. I had to be at work at 6:30 a.m. Michael was supposed to be 9 or 10. Um so the times come back there, but there's no times around these bars at all in there. The only other thing that um I want to pull out at this point um is that um there's a lot of um joint pronouns in we stayed at the dog track, we left the wild side, we went back to the dog track. Oh, sorry, there's another mention of dog track. So we go to the dog track three times in this story. Um um we went in Michael's car to Mr. G's um and we left, and Michael dropped me off. There's a lot of we um in that story, but at certain parts there are Michael and I went to Wild Side Bar. Um I parked my car at the van um and um uh sorry I've lost my place in it. We stayed at Mr. G's, so we've got uh I don't want to say a falling out, but we've got a split in the pronouns at that part there um where um it stops being we and then once we go into the next day, um it's all separate. Michael was supposed to be at work, um, he never showed up. Um, I believe he wound up lossing. So um it's there's some suggestion of separation there um to me.

SPEAKER_01 20:39

I'm really glad you brought up the piece about the pronouns. That is a so I have a follow-up question about that. So, how do you interpret that pronoun use and verb tense shifts in statements? Like what does it indicate to you?

SPEAKER_02 20:51

Um, it indicates um closeness or distance. Um, so the um I always use the example of, in fact, let's use the example of my father. Um, my father calls me a family nickname when he likes me, and he calls me that quite a lot now. But when I was a kid, I got called that sometimes. Other times it was my full name. Um, then you think about being at school when a teacher didn't like you, they would stop using your name and they call you you. Um and um the the whole pronoun thing just shows distance. If you talk about we, uh then you really are a couple with that person. You you were doing it in unison. We uh went back to the dog track. Uh, for example, that sounds like something that was done in unison. Whereas when it's Michael and me or Michael and I went to the Whiteside Bar, that's two people doing something that suggests a little bit less unison in there. Um so pronouns can be tremendously um indicative of how someone was feeling at the time. And there's something we use pronouns so instinctively, don't we? You never think about the pronouns that you use to refer to someone or or in a situation. That's one of those situations where. where your brain is picking the the word that it best feels represents the situation that it knows in its head.

SPEAKER_01 22:06

Yes, I I I used an example of that last night when there were a series of things that needed to be done and and Michael said, um, looks like you have a lot to do. I said, yeah, we're gonna be real busy.

SPEAKER_00 22:18

That's accurate.

SPEAKER_01 22:19

So th that thank you for that because your story really helped me internalize that.

SPEAKER_02 22:24

Yeah. We do we just what's interesting is when someone talks to us like that, we do tend to pick up sometimes on the um I I was talking about management earlier. And a good manager will be the person who says we've got a lot of work to do or look, don't worry, I know things are hard for us, but we will get through it. And that's just suggesting a team when your manager is like, don't worry, I know things are hard for you, but I trust you to get on with it. They're not going to get involved in in solving the problem that's there.

SPEAKER_01 22:55

Yeah, I think that resonates with you. So thank you for those two examples. When we're talking, I don't know how discreet you get into this, but when we're speaking about statements related to um an unsolved missing person, are there specific types of linguistic shifts that are prevalent maybe?

SPEAKER_02 23:15

Yeah I'm looking for storytelling as a sign of um guilt, I suppose, um which is um again when I say the the the uh quickest way to the truth or the truth is the fastest line for me to be um if there's a missing person and presuming that everyone wants to find the missing person, I would expect people to be factual, um, to be giving helpful information um and not telling stories about what happened and this to me uh and I'm not saying the person that said this is guilty but what I am saying is this uh first statement to me sounds a little bit like storytelling uh because we've got all sorts of details that don't seem that helpful um in finding the missing person there, but maybe more helpful to the person telling the story here. And so I'm looking for storytelling. I think that um something that law enforcement could do a lot a lot more good with is when there is a missing person is being able to look at the the the reporting people or the closest people to the person missing and being able to work out very quickly are they in storytelling mode? Are they hiding something?

SPEAKER_01 24:26

You know, should I be looking close to home with this or are they giving me factual helpful information and not looking like they're hiding anything at all in which case I we need to be focusing our investigations further away I do think that is sort of what has happened as we have learned more about this disappearance there seems to be a hyper focus on whose car was in the church parking lot and who drove and who didn't drive and I don't really know I mean it seems like from what you're talking about there may be some maybe subconscious things going on in the telling of the story but I don't know that evidentiary it's really relevant.

SPEAKER_02 25:06

No it's not really relevant. I think one of the things that um I do and um I listened to you speaking to Douglas McGregor um on a recent episode and he said something that resonated with me which is that uh what I can do is point to this is strange. So maybe we should be asking more questions in this area or you know this this doesn't they're hiding something there. Maybe there's something that could be found um round and about um you know that that there so um it's in the Nick statement but there's some strange phrasing about the bars they went to um so I would be wanting to dig into um that part of the story um to see if we could develop any more leads or lines of investigation um through looking uh at that part of the story are there other things that stood out in this witness statement that you'd like to address that we have not um spoken about um I think that um in this one was the uh I last saw Michael driving towards Congress on Cherry Road. Um that seems very final I last saw Michael driving towards Congress on Cherry Road do you know what I mean that I last um is very final um you know it's not he drove off down Cherry Road I went home went to work the next day and he didn't turn up it seems to have a very um uh finality to it even if it was the last time I saw him that night that would not have the same final feeling as I last saw Michael driving towards Congress on Cherry Road.

SPEAKER_01 26:35

Interesting all right let's take a look at this more recent account. Now this is um an email that was sent to someone by this same person close to the case and if it's okay with you I'll just start by reading it again like we did with the other one. Yeah it reads like this although time has slipped by the memory is always still hanging in the back of my mind I do remember a private investigator was hired from a firm in Palm Beach Mike's mom and dad would remember the details and the investigator would know all the guys who were at the dog track that evening there were five or six of us and the last race was after 11 p.m then the rest of the guys had to be at work at 6 a.m all went home Mike and I drove to the Baptist church at the corner of Cherry Road and Congress and left my van getting into his new Grand Prix driving to the first bar and had a few drinks with no problems. Then we drove a few blocks to the wild side which I had never been to before but I felt it was a bit rough around the edges. Although I don't recall any disturbances as it was around 2 a.m I had to be at work at 6 and Mike didn't have to be in until 10. He dropped me off at the church and I drove home and Mike was staying at the Howard Johnson's at Okeechobee and 95 about a mile away never to be seen again. We stopped at the motel later in the day only to find his belongings were still there along with his golf clubs. Days later his mom and dad came down and I took them everywhere we had journeyed the days earlier. One note Mike hit about five to six trifectas that evening and at that time you placed your bets at one window and collected your winnings at another to be honest with you Florida has a lot of CD characters I worked another year in West Palm Beach and kind of lost my love for the east coast of Florida. Certainly a tragic evening but never any remains of his car or himself is quite baffling. The private investigator sent me some pictures a few years after it happened but I didn't recognize any of the individuals feel free to call me I will say there are like maybe two periods in this so that's why it's a little difficult to read aloud because I'm sort of extrapolating where I think the pauses should be yeah I could do with some punctuation in that would really be helpful agreed.

SPEAKER_02 29:23

All right well let's dig into this one the way we did with the first one what stands out so the two things stand out that stood out before which is again the um all the mention of vehicles um and the the strange movements of them um and also where the story starts the story starts again at the dog track that evening um and uh that interests me again it's this is kind of free form this is obviously I don't think uh maybe it is as a result of a question but this is obviously much more free form um and the person's own words than maybe the the police statement was I'll come back to those things the next thing I noticed were the number of contradictions um there from the the first statement um which um are I will say interesting um the ones I noted were there were five or six of us at the dog track and there was only three people in the initial statement um the last race was after 11 p.m then the rest of the guys had to be at work all went home um in the first statement they were there until about 1.15am um it was around 2 a.m when they last left the second bar well um it seems to be in later than that in the first statement because they didn't leave the track until 1.15 and then did a lot of car moving and went to two bars so I think it would be later than 2 a.m I had to be at work at 6 it was 6.30 in the initial one I'm being slightly pedantic with some of these but um as we will see it may they may be relevant uh and a big one which is that in the initial statement I believe he wound up lossing uh losing but I don't know how much in this one he hit five or six trifectors and had to go and pick up his winnings at a window um so lots of contradictions and we've spoken about how things could change over time lots of those ones I would let slip you know I can't remember what time I had to be at work um two months ago never mind um you know decades um ago um however they all start to track up uh or stack up um just to give me an air of um suspicion around the veracity of some of the details for example how many people were there that night um has changed from three to five or six of us um and also did he win did he lose that seems like something um much larger that you would remember um I thought that in the first statement there was a sense that um losing money may have been something that made this guy you know go missing you know whether it was um a real stress for him um or whether you know he'd lost money to the wrong sort of people or whatever it was that he was getting at in that statement but all of a sudden it's the winning and maybe that is what happened to him that day that he won money and people noticed this and and robbed him for the money.

SPEAKER_01 32:13

Yeah we definitely see an inconsistent an inconsistency with that like um earlier I was talking about this focus on who was driving what car where was the car parked what time and then something that also comes up very frequently is was there a loss of money was there a win of money there was a check that was cashed did he have a lot of money could that explain what happened so those are kind of the two things that really people seem to really focus on.

SPEAKER_02 32:42

Yeah um I think there's uh you shared with me an initial report as well which I don't think we're going to look at because it's not the words of the person that that we're looking at it's a police report which mentions um a check doesn't it and and money um and money is a theme that comes through um and everything here as does the theme of cars and driving um so in the email we've got there Mike and I drove to the Baptist church uh left my van getting into his new Grand Prix new seems like a really strange word to put in there that the car was new does not seem to be in any way uh adding to the story um that's being told but it's noted that the car was a new Grand Prix uh driving to the first bar drove a few blocks to the wild side um he dropped me off um there and and I drove home um and then also I took him everywhere I took them sorry talking about uh the parents I took them everywhere where we had journeyed the days earlier um and now that uh got me very interested because we do have again these cars and the driving there but everywhere we had journeyed the days earlier and actually if you look at his description of the night before it is more like a description of a journey than a night of um fun games laughter drinks um and dog tracks um it does the description is much more like a journey yeah I mean just to even they go back to you mentioned earlier about statements that you can you know that change over time versus things that kind of stand out to be polar opposites.

SPEAKER_00 34:18

We talked about that with Jenny quite a bit in a previous episode and the winning thing is I I've really hung up on that because the difference between losing money losing $50 versus winning five trifectas you know or even three I mean just from a statistics perspective that would be nearly impossible. So we've gone from losing money to something that's nearly impossible and then these are very that's I don't think that's something that would have changed over time.

SPEAKER_02 34:43

Yeah um so you know he gets the order of the bars differently in the second um telling of this as well um he gets the time that he started work and these things can go wrong with time but for me the winning or losing is an event of the evening you know a a a big event of the evening um and it seems to me like to get that so wrong you know as you know starting work at 6 or 6 30 that's that's neither here nor there um but winning versus you know losing very very wrong yeah we have you know 20 21 year old you know men who are at the dog track and if somebody wins even three or four trifectos because we looked into what this means that's a lot of money right like I remember getting excited around I think I won $80 in Las Vegas.

SPEAKER_01 35:35

I remember I'm like woo eighty bucks um that's a lot everyone knew she won $80. That was very exciting for me.

SPEAKER_02 35:43

So one of the really interesting things we can do is look at repeated concepts when we talk to someone and learn a lot about what's important to them, what's what they value um when they talk and I'd just like to point out Alyssa that you were texting me one evening from a casino car park um then you told me that you went into the casino afterwards and now you're telling me more betting stories about winning in Vegas so I am got my eye on you.

SPEAKER_01 36:05

I do like a good casino that's true. That is accurate that's fair. There's something that stood out to me at the beginning of this email I just want to read it back and I mean it stood out to me this is not my area of expertise but I wonder what your thoughts are. And it's really the very beginning of this email and it says although time has slipped by the memory is always still hanging in the back of my mind. And that just feels like someone is setting up like not remembering. I feel like they're just right out of the gate saying hey I don't really remember that's how that reads to me.

SPEAKER_02 36:40

No that's a really good point. The first things that we mention tend to be the things that we're just desperate to mention because they're very important for us to mention. So time has slipped by um is um yeah indicative of my memory might not be so good um on this but then it does say memory is always still hanging in the back of my mind. I'm always suspicious of people who talk in absolutes um so um I don't wish to be unkind to um Michael who's disappeared um however uh it's a long a long time has passed you know uh and this was someone who was a friend of his not a a close relative or a parent or anything like that always hanging at the back of your mind I'm not sure um I believe that that feels like um a little bit persuasive to me um or is it true in which case why is it true again because we would expect time to maybe you think about this on specific dates or um if you pass a dog track or you know something like that that that might be this is the sort of thing um that um would remind you of this experience that you had so time has slipped by yeah really important that they want to get this out first the memory is always still hanging at the back of my mind and that word hanging I think um could have a lot of hidden meaning in it and I'm not going to guess what that is because it the the concept of of hanging or lingering or um anything like that doesn't appear anywhere else in the email. When I first saw hanging I was like oh I'm going to watch out for related concepts through it and there doesn't seem to be anywhere else but that word is is it's not a very expected word. You know we would say the memory lingers or is still there or I've never forgotten but hanging in the back of my mind is is a very unusual way of constructing um that thought yeah agreed I that one just really stood out to me.

SPEAKER_01 38:35

So are there things in this email that you wanted to discuss that you that we have not talked about yet?

SPEAKER_02 38:42

Yeah um so that um middle uh sorry second paragraph there um where we get more information about the bars than the dogs uh five or six of us and the last race was after 11 pm that's all we get about the dogs in this telling the rest of the guys had to be at work by six so all went home so um again a question but when everyone went home witnesses stopped um and then we get a lot more detail Mike and I drove to the Baptist church at the corner of Cherry Road in Congress and left my van getting into his new Grand Prix driving to the first bar had a few drinks with no problems and then we drove a few blocks to Wildside which I had never been to before but I felt it was a bit rough around the edges although I don't recall any disturbances. So we've got a real full picture again of the movements of cars and vans even though some added detail that it was a new Grand Prix that um some of the driving was done in the names of the bars or the name of one of the bars when they went what the bars were like but the dog track kind of disappeared in terms of any detail there. The other thing is the bars um so we have we had uh we went to the first bar driving to the first bar we had a few drinks with no problems why they need to tell us there were no problems were problems expected um or is this to say yeah no one would have noticed us I I went for a coffee in Starbucks this morning I didn't tell you I wouldn't tell you I went for a coffee in Starbucks this morning with no problems unless I had had problems there in the past I've been banned from Starbucks or something. So adding with no problems was really interesting and again talking about the wild side I'd never been to before but I felt it was a bit rough around the edges although I don't recall any disturbances. So both bars have um something attached to them which is saying there were no issues at these bars um and I'm very interested in why that was important for the uh person to put in the email when they wrote it.

SPEAKER_01 40:49

Yeah there is this to me it feels sort of like a setup like if I'm telling a story that's leading towards something that significant that did happen then also oh hey at first there were no problems this but then right like he's got this with no problems rough around the edges and then near the end there's the to be honest with you Florida has a lot of CD characters. So that's another like what what are we trying? It's it's almost like it's trying to hint towards something.

SPEAKER_02 41:17

Yeah but badly because it's to be honest with you Florida has a lot of CD characters present tense um not there were a lot of CD people at the time um also this is Florida in general not the dog track just Florida in general a huge big place has a lot of CD characters um so again what he wants us to get from this is that potentially there were some bad people at the dog track who noticed him winning a lot and thought he'd be easy for money but the when you dig into the words it doesn't actually say that it's it's a hint it's an illusion um and it's very easy um just to go oh what he thinks is you know someone saw him at the dog track winning lots of money and decided to off him whereas if you read what he says he doesn't say that at all. He alludes to it um there uh the other thing um is the very end of that paragraph the last sentence um which is certainly a tragic evening well how do you know it was a tragic evening because this is a missing person so while that might be sad um uh it's not necessarily a tragedy and it's a missing person who in your intro you said we don't know when this person went missing was it the evening or was it the next day um but he recalled he refers to it as a tragic evening which is um I'd be wanting to know why he referred to it that way but never any remains of his car or himself is quite baffling. He mentions the car first and he mentions remains as well it's that is so compared to everything else so dark a tragic evening remains the car coming before the person um you know if you had to ask me to take a flyer on this I would say if you find the car you'd find the person um uh and the person would be inside the car that would be my guess from those words how the person who wrote this email would know this um you know I I is not there in the words but again uh another focus on cars vehicles um as well because the car comes before the person uh if a person's gone missing their car is secondary very very distant secondary um but no the car is mentioned and then himself first and that tragic evening um is well you know nothing nothing in his uh story leading up to that point suggests anything about it being a tragedy um because Um as I said, the story should start when Michael was noticed missing, but it doesn't. It's the evening that was tragic.

SPEAKER_00 44:09

Yeah, what's interesting too, just by that statement, it makes me feel good from the perspective of all the work that's been going from the dive groups, that it does support their theory that he's in the car and in the water.

SPEAKER_02 44:22

Yes. Yes. And potentially as well, with that focus at the end there on Florida. Florida has a lot of CD characters. West Palm Beach lost my love for the East Coast of Florida. Then that that could be a clue as to a location as well.

SPEAKER_01 44:40

Something to think about for sure. So what kinds of corroborating evidence like a map or a time log? We have these handwritten calendars that were kept by the family. Is there anything else that um complements linguistic analysis in maybe reconstructing the truth or determining the lack of truth?

SPEAKER_02 45:05

There can be, especially when you're talking about timelines, is um you can spot people jumping around timelines when they uh when they talk. Um for example, it happens in both of these statements here, um, which is that um the story starts at the dog track, uh, then there is the bars, then there is the next day, and then we go back to the dog track. Um so I I'm going, number one, the dog track is really significant for some reason here. Uh what or what happened at the dog track may be very significant for some reason here. Um, but we notice things like that, we can notice jumps in time as well, um, and some and also statements out of time. Um, I'm working on something at the moment um where um we've got a woman talking about um some uh someone who was um uh threatening her, harassing her. Um and it's really clear from her words that she's conflated, it's not conflate, not conflating and talking about saying that these three events all happened on the same day, but she's taken time off of some of the events to make it all sound like it happened in a very compressed period of time, even though these things could have happened over a period of months. Um, because some of the things she's talking about, she doesn't attach any time to them. She doesn't um join them to the other things or talk about them in any sort of logical sequence.

SPEAKER_01 46:32

I think it's really interesting that you brought up this expansion or compression of time. When we're talking about this missing person's case, like all that appears to be known from the dog track moving forward is really one person's account. And, you know, because we don't have cell phone data from 1979 and cameras, like who's to say the accuracy of that timeline to the actual truth versus maybe some adaptations to the timeline and the events?

SPEAKER_02 47:04

Yeah. Um if I go back to the original statement when we're talking about timelines. Um again, we've got this concept here um of um I went to the dog track about 7.15 and got a table in the clubhouse. Michael got there about 7.35, and the other person got there about 8 p.m. That's three lines worth of detail in that statement about the times that people arrived. We stayed at the dog track until about 1.15 a.m. There's no content as to anything in between. Um, you know, there's nothing, and it's the exact same in the other one. We don't know um were they, you know, the amount that was drunk. Um was there some uh good winning, some bad losing? These things come at the very end, um, but there's a lot of detail at that very start of the dog track, and then in everything, no detail until they left. Um, and so I'd be interested in what did happen there at the dog track. The dog track seems to be the fulcrum uh the centerpiece um there. Um, and then we do have lots of detail, like you say, that can't be corroborated around this car movements and the bars that they visited um and so on, which um the the only other witness to them is not around um to to corroborate any of that. And that is very interesting to me.

SPEAKER_01 48:28

Yeah. So, based on what we have been able to provide, what are your thoughts about new interviews or re-interviews, maybe that would you would suggest to clarify inconsistencies in the case?

SPEAKER_02 48:40

Well, if I had a magic wand and could make anything happen, I would want to talk to this person um and dig into those points where things are uh compressed in time. So, what did happen at the dog track? What what went on? Who did what? Or talk me through it backwards or or whatever to get some details and then start asking questions about why did you go in separate cars? Why did you make those decisions? Um, did uh did Michael win or did Michael lose at the dog track? Um, which bar did you go to? Could you describe the bar for me, what it was like, what did you drink when you were there, and just try and see um how those stack up as answers? Um, you know, I guess um from a maybe more realistic point of view, um, then the investigator um seems to have the names of the five or six of us that were in the dog track. Can they shine any light um on it? Um, or you know, was there a point where um actually they went home um slightly earlier? Because actually, just let me let me do a little bit of live um just now um while I just think about this. Right. So um what we've got is um in the first one um we've got I went to the dog track 7.15, Michael 7.35, the other person eight. Then it's we stayed at the dog track until about 1.15. Then Michael and I went to the wild side. It doesn't say all of us stayed there. So did did some people dive out early uh on the night that would be very natural actually for our night out, wouldn't it? That people drop off at different times. It's the same in the second statement: five or six of us, and the last race was after 11. Um, then and it doesn't say um that they all left after 11, it's just them because the rest of the guys had to be at work at 6 a.m., all went home, um, and Mike and I drove to Baptist Church. So there is there a a large there is a large bit of time there because the way it's been told, at 11 pm, everyone went home. Then we've got these two bars that they're in until 2 p.m. So it's a period of three hours where there's a lot of car moving, a lot of sitting in bars where nothing happened. Um, so um can the people at the dog track uh who were there, can they give any information? Uh what what time did everyone actually leave? What you know, what time did they they leave at? Um and also I think it'd be a very long shot, but I'm not an experienced investigator. Was there anyone at the bars um who had any information as as to what happened?

SPEAKER_01 51:12

We do have um some initially when the folks who worked at the golf course, these people who were out that night were reached out to um for Jenny Decker's podcast, several of them did respond. And we have a lot of um their emails that sort of helped to build the timeline. We do know that there was apparently a plan as far as who was meeting where and where they were going after the dog track, and there was a apparent um divergence from the plan where they did not, this person who was last to see Michael did not do what the original plan was, which we found interesting as well. So we had some of that.

SPEAKER_00 51:51

Because we're talking a time period that if you change the plan, there's no cell phones, there's no pagers. You can't exactly update everyone else. And so it isolated the two of them because they shifted their plans.

SPEAKER_01 52:00

Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. And I I do believe the police did well, actually, I know they went to the two bars and I they showed their pictures. And from what I recall seeing, I would need to dig back just to make sure it's perfect. But I recall them not coming back with any information about anybody who worked um seeing them that evening. Then I also know that they did talk to like those really early morning people, like the milk delivery people, because this could potentially be happening at like five in the morning, right? Depending on which timeline you're reading. So they, the newspaper guys, the milkman, did they see anything? Because it's a really small period of like driving from the church parking lot to the hotel, and nobody really saw anything that stood out to them as far as like carjacking was a theory at one point, and and you know, nobody ever said that they saw anything like that.

SPEAKER_02 52:50

Yeah, I think the other thing is um take the time um what you spoke about about it being a small time, um, actually, in terms of in the the the email, we have 11 p.m. until 6 a.m. Um when um this person turned up at work. That's a period of seven hours where a lot could have happened um in that time, I guess. So um, because you know the the bar the in the first one um when they said um stayed on until the lights went on, I mean that might just be true of every single bar, so it's not much of a flyer, but there is a bit of information on the bar, but it could be information gleaned on another visit. Um, but there's you know very little about the bars, um, I including I don't recall any disturbances. Now that is I don't recall is it's perfect because um it's one of how can we prove what people recall? So if it was if there was a disturbance in the bar that night, um oh I didn't say there wasn't, I just said I don't recall any disturbances. So what I've said is is truthful. I just I don't recall them. Proving what someone recalls or what they don't recall um is is really, really tough to do.

SPEAKER_01 54:03

Anything else that stood out in either of these statements or in comparison to these statements that you wanted to bring up that we did not discuss?

SPEAKER_02 54:10

Uh yeah, there was one more thing on the discussion of um, and again, it's the the fact that the moment that he was discovered missing just doesn't seem to really be in there. Um we stopped at the motel later in the day. Now I don't know who we is, it's obviously the person plus at least one other person, only to find all his belongings were still there. Um interesting. Why not just all his belongings were there? Do you know that at that time I'm sure it would be entirely expected that all his belongings would be there because you would be thinking, I don't know, hangover? Um um uh not liking work, just didn't want to turn up for this job, um, embarrassed by the losses, um, met a girl and decided to go off and do something better than working. Um the belongings still being there shouldn't be exceptional. Um if someone hadn't shown up for three or four days and you thought they'd run town um and they disappeared and you turned up at their uh place and their belongings were bare, you'd say their belongings were still there. But still there just feels a little bit um unexpected there. Um and the other one was um at the very end, and I'm gonna have to say that street name that I find really hard to say, um, he dropped me off at the church. I drove home, and Mike was staying at Howard Johnson's uh Okechub Okeechobee and 95, about a mile away, never to be seen again. He doesn't actually say when he last saw him there. I drove home, so I would presume that there's either Mike drove off and I never saw him again, which is kind of what's in that first statement. This one is I drove home. So actually, um, this is I drove home, so he drove home. Mike was staying at Howard Johnson's um and never to be seen again. But he doesn't say when when he last saw him in that telling of it. He just says he was never to be seen again.

SPEAKER_01 56:17

Fascinating. I this has been so interesting. We were really, really looking forward to this. I really appreciate you taking all the time um that you took to look into these statements, and I'm sure other people find this very interesting as well. So remind our listeners where they can find you.

SPEAKER_02 56:34

The easiest thing to do is Google Never a Truer Word, uh, and you will find all my channels um there, um, including like my YouTube channel where I do regular breakdowns of words of people in the news or sometimes a classic case um like this as well. If you just Google Never a Truer Word, you will find me.

SPEAKER_00 56:54

Excellent. Well, this has been a fantastic interview. I really enjoyed it. I think our listeners will really enjoy it. And so um thank you for joining us. Thank you for having me.

SPEAKER_01 57:05

Tonight we looked at the disappearance of Michael John Olson through a different lens, one that focuses not just on evidence, but on language itself. As Jack Fox reminded us, sometimes the smallest details, a phrase, a pause, a choice of words, can reveal what's been hidden for decades. They can reopen conversations, challenge assumptions, and help us see the past more clearly. For Michael's family, the questions have never gone away. And for those who remember him, the search for understanding continues. If you have any information related to the disappearance of Michael John Olson, we encourage you to reach out to the West Palm Beach Police Department. You've been listening to Tragedy, a true crime podcast. Our purpose is to honor victims by sharing their stories through the voices of friends, family, and those whose lives were forever changed. If today's episode resonated with you, we encourage you to subscribe, leave a review, and share the podcast so these important stories continue to be heard. Together, we can preserve their memories and ensure their voices are never forgotten. If you have ideas for cases we should cover or questions about what you heard, you can connect with us through our Facebook group, Tragedy a True Crime Podcast, on X at Tragedy Podcast, by email at TragedyAtrue Crime Podcast at gmail.com, or by visiting our website www.tragedy a true crime podcast.com. Thank you for listening, and we hope you'll join us next time.