"Those Kids Are Deceased" – Janie's Shocking Statement Analyzed (Pronouns & Deception)

[00:00:03]In the world of statement analysis, pronouns are more than just grammar.

[00:00:07]They're windows into a person's mind.

[00:00:10]Today, we're diving deep into Janie's interview regarding the disappearance of Jack and Lily.

[00:00:16]We're not just listening to what she says, we're examining how she says it.

[00:00:20]Specifically, her pronoun usage.

[00:00:24]This linguistic fingerprint can reveal ownership, distance, deflection, and hidden knowledge.

[00:00:31]Let's break it down.

[00:00:36]And just to mention, the clip that we're watching is a 15-minute segment we're focused on from one of Mike's latest live streams where him and Anita are reviewing this specific statement, the climax to this particular video, from Janie's call-in uh over a month ago now to their particular live stream.

[00:01:07]First, we're going to notice how Janie draws clear boundaries with her pronouns.

[00:01:12]When talking about her own property or animals, she uses strong possessives.

[00:01:18]My freaking animals.

[00:01:20]He settled here. Talking about Tucker.

[00:01:23]She takes ownership of what belongs to her world.

[00:01:26]But when the conversation shifts to Jack and Lily, the missing children, the language changes.

[00:01:34]She refers to them distantly as those kids instead of using their names consistently or more personal terms.

[00:01:42]This emotional distancing is common when a speaker is psychologically separating themselves from sensitive events.

[00:01:51]On the timeline of the family dog, which is not why we're here, it's just the beginning of the clip. Janie is direct, but when Mike presses her on responsibility for finding the children, her pronouns shift outward.

[00:02:06]You'll listen.

[00:02:08]She says, "You guys want to find out what happened? You ask her. I don't have to ask her nothing. I'm just waiting for her."

[00:02:18]The "You guys are going to live karma," she says.

[00:02:24]"When those kids are found, you guys are going to be all wrong."

[00:02:29]So, here, they have a use of second person, "you guys," to deflect responsibility. Janie positions herself as passive. "I'm just waiting."

[00:02:41]While pushing the burden onto others.

[00:02:44]This pattern of externalizing is a classic way to avoid personal ownership of the investigation.

[00:02:53]Now, after that, we reach one of the most revealing moments.

[00:03:01]Janie Mackenzie states, "Those kids were alive Friday morning when they left here. After that, I don't know where they went or what happened to them. So, those kids are deceased."

[00:03:17]She starts with a personal "I don't know," claiming ignorance.

[00:03:22]But then she makes a decisive or a definitive third-person assertion about their status. Immediately afterwards comes the backtracking.

[00:03:34]She says, "Or if if those kids are deceased, if those kids are alive, they're alive.

[00:03:40]Those kids are alive, they're alive."

[00:03:45]The distancing pronouns, those kids, they, them, combined with the rapid qualification suggests this topic is highly sensitive.

[00:03:56]In statement analysis, when someone leaks strong factual claim and then distances themselves with third-person language and if hedges, it often indicates experiential knowledge they're trying to walk back.

[00:04:10]Now, turning to Maleia and the 911 call, Janey's pronouns again tell a story.

[00:04:18]She asserts with conviction.

[00:04:21]She says, "She knew what was going on."

[00:04:25]Maleia knows what is going on, but when explaining how she knows, the language becomes vague and external.

[00:04:32]"You guys seen it, too. People seen what Maleia acted like."

[00:04:37]Acted like?

[00:04:41]She does use first person here. "I'm sorry, Maleia. I'm speaking out."

[00:04:47]Janey stated.

[00:04:49]"I've seen what I've seen, but these are tied to an apology and observation rather than full disclosure.

[00:04:57]Notice how vague placeholder, "Once she got the police involved, she couldn't get out of it."

[00:05:05]That it stands for stands for something.

[00:05:11]Janey doesn't want to name it directly.

[00:05:14]The situation, the consequences, or more.

[00:05:20]This mix is telling.

[00:05:23]Reliable knowledge appears in short direct statements, but it's surrounded by distancing pronouns and avoidance of deeper first-person commitment such as I know because So, putting it all together, Janey's pronoun usage in the following clip shows clear patterns. Strong ownership of her own world, but distance and deflection when discussing Jack and Lily, Maleah's knowledge, and the 911 decision. She minimizes personal I statements around the most critical facts, leans heavily on you guys this to shift responsibility and uses third person in vague it to create psychological space from uncomfortable truths.

[00:06:08]In statement analysis, these aren't random choices.

[00:06:11]They cluster around areas of potential withheld information or hidden knowledge.

[00:06:18]The leaks such as uh the leaks such as the direct those kids are deceased and Maleah knows what's going on stand out precisely because they break the pattern of distancing.

[00:06:31]Language doesn't lie.

[00:06:34]Well, it doesn't it it lie as easily as people do.

[00:06:37]Janey's pronouns paint a picture of someone navigating sensitive territory with caution.

[00:06:42]Whether this points to deception, withheld details, or something else will ultimately be for investigators to determine with all of the evidence.

[00:06:51]But in the court of court of statement analysis, her word choices raises important questions that deserve clear direct answers.

[00:06:59]Let's listen.

[00:07:07]>> Come on.

[00:07:08]Uh and this was a difficult interview for me, guys, because I had to, you know, uh Yeah, it it was um it was a challenge. Next time I'll be more, you know, prepared for something like that. But um Let's hear it.

[00:07:27]When was Justice dog put down? What Christmas was it? Christmas of '25 or '20 >> last year, Mike.

[00:07:35]>> In 2025, so the dog was alive. Okay, the dog was alive when Jack and Lily disappeared. Yeah.

[00:07:42]>> I have a question. The dog has >> Because before she mentioned the dog was put down Christmas and I wasn't We were not sure, right? If she mentioned the Christmas before Jack and Lily disappeared or the Christmas of the same year later on.

[00:07:57]>> But here it's 7 8 years 7 or 8 years.

[00:08:00]>> Yeah, because you said the dog was put down and it sounded like the dog hadn't been alive when Jack and Lily disappeared and that was one of your arguments. I want to clarify that the dog was alive in fact when at the time Jack and Lily disappeared.

[00:08:21]May I interrupt?

[00:08:21]>> Doggy, stop.

[00:08:23]Now you got my dog off. Doggy.

[00:08:26]>> Doggy.

[00:08:29]>> That's all.

[00:08:31]You got it all backwards. Everybody's got their freaking animals all freaking Okay.

[00:08:37]All right, he's he's settled in there.

[00:08:41]Okay, go ahead.

[00:08:43]>> What questions? If I have a chance to talk to Malia, what questions should I ask her?

[00:08:49]>> Whatever you want to ask her.

[00:08:50]>> What >> I have no say in what you have to ask her.

[00:08:53]>> Okay.

[00:08:53]>> ask her whatever you want. You guys want to find out what happened? You ask her.

[00:08:57]I don't have to ask her nothing. I'm just waiting for >> You guys want to find out.

[00:09:04]She does not.

[00:09:07]And it sounds almost like blaming people for wanting to find out.

[00:09:13]Do you Are you saying that we shouldn't try to find out?

[00:09:19]Shouldn't everybody want to find out?

[00:09:22]Why are you the exception to that?

[00:09:26]>> Jack and Lily can be found and then you guys what?

[00:09:29]Do you say karma? I'm I'm having karma?

[00:09:32]No, honey. You guys are going to live karma because when those kids are found you guys are going to >> So, Ed >> be all wrong.

[00:09:42]>> At best, you were just holding information, Janie.

[00:09:45]And you know what? That's what I was referring to.

[00:09:49]Because, you know, I again, I'm not thinking about Belinda or anybody else.

[00:09:53]The only two people I'm thinking about are Jack and Lily.

[00:09:56]And what they gone through for 2 years.

[00:09:58]And yeah, I expressed that the hell that the kids experienced for 2 years.

[00:10:04]They could have been helped, but you also didn't help them, Janie. You could have You know that this is coming back to you.

[00:10:13]This is comment was.

[00:10:16]Because you mentioned karma before, and then I said, "Yeah, maybe this is karma for ignoring the needs of two children that have been suffering. Even if you don't like them." I know you didn't want them on your property, but still they're two children.

[00:10:36]>> My opinion, she's using this as a linguistic shield right here. You combine it with all of the other pronoun shifts.

[00:10:47]>> heart is telling me that my kid did not have nothing to do with this.

[00:10:56]>> Well, >> Because those kids were alive. Those kids were alive Friday morning when they left here. After that, I don't know where they went or what happened to them. So, those kids are deceased.

[00:11:09]>> So, this is when she says, "Those kids are deceased."

[00:11:15]And this is very important to me.

[00:11:20]Because I believe at this moment she's a little bit more relaxed.

[00:11:26]And this is when experiential memory creeps in to for language.

[00:11:32]And what is really interesting always is how people talk their way out of it when they >> Sorry to cut Mike off there.

[00:11:45]You know, if you stop and listen to that again, she establishes the children were alive when they left the property, which aligns with other information.

[00:11:57]Then she claims ignorance. I don't know where they went or what happened to them.

[00:12:01]But immediately after that, she delivers a definitive statement in the present tense.

[00:12:06]So, those kids are deceased.

[00:12:10]Now, this is what statement analysts call a leak.

[00:12:14]She's just asserted knowledge of their current status.

[00:12:18]They are deceased.

[00:12:20]Well, simultaneously claiming she doesn't know what happened to them.

[00:12:27]What happens next is even more revealing, friends. She immediately tries to walk it back.

[00:12:32]She says something to the effect of or if there are if if those kids are deceased, then later adds those kids are alive and if those kids are alive, they're alive.

[00:12:44]Such a bizarre statement.

[00:12:46]Dismissing dismissive potentially. It's an unfinished statement, but anyway.

[00:12:53]The backtracking here is classic. When someone makes a strong direct statement about highly sensitive facts or a fact here, and then floods the follow-up with qualifiers, repetitions of it and if, and contradictory alternatives, it often indicates that the original statement came from actual knowledge.

[00:13:15]>> [snorts] >> The corrections themselves become more sensitive than the original claim.

[00:13:20]Mike points this out perfectly.

[00:13:22]Uh this is where experiential memory creeps in, he says. She spoke from knowledge, realized it, revealed too much, and tried to soften it.

[00:13:32]The more she tries to correct it, the more the original statement stands out.

[00:13:41]So, let's break down the pronoun usage here, too. She uses I don't know to claim ignorance, but then switches to third-person distancing with those kids and they. She never says something like Jack and Lily are deceased. With personal connection, the language stays detached.

[00:13:58]This pattern of claiming ignorance while leaking knowledge is one of the strongest indicators in this entire little clip, friends.

[00:14:11]>> And I >> There's the face.

[00:14:14]There's the face.

[00:14:18]>> They said something that they think they shouldn't have been saying. Now, listen very carefully. She starts with saying, "So, those kids are deceased." S E O >> Or if there are if those kids are deceased >> Or if their kids deceased by doing this, by trying to correct it, she's making this statement even more sensitive.

[00:14:46]>> It wasn't by anybody on this property.

[00:14:50]>> Wasn't >> I thought that you know for sure they're not deceased.

[00:14:56]>> Those kids are alive.

[00:14:57]>> Could it be that they're alive?

[00:14:59]>> Could it be If those kids are alive, they're alive. Yeah, I mean, doesn't take a genius to you know, I mean, yeah, if you know, if if uh Uh I can't think of anything right now.

[00:15:15]If your hair is is blonde, your hair's blonde, yeah.

[00:15:22]Anyways, this is a crucial statement, people.

[00:15:28]She said there are three things, three statements here. The first one is those kids are deceased. The second one or or or or if if if they are deceased, where she's highlighting the significance of her first statement. And then the third one is they're alive, they're alive.

[00:15:44]She's trying to throw this in, of course, because, you know, she doesn't want us to know that she knows that Zachary and Lily are no longer alive.

[00:16:00]>> It's so funny, too, because you have to think doing that for for the sole reason of it would open her up to all kinds of questions that are going to potentially leak more information.

[00:16:11]She doesn't want that.

[00:16:14]She does everything within her power to try in the moment to try to deflect and dodge off, and it stands out like a sore thumb. Let me know what you guys think in the comment section below, y'all.

[00:16:29]>> that an accident took place that you don't know about.

[00:16:32]>> No. Do you think Do you think that if anything happened here, we would not call 911?

[00:16:40]>> You said it yourself that the problem is that Maleia called 911, that it was a mistake to call 911.

[00:16:51]So, again, these contradictions.

[00:16:54]>> Then, Mike, she said um the mistake Maleia made was calling 911 when she knew what was going on.

[00:17:03]>> Yeah.

[00:17:04]How do you know that Maleia knows what's going on, Janie? How do you know that she knows?

[00:17:12]>> Such a great question.

[00:17:15]We all know the answer to that.

[00:17:18]So, the analysis continues, of course, into this conversation about Malia in the 911 call.

[00:17:24]Janey stating that the 911 call was a mistake because Malia knew what was going on. She repeats variations of Malia knows what's going on.

[00:17:36]When Mike asks the crucial follow-up, how do you know that Malia knows what's going on?

[00:17:41]Well, Janey doesn't answer because I think Mike that's Mike's talking about the conversation as opposed to the actual conversation. But, Janey never does give a clear first-person explanation.

[00:17:54]She says things like because you said it or generalizes with you can tell or and people seen what Malia acted like in the call.

[00:18:05]This is important. A short direct statement like Malia knows what's going on can be a lot lot can be reliable when it appears without heavy qualifications.

[00:18:16]But, the refusal to explain how she knows and the avoidance of I know that Malia knows because keeps the source hidden.

[00:18:26]Later, Janey says, "I'm sorry, Malia.

[00:18:28]I'm speaking out." This is one of the more personal first-person moments we see here. She feels the need to apologize for revealing information that could get Malia's family in trouble.

[00:18:41]Now, Janey, why would you apologize if you're simply sharing observations?

[00:18:45]It's just She recognizes the weight of what she's implying.

[00:18:53]She also call She'll also She's about to describe the 911 call in this way. Once Well, let's just press play. Hold on. Let me press play and we'll continue on. I don't want to get too far ahead.

[00:19:14]>> Because you said it this is the reliable state. Was there actually that part of a statement was actually reliable that Malia knows what's going on.

[00:19:23]So make no mistake people by despite all of the deception in Jennis language there are statements here and there that are reliable 100% and then she said that Malia knows what's going on.

[00:19:38]It is reliable but she doesn't say I know that Malia knows.

[00:19:44]You see that would be less reliable actually.

[00:19:47]When somebody says I know I didn't kill the kids. I know uh-uh that's not how it works.

[00:19:53]We look for the short and precise statements to recognize the conviction.

[00:20:00]Malia knows what is going on.

[00:20:04]She doesn't say I think Malia knows what's going on or Malia must know what's No. How Janny do you know that Malia knows what's going on? How do you know that?

[00:20:16]You see even reliable statements at the right point time can work against you.

[00:20:24]That conviction breaking a pattern of deception right now or before when she said that when the surrounding language was highly sensitive and all of the sudden she says Malia knew what what knows what's going on or knew what's going on.

[00:20:46]We cannot get past it. That's what statement analysis is all about people.

[00:20:52]You can have two hours worth the interviews but then suddenly you have these 20 seconds and whoop there it is.

[00:21:04]Come on Mike.

[00:21:08]You said then of course her explanation is because of how she acts, because of how cold she Well, I'm sorry. Yes, this is a sensitivity. Of course, how Malia acts.

[00:21:20]But it doesn't indicate or it indi- it does not is not evidence.

[00:21:29]There is The dots have to connect, people.

[00:21:33]A lot of times people talk How do you say they they dance around the bush, you know, they beat around the bush and they they talk about all too much circumstantial stuff. Well, you see how she acts. Well, this Well, this They try too hard to convince.

[00:21:49]But the dots need to direct connect correctly.

[00:21:52]Otherwise we're not going to um put this in our analysis.

[00:22:00]We note anything that's out of pattern, anything out of the norm, absolutely. But we don't we don't ever go into Well, look how she acts. Well, Okay, let's look Let's have another interview with her. Let's listen closely. Let's ask a couple more questions.

[00:22:20]But we don't assume immediately that we know the exact reason. The reason had has to reveal itself.

[00:22:29]>> [clears throat] >> So, let's listen to her explanation.

[00:22:32]I said Malia, it was a problem she called my 911 TV. It was a bad decision that morning.

[00:22:38]>> Yes, because she knew what was going on, Mike.

[00:22:42]She knew what happened.

[00:22:44]You can >> But you don't want to tell us how you know, Jenny?

[00:22:47]>> So, come on, people. You can >> You could tell.

[00:22:51]You see, here she's saying, "You."

[00:22:54]She keeps it general.

[00:22:57]She's trying to put it on me.

[00:23:00]That you can tell. I want her to have linguistic commitment and say, "I can tell."

[00:23:08]She doesn't do that.

[00:23:10]Because when she uses the pronoun I, there's a danger she's going to have to get into how exactly she knows. It's not easy being deceptive, people.

[00:23:22]And just like Alvin said, "I wasn't born to lie."

[00:23:26]I believe that family, Janey and her brothers, were uh punished heavily for lying when And they didn't grow up lying. I believe telling the truth was very important in the household. That's why Alvin, who is lying now, told us, "This is not really who I am."

[00:23:52]>> So, Mike referencing background information here that Janey and her brothers grew up in a household where lying was heavily punished.

[00:24:00]Alvin reportedly said something like, "This is not really who I am." Like he said, "This context matters because people from strict truth-telling environments sometimes find deception cognitively harder."

[00:24:13]When they do lie or withhold, the language often shows more leaks and inconsistencies rather than smooth, practiced deception.

[00:24:21]That appears consistent with what we're seeing here.

[00:24:26]Now, towards the end of the segment, there's background noise from an animal.

[00:24:32]Janey says something like, "Did she run away because she knows she's the one who doesn't want to hear the truth?"

[00:24:40]Mike immediately calls it out as potential self-implication.

[00:24:43]Even in a lighter moment, the language can reveal underlying awareness.

[00:24:57]>> That is their way of saying, not a bad person. I'm doing something really bad now, but please don't judge me by that.

[00:25:05]>> And child, by the way, your interview >> Now she says, "Come on, people." So now she puts it on the audience.

[00:25:12]And then you, again, on me.

[00:25:14]Or keep it general.

[00:25:17]>> She had no remorse. She had no remorse.

[00:25:19]I'm >> She had no remorse.

[00:25:22]Listen to that.

[00:25:25]What should be remorseful of, Janie?

[00:25:30]These are the important details you're leaving out right now.

[00:25:33]What should Maliah be remorseful of?

[00:25:42]>> Sorry, Maliah. I'm speaking out.

[00:25:46]>> She's saying, "I'm sorry, Maliah."

[00:25:48]>> heard this before.

[00:25:50]>> It [clears throat] was there in our interview.

[00:25:53]>> [laughter] >> And a lot of people have overlooked it, and I have as well.

[00:26:05]Because I was thinking about what question to ask next, where this is going.

[00:26:09]You know, I I prefer analyzing to interviewing, but uh "I'm sorry, Maliah. I'm speaking out."

[00:26:17]She's saying, "I'm sorry."

[00:26:19]Knowing that Maliah has information that can get her son or her sons in big trouble.

[00:26:31]So she does feel a need. Why do you feel a need to say, "I'm sorry, Maliah"?

[00:26:36]If you have information, why wouldn't you give it?

[00:26:41]What are you hiding? If you have information about Maliah, what keeps you from saying, "Hey, she knew what happened, and here's how I know.

[00:26:54]I'm speaking out.

[00:26:58]Let's hear this.

[00:27:00]>> When I see what I see, you guys see it too. See, that's a different thing there, Anita.

[00:27:05]People seen what Malia acted like on her interview.

[00:27:11]They didn't have to hear it from anybody else. They seen it with their own eyes.

[00:27:17]>> So, Carl Yeah, but Anita knows a lot more about than than just this interview, Kaylee.

[00:27:23]Anita was there. Anita witnessed a lot more than what we all witnessed when it comes to the interview.

[00:27:31]Only one was a mistake because um >> Because they placed a ball when she got the place a ball, she couldn't get out of it. It was >> Yeah.

[00:27:44]She couldn't get out of it.

[00:27:47]Out of what?

[00:27:49]Out of what?

[00:27:55]And she knows what the it stands for.

[00:27:57]What is the place it's a place holder for.

[00:28:00]>> It was already start.

[00:28:09]>> Oh, what was that?

[00:28:11]I think that my uh window was open or my balcony was open. There was a storm.

[00:28:18]>> Something did you do there, right? You must have gave the the the old hound dog there a treat or something. She's awful quiet.

[00:28:28]>> No, we have to we have used to I mean, you know, this is um How can I say this?

[00:28:37]I mean, I >> Did she run away?

[00:28:39]Did she run away? Did Did she run away because she didn't know she was a liar and she doesn't want to hurt you? Do you know what I'm saying?

[00:28:45]>> I'm listening to you implicate yourself.

[00:28:48]I'm listening you tell a crime. The investigators are listening. I am not a dog. Please don't refer to me to that.

[00:28:54]Keep talking, Janie.

[00:29:00]>> And that's where our segment ends for this video.

[00:29:05]So, what does the full picture show us?

[00:29:09]Janie's language contains several reliable embedded statements, most notably that Malea knew what was going on and the initial assertion that the children are deceased. These stand out precisely because they appear amid a broader pattern of distancing, deflection, and backtracking.

[00:29:28]The heavy used of second person you guys, the third person references to those kids, the vague it, and the rapid correction after the deceased statement all points to areas of high sensitivity.

[00:29:43]Janie claims ignorance about what happened after the children left, yet her language leaks knowledge of their fate.

[00:29:50]She points to Malea's knowledge, but avoids explaining her own source.

[00:29:55]In statement analysis, we don't declare guilt from language alone.

[00:30:00]What we do is identify the topics that require much deeper targeted questioning.

[00:30:05]The backtracking on the children's status, the source of knowledge about Malea, and the meaning of "couldn't get out of it" are all areas that deserve follow-up interviews with very specific open-ended questions.

[00:30:22]This interview is a textbook example of how even careful speakers can reveal more than they intend when the pressure is on.

[00:30:30]The combination of experiential memory leakage, pronoun distancing, and vague language creates a road map for investigators.

[00:30:41]Now, if you're new to statement analysis, I hope this breakdown showed you how powerful these tools can be when applied carefully.

[00:30:48]If you've been following the case, this adds another layer to what we already know from previous videos.

[00:30:55]Thank you for watching this deep dive.

[00:30:57]If you found it valuable, please like, subscribe, and hit the notification bell so you don't miss future analysis.

[00:31:04]Drop your thoughts in the comments. What stood out to you the most in Janie's language?

[00:31:10]Stay curious. Stay observant. And as always, the truth is often hiding in the words people choose not to say directly.

[00:31:18]Until next time.