Shana DiMambro: What does her husband, Chris Antos, know?
Shana DiMambro: What does her husband, Chris Antos, know?
His words reveal lots
This is the second analysis of the words of the husband of Shana DiMambro.
You can read the first part of what I think about Chris Antos here.
Antos gave an interview to local tv after reporting her missing. You can see that in full here:
At the time of writing, a body has been found close to their home, which is highly likely to be Shana’s.
Let’s break it down
First, the interviewer asks Antos if there was any reason he can think of as to why she would leave. Antos starts by saying no, then...
Antos: I mean there was some darkness the night before with her and her past and there's some spiritual warfare stuff there that I believe, you know, was taking place, but I don't believe that... I just don't see her walking out of here in shorts, T-shirt and flip-flops, you know?
It's.. it's hard for me to believe when nothing was disrupted inside or in the outside area.
He is asked if he can think of any reason she would have left, and at first, he gives a hard “no”. Then he contradicts that with a possible reason.
The description of the darkness or sadness is vague. He said previously he could see it in her eyes, now he says there was some “darkness the night before” but doesn’t expand on what that means.
He does mention the “spiritual warfare” but he then says he only believes it was taking place, not that he knows this was going on in her head.
Again, he mentions the night before Shana went missing, which only serves to back up my theory that something much bigger occurred that night.
Antos says, “I just don’t see her walking out of here in shorts, T-shirt and flip-flops” but doesn’t say why. Is it because of the heat that he doesn’t think she’d do that? Or her usual dress code? Or does he know that she didn’t “just” walk out dressed like that?
He then continues with “It's it's hard for me to believe when nothing was disrupted inside or in the outside area”. He’s answering a question he hasn’t been asked here. These words are about the possibility of a forced abduction, or possibly of her leaving in a hurry.
Why introduce this concept? Well, if he has some guilty knowledge of this situation and has constructed a story to tell, he’ll feel compelled to get all of that story out, whether it’s relevant to the questions or not.
Not walking back
Antos: So there was some sadness there. I won't tell you that...there wasn't, but I don't see her just leaving, and you know, not w-walking back. It was hot. (Small laugh) so....
I don’t like this line. Why is he so sure that if she came back that she would be walking? That implies that he thinks she would only have gone a walkable distance away. It’s not in his mind that she could have gone further by a different mode of transport.
The laugh he makes before saying “it was hot” feels like he is belittling Shana. Did she have a reluctance to go out in the heat that he didn’t like?
Interviewer: Can you be a little bit more specific about the sadness she was going through, was there an argument?
Antos: No, no, just her past. You know, w-we're believers, of course. And I think she jus.. there was some issues that she had, you know, mentioned to me about, you know, just her past and things that she had done and being... you know
I don't think that she... God obviously forgives everybody for their sins. That's, you know, that's where we go off. I think she had a hard time believing herself and for forgiving herself. For things in her past you know, and I just....she was dark, just some darkness. You know…
Here, all the blame for her mental state is put on Shana. There’s no sense of togetherness and it’s so vague, with no solid detail, and Antos talks about what he “thinks” was going on rather than what he knows.
He mentions her past a lot in these sections, so much that I wonder if it was him who had issues with her past rather than Shana. Beyond his vague descriptions of darkness, the past is the only solid concept he gets across here.
Interviewer: Was she depressed?
Antos: There was depression involved, yes without a doubt
“There was depression involved, yes”, involved in what? He could mean involved in her low mental state, but that could be said more simply such as “she is depressed” or “she was suffering from depression”, so I’m interested in why he said depression “was” (past tense) “involved”.
All here
Interviewer: And a cell phone, does she have a cell phone?
Antos: It was all here, the Comal County sheriff has it now. They're going to try to get a little bit deeper into it. So they have that, but there was no texts or no phone calls that we could find, where there was anything. Yeah, her phone was here, keys were here, wallet's here. Dog is here. She loves her dog. Maisie is our... that's our... its the only baby we have and so it's very odd. You know, depression’s powerful, but at the same time, you know, she had a lot to live for and a lot to believe in so...
Antos is asked if Shana has a cell phone. Initially, he doesn’t answer about a cell phone. He says, “it was all here”. Why is that? Why does he talk about “all” not the cell phone he was asked about?
This again feels like it could be jumping to the prepared story. If his story is “she was sad, she was depressed, nothing was disturbed, she didn’t take anything with her” he will be ready to answer questions based on that story. If a question points to a specific he wasn’t ready for like “does she have a cell phone?” he will answer with his prepared story, giving him time to construct words that respond to the specifics.
Eventually, he does directly answer the question he was asked with “Yeah, her phone was here”.
What’s missing?
As well as looking at what is said, I like to see what isn’t said. In all of Chris’ words I’ve analysed so far, he has expressed no concern for his wife’s wellbeing or welfare. He doesn’t say he’s worried about what happened or that he’s hopeful she’s safe and will come back.
I’ve studied 6 minutes of his interview, and Antos has referred to Shana by her name only once. The rest of the time it is “she” and “her”. That suggests a distance. For reference, their dog also gets called my her name once.
In the past
Finally, I want to highlight the times Antos talks about Shana in the past tense. These are mostly when he is discussing her state of mind. I would expect him to talk about this in the present tense. When he gave this interview there was nothing to suggest Shana was dead, and she would still presently have the depression. However, to Antos it is all in the past
There WAS some sadness there, I won’t tell you that there WASN’T
There WAS some issues that she had
She HAD a hard time believing herself
She WAS dark
There WAS depression involved
In this section of words, Antos refers to Shana in be present tense rarely: “we're believers” and “she loves her dog” are two examples.
However, there is one use of past tense that I found chilling, “she HAD a lot to live for”. That is not the usual way to talk about someone you believe is alive.
Conclusion
Having studied these words, my conclusion isn’t much different from my previous look at Chris Antos.
I believe something significant happened the night before he reported her missing. Possibly, that was an argument or fight involving her past.
He wants to give the impression Shana was depressed, potentially suicidal, but his description of the depression is vague and unconvincing.
From the way he answers questions, I believe it’s highly possible he has a constructed story he wishes to tell that differs from the truth.
If you got something from this post, please help to spread the word by sharing it with others or pressing the ‘like’ button. To receive other posts like this in your inbox, at zero cost, you can subscribe.
What observations or questions do you have? Post them in the comments below.