Marion Jones teaches us that "out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks" better than most. Below is a video, followed by two articles. Bold type is added.
Scientific Content Analysis uses the same principles, time and time again, taking zero account of body language, persuasive abilities, tone, inflection, and so on. The subject is "dead" meaning, that we are not dealing with reality, but verbalized reality.
Stay within principle. Challenge the analysis, point by point, but base the challenge upon the language and the application of principle. Report why you believe a sentence is a lie, and avoid superficial "feelings" about it.
Marion Jones is our example and lesson today.
Marion Jones admitted using steroids after issuing angry and arrogant denials. She even went as far as to file a multi million dollar lawsuit against Balco claiming to have "never" used banned substances or performance enhancing drugs, and that she "passed" more than 160 drug tests. She even got a private retired FBI polygrapher to "pass her."
Don't be deceived by the 'facts' (as she and her team reported) around any case: Follow the language only.
Don't be deceived by how 'sincere' one's tears, tone, inflection, or body language appears.
Don't be deceived by those who, on retirement, will cash in by using a polygraph machine, testing over and over until that magical 'no' answer doesn't whack the needle too far out of place.
Listen to the words. Trust the ancient and proven truth: out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.
Filing a law suit does not mean the person "didn't do it." It means they have filed a law suit.
Body language experts can view this video and address the confidence, posture and personal connection. When this first issued, (CBS) body language experts said she was telling the truth. It is an excellent performance and from what is commonly taught today, there are no signals of deception. However, for Statement Analysis, it is easy to discern:
This was her coming out moment to tell us she didn't do it. This was the 'clear the air' broadcast on CBS that the nation watched. Yet:
Note her qualifiers. Note words like "truly believe" and so on.
Note call to divinity with "God given abilities" as a red flag.
Note this video with your understanding of the 3 components of a reliable denial.
1. First Person Singular
2. Past Tense Verb
3. Specific denial
Two components = unreliable
Four components = unreliable
"Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks" is the ancient and unchanging guide of truth.
Jones did a great job in this. She insisted on Grand Jury testimony being made public. She even passed a polygraph! She then sued the 'bad guys.'
After her admission, body language experts then talked about deception, including on her Oprah appearance. This is why we look for body language experts on HLN to not sit on the fence when asked, live, if a mother is telling the truth while being interviewed.
"I have never ever failed a drug test. I have taken over 160 drug tests. I have never failed a test.
They have no information to show I have failed a test simply because I have never failed a test.
I took the extraordinary step to ask to have the Grand Jury testimony made public. "
She is unable to say she didn't do it. Only that she "never ever" took performance enhancing drugs. We know that later she publicly and tearfully admitted she had.
Don't be deceived by confident body language performances. Listen to the words. Don't think you can discern which words are given to someone by another, and which ones are not. Stay within principle and you won't be deceived: The subject does not exist. Her voice inflections, her passing of a polygraph, her confident shoulders, her record of passing tests and on and on and on. When someone is coached, they must enter into the language of another. I have seen this in children.
Listen to her. Listen to what she says and listen to what she does not say. Look for the expected and deal with the unexpected. She does not exist to you; only her words.
This 2008 performance went even further with the filing of a lawsuit. She did everything to persuade an audience that she didn't do PED. She is a good reason why we go only by her words and not by the evidence that she presented , or her body language, to guide us. Note how her accusers refused to back down in spite of this.
Jones sues BALCO founder, denies steroid use
SAN FRANCISCO — Olympic track champion Marion Jones filed a lawsuit Wednesday against Victor Conte, the steroids dealing suspect at the heart of the sports doping scandal, saying he falsely accused her of using performance-enhancing drugs.
Jones and her attorneys deny the allegations made by Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative founder Conte during interviews in early December with ABC's 20/20 andESPN The Magazine.
In the interviews, Conte accused Jones of cheating her way to glory by using a designer steroid, human growth hormone, insulin and the endurance-boosting hormone erythropoietin (EPO) before and during the 2000 Summer Games in Sydney, where Jones became the first woman to win five track and field medals in a single Games.
Jones seeks $25 million for potentially lost endorsement money.
Lin Wood, an Atlanta libel attorney, called the suit "a public-relations tactic." If Jones were serious, she also would have sued ABC and ESPN, Wood said; Conte does not have the resources to defend the suit or pay a judgment. Nor is the case likely to decide the issue of Jones' alleged steroids use, he said.
"I don't think you can restore your reputation with a lawsuit that is simply not going to be defended," said Wood, who represents the accuser in the Kobe Bryant rape case and Richard Jewell, falsely accused of the Olympic bombing.
According to the lawsuit, Conte's attorneys early on said Conte never provided steroids to Jones. But in a "sudden about-face," Conte has changed his story to "curry favor with prosecutors," grab the media spotlight and make money, the lawsuit charges.
Conte and three other men, including Barry Bonds' trainer, Greg Anderson, face federal charges of steroid distribution and money laundering. Their trial is expected to start in the spring.
According to the lawsuit and other documents filed with the lawsuit, Jones:
• Never has taken "banned performance-enhancing drugs" and passed 160 drug tests over the last five years, including testing at the 2000 Olympic Games.
• Passed a lie-detector test in June by Ronald Homer, a polygraph examiner and former FBI special agent. Jones answered "no" when asked whether she had ever used performance-enhancing drugs.
how many times did he test her until he got the desired result? Living on a retired pension and seen to be a fraud, was it worth it? This reminds me of the polygraph shopping down by John and Patsy Ramsey in the late 90's; failing one after the other until finally getting ambiguous results but having the polygrapher sign a no-disclosure contract for life.
this is why you must use the scientific principles of analysis rather than simply seeing "former FBI" on a name and thinking it to be high quality. Remember the deceptive and rambling former FBI's love affair with all things Amanda Knox? How about the FBI's ability to "solve" some of these ridiculous baby "kidnapping" cases?
The reputation carefully crafted in the early days of the FBI by Hoover and others has not lived up to its own publicity.
• Has not used steroids based on blood and urine tests since 2001 that were analyzed by her doctor, Richard Ferro of the Duke University Medical Center.
Conte, however, won't budge.
In an e-mail statement, he said: "This is nothing more than a PR stunt by a desperate woman, who has regularly used drugs throughout her career. ... I stand by everything I said on the 20/20 special. I am telling the truth, and Marion is lying."
"How To Tell If Someone Is Lying" ABC, 2000
Jury consultant Jo-Ellan Dimitrius has been dubbed "The Seer" for her work on over 600 trials, including the Rodney King, O.J. Simpson and Enron cases.
In her latest book, "Reading People: How to Understand People and Predict Their Behavior -- Anytime, Anyplace," she shares tips on how to tell if someone isn't being truthful.
Dimitrius says lying is usually accompanied by a physical gesture, such as blinking or not blinking; turning directly towards someone as if to say, "This is the really important part that I'm lying about that you need to listen to;" and the licking of lips.
Is it that they blinked, or is it that they did not blink? When is this applied?
For signs of a child's not telling the truth, Dimitrius says to look for wringing hands, the position of the body, scratching an ear, touching of the head.
I have interviewed more than 1,000 children in under 10 years, carefully noting body language. Other than putting a hand over the mouth, I found truthful and deceptive children wringing their hands, scratching their ears and moving their heads. I kept careful notation of which child was on ritalin or other meds and which was not (not only as part of the interview, but part of the medical records). No single principle came forth that I could apply to child after child. Factors of tiredness and when they ate (sugar) influenced body language more than anything else.
I focused upon their language and then sought to affirm or deny based upon collateral contacts. Some parents coached as children used words they did not understand, and some spoke in the free editing process once I spent 30 minutes talking about their favorite cartoon. I found no consistency in body language due to the factors of fatigue, nutrition, medication, and health.
Famous people also betray patterns of speech and posture in telling lies. For example, Dimitrius says that when Bill Clinton denied his involvement with Monica Lewinsky, what he said ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky") and how he said it was a tip off.
If we were to say that President Clinton was lying every time he bit his lip, we would conclude he was always lying, even about which sports team he rooted for. He bites his lip often which was caricatured on Saturday Night Live.
Clinton is an unusually eloquent speaker, but in his denial, he paused frequently and didn't follow his usual smooth speech pattern, Dimitrius says. He also bit his lip before declaring he did not have sex with Lewinsky, as if trying to hold back the words, and dropped one shoulder, as if he is shrugging, Dimitrius said.
In another example, track star Marion Jones told "GMA" anchor Robin Roberts she had never used steroids, which she later admitted was untrue.
Dimitrius analyzed that tape and said that Jones visibly raised a shoulder, and then says "Umm" before answering a question. Midway into the conversation, she starts blinking her eyes so much they look like they're closed at one point.
Is the raised shoulder now a principle we can take and use for analysis each time?
When John Edwards recently denied that he had an affair, Dimitrius said he also began blinking rapidly and smiled inappropriately after calling his wife Elizabeth "sexy."
The lack of scientifically applying principle is what concerns me most. I find the work of body language analysts fascinating, especially if they know the subject well. Too many, however, that appear on tv are deliberately vague and go out of their way to compliment the mother of the missing child, for example, on HLN, rather than come out and say, "I see signals of deception."
Body language analysis is valuable, but it is not as strongly consistent as language.
In Statement Analysis, the reader can say "I disagree and here is why..." because the same principles are applied to each person's words, regardless of how it is said. The overlap is in pauses, where we note the need to pause and think, with "ummm" or something similar, especially when a question should be easy to answer.
Even when someone says "I didn't kill so and so" we view this statement in context because:
if a killer reads analysis, he can parrot the words.
In one year after Hailey Dunn went missing, in all the interviews given, Shawn Adkins was not able to say he didn't do it. Could he read this article, and walk before a microphone and say "I didn't do it"?
Of course he can, but this is why we seek the free editing process. His new 'denial' would then be weighed against all the other opportunities in which he spoke and did not initiate a 3 component reliable denial.