Friday, February 22, 2013

Learning From Kaaryn Gough

Sensitivity indicators noted
                    What makes Kaaryn Gough so very good at Statement Analysis?

What follows is posted for the sake of encouragement, for I believe that her own words, spoken privately and publicly, contain wisdom.

I have heard it said, when discussing the difference between wisdom and knowledge, that knowledge is the accumulation of facts; wisdom is knowing what to do with the facts.  Lots of people can memorize text books and pass exams, but struggle to tie their own shoes, or get out of their own way.

With Statement Analysis, we have the ability to not only learn principle, committed to memory, but also to embrace thinking patterns, and learn from them.

In LSI, should you take the course, you will circle pronouns.  You may not see the value immediately in this activity, but it will come.

Over the years, I have circled so many pronouns, that I can "see" in my 'mind's eye', circled pronouns while people speak to me.  It has become visible to me.  

This is the lead in to Kaaryn's advice:  learning to think in ways, perhaps, that we don't normally tap into.

"As for my imagination, it's more that I'm highly visual. When I read a statement or hear testimony, I immediately see the events as a movie running in my head. I encourage everyone to hone their "inner movie maker" for it supports SA beautifully, especially in an 'on-the-fly' situation where one does not have the luxury of the words in front of them. Practice listening to others and running the movie of EXACTLY what they are saying. It can be tough, for your brain will try to create a picture that makes sense. In other words, it will try to smooth over the bumps, fill in the gaps. But don't let it. Make it a very literal movie. It's the same principle in SA. Analyze only the words that are used--nothing more, nothing less. Outside information/influence about the person is not allowed. The words must set the stage, create the characters and direct the action."

I believe, like so much else, that this can be learned, to a strong degree, by those of us who wish to apply ourselves.

How?

Concentration and Repetition. 

The first (and biggest) step is to read Kaaryn's analysis, and then read it again.  Go back over statements you've covered months, or even years ago.  Set your mind to "see" or have, like a movie, the scene go by for you. 

I'll spot you a personal example. 

When I turned 30, I decided to learn a new sport:  ice hockey. 

I had always been an athlete, so turning 30 was a time I marked for change.  

I could barely stand on skates, having not learned to skate as a youth, often clinging to the boards for support, but I enjoyed the challenge.  I watched as young kids learned proper technique, and copied, practiced, and copied again.  I received advice from famed Maine hockey coach Shawn Walsh, and, within 5 years, (and 50 lbs lighter) I was regularly scoring and playing in three different leagues.  I went from "Free Willy" on ice, to keeping up with some young and chippie 22 year olds.  I could skate forwards and backwards and score, but there was one thing I could not do in hockey. 

A slap shot is an interesting phenomena in hockey.  You might think that a strong player takes his stick, swings it high and hard, using his strength, and hits the puck as hard as he can, to get it to lift off the ice and sail through the air. 

It is not so. 

The player actually hits the ice with his stick, causing the stick to bend and propel the puck.  

It is not easy to learn. 

I was strong, and wound up and slammed the puck with good strength, only to watch it trickle along the ice, raising a few chuckles along the way. 

A kind and friendly player taught me the technique of hitting the ice with my stick and I practiced it often but to no avail.  

The puck would not leave the ice.  I watched as 10 year olds could launch a puck far better than I could, no matter how much stronger I was than they were. 

One morning on the drive to the rink, I was deeply concentrating on the steps of the slap shot, so much so, that I could "see" with my 'mind's eye' the stick hitting the ice, just before the puck, and could "see" the follow through perfectly. I could see the stick bend, and launch the puck 6" off the ice:  low and hard.  I could "see" it, as if it was slowed down for me, step by step.  I could "see" it as I was deep in concentration. 

I regained my thought only to notice that I had driven past the exit for the rink.  I was lost in thought. 

But it was that it 'clicked' for me and as soon as I got on the ice for warm ups, I attempted the technique and the puck sailed, at a high rate of speed, into the goal tender's chest.  He was furious as this was only warm ups, until I took off my helmet and he recognized me as the guy who could not get a slap shot off, and laughed. 

Since that time, I developed a fairly nice slap shot and can teach others how to do it. 

It took concentration; the kind of concentration that caused me to "see" it, which, I believe can be applied to Kaaryn's description. I concentrated so deeply that I missed the highway exit I had taken so many times before.  

Many years ago I laughed at the notion of chess as an Olympic sport, that is, until the night I participated in a tournament in Mineola, New York. 

After 2 1/2 hours of the highest level of concentration, I could barely drive home, I was so exhausted.  I was wet with sweat, and felt both exhilirated and exhausted.  I had an easier time driving home from hockey games at 1AM (the "Midnight Hockey League) than I did driving home from chess. 

Concentration is hard work

Go back to a statement.  Make attempts to "see" only what the subject has shared.  "Enter" his "verbalized reality" in order to "see" what he wants you to see, and, perhaps, what it is that he does not want you to "see."

"See" where, precisely, he has skipped over information.  What is it that he does not want me to "see"?  What could have happened here?

The Expected

I find it helpful to make a written list of the "expected"; not only of words but of scenarios.  This is a small, stutter step that has helped me "see" what could have been in the statement. I feel this is best when I am able to come up with 3 or 4 possible scenarios, seeking to expect "truth", so that I can be "surprised" when it does not happen. 

The wisdom of attempting to "see" the possible scenarios will be justified by its outcome, over time. 

Ask yourself, "What scenarios comes from such phrases?"  When father of missing toddler Ayla Reynolds wrote, "contrary to rumors floating out there..." LSI found, Avinoam Sapir asked me, "What does he do for a living?"

This question showed an immediate attempt to "see" where the subject's phrase would come from; that is, to enter his "world" in order to understand.  When I answered that he was reported to me to be chronically unemployed but was supposed to be taking truck driving lessons, he said, "uh, oh, they need to search water" because truck drivers "have their tires on the ground"; that is, in other words, they would use phrases that have a more 'concrete' or 'solid' basis.  

He said these things without hesitation; a mastered skill that flows from him as easy as breathing does for us. 

Yet it is that he teaches this skill, and his student, Kaaryn Gough, has learned the lessons well, and imparts to us this same wisdom. 

The 40% Factor

I have shared LSI's teaching that when a statement is reviewed after a passing of time, it is likely to yield up to 40% more information.  I have learned, through experience, exactly why this is. 

I am emotionally impacted by a statement as I seek to enter into the verbalized reality of the subject.  Once 'confronted' by the 'unexpected', I am on a particular track, and will struggle to remain open-minded, especially as the statement continues. 

Let's say, for example, that I am on a missing child case, something near and dear to the hearts of readers, and become, midway through a parent's statement, convinced that the parent is deceptively withholding information about the last hours of contact with the child. 

This convincing is now impacting me, emotionally, as a father, and if the statement is lengthy, I cannot help but feel the weight of deception as I continue to work through the statement. 

This happened with the analysis of John and Patsy Ramsey's interviews.  

I found myself not only convinced of deception, but angry. 

I felt anger at their arrogance, at their callousness of wasting tax payer resources, and at their deriding of investigators.  

I thought of a little 6 year old, and the promise her life once held, especially the way those who knew her described her, and felt angry. 

Years later, in reviewing the analysis, I did so without the same anger, and saw, fresh and new, information I had previously overlooked.  (I found this especially to be evident in the 911 call).  

Sometimes people leave comments such as "this is old info" not understanding the "40% Principle of Yield" and that the re-publishing of analysis is done not simply to bring new readers up to speed, but the analysis has been added to.  

40% more?

Yes, especially as emotions are tempered and, perhaps, others, via commentary, have added pearls of wisdom to the analysis. 

How many times have you seen a pithy comment left by a reader added to analysis? 

I've lost count. 

Read carefully Kaaryn's analysis, and then read it again.  Practice "seeing" the possibilities presented. 

Now, write out your own statement.  

Choose a day you were off from work, and write out, in a page to a page and a half in length, what you did, from the time you woke up, until the time you went to bed. 

Put it down and come back the next day and...

1.  Circle the pronouns
2.  Make a list of all the names in your day.  Note the order in which they appear. Include pets.
3.  Highlight the first entrance of the word "we" in your day.  
4.  Note all times in your statement.
5.  Note the specific time when the word "we" entered your statement. 
6.  Note any indicators of sensitivity
7.  Note any change of language. 
8.  Note any leaps in time. 
9.  Note the verb tenses

Then put it away. 

Let some time pass, so that the day is no longer fresh in memory, and go through it again, and see if you can "see" what the day was like for you.  Learn if you can "see" with your 'mind's eye', what the day was like; the weather, what you ate, who you interacted with, how you felt, physically and emotionally.  

You will surprise yourself, perhaps, on just how this skill can be learned. 

It is one thing to memorize and repeat back.  It is a valued skill, in fact, but it is far more valuable to take the facts, and know what to do with them.  




29 comments:

john said...

Great post Peter,this is why i come here to learn S/A.

Choose a day you were off from work, and write out, in a page to a page and a half in length, what you did, from the time you woke up, until the time you went to bed.

Put it down and come back the next day and...

1. Circle the pronouns
2. Make a list of all the names in your day. Note the order in which they appear. Include pets.
3. Highlight the first entrance of the word "we" in your day.
4. Note all times in your statement.
5. Note the specific time when the word "we" entered your statement.
6. Note any indicators of sensitivity
7. Note any change of language.
8. Note any leaps in time.
9. Note the verb tenses

Then put it away.

Let some time pass, so that the day is no longer fresh in memory, and go through it again, and see if you can "see" what the day was like for you. Learn if you can "see" with your 'mind's eye', what the day was like; the weather, what you ate, who you interacted with, how you felt, physically and emotionally.

I love this TIP.

impulsive said...

I've always found Karen's analyses' very thorough - I remember being especially impressed with her analysis of Justin DiPetro - specifically the part about the way he referred to/considered Ayla as his property.
She always helps me to "see" what was/could have been going on.

ALSO: OT:

DNA has confirmed that the skull that was found IS Zahra Baker's

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57570577-504083/zahra-baker-update-dna-confirms-skull-that-of-slain-nc-disabled-girl/

john said...

OT.

Oscar Pistorius Bail decision being read out by magistrate by desmond Nair live on Sky News.

http://news.sky.com/

john said...

OT..

# BREAKING NEWS #

Oscar Pistorios GRANTED BAIL

http://news.sky.com/

Hobnob said...

Darn it John you beat me

~kicks you on the ankle and stomps off muttering unhobnob type words~

john said...

HAHAHA.

Ner Ner na ner hahah

Hobnob said...

pfffft

bail amount raised to 1 mill rand cash

Hobnob said...

neener neener :)

john said...

That's Penny's to him Hobs..

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
NVmommy73 said...

Ive been reading this blog for well over a year almost daily, and SA is stuck in my brain working even when I wish it would stop. I dont consider myself good at this science by any means but i cant help but apply the rules during conversation. I used to think i was an honest person but i wasnt. SA has made me evaluate myself and hold myself to a higher standard. The truth is absolute. No shades of gray. If i lie now i feel so uncomfortable and i am almost paranoid that its obvious im lying I cant handle it and end up saying "im lying, im sorry." Sheesh Its not worth the hassle. The other side of it is when i know someone is lying to me. All the rules of SA are flashing in red. On one occasion I wish I had not known it was so disappointing. Then i think of a saying my daughter repeats a lot IGNORANCE IS NOT BLISS

Anonymous said...

You turned 30 and played in "three" different leagues huh? You liar! By the way, you wrote the "three" as opposed to using the number like you did for all the others. LOL!

Hobnob said...

off topic


GOLDEN, Colo. – Colorado prosecutors have added a sexual exploitation charge against an 18-year-old accused of killing and kidnapping a suburban Denver school girl.

Austin Sigg's preliminary hearing is scheduled for Friday in Golden.

He's also charged with murder, kidnapping, sexual assault and robbery in the October killing of 10-year-old Jessica Ridgeway, of Westminster, and accused of attacking a runner.

The Colorado Supreme Court overturned a judge's decision to close Friday's proceedings in which prosecutors plan to lay out their case.

Prosecutors expect the hearing to move ahead, even though a hearing earlier this month was canceled as the media challenged the decision to close it.

Attorneys for the state say they're dropping two charges against Sigg but adding the exploitation charge because of a video of a child found during their investigation.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/02/22/sex-charge-added-in-colorado-school-girl-killing-case/#ixzz2LeATnaTa

dahbou said...

OT

Suggestion: Please put back the menu that was on the right side listing the posts. I used it for navigating the site and find it takes a lot more time to scroll through all the posts than it did to click on the menu. Thanks!

Hobnob said...

off topic


ROCKFORD, Illinois – An Illinois woman believed to be the mother of two infants found dead in the trunk of a car has admitted to leaving another baby girl to freeze to death along a rural road nearly five years earlier.

After reaching an agreement with prosecutors, Katie Stockton of Illinois pleaded guilty Thursday to first-degree murder in the December 2004 death of the infant known as Baby Crystal, who authorities believe was Stockton's daughter.

Stockton originally was questioned in Baby Crystal's death in 2004 after the newborn's frozen remains were discovered in a plastic bag along a dead-end road near her parents' home. Prosecutors said that when detectives interviewed Stockton hours after the discovery, she lifted her shirt and asked if she looked like she had just given.

Stockton refused to provide a DNA sample, but detectives investigating the death collected evidence from a cigarette butt they saw her discard. Authorities said saliva on the cigarette butt matched blood found on the clothing with Baby Crystal, and Stockton was arrested.

Bruscato said further tests showed Stockton was the baby's mother with a 99.96 percent certainty.

Stockton faces up to 60 years in prison when she's sentenced April 5.

Winnebago County State's Attorney Joe Bruscato agreed to drop other charges in the case. Neither Bruscato nor public defender David Doll commented after the hearing.

After Stockton's 2009 arrest in Baby Crystal's death, investigators discovered her car had been sitting in an impound lot for a year. They towed it to a sheriff's department facility to search for more clues in that case.

Instead, they found the remains of two other infants wrapped in cloth and stuffed in separate plastic bags.

Authorities have said DNA testing found Stockton likely was the mother of those two infants. She hasn't been charged in those deaths.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/02/22/woman-admits-leaving-baby-to-die-on-us-road/?test=latestnews#ixzz2LeBcvcyw

shmi said...

From your statement.

I see a kind and friendly 10 year old boy teaching you how to do the slapshot. But, you did not say that!

shmi said...

To NVmommy73,
I have been reading here since Kyron Horman's dissapearance. Learning SA has had wonderful consequences for me in business. And at looking at advertising.

The biggest drawback for me is reading fiction. I used to devour a novel or two a week. Now, if the dialog doesn;t ring true, or a character does something, well, against his character, or if the timeline makes no sence, I can't read it. Now only a few novels make it past the first 30 pages.

I recently finished Gone Girl, and it was fantastic! I could tell right away someone was lying, but it didn't spoil the book, because the character was lying, not the author. It was a fun read for anyone who understands a little SA!

ME said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jen said...

Hi dagbou-

If you scroll to the bottom of the screen u should see a choice to view this site by web version/ mobile version. If you click on web version, you will be able to view the site in the format you prefer, with the previous postings listed.

Sus said...

You said you had "always been an athlete " but then it was time for "a change". Those two statements are contrary to each other. I would suppose you dropped sports as a kid and were out of shape. ("50 pounds lighter")

You repeat STRONG and STRENGTH making that sensitive to you. As if because you were strong of body, you should have been able to do a slap shot.

Explaining how to do a slapshot goes to third person. You don't feel connected to the slapshot still. I'm not certain you can have it down as well as you would like.

Something grabs my attention in the paragraph with "I was lost in thought." It is out of order or disorganized. I can't quite put my finger on it.

The chess paragraph is unexpected thus important. Since it is about mental concentration, my thought is that you feel mental strength is just as important as body strength.

You didn't always feel this way. You learned this lesson with the "slap shot journey ". :)

Am I close?

john said...

OT,

I found these reports and analysis by
Avinoam Sapir.

http://www.lsiscan.com/reports.htm

Hobnob said...

off topic

The US government is expected to join a lawsuit against Lance Armstrong after talks with his lawyers broke down.

The suit argues Armstrong defrauded the American public by insisting he was not using drugs while riding for the publicly funded US Postal Service team.

Last month, Armstrong admitted using performance-enhancing drugs during all seven of his Tour de France wins.

The suit, filed by his former team-mate Floyd Landis, aims to recover sponsorship money from Armstrong.

Armstrong's legal team had tried to convince the US government not to join the so-called 'whistleblowing' lawsuit filed by Landis, who himself admitted using drugs throughout his career.

But a statement by Armstrong's counsel Robert Luskin said: "Lance and his representatives worked constructively over these last weeks with federal lawyers to resolve this case fairly, but those talks failed because we disagree about whether the Postal Service was damaged.

"The Postal Services's own studies show that the Service benefited tremendously from its sponsorship - benefits totalling more than $100m."

NBC News and the Wall Street Journal are both reporting the US government will now throw its weight behind the suit.

By flagging up allegations of fraud, Landis could receive a substantial share of any money recovered from Armstrong under the federal False Claims Act. The law, introduced by President Lincoln in 1863, stipulates the person bringing the lawsuit can receive 15-25% of any damages.

Armstrong ended years of denial in January during an interview with chat show host Oprah Winfrey in which he described doping as part of the process of winning the Tour.

The 41-year-old has since said he will not agree to be interviewed under oath by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (Usada).

Armstrong was charged by Usada in June 2012 with using performance-enhancing drugs.

He filed a lawsuit against the organisation the following month, accusing it of "corrupt inducements" to other cyclists to testify against him.

However, Armstrong then announced in August that he would not fight the doping charges filed against him, and was given a life ban by Usada and stripped of his Tour de France titles.

Armstrong won seven Tour de France titles between 1999 and 2005. The US Postal Service sponsored the team between 1996 and 2004.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21553680

Anita said...

Peter, you really know how to bring the psychos down out of the trees with a post! It's great to see you get beneath their skin. :))) Does my heart good!

Anonymous said...

OT

"My prosthetic legs were off. We were deeply in love and I could not be happier. I know she felt the same way.

I looked around and didn't find a comment on this change in pronouns with the extra wording. Any thoughts? Sorry if I missed the comments on this.

Anonymous said...

OT

Disregard the above post. I didn't go back far enough. Where is the list of previous posts so you don't have to wade through them all?

I am confused though. The affidavit that is analyzed on Feb. 19th by Peter is different from the one I saw. How many versions are out there and which is correct?

john said...

Anon 5:37.

http://www.statement-analysis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/oscar-pistorius-affidavit-analyzed.html

BostonLady said...

OT - I love the photo of Clancy. My parents had a bull mastiff named Nikki who was the most loving, sweet dog. Although she could project fierce protecting the family. She was so gentle with the grandchildren visiting my parents. They would sit on her, lay on her and she loved it. But she would also protect them when out on the deck if she felt they were getting too close to the gate. She was an amazing dog and I miss her! Nikki thought she was a lap dog and would climb up on the couch and lay across my lap. I wasn't all that fond of the drooling but it was minor in the whole picture.

Clancy's pictures bring back some great memories !

Hobnob said...

Oooh lookie that face, how could any woof that cute, eat your house?

It's mice i tell you, roo sized mice :)

dahbou said...

OT

Jen,
Thanks for your suggestion but the only words at the bottom of my screen are:
Home
Older Posts
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Copyright. Simple template. Powered by Blogger.