Wednesday, March 6, 2013

"Water" in Statement Analysis Answered

A reader sent me a critique and asked me to respond.  She was upset about body language analysis of the Redwine case, said it was directed at this blog, Statement Analysis, and me, specifically, and it was posted in defense of body language analysis having the opposite conclusion of Statement Analysis in the case of missing 13 year old, Dylan Redwine.  This case has caused a strong emotional response among the public.  The specific complaint was about the use of "water" in Statement Analysis.  It is a good opportunity to highlight principle against error. This is the comment sent to me for response:

"There are a lot of things in that school of statement analysis that I find very hackish and dangerous, like "when someone mentions water in a statement, it usually means sexual abuse". There's no scientific basis for something like that at all that I'm aware of. At best, there may be a statistical link between statements that mention water and sex crimes, but to say that it always applies just isn't rational and could potentially be utterly disastrous to someone whose statement is being analyzed."

First, let me comment on the case, with brief conclusions, and then about "water" in Statement Analysis.  I appreciate the opportunity to speak to principle.  It is what I respect about Statement Analysis and challenges and inquiries should be responded to. 

I.  Dylan Redwine

In analyzing the statements of both Elaine Redwine and Dylan Redwine, my conclusions:

Mark Redwine has guilty knowledge in the death of Dylan.
Elaine Redwine has natural denial, struggles to accept the reality, and will, like all innocent parents, go through a long series of "what ifs", exactly as described by Dr. and Mrs. Harrington, parents of murdered Morgan Harrington.  I was touched by Dr. Harrington's explanation of just how he dealt with this, and how readily innocent parents will do this to themselves. 

KUSA: Did you have anything whatsoever to do with Dylan's disappearance?

ER: You know, I wish I did, because then he'd be home. I mean, I..I wish I could relive that day, and, and, and do things a lot differently. Um, I had absolutely nothing to do with Dylan's disappearance. And, I really feel sorry for the person who did.

Highly sensitive statement. 

"I wish I did" is explained with the word "because", with "because" the reason why, making it the highest level of sensitivity.  The subject needs to explain, which is noted. Her need is sensitive and she gives her reason:   If she had been involved, he would be home.  To the subject, this is central.  
Note that "absolutely" makes "nothing" sensitive.  Why would it be sensitive?  It can be sensitive if someone is accused. It can be sensitive due to feelings of guilt.  (see Dr and Mrs. Harrington to understand guilt).  

 This is, by itself, not a reliable denial of involvement.  It is, however, the very thing that Elaine said last night on the program and what the Harringtons expressed about their daughter:  the "what ifs" in life.  If she had not left Mark...If she had not sent him...if she had not...

She can, and will drive herself into despair with such thinking, which is why I reference the Morgan Harrington case. 

If Dr. Harrington had not taken a job in a new location, he said, ...his daughter might be alive.  This haunted him and he had to survive it among a thousand other what ifs.    Anyone who has experienced tragedy does this same thing:  wonders what circumstances in life, having been different, would mean that the tragedy was averted. I recall my young son's surgery, and how I thought to myself, "If only I had checked his temperature earlier...If only I had not let him eat...If only I had known..." and had to come to grips with what had actually happened instead of what I might have done differently.  Not being responsible or even being unable to alter circumstances, as a parent, I felt guilty over a congenital condition. My language would have shown the sensitivity. 

Elaine said last night that had she not left Mark, all those years ago, Dylan might still be alive.  This is the same "what if" self-torture parents do to themselves.  It is unhealthy, but expected.  I responded with what Dr. Harrington had said.  Little could he have known that his words spoken then, might help ease, just a bit, of another's pain.  

She said that she had felt sorry for the person who did this.  This statement of pity is expressed often, especially by people of faith, who believe, even in their anger, that the person responsible will pay eternally. This often is coupled with mercy, yet is mixed with anger, rage, denial, and so forth. 

As to believing that Dylan would be okay on his trip, having dealt with hundreds of domestic violence cases, mothers who fear almost always exercise the natural denial of saying "my child will be okay." It is so common that I find it strange that it is not recognized. 

Elaine is criticized for going after her ex husband on television.  This is something I do not understand:  how could anyone not go after the man she believes killed her son?  She did so to fight for her son. 

As to past tense language, the principle remains the same.  It must be qualified by thinking people, as this has been explained repeatedly, yet we still continue to see it condensed, erroneously, including  by Bethany Marshal who flipped it around and said that since a mother spoke of her missing child in the present tense, it "proves" the mother believes the child is alive.  This is a misreading of the principles and shows the need for training. 

When a parent of missing child speaks of the child in the past tense, it is a linguistic indication that the parent believes or knows the child is dead.  When we hear it, we ask:

1.  How long has the child been missing?  If the child has just gone missing, it may be guilty knowledge.
2.  Have the police given indication to the parent that the child is dead?  
3.  Is this a struggle of acceptance versus denial?
4.  Does the parent slip its use when there is no tangible reason to lose hope?

Acceptance versus denial can take months, or even years, with a parent going back and forth, changing her mind, struggling.   See Desiree Young, mother of missing 7 year old, Kyron Young. 

When a parent references the child in the past tense, while police or circumstances have not given indication of death, it is a signal that the parent knows the child is dead.  
Examples:  Susan Smith, Casey Anthony, Billie Jean Dunn, Justin DiPietro. 

Here is the statement about water answered:

"There are a lot of things in that school of statement analysis that I find very hackish and dangerous, like "when someone mentions water in a statement, it usually means sexual abuse". There's no scientific basis for something like that at all that I'm aware of. At best, there may be a statistical link between statements that mention water and sex crimes, but to say that it always applies just isn't rational and could potentially be utterly disastrous to someone whose statement is being analyzed."

"Water" in an open statement is often associated with sexual abuse.  This is the principle and is statistically linked.  What does it mean, in practice?

What this means to an investigator is that when "water" appears in an open statement, the investigator must be open-minded and ask questions about possible sexual abuse of any type.  It does not mean "usually", it means, "explore for it", especially if the references are unnecessary, such as washing one's hands.  "I stopped and got gas, went to the bathroom, washed my hands and got back into my truck."  The investigator should focus in on this time period: the specific period just before washing the hands.  That the subject washed his hands is unnecessary information, making it very important to us, since it was important enough for him to mention.  It is "unexpected" that he would mention washing his hands, making it important.  If he was on a boat, the reference to water would be the "expected" and not something that would 'surprise' us.  I was taught, early on, however, to be better safe than sorry later:  there is no harm (no "danger") to exploring, via questioning, possible sexual abuse.  Most social workers involved in the child protective world (by "most", I mean that most States in the US teach this) have their workers explore for possible sexual abuse on every case, no matter what the allegation is.  If the allegation is, for example, that a child is being left alone, most social workers will explore physical abuse ("What are your house rules?  What happens if you break the rule?"), food supply (actually looking in the fridge), and sexual abuse ("Who puts you to bed?  What is that like?  Who bathes you?  Tell me about it...")  

I note the person wrote "usually" but then wrote "always" in the statement. Clarity would be helpful.  

As to being "hackish" , the principles are not stone-like, but clay like.  We remain flexible and it is up to the skill of the analyst to draw a conclusion.  

Statement Analysis is an indicator to explore.  We do find that in sexual homicides, for example, references to water often crop up in guilty statements.  This in the extreme, can be seen in the statements of Amanda Knox.  

If water enters an open statement and it is unnecessary, the investigator should explore for possible sexual abuse.  This is the principle.  

This is no different than an astute school teacher noting that little Johnny, normally a child who likes to get dirty, is suddenly washing his hands several times a day.  The teacher is concerned about sexual abuse and will explore for it, either by referring her concerns to her superior, or by other means that schools use.  It does not prove anything; it is just a warning sign.  

As to the scientific basis for the link:  LSI has done its own research.  The writer says "there may be a statistical link", which, itself is true which then negates it being "hackish and dangerous."  

No one here has ever said it "always applies"; this is a false characterization, nor have I read it anywhere from anyone else.  

I have repeatedly written that Statement Analysis is one tool among many in investigations.  It is "linguistic indicators" that is added to:  
Testimonial evidence; 
physical evidence, circumstantial evidence, DNA, forensics, and so on.  

I don't write about DNA.  If this was a DNA blog, DNA would be central.  This blog is dedicated to language, not to the exclusion of other factors, but it is central.  

LSI's research.  

I studied at LSI, and continue to do so, and hope to for the rest of my life. 

Mark McClish studied at LSI and went on to his own research.  John Douglas studied at LSI.  Dr. Susan Adams studied at LSI, as did Kaaryn Gough.  All the instructors and analysts I know have studied at LSI.  The list of government investigatory agencies that have studied at LSI includes FBI, CIA, US Marshals, state and county law enforcement, prosecutors, and a list too long to post.  The Fortune 500 companies who have studied with LSI is lengthy.  Most every author I have read has studied at LSI (perhaps all authors).  It is fair to say that, across the world, nations' leaders rely upon Statement Analysis, as taught by LSI, in their work, even as they use polygraphs to protect themselves.

My level of confidence in the principles of Statement Analysis is higher than in anything else.  For me, this is not only scientific, but is based upon the eternal echo that "from the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks."  As Kaaryn said on the program last night, "the brain knows" and the words we choose, we are good at. With pronouns, we are very good at choosing them, having done so millions of times in life.  When someone says "us", it is safe to include that there is a reason to choose the plural pronoun.  It is not something a person is new at, if the person is above the age of 7.  I believe it is "Solomonic" in its understanding of human nature, and is why it is taught in many languages around the world. 

Someone may wish to support the body language analyst's contention that Mark Redwine is truthful and Elaine is not, but misrepresenting Statement Analysis is not the way to do it.  The way to do it is this:

Show the specifics. Give details. Tell us why someone is telling the truth and why someone is not.  

I have pointed out specifics, in detail, on not only where Mark Redwine is deceptive, but why I have concluded as much.  This way, if someone disagrees, they can point to a specific principle.  For example, when Mark Redwine is alone, and uses the plural pronoun, I note it.  By "noting it", I am identifying it, and identifying when it appears (context) and note that pronouns are instinctive.  Enough "mis use" of a pronoun and I have concluded, "Deception Indicated."

As to there being "a lot of things I find hackish and dangerous..." the reader would have to provide more examples to be answered.  

My conclusion of the Dylan Redwine case. 

Instead of being ambiguous, it is easier to simply state my conclusion about this case.  

By analyzing the words of both parents, I have come to conclude the following points:

1.  Dylan is deceased and 
2.  his father is specifically and deliberately withholding information on what happened to Dylan.  
3.  His mother was not involved in his disappearance or death.  
4.  Dylan died as a result of domestic homicide, specifically, a dispute that ended in a "struggle."

This is not open to interpretation.  If I am wrong, I am completely wrong:  The principles applied are wrong and my conclusions are wrong.  There is no 'sitting on the fence.'  If Dylan is alive, and Mark Redwine not involved, there is no excusing my analysis, nor qualifying it in any way other than to say it is wrong "to the uttermost."  There is nothing to tweak or repair.  

I not only state this plainly, but have, in the articles, given the specific details as to how I came to this conclusion. 

To commentators who attack Elaine for fighting on national television for her son against the man responsible is beyond despicable. As a mother, what would you do in her situation?  She knows him. She was married to him for 18 years.  She knows his violence.  She knows his arrest record.  She knows what he has done previously to children and what he is capable of.  

I cannot explain how someone can watch the Dr. Phil Show and not see that Mark Redwine is deceptive.  

I admire Elaine Redwine's courage to go on national television and call him out.  The challenge of the polygraph was presented, but he did not go through with it.  

Dr. Phil offered to fly him, in his personal jet, to recover Dylan's body. Dr. Phil offered a polygraph to Mark Redwine.   He offered legal assistance to Mark Redwine, if Mark Redwine would give up what happened to Dylan.

Dr. Phil did not offer to fly Elaine in his personal jet to recover Dylan's body. 
Dr. Phil did not offer a polygraph to Elaine, nor offer legal assistance in a confession.

The Statement Analysis of Mark Redwine shows deception.  The principles applied are the same applied to Casey Anthony, OJ Simpson and every other case.  The principles do not change, case to case. 
Behavioral Analysis of Mark Redwine shows guilt.  His behavior is the same as other parents who wish to hinder an investigation into the disappearance of a child.  

If someone believes that Mark Redwine is truthful, it would be easier, for the sake of information, to post why it is believed that he is truthful, citing examples.  If someone believes that Elaine Redwine is deceptive, post specific samples to support this, so that a critical eye can discern.  When complete, can these principles be applied to other cases?  
Can we take the specific details and apply them to the next missing child case? 

If someone disagrees with analysis, it is helpful for learning to post specifically why the disagreement exists, so that it can be explored.  

I hope my response helps the original poster understand the misconception about "water" in statements.  Thanks to the reader who sent it, as it gives opportunity to bring clarity and highlight principle.  

56 comments:

No Longer Anonymous said...

Excellent post! Will it silence the twisters and spinners?...probably not, but maybe it will help the fence sitters understand a bit better.

Peter Hyatt said...

There are those who are open minded and wish to learn, who may benefit from the explanation about "water" in analysis. There are those who will believe something for reasons beyond anything I can respond to. These are like the Billie Dunn supporters: there is nothing she can do, including admit guilt and be found guilty, and they would send her letters of support in prison.

I generally don't respond to this sort of thing, but I felt an obligation to Elaine. Her pain is enough without having to read some of the hateful comments that were sent to me about the case. She endured the ex girlfriend, though Dr. Phil rebuked that, but she doesn't need any more of this.

It is still so raw and painful.

Let;s hope Mark is arrested soon, so Elaine can begin to heal. Cory needs it.

Jeff said...

I read and enjoy your site every day, firmly believe in and practice statement analysis daily, and have been following the Redwine case since you first reported it. I agree Mark Redwine is deceptive, and his words reveal he is responsible for Dylan's death. This morning, however, I read Elaine Redwine's statement, "I wish I could relive that day, and, and, and do things a lot differently." I am puzzled. If "that" day refers to the day Dylan disappeared, why would she hold herself accountable? Dylan was on a court ordered visitation. There was nothing in the world Elaine could have done to prevent or change it. To say, "I wish I could...do things a lot differently" implies that choice was involved in whatever SHE did on THAT day; it implies she could have possibly changed the outcome. I understand the concept of the grieving parent replaying What Ifs - I do it myself, from time to time, over mistakes I've made - but in this context, it seems almost suspicious.

Jeff said...

P.S. to my note above - I do not believe Elaine is involved in Dylan's disappearance, and also hope Mark Redwine is apprehended, held accountable, and punished.

Anonymous said...

@Jeff I too almost fell into that way of thinking with that part of her statement. Then I thought she meant had she known what might happen,she would have told Dylan try to get along with his father,and do some of the things his father wanted him to do.
I listened to part of the show last night and had to turn it off,it made me cry for Elaine's pain.

Anonymous said...

Peter it was a good show and this is a really great Blog,which I'm addicted too.

Jeff said...

@Anonymous - Thanks. You reminded me that the best analysis comes with having more to analyze, and I was basing my observation on a single sentence. I did not listen to the show or see the Dr. Phil show, so have little to analyze.

Peter Hyatt said...

It is a sensitive response. We then ask, "Why might this be sensitive?" and explore. By itself, it would trigger follow up questions.

Avinoam Sapir reminds us to never use a microscope to find deception. Stand back and get a larger picture.

The Dr. Phil Show was of such a length that all Statement Analysts and Body Language Analysts and even Behavioral Analysts have plenty to work from.

Jeff, if you can, go back to the Harringtons, parents of Morgan and listen how they blame themselves.

As to Elaine's use of the word "that", she is distancing herself from the day. We then ask, "Is this appropriate distancing? " It is, due to the pain. It is not Dylan she distances herself from, but the day.

Also, with missing children and past tense reference:

As weeks turn into months, more and more past tense references are expected. SHould the police say that the child is likely dead, even more uses may come.

Early in the investigation, if there is no reason for a parent to accept the death, it is suspicious.

Jeff, you're not missing anything, but are on target. It is okay to ask "is this sensitive?" and "why is it sensitive?" and ask, "Do we need more info? Do we have more info?"

Like John, you've also addressed these things respectfully and politely.

Don't be surprised to hear Elaine do as she did last night, move from reality to having "hope" for Dylan. It was a heartbreaking moment that left us all speechless.

How obvious is the deception in this case?

In comes in the conclusion of a professional. It is my opinion:

To conclude from the Dr. Phil Show that Mark Redwine is telling the truth and Elaine deceptive will discredit anyone who is in professional status.

The material, overall, is 101.

I appreciate your questions, Peter

Jeff said...

Thank you, Peter. Your observations and knowledge, like the rest of your blog, continue to improve my abilities with Statement Analysis. It never ceases to amaze me how so much information can be gleaned from so few words.

Peter Hyatt said...

Thanks, Jeff.

The key is to stay with principle. It is okay to not have a conclusion and be on the fence.
My issue is the Dr. Phil Show.

Meag in Manhattan knows how I feel about this:

How could anyone see the two programs and not think Mark's behaviors and words betrayed him? He was "goofy-guilty" in demeanor.

This is why Dr. Phil made the "shelf life" offer. It can be dismissed as grand-standing but no one feels the need (no one I know, nor on the show) to polygraph Elaine or make any offers to Elaine.

I still don't know if I did the right thing posting the critique of Statement Analysis because of how Elaine could be hurt if she finds the site where she is being accused.

Sustained said...

no one in their right mind came out of dr phil saying mark is innocent if body language expert says he was truthful and she was deceptive body language explert needs a new job

john said...

Hi Peter,

Have you contacted M/R and invited him on one or your show's,and if so what was his reply?

Thank's

Peter Hyatt said...

Not yet, John.

Two reasons:

1. I don't think he will appear
2. I would need the approval of investigators there first. When someone is a suspect, named or not, I always ask L/E's permission. If they even hint that they would not want someone interviewed, I won't do it.

I do analysis for L/E around the country and do not publish any of it.

The program is secondary to the analysis work.

Peter

john said...

Thank's Peter..

john said...

OT.

Philpott Weeps As Police Interviews Read Out

A court hears tapes of police interviews in which Mick Philpott denied starting the fire that killed six of his children.3:27pm UK, Wednesday 06 March 2013
Mick and Mairead Philpott are accused of killing their six children

A father accused of killing six of his children in a house fire wept in court as the police interviews following his arrest were read out.

Mick Philpott and his wife Mairead deny six counts of manslaughter following the blaze at their home on Victory Road in Allenton, Derby last May.

A third defendant, Paul Mosley, also denies manslaughter.

Jade Philpott, 10, and brothers John, nine, Jack, eight, Jessie, six and Jayden, five all perished in the fire.

Their older brother Duwayne, 13, died three days later in hospital.

DC Steve Barnes interviewed Philpott after his arrest. When the detective cautioned Mick, he replied: "I understand, I can't believe it."

Later he said: "I don't think you understand what it is like losing six children."

Philpott told the detective that before the fire, at 7.30pm, Mosley, also known as Shakey, had come to the house to play pool and Philpott had obtained cannabis for his friend.

He said Mosley left at 12.45am, and that he and Mairead fell asleep in the conservatory watching the film Centurion.

Philpott was woken by an alarm and saw "bright lights at the door".

He knew it was a fire and heard a "whoosh", adding: "It wasn't like an explosion it was a pop sound."

Philpott said he put his Derby County jogging bottoms on, went through to the back of the house, got ladders and put them up to Jade's window.

He tried to smash it first with a tennis racket, then a wrench.

"I smashed the window about five times, I wish now I could have got in, it would have been me in that morgue and not my kids," he said.

Philpott said he was restrained by police officers from trying to get back in the house.

The prosecution allege that the defendants started the fire to frame Mick's ex girlfriend Lisa Willis, who he was in a custody battle with.

Ms Willis and her children used to live with the Philpotts and their children, but left three months before the fire.

Asked about Ms Willis, Philpott said: "I treated her like a queen. For the past four years I have given her all my attention and not to my wife.

"It came to a couple of points where I asked Mairead for a divorce, so I could marry Lisa."

The court heard that Lisa had been chief bridesmaid at Mick and Mairead's wedding.

"It was a three-way relationship between me, Mairead and Lisa," he said. "It's just something that happened."

Philpott also told the detective: "You will find residents (residue) on my clothes and shoes from the strimmer, you might find it on Duwayne's too."

In the interview he also said petrol would be found in the kitchen, front room, conservatory, snooker room and the garden, where he had carried the strimmer through.

When asked by a detective whether he was responsible for the fire, he replied: "Watch these eyes, categorically no, nor was my wife."

The trial continues.

john said...

Link to above.

http://news.sky.com/story/1060983/philpott-weeps-as-police-interviews-read-out

Anonymous said...

I read the site this came from regularly and have mostly agreed with what she writes, up until this. I completely disagree and am flabbergasted at what I'm reading. I don't get what the blog owner or posters think they see that's telling in Elaine's words or behavior. What I see is a mother tormented by the fact Dylan is missing. I see a mother who knows intellectually that her son is gone and that Mark knows where he can be found. I also see a mother's denial, she emotionally is clinging to that small shred of hope that Dylan can come home to her safely. I see no deception in her words or behavior. Mark's deception and behavior, however, is off the charts.
Commentators bashing Elaine and Cory for their "attitude" toward Mark on Dr. Phil are being short sighted and judgmental. I wonder how much they have actually read on the case. Elaine has a singular goal - Dylan. Cory is now an adult who has found the courage to speak out for his brother and not be intimidated by his father. He was not disrespectful, he was determined.

Constantine said...

I am a longtime fan of Eyes for LIes and even when I disagree with her, it is minor. This is completely shocking to me. I won't leave a comment. It is like she has a mental or emotional block even as she says that she knows it does not mean someone is guilty. She sounds like she is going to go down with the ship and not admit she is wrong. Mark Redwine is so deceptive that it feels like Lies is saying Casey didnt do it, or OJ didnt do it: something this stupid.

Anonymous said...

The boys may have been in the house when MR returned, or nearby. Perhaps they went in for Dylans backpack after he left to go look for him. I do not think the postal worker has a reason to lie. Who else would have backpacks?

It's entertaining to many to become professional commentators themselves off these TV programs. However, there was never any indication of continuing abuse other than emotional as far as the boys were concerned. That's enough to walk away from even for a 13 year-old.

These two have and always will blame each other. The father being moreso guilty than the mother for behaving badly, but still-the mother already had another life with a new boyfriend. The brother had his friends, job, and what have ya. What was left for Dylan? Do as you're told-it's the law.

I suspect the boyfriend now may think the borther had something to do with the disappearance. Seems all the guys keep their hands in their pockets.

john said...

OT

From the journals of Jodi Arias
During her redirect examination, Jodi Arias has read several passages from her journals for the jury.

There are seven pages from her Journals here.

http://www.hlntv.com/shows/nancy-grace

Sus said...

I would like to comment on what I see in Elain. I hope I can explain this well.

I see guilt in her words. Not in causing Dylan's disappearance, but in not getting him back, not being able to work with Mark to find out where Dylan is.

Elain puts on a bravado front that she is pressing Mark, and I think eventually she will full-force. But she has LE telling her to work with Mark. They even suggested mediation. It has to slip into her mind that she should be able to work with this man.

Not so much now, but earlier blogs were filled with commenters stating that the parents should work together. That they were hurting the investigation by not doing so. People lashed out at Elain for questioning Mark,the last person to see her son.

Then you have Mark. He tells Elain she should work with him rather than accuse him. Yet he makes working with him an impossibility. That is how abusers work. I'm certain the entire marriage played out the same way.

Elain needs to make a clean break in her mind from Mark. It's evident Cory has. There is no WORKING WITH Mark to bring Dylan home. There is no working with Mark on anything ...his mind doesn't work that way.

LE should start treating domestic violence as street crime. They would never ask Elain to mediate or work with an unknown kidnapper. And the same goes with Trista in Ayla's murder.

Peter Hyatt said...

Some interesting points made here.

Guilt on the part of the parent of a missing child is expected. Specific guilt, or guilty behavior, is not.

A parent feels responsible for the child's safety and well being. Even when a child is injured in school, a responsible parent will say to himself, or herself, "Why did I put him here? Why did I move to this town? Why didn't I..."

It can be, many times, irrational guilt, but responsible parents feel it.

We see this in parents and we must seek to find out the 'quality' of the guilt. It can be complicated to discern.

I think back and I often reference Desiree Young. Kyron is not forgotten.
Desiree had such terrible guilt, but none of it was related to harming Dylan.

The "what if" game played in her head...my guess is that it still does.

What if I had not gotten sick?
What if I had not broken up with Kaine?
What if I did not invite Terri for tea?

On and on it goes. It is so very sad and ail need loving support to get through. Some survive, some do not.

Desiree survives, because, my opinion, she continues to fight for justice for Kyron. She continues to press the question, "Where is Kyron, Terri? What did you do to him?"

Elaine must fight on, just to survive. People of good will should help her, even as readers here have pledged to.

Peter

MeagIn Manhattan said...

Dear Peter ~ I do know how you feel about this, and you and I completely agree.
Another aspect of the show last night that made me distraught is how "abandoned" Elaine feels. I think she feels that she does not have a solid support system that believes in her innocence and in MR's complete and utter guilt. She is worried some will believe his lies!!!
For her to feel this way at this point in time is disheartening.

ELAINE - I hope you realize the ARMY of supporters you have behind you!
Stay strong in the fight for Dylan and we will find him. He is waiting to be found - we just need to know where to look and from the words that MR has himself used, I think that Peter & Kaaryn (who also did a fantastic job on the show) have given LE enough verbal clues to go on.

I hope that LE is receptive to all of these verbal clues.

Most Sincerely,
Meag

Anonymous said...

The woman who keeps using the term "hack" is probably the same woman who keeps setting up pro-Mark pages. She's the one who was asked to quit harassing Dylan's family. She did the same thing to Jessica Ridgeway's family. Kimberly Kay Bowman. She obviously is not a believer in SA.

Listening said...

I think a loving (innocent) parent will feel guilt when something is wrong with their child. Guilt that they weren't able to prevent the wrong. It's more disturbing to see a parent deny that guilt 100%. We see this with a lot of the missing children cases. For instance, when a parent says "I've looked everywhere", or something similar, like "I have no idea where child is", etc. As a parent, there will be guilt that the wrong wasn't prevented, as well as guilt that their actions of finding the child haven't been good enough; they will usually always think they should have done more and think they need to continue to do more.

There are obviously different types, forms, and reasons for guilt. Guilt doesn't necessarily mean guilty of a crime.

Listening said...

I hope Elaine will be able to move past this part of her "grief", sooner rather than later. There really was no way for her to prevent whatever happened. If she kept Dylan from the visit, she could have faced legal problems, and who knows where that could have lead; more visits/rights with MR? Of course there are so many questions to ask herself and scenarios to play out in her head. It's natural. I hope she can get through this as quickly as possible. :(

~ABC said...

Great response Peter.

The core issue I see in the original poster is the same issue that is epidemic in humanity, black and white, either/or thinking. Many people find it difficult if not impossible to think outside that polarized box. Most don't even see the need.
The brain is gray for a reason.....

Anonymous said...

I agree with the comment RE: Kimberly Kay Bowman. On the Mark Redwine is Innocent Unless Proven Guilty page, a thread was started saying that Peter is a hack, a charlatan, is unqualified and that he is the administrator of a nursing home, etc etc etc ...so I believe your assessment is most likely correct, in my opinion. That woman lead the charge on the rally at MR's home; however, when she got a cease and desist from Elaine asking her to take down her page, she took down her page, opened another Dylan page with a fictitious name and began to support MR. Simply googling her name will tell you all you need to know about her. I agree 100% with your assessment, Peter - sadly. I wish I didn't. I don't believe the information as to Dylan's whereabouts will ever come from MR :(

ME said...

~ABC great points!! All you others never cease to educate thanks!

john said...

If you missed last nights show here it is.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/insidelenz/2013/03/06/crime-wire

Anonymous said...

Saved as a favorite, I love your website!

Feel free to surf to my homepage; diet plan to lose weight

~ABC said...

Some interesting statistics concerning father's who kill their children. If this is accurate how might it give a clue in this case? I would love to know what MR's weapon of choice is...

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/psychology/fathers_who_kill/index.html

"......there is a common profile of men who have killed their wives and children. Most are white males in their 30s or 40s who react badly to stress and who view their families as extensions of themselves. They typically use a firearm or knife that they have owned for some time. Often they're depressed or intoxicated. Invariably they're described as controlling and quite dependent on their families being what they envision, and believing that they are the only ones who can fulfill the family's needs."

ChickenLittle said...

The what ifs to anyone who's experienced tragedy are the hardest. The what ifs of certain events in my life still haunt me.

I, personally, think the "what ifs" are one of satan's greatest tools.

BostonLady said...

Great blog and discussion !! I really enjoy coming to this blog and learning something new every time. I've always known our words are powerful but after coming here for 2 years, I now understand how powerful.

One thing I have learned here is that the analysis provides flags on statements that require more investigation. Just like Peter has stated about water, it doesn't mean it is absolutely referencing sexual abuse but it is a flag to investigate further. It may very well mean that but until delving into the information further, it is not a given.

One other comment is that I can feel Elaine's pain. I have not had a child go missing but I have had the feelings of guilt based on some decisions I've made. It is very difficult to not do the "what if's" and go down that road.

Thank you to everyone who shares on this blog. I've learned from you all!

Anonymous said...

The last several times I have beent to Walmart, I have seen Dylan's missing poster in the entrance. (WI) Today it was not there?

Kaaryn Gough said...

Excellent post, Peter! It is very well written and your points are right on target.

Jen said...

I'm a little late posting on this topic but I want to see if anyone else has had similar experiences. First the positive- I have turned a few people (family & friends) onto this site who have been receptive. I told them that if they developed an interest in SA, it would cause them to examine their own words and honesty, along with those closest to them (husbands, family, co-workers, etc). I've always loved to read and learn, so I really enjoy this blog. I find it educational, informative and learning the guidlines of SA has helped me in my everyday life. Peter does a great job of highlighting the principles and repeating them..so now when I watch TV or listen to someone talk I pay attention to tense, pronouns and qualifiers. (watching the Arias trial has driven me crazy, she adds qualifiers before AND after her present tense words about the murder she committed almost 4yrs ago. For example, "OK it's like, I'm standing here, and Travis is coming at me like a linebacker pose...if that makes sense".)

Jen said...

Now the negative...while most of the feedback has been positive, one friend was negative and defensive to the extreme. I knew she would take issue with the idea of SA, but we were talking about Jodi Arias (who she believes was actually abused and should be pitied) and I suggested she read some of Peter's analysis. Now when it comes up, she argues reasons to discount SA.... 'that's just the way people talk', 'it depends on where u grew up' (regional dialect), 'my parents used to say the same thing', 'thats just a figure of speech', or 'being polite', etc.

I don't usually argue back, (because I know it won't change her mind), but I had to respond to this one... 'People don't think about what their saying that deeply, so picking apart every word like it means something isn't fair'. I explained SA relies on the fact that we choose our words in a microsecond, revealing what's REALLY on our mind. This must have struck a cord, since it sparked her to ask what my 'motivation' was for wasting my time, and energy on 'that crap', and told me I would be a 'better person' if I just had faith in people. (please note that the person she thinks I need to have more faith in to redeem myself is Jodi Arias, lol). Has anyone else had issues like this, where the value of SA along with your 'motives' in using it are questioned?

ps: she is oppositional in many things, but I feel there is a deeper reason why she's so defiant toward SA.

Peter Hyatt said...

When someone says, "That's just the way people talk" or "that's just regional dialect", I like to ask

Then why bother to talk to them?

If they do not speak to be understood, why would anyone even listen to them?

We can say it is "wicked hot" in maine without introducing "evil" hot.

Peter Hyatt said...

I also find that when someone dismisses statement analysis, it helps to ask them how they know if someone is truthful or lying.

Peter Hyatt said...

Jen,

your post shows a thoughtful, pensive person.

Don't change it.

Peter

Jen said...

Thank you Peter,

Your insight and reasoning always amaze me, and since reading my first article here I've been impressed by how much you are able to draw from a subjects words. Also your compassion, and dedication to the victims and their families is evident, and appreciated.

Those are great points to raise, I wish I had thought to ask her those things! If she is going to discount and explain away her words then why even listen...she's obviously made up her mind. As far as how she determines if someone is lying, she's also said, 'maybe she's lying because she has to'. So her truth/lie barometer apparently has a third option...necessary lie, lol!

Keith D. said...

This post was based on a comment I left. What's quoted isn't my entire comment, nor does it contain the comment I was replying to for context. In the interest of your readers, I'll include the relevant exchange in its entirety below, and the entire blog post can be read here: http://blog.eyesforlies.com/2013/02/elaine-redwine-and-dr-phil.html

The comment which began the thread:
"please go to Peter Hyatt's Statement analysis site & read the analysis of Mark Redwine. .
Elaine Redwine shows no deception (in Statement Analysis while Mark redwine's deception BLAZES like the sun.

(3 diff posts with statement analysis of Mark Redwine)

http://statement-analysis.blog...

http://statement-analysis.blog...

http://statement-analysis.blog..."
------

The comment I was replying to:
"I'm in agreement with you, Eyes. Peter Hyatt is a hack."
------

Eyes' comment, because the comment above misportrays her comment:
"Please respect we disagree. I do not agree with Peter's analysis. I'm sorry."
------

My comment, a portion of which Peter addresses with this blog post:
"I wouldn't go so far as to say he's a hack. He just does statement analysis by the rules of statement analysis (I believe what he does is largely based on the work of Mark McClish but I could be mistaken). It's a useful tool, but it's only a tool.

There are a lot of things in that school of statement analysis that I find very hackish and dangerous, like "when someone mentions water in a statement, it usually means sexual abuse". There's no scientific basis for something like that at all that I'm aware of. At best, there may be a statistical link between statements that mention water and sex crimes, but to say that it always applies just isn't rational and could potentially be utterly disastrous to someone whose statement is being analyzed.

That said, Peter doesn't claim to know the truth, he only claims to apply the rules of statement analysis and reach the conclusions that following those rules reaches (they're sometimes wrong, just as even Eyes is sometimes wrong). But he's only using one tool, and teaching people how to use that one tool. As they say, when all you have is a hammer, everything tends to look like a nail. It's best when you're looking to find the truth that you bring as many resources to bear as possible, and using only one tool isn't doing that. That isn't what Peter does on his blog though, what he does is use and teach that one tool. It's up to the reader to add more tools to their tool belt and figure out the best way to use them all.

I will say though that there is quite a lot of value to some of the things he discusses on his blog-- it's just a matter of sorting through them and figuring out which ones are the most logical and make the most sense, and which ones are a bit hokey. I would strongly advise against reading his blog and thinking that statement analysis is some kind of magic bullet or lasso of truth or something and that using it will always show you when someone is being deceptive or tell you what the truth is, because decades of research has shown quite conclusively that there is no such thing."

Keith D. said...

And further, in response to Peter's response to the portion of my comment that he was commenting on:

"What this means to an investigator is that when "water" appears in an open statement, the investigator must be open-minded and ask questions about possible sexual abuse of any type. It does not mean "usually", it means, "explore for it", especially if the references are unnecessary, such as washing one's hands."

Thank you for the clarification on this one. It's one that I felt could easily be misunderstood or misconstrued by a casual reader of your Statement Analysis blog. In fact, I myself misconstrued it by remembering it as "usually" rather than "explore for it", so it seems my assumption there is probably a sound one.

"I note the person wrote "usually" but then wrote "always" in the statement. Clarity would be helpful."

Yes, I wrote "usually" because that's the way I remembered it being portrayed on the blog. I wrote "always" later because this could be catastrophic if someone were to take the principle to mean "always", even if the principle had been "usually" rather than "explore for it". This is a real danger for casual readers or non-professionals who haven't gone through the actual training programs and who only pick up bits and pieces from reading the blog here. A seasoned veteran investigator is probably already very familiar with how to properly use the tools they have at their disposal, whereas someone who doesn't do this for a living for hours every day and doesn't have years of experience could much more easily forget the nuances of the principles of statement analysis, and that could result in tragic outcomes in real people's lives if they apply it and think they're doing it correctly when they're not, or think that statement analysis can do things that it can't do. Even those seasoned investigators will still get things wrong sometimes, or make mistakes, and the number of wrongly convicted in our prisons is a testament to how high the stakes are and how human we all are in whatever we do. We need humility to keep ourselves in check.

"As to being "hackish" , the principles are not stone-like, but clay like. We remain flexible and it is up to the skill of the analyst to draw a conclusion."

"Hackish" was a word I used to reflect the term used by the commenter I was replying to, because the commenter had called you a "hack". What I was trying to convey-- to that person-- is that there are things about statement analysis that I think require a nuanced understanding and better training/more experience to use properly and appropriately, i.e. the "water" thing that I used as an example here. Not only would you have a much higher likelihood of being wrong if you didn't understand what the princple was, where it originated from in the school of statement analysis (i.e. a statistical correlation), but you'd also run a very real risk of destroying an innocent person's whole life in certain instances. If someone were to misapply this principle, it would indeed be "hackish" and they would indeed be a "hack". I study quite a lot of body language, behavioral psychology, statement analysis etc. in my life because it's a strong interest of mine, and I encounter A LOT of people who are self-proclaimed experts who get the most basic things utterly wrong. The person who said you were a hack was someone I felt could be one of those people if they weren't careful, so the description there I felt was appropriate.

...cont'd

Keith D. said...

cont'd...

"As to the scientific basis for the link: LSI has done its own research. The writer says "there may be a statistical link", which, itself is true which then negates it being "hackish and dangerous."

No one here has ever said it "always applies"; this is a false characterization, nor have I read it anywhere from anyone else."


There may be a statistical link, I assumed there probably was, and I also assumed that some research had been done on it, but I have also never read any of that research. I have read other research published by the FBI on analyzing statements, and read the associated studies-- that's something I do from time to time so I have a better understanding of what I encounter and what I do myself. This particular area is not one in which I have any knowledge of scientific research or studies being conducted or published on. I didn't negate there possibly being a statistical link however by saying it's "hackish or dangerous", I added nuance to it that I felt was necessary. If there is a statistical link between two things, then those two things are not intrinsically linked 100% of the time or else the link wouldn't be merely statistical, so treating them as if they are intrinsically linked would be irrational, and potentially utterly disasterous as I described.

As for "nor have I read it anywhere from anyone else", I have no doubt that's likely true for you. I have read it before though, which is one of the reasons I felt strongly enough about it to comment on it. I don't remember if it was from a commenter here or elsewhere, but I do remember reading it and it was completely misconstrued.

"I have repeatedly written that Statement Analysis is one tool among many in investigations. It is "linguistic indicators" that is added to:
Testimonial evidence; physical evidence, circumstantial evidence, DNA, forensics, and so on.

I don't write about DNA. If this was a DNA blog, DNA would be central. This blog is dedicated to language, not to the exclusion of other factors, but it is central."


We're in complete agreement, as you can see in my full, original comment above.

"Someone may wish to support the body language analyst's contention that Mark Redwine is truthful and Elaine is not, but misrepresenting Statement Analysis is not the way to do it."

I agree. I don't think I did that myself so maybe this isn't directed at my comment, but others may have. I believe statement analysis has quite a lot of value, and I use it myself quite often alongside body language, behavioral evidence, physical evidence and so forth.

Again, thanks for the response and taking the time to write this post Peter. I think it'll go a long way to helping your readers better understand how to use statement analysis effectively, and perhaps clarifying one of the things about statement analysis that often goes unsaid-- that it's a tool, not a magic bullet. That its application tells you when to "explore more", not to say "this is what happened, period." That it is most properly applied when it's used alongside other investigative tools, including actual physical evidence and outside witness statements. I've always advocated for looking at the totality of the evidence. When you find the truth, all of the pieces will fit from every perspective. If some of the pieces don't fit, either you don't have the whole truth, or you don't have a full understanding.

Anonymous said...

The equipment of a motor boutique positively depends upon the bigness and solicitation of punch it has to do. There are rare sizes of machines of the unvaried courteous for the treatment of the aid of machining assorted sizes of castings and forgings, also there are another kinds of machines in the maintenance of doing the unchanged considerate of career in barmy grades of refinement. An commercial cogitation is to pull someone's leg as infrequent machines as achievable to do as peachy exotic a number of stir up as imaginable, and this is choicest expert by choosing high-grade machines which are not exclusively adapted to mark of sphere,
http://fer.pl/index.php?mact=Gallery,m6e73e,default,1&m6e73edir=SHOP-WALL%2F&m6e73ereturnid=78&page=78
http://www.2uh.pl/biznes-i-ekonomia/motoryzacja-pd116/
http://www.spisik-stronek.pl/biznes-i-ekonomia/regaly-metalowe,d,4119.php
http://ber.edu.pl/interesy/5237/
http://alon.pl/przemysl,i,produkcja/fer,marek,bienias,meble,sklepowe,s,2769/

http://www.2uh.pl/black-design-agencja-reklamowa-brzeg-wp102/
http://www.21-dni.eu/firmy-biznes-finanse/fer-meble-sklepowe,l,2484.php
http://www.ciekawe-stronki-www.info.pl/biznes;i;ekonomia/strona;internetowa,s,1344.htm
http://katalog.linuxiarze.pl/tag,grawerton/
http://katalog.linuxiarze.pl/tag,kryminal/

Anonymous said...

Tyya's dad won't acquire mad anything honesty a possessions at the cumulate - no ice cream, no candy, no cookies. But when the saleslady puts a valuation sticker on Tyya's nose, Daddy is done feigned to suborn something goodness

http://www.webhunter.pl/?p=1


http://fbdesign.pl/funkcjonalnosci-fb
http://jameshardy.pl/m_oczko.html
http://imaginationfield.pl
http://bachus.wroclaw.pl
http://cafewenecja.pl/page/8

Anonymous said...

International Industrial coupon codes are codes that you can use to rub someone up the wrong way discounts upon your shopping at global industrial online or not. Coupon codes released not later than the company serve as treat of the company their unswerving customers.
http://wykonczeniawnetrzwarszawa.com.pl/osuszacze-powietrza/
http://yeldi.swidnica.pl/interesy-biznesowe/3272/
http://skrobak.pl/firmy,wg,branz/knpl,abieniek,kurtyny,powietrzne,s,9259/
http://neptune.serialowo.com/viewtopic.php?p=94818
http://www.minikatalog.niepospolici.pl/t/elektryczne

http://ashcer.com.pl/?p=6069
http://www.wally.pl/firmy,branza/knpl,abieniek,nagrzewnice,s,1925/
http://www.2uh.pl/?action=premium&id=125
http://www.kataloguj.info/tag,instalacje,grzewcze/
http://www.kataloguj.info/tag,chorwacja,wycieczki/

Anonymous said...

When I initially left a comment I appear to have
clicked on the -Notify me when new comments are added- checkbox and now whenever a comment
is added I receive four emails with the exact same comment.
Is there a means you can remove me from that service?
Kudos!

Also visit my weblog - tusze

Anonymous said...

It's a shame you don't have a donate button! I'd without a doubt donate to this excellent blog! I suppose for now i'll settle for
book-marking and adding your RSS feed to my Google account.
I look forward to new updates and will share this site with
my Facebook group. Talk soon!

Stop by my blog; tusze

Michele Ward said...

Wow thank you very much for this creative content, this has really helped me a lot,specially first post of this site.
i was at this confused point in my Family Self Defense but after reading,this gave me more idea about how better my life could be.
Thank you very much for the effort and kindly keep posting something like this every time, it goes a long way to help people like us.
I also got help from another cool site like your too called Perfect www.familyselfdefencereviews.com which describes a lot about handling health. Thank you very much and I am gonna be here often.

Michele Ward said...

If you’re looking for savings in your local area, Alpha Coupons is your one-stop online companion to the best deals, offers and discounts from local leading UK businesses.
Coupons are codes which have different variety of different numbers or letters, retailers use coupons to encourage more sales. Just copy and paste the chosen codes and save those extra pounds!
Coupons

Perfect Media said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Discount Andyou said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Peter HyattMarch 7, 2013 at 5:12 PM
When someone says, "That's just the way people talk" or "that's just regional dialect", I like to ask

Then why bother to talk to them?

If they do not speak to be understood, why would anyone even listen to them?

We can say it is "wicked hot" in maine without introducing "evil" hot.

Reply



If a person speaks using a regional dialect, it is natural and understood by that person. If it is not affected, why would they not think they are being understood?

Indigenous dialect is natural and is assumed by the speaker that he/she is being understood, because they see nothing unusual about it.

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous said...
Peter HyattMarch 7, 2013 at 5:12 PM
When someone says, "That's just the way people talk" or "that's just regional dialect", I like to ask

Then why bother to talk to them?

If they do not speak to be understood, why would anyone even listen to them?

We can say it is "wicked hot" in maine without introducing "evil" hot.

Reply



If a person speaks using a regional dialect, it is natural and understood by that person. If it is not affected, why would they not think they are being understood?

Indigenous dialect is natural and is assumed by the speaker that he/she is being understood, because they see nothing unusual about it.


Exactly. This is why we say "if a person intends on being understood, analysis can be done" when challenged about regional expressions.

I find that the more work I do with the UK, the more I need to ask for definition of an expression where the context does not make it clear. It is a great learning experience.

Peter