Friday, November 22, 2013

Mark McClish Statement Analysis Course

Mark McClish 
Mark McClish is a trusted colleague who offers a short online course in basic Statement Analysis.  Although not a substitute for the more complicated SCAN course (, Mark has done a good job in not only introducing interested parties in lie detection, but he is also successful.

His site is here:

Mark has done his own research and can be credited with the statistically view of "the liar's number" being the number three.  This means that he flags this number, no matter where it appears, and questions it.  He does not declare it to be 'deceptive', only that he looks at it and says, "hmmmm."

Since he first found this, he has had confirmation from students.  I have found it repeatedly in deceptive statements.  Charlie Rogers "Fake Hate" said "three men broke in..." and recently, a woman in Maine claimed that she had been broken into by "three men" (and since has stopped cooperating with police).  Of course three men can break into a 3rd floor at 3 o'clock, but it is something that causes us to pause and, with Mark, say, "hmmm...I need to look at this a wee bit closer..." (or something like that.)

I am always on the look out for good analysis work, and I like Wesley Clark's work, found here:

Mr. Avinoam Sapir's work is the foundation of all our work, and it can be done in either live seminar setting (2 1/2 days) or online, where the student has more time to learn.  Kaaryn Gough, analyst and private investigator, is well known here, studied under Mr. Sapir and continues to, through his ongoing advanced training.  As I participate also, please note that this training is...


Mr. Sapir's brilliance is without rival.

Back to Statement Analysis studying:

In all studies, the initial training is short...several full days.

It is like learning all the basic guitar chords in just a few days.  You'll know the chords, technically, and will place your fingers exactly where you should.

...your sound will not be something you'll likely earn money from, any time soon. It will sound rough, awkward, and you will struggle, and need guidance, but the sound will improve, but only with practice.  You may find that 20 hours of training will give you some simple tools to work with, but it is the work that follows that is most critical.

It takes lots and lots and lots of practice.  1,000 hours?  This should be your goal.

Our politicians, celebrities, and sports figures often give us lots and lots of practice, as they are so very generous in their deceptions.  Sadly, our best friends, or spouses might do the same.

On the bright side, if you're a parent, you already have some training because children all lie, unless taught otherwise.  Take one hour per day, online, while reading the news.  This can become 30 hours per week, for 52 weeks a year, for...

The 1,000 hour mark is a fascinating study within itself, but that's for a different article.

Who should do this work?

Of course, law enforcement.

It is a shame that today, police are more likely to be found creeping behind a bush catching someone driving too fast, in order to build revenue, than he or she is out learning to catch criminals.  If someone is a dangerous driver, he should be ticketed, but there is something quite base about a grown man or woman parked behind a bush waiting to ticket someone for going 45 in a 35 rather than learning proper interviewing techniques, analysis, crime prevention and proper investigation.

Baby Ayla's still waiting for justice, while cops are pulling people over for no other purpose than revenue.

That's a different story, altogether.  Back to Statement Analysis:

Mark recently tested his work, and the results are exciting.  I applaud him for putting his work on the line.

He asked anyone who took his online course to take a "test" of sorts:  He gave them all statements and the student was simply asked to declare:

Truthful or Deceptive. 

The student did not have to identify where the deception was (SCAN) or what, specifically, the subject was deceptive about (SCAN), only to conclude, Truth or Deception.

This gave the student a 50/50 chance of getting it right.

If you take ten statements, and have 50 participants, you have a nice little study from which to work from.  I have included one such sample statement.  They were all actual statements.

The results?

Participants were able to identify whether the statements were truthful or deceptive 84%.

Mark should be very pleased with these results.  He should be proud of his work.  


Mainah said...

Ok, so I'm over confident...there are worse things to be....

C5H11ONO said...

For what it's worth, I work for a an executive search firm and candidates when interviewed also use 3 as well. Not to indicate the number of years they actually worked in a firm, because they already provided that in their resume, but always to indicate the number of direct reports they have, the number of supervisors they hired, pricing is 3x more, and when giving examples they include "3".

Alternatively, I've read some candidate's written statements to questions asked by the client, and I was so impressed to see "I" and past tense references throughout their answers. It actually looked beautiful. It was truth glaring at you.

Anonymous said...

Mark should be very pleased with these results. He should be proud of his work.

Really?!! The following is from Marks website
"Zimmerman refers to Martin as a "suspect." In his 911 call, he referred to Martin as a "guy." The use of the word suspect is most likely justified since he gave this statement after the shooting had occurred. Since Martin allegedly attacked him, Zimmerman now views Martin as a suspect and not just a guy."

A suspect is a suspicios person. "Since Martin allegedly attacked him," expected is attacker, perpetrator. Mark also left off the begining of the wriiten statemant where GZ refers to a"intruder" that became a "robber" inside his neighbors home. He changes this pattern when refering to Trayvon. GZ consistently refers to Trayvon as "the suspect" .

Marks agreement and validation of this "the suspect" labeling of an innocent teen is sick.