Sunday, December 29, 2013

Does Statement Analysis Aid Criminals?

Peter Hyatt

                                  Does Statement Analysis help criminals learn to lie?

Can't one just read, and parrot, "I didn't do it" while making a statement?

Did John and Patsy Ramsey read analysis before their press conference?

What about the lawyers?  Didn't they prep the Ramseys?  Didn't they hear the analysis on the news?

What of Billie Jean Dunn, mother of murdered Hailey Dunn?  Didn't she not only read the material here, but bring it into a TV studio?  Didn't her lawyer read it as well?  Couldn't they simply learn the principles and 'outsmart' analysis?

What of Justin DiPietro?  Couldn't the lying father of Baby Ayla mimic the words published here or elsewhere?

With my study of Statement Analysis, and having dedicated my life to it, should I commit a crime, I could write out a statement that appears "fool proof", however, once you (interviewing me) get me talking, and enter the "free editing process", I will be seen as guilty.

                           Statement Analysis does not help anyone lie or cheat.

This past year, a  small town cop with a big city ego called me, and accused me of "stealing" his "identity."  I said, "It would help to know who's identity I stole" in which he said, "You know who I am.  You know exactly who I am."

I didn't.  As the conversation progressed, I learned his identity and from what he revealed in the next ranting 20 minutes, I wished I hadn't.

He said that by my posting analysis on a 911 call I would "teach murderers how to get away with murder."  He was fuming over the posting of analysis and quickly escalated in anger, and denigrated to cursing and name calling.

There was no fixing that sort of thinking...and all I could say was, "Do you really want to stay with your assertion?" knowing that this lack of knowledge, along with promotion in a small fish tank, had left him bereft of the ability to learn.  Knowing that he legally carries a lethal weapon is no comfort to those he pulls over, as citizens are forced into a stage of hyper-deference as we've seen a generational decline in education make its way into law enforcement. He claimed as his own that which belongs to LSI, from whom he had not even studied.  An 'errand boy' for research, he demanded recognition, "or else", he said, he would show up in my small town in Maine.  He also asserted that he was on the FBI task force, locally.

I contacted his superior who declined to deny that his subordinate was small minded and quick tempered and asked that he be given a "professional courtesy", that is, let nothing more come of it.  I did call his local FBI office which reported that he was not known to them, nor part of any task force.

Threats have become common place in the new internet world where information flows freely and quickly, and envy can blind the mind, but when coupled with ignorance, it creates a storm of anger.  I pitied the small town's population subject to such a person, and wondered how deferential must one be, to him, while being ticketed for going 35 mph in a 25 mph roadway.  Thus the reduction of respect for our modern law enforcement, overshadowing the good done by dedicated professionals.

I struggle to imagine a murderer reading a blog on a 911 call, prior to killing, and then fretting over how he would word his call to the emergency operator.  "Hmm, let me think...I need to ask for help for the victim and not for me..."

The work on 911 calls is the SCAN method applied; nothing more.  It is SCAN's "Expected versus Unexpected" with a study in domestic homicides.  It is, for example, expected that the caller will ask for help for the victim immediately.  It is not expected to hear a greeting, or for help for the caller, himself.  Statement Analysis deals with the unexpected.  If anything was "stolen", it was the theft of credit; that is, taking credit for LSI's work, as if it was one's own.

Today, we have a crisis of confidence in law enforcement with some famous cases, including Baby Lisa, Baby Ayla, Hailey Dunn, and others, in which no mystery remains other than why no prosecution.

It is easier to teach the Reliable Denial in the private sector than it is within the realms of law enforcement, as money attracts talent away from service, as well as the 'jaded' nature of someone who works in police work, constantly having to do on-the-fly interviews and listening to lies.  Of course, there are those educated and intelligent who remain in law enforcement as a calling and duty in life.  It would appear, however, that they are in the minority in many locales, today.

The Free Editing Process holds the key to understanding.

The Free Editing Process is when a person (the "subject") speaks freely for himself, openly engaged, rather than parroting back words or reading from a statement or memory.  This is why the interview is key.

"Did you kill your daughter?"

Answer:  "I didn't kill my daughter" is the mere parroting back of the interviewer's own words.  This is why open ended questions are best:

"What happened?" followed by "What happened next?" as the "magic" questions to gain information.  Television interviewers rarely ask open ended questions because they seek to bring the spotlight, not upon the flow of information, but upon their own selves, for the purpose of image building and ratings.

"Tell me what happened..." then allows the subject to choose not only how to begin the answer, but where to begin.  How someone chooses to begin an open statement is often the reason for making a statement.  It is always important.  This principle should be applied to letters, emails, and so on.

This was seen a few years ago on the Nancy Grace Show.  13 year old Hailey Dunn was reportedly missing and Nancy Grace, a TV interviewer, asked two questions of the mother, Billie Jean Dunn, in which we learned all we needed to know about the case.

Nancy Grace introduced the topic as a 13 year old girl went to go to sleep over at a friend's house, and never made it.

Nancy Grace:  "How far did she have to go?"

Billie Dunn:  "About 2 or 3 blocks.  She wasn't allowed to go out after dark."

The mother started out just fine, answering the question with "2 or 3 blocks", but then, as deceptive people are oft to do, went beyond the boundary of the question with:

"She wasn't allowed to go out after dark..."

This raises the question about her missing child:  is she still allowed to go out after dark?

Deceptive people feel a pressure that truthful people do not.  The pressure is the need to be believed, or the need to persuade.  This is why they use extra words as they wish to "drive home the point" where no "driving" is even called for or expected.

Here, the mother of a newly missing child has referenced her child in the past tense.  This is a 'slip' where she reveals to us that she knows or believes her child to be dead.

Then, Nancy Grace asked, "Tell me what happened" to the mother.

The mother said, "She went missing while I was at work."

Nancy Grace did not ask "when" Hailey went missing, but this is where the mother decided to begin her statement.  What does it tell you?

It shows that the mother is concerned with an alibi.

Now you know two things:

The missing child is dead; and the mother needs an alibi.

Thus it would work out that the mother would be involved in drugs, child pornography, bestiality, violence and would go on to fail a polygraph, along with her boyfriend, Shawn Adkins.
She, a liar since childhood, was unable to keep herself from leaking out the critical information as she entered the Free Editing Process, one in which she edits her own words, and edits her own account, showing what was most important to her.

It is in the Free Editing Process that an innocent person will say that he didn't do it, without being asked, and without qualification.  We saw this in the incredibly abusive interview of Kevin Fox, falsely accused of killing his young daughter, by ignorant law enforcement.

Bullying is the bane of the weak minded who eschew training and hinder the flow of information by the combination of ignorance and arrogance.  See the analysis HERE for understanding.  He was bullied for hours, with no assistance from an attorney, and although he kept up with reliable denials, and showed no deception, they "knew" better.  This is where ignorance mated with arrogance, and bullying took place.

Good interviewing skills will always yield more information than bullying or even torture.  Menachim Begin wrote about the Soviet torture technique, which yielded some information, but it was when they gave him 30 days of no human contact that he was unable to be silent.  We are creatures made to communicate.  Bullying cops, already at a great advantage with a weapon, give intelligent law enforcement an overall bad name.  I've met some who believe that tapping their gun and screaming in the face of a suspect yields the answers they seek, and in short order.  It's wrong and its unAmerican, but that is for another day.

In Analytical Interviewing, we do not interrupt the subject, even when he is attempting to give a long-winded tangent.

In the case of a rambling tangent, we know he must choose his words from somewhere, and it is even within these words, that we find truth.

Remember during the Casey Anthony saga that CNN analyst Mike Brooks made everyone laugh with the corny, "Do you know how I can tell Casey Anthony is lying?  Because her lips are moving!"?  Well, it was within Casey Anthony's own words that she revealed that Caylee was dead and that she was buried near the home.  It was in Cindy Anthony's own "negation" that the location was given:

"George and I don't think Caylee's in the words or anything."

She was not asked if she thought Caylee was in the woods.  She offered this, in the negative, making it vital information.  Brooks, a former cop, got chuckles from the studio attendants, but not from those serious about learning the truth.

For a deeper understanding on how even seemingly innocuous references have meaning, see some of the analysis done on the Ramsey case HERE where the SCAN technique is applied to the Ramsey's press conference.

Please note that analysis done has shown that Jonbenet Ramsey likely was a victim of sexual abuse, and that my own analysis agrees with the Grand Jury finding that Jonbenet Ramsey died as a result of child abuse, and that her parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, are responsible for her death, as well as the cover up, which includes a fake ransom note.  In the SCAN analysis, the genius of Avinoam Sapir is seen in the subtle phrases, particularly in how a parent references a child.  He follows pronouns like a blood hound and puts his faith into the subject to guide him.  The Ramseys do not disappoint.

We saw this with the deception of the McCanns, as well, and we saw how Amanda Knox did not kill her roommate, but indeed was present for it, and was involved in the coverup as well.

The Free Editing Process yields the most information.

Look over the analysis of Mark Redwine and you will see how he chooses words that Analyst Kaaryn Gough pointed out, all indicated a violent struggle with his son, Dylan, which resulted in Dylan's death, and Mark Redwine's cover up.

Want to see how deep analysis can run?  Take a look at Kaaryn's work on Mark Redwine HERE and use the search feature for additional analysis.

Case after case after case, we find that in spite of intellect, the human species is built upon communication, and where there is communication, there is the need for analysis.

The one case that was remarkable for the lack of communication was that of Susan Powell (Cox), where her husband, Josh Powell,  was incredibly quiet for the most part, giving only short answers to the press.  Eventually, however, he could not keep silent as his pride got the best of him and he shot off his mouth, and the words he chose to use, indicated the manner of death that Susan met.

Our words give us away, and even those who have studied and become strong at analysis will be caught up in their own words.  In one case in which a police officer was proficient in the Statement Analysis questionnaire, he was caught, in spite of his training, by the written statement, as he had stolen money from the evidence room.

Good journalists know, instinctively, to ask questions 'on the fly' in order to "catch the person off guard", which is just another way of saying to get the person to answer a question without pre-thought.


Anonymous said...

Thank you!that is BRILLIANT!!:)

Tania Cadogan said...

in 2014 i am going to sit in on cases in my local magistrates and practice on the fly to see what i pick up, what i miss and to tune my ears in :)

Anonymous said...


PARIS, TN (WSMV) - Three men are still on the run after attacking a Tennessee store owner, and the FBI is now looking into whether this was a hate crime. Police in Paris, TN, say the men robbed the Healthy Thyme health food store Wednesday night then tried to burn the business down. The suspects wore ski masks and black clothing and got away with $1,500, but based on the narrative from police, it appears they likely had a motive beyond robbery.

"I'm extremely surprised and dumbfounded why someone would do that. It makes no sense," said Robert Spicer, a customer at the store.

Police say owner Joe Williams was closing the store Wednesday when three men attacked. They beat him, and as they did so, Williams told police, they yelled gay slurs. The victim said he believes he lost consciousness. When he awoke, he said he saw two of the three men pouring gasoline near the front of the store. Somehow, he said he made it to an office, and after watching the three run away, feared a fire. So he ran next door and called 911. When police found the victim, they discovered him with eye swelling, a busted lip and a gay slur written across his forehead.

(That was from

I don't know about you all, but I stopped reading at the word three, which happened to be the first word of the article :-)

Anyway check out the rest of the story:

A man who told police he had been robbed and beaten at a Paris health food store a few days before Thanksgiving apparently was lying about the incident and has now been charged with filing a false report. Joe Williams, 32, of 803 E. Wood St. was charged when he was arrested Friday afternoon after turning himself in at the Henry County jail. He was arrested by Sheriff’s Cpl. Milton Webb.

According to information from the Paris Police Department, officers doing a follow-up investigation on the Nov. 20 robbery and arson at Healthy Thyme health food store discovered inconsistent statements from Williams, the alleged victim who was working at the store at the time. [...] During a follow-up investigation, officers noticed inconsistencies in Williams’ story.

A later interview with Williams by the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation and Paris Police uncovered information showing that Williams lied during the initial questioning. Paris Police Sgt. Ricky Watson said Williams failed to bring up certain facts known to investigators on three different occasions. "He was given three opportunities to disclose that information, and he chose not to," Watson said. That leaves investigators in the position of trying to determine how much of Williams' story might have been true. "We've not been able to verify or dispel any of the statements made about the actual robbery or fire," Watson said. "We're looking into Mister Williams, and we're looking into whether it did or did not happen." [...]

(That was from

Mr Hyatt, you save me a lot of time reading the news.

gringo said...

He has saved us all watching the news my friend.

Anonymous said...

You stopped @3 .... so you think the journalist is deceptive?

Anonymous said...

I dont think it could aid criminals, they are not that smart, didnt learn their ABCs in school, so that is why they do stupid stuff like crimes. They would have to be good with words to do SA. That would be hard for them I think. Plus could they think that fast on the spot to do SA? I dont think so. It would be too hard. You would beed a strong brain I feel.

sha said...

I would think that if a criminal were smart, a criminal could learn statement analysis and use it to his/her advantage.

Just like criminals can learn to keep their mouth shut from their lawyers, learn to lock pick, or master disabling electrical alarm systems....but how many would be willing to do it?

If they are a good actor, and practice their lines, this helps.....yes, unexpected questions may get to some of them, but others will be fast thinkers or calm enough to not add more info that what was asked.

Listening in at court can sometimes be disappointing, here in the states the lawyers talk a lot and try to NOT allow witnesses to blather on. (yes or no please)

Meanwhile, whether or not learning SA would help a particular criminal is really moot.....they can't take away freedom of speech (although some are trying) and if they could prevent the knowledge of SA from getting "out" because of possible criminal learners then they'd have to get rid of tons of books and how to's for a lot of other things as well that criminal types would learn from.

Unknown said...

Well, I know SA, and I did a pitiful job at concealing the origin of my son's gifts from 'Santa', even though I had it in my head to be careful.

The best example:

SANTA got my little guy a playhouse, and EVERYTIME someone asked me a question about it, ('where did you get it', 'how did you get it home', 'was it hard to put together', etc) I answered them honestly/forgot about the whole Santa storyline.

My son now thinks Santa gave him the playhouse, but he needed Mommy and Daddy's help to get it here, because it was too heavy for the sleigh, AND he needed our help to put it together because he didn't have time, AND he needed us to throw away the huge box (which he saw in the workshop yesterday).

See how many details, and how much explaining, my weak tissue of lies about my original lie needed, lol!

Anonymous said...

I think it would be too hard. They would have to learn to think on their toes and be able to do SA and it would be really, really hard. Unless their brain was big or a really smart then they could use it to fool people. Like if they are guilty they could be tricky, use SA, and then they would fool people. It would be a mean trick though to play on people. They should just be honest and say "I am guilty".

Tania Cadogan said...

off topic BBM

Amanda Knox has joined Twitter and says she’s accepted Meredith Kercher's family thinks she's guilty as the end of her murder retrial approaches.

Knox tweeted a link to her blog: ‘With Respect to the Kercher Family’ on December 18, in which she writes: 'I hope that everyone can understand that this is an issue of perspective, and from mine and those who know my innocence, it’s clear that my actions are an attempt to show compassion and solidarity.

'I have to accept that the Kerchers believe I’m guilty and my attempts to honor her memory can cause them pain. I do not wish to antagonize their grief, even with my best intentions.

The 26-year-old is currently being retried for Meredith’s murder in Florence, Italy, but is not attending the trial.

It appears her outburst was triggered by being told to remove a link to the Kercher family fundraising page from her website

The blog entry goes on to describe her pain at being asked to remove the link by the family’s lawyer.
She writes: “It is with a broken heart that I acquiesce with the Kercher family’s attorney’s request to remove from my site the link to the Kercher family’s fundraising page and the page I have dedicated in memory of my friend, Meredith.
'I feel trapped in a position where any attempts I make to respect their grief from a distance are perceived as indifference, and any attempts to make a connection are perceived as antagonism and arrogance.

'Thank you to all who have supported me in wanting to keep Meredith’s memory as a friend alive in my heart.'
In closing arguments last week the Kercher family lawyer Francesco Maresca urged the panel of two professional judges and eight lay jurors to disregard Knox's claims of innocence.

He said: 'She has become a well-known person. You know she signed contracts for millions of dollars for her book. She has someone who takes care of her public relations.

'She has a personal website where she invites people to collect donations in the memory of the victim, Meredith Kercher, which is an unbearable contradiction for the family.'

He added that the world's attention has focused on Knox, while 'the victim has fallen into total oblivion, to the immense pain of the Kercher family'.

Amanda had previously hit back at Maresca's claims as inaccurate.

On December 17, she tweeted: ‘Support Meredith Kercher’s family,’ and a link to another blog entry in which she wrote: 'The Kercher family’s civil attorney, Francesco Maresca, in his closing arguments yesterday, claimed I have been collecting unspecified funds in the name of Meredith and her family.He implied that I was deceiving the public and collecting those funds for myself.

Tania Cadogan said...

'Please visit the Meredith Kercher Murder page and scroll down to the Donation section to discover that I have simply added a link to the Kercher family’s own website where they solicit donations for their ongoing struggle through this heartbreaking legal process.

'I have been solicited by Mr Maresca to remove from my site anything I have done to honor her memory or show support to her family. My response was that no one but the Kercher family has any right to make such a request. As I await direct contact from the family of my murdered friend, I will continue to honor her and show support. Thank you for your support.'

Knox has a section of her website called: ‘Meredith Kercher Murder’, but there is no longer a ‘Donation Section’, so it appears she has now removed it.

However - in a move that some may find distasteful - next to Knox’s blog entries about Meredith is an icon with credit card symbols in which she asks for donations for her own Knox Defense Fund.

Knox joined Twitter on November 14 as @amamaknox, tweeting: '#RyanFergusonWelcome home!!! With love and support, Amanda and Madison.' She also posted a photo of herself with best friend Madison Pax, who moved to Italy to support her when she was in prison, holding up a sign saying ‘Welcome home Ryan.'

Ryan Ferguson spent 10 years in prison wrongly convicted of second-degree murder and first degree robbery and was released last month after it was finally overturned.
Knox has only tweeted 14 times and at the time of writing had just 97 followers – one of which is her co-accused Raffaele Sollecito who has been on Twitter for since November 2011.

On her Twitter page she also has the Latin quote: 'Aequam memento rebus in arduis servare mentem,' a quote from ancient Roman poet Virgil meaning: 'Remember to maintain a calm mind while doing difficult tasks.'

Knox sent an email to the Florence courtroom pleading her innocence last week in a move which appeared not to impress the judge. Judge Alessandro Nencini said such an email from a defendant was ‘irregular’, adding: ‘If you want to speak to the trial you have to come to the trial.'

The trial is expected to conclude in mid-January.

Read more:

Anonymous said...

Search for missing pregnant woman continues in north Harris County.

If i was detectives i would check out her boyfriend.


Melissa Sowders was last seen by her boyfriend, Jason Sanford, who said that she had dropped him off for work at 6:15 a.m

Sowders boyfriend yearns for his girlfriend and their unborn child.

“She always WANTED a kiss, so soft. (I don’t know) where Melissa is at. Where are you?” Sanford said Saturday.

(“If they find her, she’s not going to be here anymore,”) Sanford said. “I fear the worst. I love you baby. I miss you so much. I want you to come home.”

Local anon in the Hailey Dunn case said...

I still find it hard to believe that so many people are getting away with murder. The Casey Anthony trial seems to have had a profound effect on LE and prosecutors. If it isn't captured on video they fear a jury of idiots who will aquit so they don't bother with an arrest? What kind of law enforcement is that?

Kellie Sue said...

LOL it is past-tense any way you slice it, otherwise she would have said she ISN'T allowed out after dark.

Anonymous said...

"Does Statement Analysis Aid Criminals?" Yes, it certainly can. If those made aware are only somewhat familiar with the few select words (or lack of words) and phrases critiqued, it positively can. It can also be practiced. I've picked up on a few deceits made by some of these very posters (one in particular).

However, not even sociopatic/pathological liars can always be detected even amongst many professionals. They are in a game all their own that few can prevail against.

By no means should statement analysis be taught to children, teaching them how to lie and/or avoid telling truth! What they need to be taught is how to tell the truth. (For example, the Anthonys were very good at making a clever pathological liar out of Casey, and they didn't even know statement analysis, they just lived and practiced it). For some it is a way of life.

But a person who has been trained in statement analysis? Watch your back and keep your eyes & ears open. You might be in for a big shock.