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.