Saturday, December 14, 2013

Lance Armstrong: Understanding Reliable Denials

If you have been reading this blog (first at the site) you've already known that we have covered Lance Armstrong for years and he has never given a reliable denial.  It is a teaching that is often difficult to convince those in law enforcement to grasp.

A reliable denial sounds so simple that I find many in law enforcement dismiss it.  As readers also know, law enforcement often scores poorly on lie detection testing (even with training) for a variety of reasons (sometimes talent is pulled away into the private sector due to higher pay, not enough training) but one that sticks out in many peoples' minds is "jaded" thinking.

This is especially common in larger populations.

They believe everyone is lying because they hear so much nonsense...

A reliable denial is made up of three components.  If there are four components, or there are two components, it does not mean that the subject is lying, it means you are to deem the denial as "unreliable."

Unreliable does not mean deceptive, it simply means that the subject has not brought himself to the point of saying that which is more than 90% reliable.

The three components are:

I.  The pronoun "I"
II.  The past tense verb, "didn't" or "did not" (which has more emphasis, which Reid Institute claims is less reliable, but this is not the finding of SCAN, which is the foundation of all Statement Analysis taught today.
III. Event Specific

This means that the subject who is accused of stealing cash from a drawer at work will say "I didn't take the cash" without having to think through his statement.  The thief will generally not say these words.

"I did not steal the cash" versus "I did not take the cash."

We avoid morally charged language in asking questions.  There are those who have, in fact, stolen from their employers because they felt justified in their action.  This is why the pre-screening interview for the polygraph is so important:

The polygraphed MUST enter the language of the subject.

A child molester once passed a polygraph because he was asked if he molested the child.  He did molest the child but in his personal, internal subjective dictionary, he only "tickled" her.

It would have taken less than 30 minutes of 'chatting' with him to de-code his internal dictionary (remember President Clinton's statement?  "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" had his internal dictionary preset to "sexual relations" meaning intercourse.  He even discussed this with Monica Lewinsky beforehand.  Oral sex, to him, was not "sexual relations" and he might have even been able to pass the polygraph.

When something is missing, we avoid "stole" and use "take" because some employees will steal but believe that the employer owed them something and taking the money only evened the score.

The deceptive person will say many things, which brings us to Lance Armstrong.

We have covered him for years and he was never able to bring himself to say

"I did not take PEDs."

Nope.  He never did.

Few journalists were listening.

Now we learn that not only did he use PEDs, but he ran an empire of drugs, ranging from Europe to the United States, including bribery, money laundering and fixing races.

He followed the path of sociopathic liars:  attacking his accusers.

He filed suits against others, knowing that lawyer fees would cause his accusers to break, and he could hold his financial breath longer than anyone.

His need to attack, however, was something we noted alongside his refusal to say "I did not use PEDs."

The word "never" in Statement Analysis.

The word "never" is not a reliable substitute for "did not", therefore, in questioning, we must seek to hone into a specific date and a specific event, in order to help the innocent subject avoid using the word "never" in his denial.

Here are some denials.  Label them either "R" for Reliable, or "U" for unreliable.

1.  "I've never used PEDs. "

2.  "I'm the most tested athlete in sports."

3.  "Never.  I'm telling you, never, ever have I tested positive."

4.  "I can't believe I am even being questioned.  Who has been cleaner than me?"

5.  "I did not use PEDS.  I have never used PEDS and never will."

6.  "I never did it."

7.  "I am innocent."

8.  "I am innocent.  I didn't use PEDs.  I have never used any illegal substances."

9.  "I did not use banned substances." 

10.  "I did not use things claimed."

We now hear that Lance Armstrong paid $100,000 to win an early race in his career which brought a million dollar purse. The articles did not use many statements for analysis but given Armstrong's history, as well as his deceptive mea culpas (see the analysis of his Oprah appearance) and his history of sociopathic behavior, including destroying the lives of innocents), I will not be surprised should we learn it to be true.

Imagine this:

Lance Armstrong, interviewed many times over many years, never once was able to bring himself to say the simplest of words, "I didn't use PEDs."

Yet, it is true.

Look through the archives here and in the retired blog.

He never said it.

"Never" is appropriate when speaking to an unspecific amount of time.


Unknown said...

1. U
2. U
3. U
4. U
5. R
6. U
7. U
8. R
9. R
10. U

I am excited to find out how I did! I always second guess myself about 'never' statements being added to a reliable denial. I know there are only 3 components, but I also remember reading that 'never', being added for emphasis, doesn't negate a reliable denial? Any clarification appreciated, thanks!

Tania Cadogan said...

All are un reliable

1. "I've never used PEDs. "
Never does not mean did not.

2. "I'm the most tested athlete in sports."
Tested for what? h
He doesn't tell me so i can't assume

3. "Never. I'm telling you, never, ever have I tested positive."
Mever does not mean did not. Inclusion of qualifiers weaken the statement.
He oncludes not just one qualifier but 2 never, ever making it highly sensitive.
I would ask about positive tests even if they are claimed as a false positive or explaned away.

4. "I can't believe I am even being questioned. Who has been cleaner than me?"
Asking a question in response to a question indicates sensitivity.
Not even an attempt at denial.
Why can't he belive he is being questioned given the allegations and rumors.
What is his definition of clean?
Wjo does he think is cleaner than him giving the allegations?
Does this mean there are riders who aren't as clean as him?
I would be asking for names.

5. "I did not use PEDS. I have never used PEDS and never will."
Use of never does not mean didn't. Never is repeated twice making it sensitive, dropped pronoun for never will (possibly since he was caughtin flagrante delecto) At the time he may have decided never to again due to the risks of being caught, although, he doesn't take ownership on never taking them in the future leaving it open to taking them in the guture if he thinks he can get away with it. Including qualifiers weaken the statement making it sensitive.
I did notuse PEDS on it's own would be a strong statement

6. "I never did it."
Never doesn't mean did not.
What did you never do?
He does tell me so i can't assume

7. "I am innocent."
Everyone is innocent until found guilty in a court of law.
This statement means zilch, it is always heard from the guilty at pressers before trials

8. "I am innocent. I didn't use PEDs. I have never used any illegal substances."
Everyone is innocent until found guilty.
He makes the strong denial and then promptly weakens it with the use of never in relation to illegal substances.
What was his definition of PEDS and illegal substances since they have different meanings to him.
He says never in relation to illegal substances.
What does he mean by illegal substances?
He doesn't tell me he didn't take illegal substances so i can't say it for him.

9. "I did not use banned substances."
What substances did you use that weren't banned at the time?

10. "I did not use things claimed.
Avoidance of naming specifics making it sensitive.
What are the things claimed.
If you did not use things claimed what did you use that wasn't claimed?

Tania Cadogan said...

Pleade excuse mu typos i am colf and my mefs are kicimg in

Anonymous said...

Is "never" reliable if a person denies they are doing something by saying "I do not (blank)". You say "I am not saying you do (blank) now but you did do (blank) then (the person understands what period of time you are referring to). They reply "I never (blanked).
Is that reliable?

Tania Cadogan said...

Never is on;u approproate of the questioon asks did you ever?

marietje said...

Jen Ow, I got the same exact answers as you. I too, had to think about "I never did it," but marked it unreliable because without further questioning "it" could translate to anything in the person's mind.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Hobnob!

elf said...

None of the statements are reliable. I was kind of on the fence about #9 (I did not use banned substances) but in sports can't a banned substance be anything from performance enhancing drugs to a Sarah Lee pound cake & a 2 liter of red bull? It wasn't really 'item specific ' enough for me to believe.

Anonymous said...

Oh for Gods' sakes Peter! I remember when you sang Lances' praises, was one of his biggest fans, then was SOOOo disappointed to learn that he had been lying all along.

You were one of his biggest fans and believed his every word, all the way up until he finally spilled his guts. My, my, how you seem to have forgotten that.

Still Waiting Patiently... said...

Please analyze Abigail Hernandez's father's letter. She's been gone over 2 months and no leads.

lane said...

Interpreter for Mandela Event Was Hallucinating, Saw Angels
By ALAN CLENDENNING The Associated Press
Dec 11, 2013, 6:00 AM

The man accused of faking sign interpretation while standing alongside world leaders like U.S. President Barack Obama at Nelson Mandela's memorial service said Thursday he saw "angels" at the event, has been violent in the past and suffers from schizophrenia.

Thamsanqa Jantjie said in a 45-minute interview with The Associated Press that his hallucinations began while he was interpreting and that he tried not to panic because there were "armed policemen around me." He added that he was once hospitalized in a mental health facility for more than one year.

Jantjie, who stood gesticulating three-feet (1 meter) from Obama and others who spoke at Tuesday's ceremony that was broadcast around the world, insisted that he was doing proper sign-language interpretation of the speeches of world leaders.

But he also apologized for his performance that has been dismissed by many sign-language experts as gibberish.

The statements by Jantjie raise serious security issues for Obama, other heads of state and U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon who made speeches at FNB Stadium in Soweto, Johannesburg's black township. The ceremony honored Mandela, the anti-apartheid icon and former president who died on Dec. 5.

"What happened that day, I see angels come to the stadium ... I start realizing that the problem is here. And the problem, I don't know the attack of this problem, how will it come. Sometimes I get violent on that place. Sometimes I will see things chasing me," Jantjie said.

"I was in a very difficult position," he added. "And remember those people, the president and everyone, they were armed, there was armed police around me. If I start panicking I'll start being a problem. I have to deal with this in a manner so that I mustn't embarrass my country."

Asked how often he had become violent, he said "a lot" while declining to provide details.

Anonymous said...

What is the point in analyzing the statements of a man who has hallucinations and suffers from schizophrenia? Do you expect him to turn out some other way than he already is? Duh...

Maggie said...

Still Waiting Patiently--I would like to see Peter analyze that letter also.
My sense was that the father was setting the stage for fake communication from Abby through his insistence of telling her to use code words etc.
This is something that occurred in the Fritzl case in Austria.
In that case the daughter was forced to write letters to the mother saying she had run away with a cult, although she was actually being held captive by the father.
I am not saying that I believe Abby is being held captive, but I got the sense that the father would be forging communication from Abby.
Abigail's mother has recently received a letter from Abby supposedly sent to the mother's out of town P.O. Box. I saw an interview with the mother, and there were a lot of red flags she was lying about the letter having been written by Abby. One (of several red flags) was that the mother remained silent when the interviewer asked her the question of when she first say the letter in her P.O. Box did she immediately recognize Abby's handwriting? She remained silent.
One of the big criticisms of how the Fritzl case was handled is that noone analyzed the communications (which the daughter had been forced to write under duress) so that police could ascertain that she was actually being held against her will.
Similarly, someone should analyze the letter the mother supposedly received from Abby to find out if it was genuinely written by her, and, if so, was it written under duress, was she forced to write it.
My guess is that the letter itself is forged by one of the parents. I believe they are both lying. My feeling is that the father forged the letter and sent it to the mother, but that they are both in on it.
This case becomes more disturbing, as it seems that parental involvement in her disappearance becomes a stronger likelihood.
I earnestly ask Peter to analyze the letter if he has time.

Maggie said...

Sorry, I should clarify: I wish Peter would analyze the Abigail's father's letter.
To the best of my knowledge, the letter the mother supposedly received from the daughter has not been made public.

lane said...

Can Statement Analysis (SCAN) be used on a statement by a person with mental illness?

Maggie said...

Another interesting fact about the letter supposedly from Abby to her mother: it was received 2 weeks after the date is was postmarked with. Also, to the best of my knowledge they have not released any info on where (what town, what state?) the letter was postmarked from.
Why not???
It seems like if they wanted to find her, would they not release this info? Would LE not release it?
Why does the mother have an out of town PO BOX?
Why was letter postmarked 2 weeks before it was received. LE has said that this was do to an "ordinary occurrence" and "nothing to be alarmed about".
Is it merely because the mother did not check her PO BOX for all that time? Her daughter is missing and yet, I am assuming, she did not check her PO BOX for weeks?

Tania Cadogan said...

"What happened that day, I see angels come to the stadium ... I start realizing that the problem is here. And the problem, I don't know the attack of this problem, how will it come. Sometimes I get violent on that place. Sometimes I will see things chasing me," Jantjie said.

Here he is using present tense when describing what happened yet he is aware and knows how to use past tense

He also starts with THE problem ( not my?) x 2 and then goes to this problem. he doesn't say what the problem is since he starts talking about seeing angels. As a xhizophrenic would he realise he is haviong a 'problem'? He doesn't know the attack of this proble? he told us he was seeing angels, that's a pretty good hint as to the problem

he then goes on to talk about getting violent on that place.
that is distancing,
What us THAT place he refers to?

Spmetimes he things things chasing him yet he doesn't say it happened this time.
If he doesn't tell us we can;'t assume.

I suspect there is morre to this than is being said.

The secret Service will have run their own checks on those close to the president even if done by others since they have no idea how trustworthy the reports would be.

Anonymous said...

im thinking the PO box was the only address the father was given to communicate with the mother. as in where to send monitored letters or money.

you can SCAN a person with mental illness, they will believe everything they say though. so you have to ask the same questions in a different manner and catch them being inconsistent with their "truth". (that is how lie detector questions work)

Still Waiting Patiently... said...

Maggie- I was wondering if Abby Hernandez's disappearance was Fritzl-esque as well.

Maggie said...

Still Waiting--I read up a little bit on her case today. Your word Fritzlesque sums it up perfectly.

Mother or father (or both?) seem to be staging an abduction/runaway scenario.

Where is the poor girl? At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if she IS being held somewhere by one of the parents!

Unknown said...

I have the same question as a schizophrenic, how does he know he is hallucinating?

He also speaks of knowing that he was surrounded by armed men and had to be careful how he handled 'the problem', as well as not wanting to embarrass his country. If he were truly hallucinating, I can't imagine him having all of these lucid thoughts, while also maintaining his composure, and the only hint of his issue being that he signed 'gibberish'.

Still Waiting Patiently said...

Maggie- I think it's the dad but the mom doesn't seem too close to Abby either. The boyfriend's dad accused Abby's dad of abuse. I hope she's alive and safe somewhere. :(

Anonymous said...

“The searches will continue,” McCausland said this week. “There will be more searches. None at this point are planned, but there will be more.”

Maggie said...

Still Waiting--You are probably right. It must be the Dad.
It is interesting though--I think it was on a facebook page set up to help find Abby--there is a picture of a hand-written letter written by the mother to Abby. It is even signed with a heart symbol (Love Mom). I simply wonder what the purpose of handwriting and photographing the letter was? All in all, there seem to be a lot of letterwriting going on.
I hope she is safe also. Something is very fishy about the entire story.
Also, LE has apparently said they will not release the town, state from the postmark on the letter from Abigail herself because they don't want to get copycats writing letters.
This is preposterous. Since experts have determined Abby's letter to be authentic (I strongly doubt that it is though--if it is authentic then it was written under duress), then they must have her handwriting, and if so, publicizing the location this letter was sent from would only help find her.
I hope she is safe.