Wednesday, December 4, 2013

The Expected: Setting the Table

This could be titled, "Setting the Table" just as well as "Who Can't Do Analysis" as the meaning is the same.

When dealing with any situation in which human speech will be employed, analysis can, and should (some might argue), be used.

When going into a statement (or a situation), the astute listener will be prepared.  This preparation is called "the expected" in analysis.

One of the bluntest examples of this is when Sergio and Becky Celis went on television about their "kidnapped" daughter, Isabel.

Analyst Kaaryn Gough gave us a basic list of "the expected" for the televised appearance.

It is quite simple.

We expected to hear such words as "kidnapped" and "ransom" and "contact" with the kidnappers.  These are all common words in which one would expect the parents of a kidnapped child to use.

When these words, and others like them, were absent from the speech of Sergio and Celis, the audience was left with words of which to consider; but words that were certain not expected.

Hence, or as Patsy Ramsey was fond of saying, "And hence", the confrontation with deception.

Statement Analysis, like behavioral analysis, showed that little Isabel Celis was not kidnapped from her home, but was, in fact, deceased, and her parents, both parents, were deliberately withholding the information about what happened to her that fateful night in June of 2012.

The same exercise can be used with Charlie Rogers, the "Fake Hate" person who claimed that three men burst into her home, tied her up, carved hate slogans into her flesh and set her house on fire.

While the FBI and local police withheld her name as a victim of a hate crime, she went on television to talk it up, for herself.

In what is now an exercise for training, I have investigators make a list of all the words they expect a victim of such a horrific attack to hear...

"cut, bleeding, anger, rage, fear, outrage, nazi, cruel..." and so on.

Then, I play the 5 minute, 462 word video of Ms. Rogers, and have the investigators note every word that they were shocked to hear:  "game, pawn, agenda, " and so on.

Lesson learned.

There were no dangerous men out hunting for homosexuals, just as there was no kidnapper on the loose for the Celis family to be worried about.

In both cases, the "expected" and the "unexpected" were clearly outlined.

But when does this simple exercise run into trouble?

When the analyst' expectation is off target.

How might this be?

It comes when the "presupposed" is in error.

For example, we all project ourselves onto others, and towards situations.  When an analyst is unable to see his or her own propensity to project, (some call this "emotional intelligence" or "self awareness"), the list of expected words may not be what most might write.

For example, there were those who, in the case of Ms. Rogers, refused to consider that she was lying, for a variety of reasons, perhaps, but there was one blaring reason:  being labeled a "homophobe", that is, one who fears homosexuals.

The absence of critical comments about Charlie Rogers' claim was surprising.  Even in the commenting that follows articles, I was unable to find anyone willing to question her story.

Among those who usually weigh in on crime, again, there was silence.

If one has an agenda, one may struggle to properly discern truthful accounts from deceptive accounts.  In this case, it was homosexuality, but in cases, let's say, that have to do with partisan politics, comments will show that people regularly miss the deceptive portion of the statement because of a political loyalty.

Some will show their hand with, "oh, yeah, sure, why not analyze _________ party!" in an angry response, wishing to excuse obvious deception.

This goes true for all agenda where one must be willing to excuse behavior or words based upon an affiliation.

When I first heard the Ramseys on television, I felt the same way, listening to their religious language.  I did not want to believe that people of faith sexually molested their daughter, and had to own this inherent prejudice in favor of them.

It was not so.

Their language showed that which was the most reasonable explanation.

Are you able to see your own prejudice?

Are you able to look past your own agenda?

Are you willing to see, or do you prefer blindness?

Sometimes blindness is far more palatable than the truth.  I have often felt this way, even recently, wondering if "ignorance is bliss" could apply to me.

When you "set the table", that is, when you set up the "expected", look within your own self first, and see if you are emotionally connected to the case, the statement, the person, or anything about what it is you are viewing.

Parents often want to believe a lie over the truth, when it comes to their own children.  By owning this, one may be able to break away from deception, and work towards truth.

By shutting down, for example, one will struggle to find the light of truth, and be guided by emotion, rather than analysis, and the unexpected versus expected will struggle within itself, with you, on the sidelines, watching the match.

You may like the McCanns, or you may love "Thriller", but does it impact your ability to listen to the words spoken, and know the truth?

Do the self-deceived know that they are deceived?


22 comments:

GetThem said...

So true. I feel I am open to listening for information, except with my kids. Then, I have to change my mindset completely. I have to actually force myself to pretend they are guilty first and then listen for reliable denials and the expected comments. Otherwise I can often automatically believe what they say without analyzing it 1st. Its difficult to do b/c I love my kids but it does not do them justice if I do not call them out on lies. For example, someone took the last piece of pie and it was not Joe or me. Both kids denied it. I was able to figure out which one took the pie, and she ultimately admitted it to me.

GetThem said...

PS -- I was able to figure out which one took the pie, and she ultimately admitted it to me.

I meant by using SA. :)

Stephen Picton said...

As a species we often find it easier to believe a convenient lie than to accept a terrible truth.

Local anon in the Hailey Dunn case said...

Off topic, the link to an article about a man who was wrongly convicted of his wife's murder and later released from prison based on new evidence. Shamefully, a prosecutor withheld evidence. It was 1986, but Peter, perhaps you can find his statements and see if their was reliable denial?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/04/justice/exonerated-prisoner-update-michael-morton/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Local anon in the Hailey Dunn case said...

Ugh I meant "there" was a reliable denial not "their"

Anonymous said...

Off topic- Not sure if everyone saw but baby Elaina Steinfurths mom and her man plead guilty to murder and got life with a chance for parole after 18/25 years.

Hobnob said...

off topic

An Ohio woman and her ex-boyfriend pleaded guilty today in the killing of her 18-month-old daughter, whose remains were found in a box in a garage three months after she was reported missing.

Steven King II, the 24-year-old ex-boyfriend of mother Angela Steinfurth, told a Toledo judge that he had found the girl, Elaina Steinfurth, injured in her bedroom and that he tried to resuscitate her.

He said he then smothered her to death and put her in a box. The girl's remains were found in September in the rafters of a garage that belongs to King's family.

'I knew what I did was wrong,' King said today.

King pleaded guilty to aggravated murder, tampering with evidence, abuse of a corpse and obstructing justice. He was sentenced to life in prison with parole eligibility after 25 years.

Angela Steinfurth entered a type of guilty plea to murder and obstructing justice under which she maintains her innocence but acknowledges prosecutors had enough evidence to convict her, North West Ohio reported.

She was sentenced to 18 years to life in prison in accordance with her plea deal.

She did not make a statement in court today.

Prosecutors said Steinfurth was upset when the toddler wouldn't stop crying, and she tossed the child across her bedroom.

The child suffered severe injuries, and the next day Steinfurth noticed the baby wasn't breathing well.

Prosecutors said that's when King killed the baby.

Angela Steinfurth and her two daughters stayed with King at his family's home on June 1, investigators have said.

Elaina's father, Terry Steinfurth, went to the residence to pick up his two daughters the next day, but only Elaina's four-year-old sister could be found.

Authorities searched homes, vacant buildings and the Maumee River near downtown for any sign of Elaina while volunteers looked through neighborhoods and parks.

DNA tests confirmed the skeletal remains found in the garage were of Elaina.

Terry Steinfurth told the court Tuesday that he can't understand how anyone could harm an innocent child.

'The loss of Eliana has left my entire family with a gaping hole in our heart,' he said.

The county coroner's office said in November that Eliana suffered injuries indicating 'non-accidental trauma,' and that there were severe, acute fractures to her arm and leg.

Investigators spent the past six months looking into what happened to the toddler before a grand jury indicted the pair on Monday.

Both have been in jail since the summer on obstruction charges.

Authorities have said Angela Steinfurth knew Elaina had been seriously injured and didn't seek medical help.

King was charged in July with lying to investigators about the child's disappearance.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2517708/Ohio-mother-ex-boyfriend-plead-guilty-killing-Elaina-Steinfurth.html





Carnival Barker said...


Kind of like I expected Michael McStay to actually say the names of his murdered family or speak directly to the monsters that slaughtered a 3- and 4-year-old, not the "individual -- or individuals" that "snuffed them out."

john said...

I DID take cocaine, admits Nigella - but insists she's only used drug TWICE in her life and that Saatchi's 'addict' claims are 'ridiculous'

The Number 3

Over the years, I have found that when deceptive people have to come up with a number they will often use the number three. Other interviewers have also noticed this pattern. Therefore, the number three has become known as the "liar's number." The one exception is when alcohol is involved. We all know what that deceptive number is; 'Officer, I only had two drinks!" (Mark McClish)

"We all know what that deceptive number is; 'Officer, I only had two drinks!"

Peter, i was wondering if yourself and or Mark McClish have encountered the use of the number "TWO" when someone says how many times in their life they used drugs, minimising the way the drink driver does, "I only had TWO drinks officer", when it is revealed later they have had a lot more?.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2517953/Nigella-Lawson-court-quizzed-drug-taking-claims-Charles-Saatchi-marriage-breakdown.html#ixzz2mWLZujsH

Peter Hyatt said...

CB,

stay in the context of the statement. Don't read too much into it.

Remember, if it comes down to guess work, you've got a 50/50 chance of looking like a genius. But if wrong, you've got a process that is faulty. This is why I stay to the text.

The words he said were short and within them, I do not find deception. It does not mean he is innocent, it only means that each statement is treated the same.

Peter

Carnival Barker said...


Thanks, Peter. I appreciate what you're saying, but that performance and those words rang hollow to me at a time when emotions and meaning should have run deep.

I also found it very poignant that he didn't say, "Why did you/they have to kill the boys?" It would have put a bug in the ear of everyone watching that there had to be a good reason to do something as savage as that, and, in effect, point the finger directly at himself, since at 3 and 4 I'm sure they can clearly identify their uncle.

Shelley said...

The comments you made about the Ramseys talking about religion and how that affected your views on them...

Really stands true for many people.
My mom was raised in a very religious family.
Yet her grandfather molested her.
She told some nuns at her school as she was hoping someone would help her.
Instead, she was punished.
She had her hands whipped with a ruler (my mom is almost 70 so this was back in the 50s').
What they said to her changed her views for the rest of her life.
"Adam is a church going man. How dare you say such a thing about a wonderful man"
So that was how that was handled. A child told you she was being hurt and because the man she stated was doing this goes to church, it must be wrong.
Because of that, once she was an adult, she never again stepped foot in a church. I was also raised this way. I do not go to church either. But I was raised with the mind set that if anyone hurt me or touched me, I could tell her and she would protect me. And I knew it was true.
To this day, we are not believers in religion.
We are both good people. But refuse to have anything to do with church or any organized religion.
I get that not everyone that goes to church is bad. But the more time goes on, the stories about what evils are done and covered up, in a place that should be the safest place, is appalling.
I also do not agree with the mind set of confession to a priest having to be kept. I really believe that the Mccann's confessed the crime to the one in Portugal and that is why he is so upset with them. But the fact that he has to keep something like this a secret to me does not make any sense.
If tho shall not kill, then the fact that a priest can not repeat this confession is in itself, a contradiction.
It makes no sense to me.
None of it.

But I also think again, that is why they tried to bring in the Pope and frequent churchs. To add to that mind set that they are good people because they are religious.

Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla's remains

By shutting down, for example, one will struggle to find the light of truth, and be guided by emotion,


If you are being stalked by a psychopath, analysis becomes how to survive, emotions can help.

rather than analysis, and the unexpected versus expected will struggle within itself, with you, on the sidelines,

Alive to find the light of truth, Thank-you Jesus!


watching the match.


I'm happy you and Heather are safe, well, and unkidnapped. With psychopaths it's better to be safe then sorry.

Carnival Barker said...


Oh no. THEY'RE BAAAAAAAACK ....

Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla's remains

You only left one of my blog posting…seemingly in an attempt to ridicule. In Genesis The Lord said, “What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground." SA is listening, it starts with GOD.

It a Natural Law: We all have the ability to discern the truth.
God became flesh…. Jesus teaches SA in the Bible.
It's free of fraud and more intellectual then spending hours circling pronouns.

Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla's remains
The Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN) system was developed by Avinoam Sapir, and it is the basis for all Statement Analysis today. Mr. Sapir's website is LSI Any claim to the contrary is fraudulent and intellectual theft.

He taught investigators to begin with "the expected" and to then analyze the "unexpected." This is the same everywhere there is communication, including emails, texts, interviews, and 911 calls.

SO, does the SCAN SCAM involve computers? Once the pronouns are circled do you enter the data into a machine to get results?
Most of humanity presupposes Truth. SCAN calls it the expected, thats part of the SCAN FRAUD. SCAN is similar to the concept of the oxygen bar.

Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla's remains


Any claim to the contrary is fraudulent and intellectual theft.
Are you the defender for the deceiver? If people use common sense in your presence do you write fraud tickets? Avinoam called himself a marketing genuis here on this blog. He's the fraud!!!

Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla's remains

There was an announcement about Genesis being analyzed.

Eve had echolalia, this may be why God yelled at her.

3 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

Here when talking to the deceitful serpent she is able to repeat what was said, but obviously without understanding the consequences.

Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla's remains

Here when talking to the deceitful serpent she is able to repeat what was said, but obviously without understanding the true meaning of the words God spoke. This echolalia is always present; when the sick deceiver says "throw turds" and the caring girlfriend hears "throat hurts"…this is Eve's contribution to SA. The horrible murderer says "raw fear" the echolalia hears "rough here" which sends up a red flag on a calm day, enough so that the echolalia sufferer repeats the murderers words for others to analyze.

Anonymous said...

Statement Analysis started in the Bible
If you admire the deceiver Avinoam so much, Why do you hide his face? You always put up pictures of people you admire, Avinoam hides like a serpent. If he's recognized he'll be prosecuted.

Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla's remains
I asked Avinoam to dinner, his reply..
"I can't die I live with humanity" aka
" I can't I live with Tammy"
His reply was practiced and rehearsed, a joke. Done with a turn of the head similar to the way Omara turned his head when asking rehearsed questions about the flashlight. He's afraid of being caught.

Shelley said...

Evil... Just evil!

I hope someone does to them in jail what was done to Jeffrey Dahmer!