Wednesday, December 4, 2013
The Expected: Setting the Table
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.
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?