|Can you name the opening song to the radio program?|
I doubt anyone is really anonymous today, given the nature of how our government spies upon its own citizens, if indeed, we even have citizenship today, yet this is geared more towards the mystery of "Who Done it?" or "What Happened?" in today's news stories.
Like everyone, I have an opinion, and the older I have gotten, the less I trust my opinion, that is, until I feel confident due to having, for example, a lengthy interview where the subject give us plenty to go on.
I have confidence in the principles of Statement Analysis.
In the "wherefore and why", I struggle.
Readers, you are here because a case likely caught your eye, and you found Statement Analysis fascinating.
You also found that it is nothing like the television show, "Lie To Me" where not only are micro expressions instantly recognized, but actually interpreted as well, with the notion that not only has a lie been discerned, but the "wherefore and why" has also been completely understood.
Only in Hollywood.
After "Lie To Me", the "so very few naturals" seem to become "so many naturals", especially in social media.
Long term readers know that lie detection is hard work. It takes not only learning of principle, and not only adherence to principle, but it takes a strong self of self awareness so as to not project oneself, or even an opinion, into the statement. The statement, in deed, is what is "alive" to us, and even when I know someone "did it" but the statement worked on does not show deception, I am reminded of this powerful axiom.
Few people have the patience for this.
"Peter Hyatt said he was innocent!"
Yeah, no, that's now what I said.
I said that this particular statement is without deception.
"Peter Hyatt said he did it and he really didn't."
No, I did not say he "did it" but said that there is deception within this statement.
Sometimes a statement is lengthy and the accusation is the topic of the statement and I am able to not only discern "veracity indicated" or "deception indicated" but am able to grasp the "wherefore and why", that is, that the person really did "do it" and has lied about not doing it. Sometimes, life is that simple, but not often.
I saw a young boy I know who enjoys seeing me and said, "Hello! How are you?"
He did not acknowledge my presence.
"I see that you are not in school today, are you feeling well?" He did not look up. He was playing on a tablet or electronic game.
I tried a few more times, but he never took his eyes off the game.
Imagine what his teacher must go through?
Finally, I said, "Hey, Dex is here!" (he loves the pup).
He did not lift his eyes off the electronic game, thumbs furiously pounding it.
This is not a way to teach manners, in the very least, but, in the more concerning element:
This is not a way to teach a child to think.
We have lost our way. We have lost our identity. Even with the marvelous technological advances, more and more children are being said to have deficiencies in attention, but can wail through a video game like nobody's business.
They cannot think.
We see this, even here, at a blog that should be known for thinking things through, and careful listening.
I see it in the comments.
People want to issue expert opinions and will fearlessly draw powerful conclusions, rushing in where angels fear to tread...
but only while remaining anonymous.
I have also read comments where anonymous posters have taken a short statement and have drawn major conclusions where no conclusion existed.
The case of Leanne Bearden is one such example. People have drawn conclusions, anonymously, that they might have been very embarrassed to do with their own identities.
"Peter Hyatt accused him of murder..." was a comment deleted...again, and again and again.
Others have made it very clear: this is murder...and not that they are considering the possibility that it was not a suicide.
"Peter Hyatt has totally cleared the husband..." which is also inaccurate. I have shown that there was distancing language which is often used to share guilt or responsibility.
Then there are those who argue emotionally with things like, "I never met her, but she lives within me..." which holds no merit. From anonymous posters, it will become a "who loves her the most?" contest of Hallmark Card like sayings.
I listen to the words spoken. I might find deception, but is it related to homicide? Is it related to knowledge of suicide?
The "wherefore and why"?
I don't know.
I do know that if it was homicide, there would be guilt, just as I do know that if it was suicide, there would be guilt.
Journalists have not interviewed him in a clear and concise manner where he had opportunity to clear up things. So often articles are written without direct quotes, which leaves me in a place where I am not comfortable drawing a conclusion.
Statement Analysis has a very high accuracy rate not only because of its principles, but its practitioners are taught not to rush to judgement: judge? Yes, of course, one must eventually, but there are various judgments made in Statement Analysis:
1. Insufficient Data
2. Deception Indicated
3. Veracity Identified
1. Insufficient Data simply means we need more sample (statement) to know what it is we are looking for. We ask, "Has the subject had adequate time to issue a denial? Is the subject aware of the accusation?"
There are times when there simply is not enough statement to know.
2. Deception Indicated.
Okay, the statement has deception, but...
did he do it?
I quoted one recently in which a statement on theft indicated deception but it was not about the theft being investigated: it was about a different theft! The statement picked this up!
3. Veracity Identified
This means that this particular statement, not the person, is truthful. The statement could be truthful, yet the person still "did it."
4. Unreliable Denial
The person has not issued a reliable denial. Perhaps the subject did not feel accused? Perhaps a few more questions is all it might take.
Here is where Statement Analysis can give a feel like art form: The analyst has worked through the statement carefully, and is confident that a conclusion can be drawn.
A good example of this can be found in televised appearances of a person who has a missing loved one, and has gone on television, and is involved in question and answer. If the show has any length to it at all, we are going to likely know if the subject has guilty knowledge of the missing person's plight. See Mark Redwine's appearance on The Dr. Phil Show, or the appearance of Billie Dunn on Nancy Grace, or Sergio and Becky Celis on TV.
Here is where the skill of the analyst comes into play. This is not a 7 year old without an attention span. This is not an anonymous poster boasting in a complete conclusion yet due to anonymity, cannot be called into question afterwards when the case breaks open.
Readers, pick a name.
Do not rush to a conclusion.
Do not post things as fact that you are unable to support.
Be patient by being careful to not rush to a conclusion where a statement may not suggest a conclusion. Remember that if you use a microscope to find deception, deception is not likely there.
Yes, there are times when a single sentence can yield much valuable information. Yes, this is exciting, but it is not always like that.
Be willing to be wrong.
Ignorance and arrogance is a lethal combination and is best left for bureaucrats to boast of.
On "Lie To Me", the star of the show could just look at someone and know he was having an affair with someone else.
It is not so.
Police do not do well in lie detection because they think everyone's lying and will often close their minds to the very words the liar is using, that if embraced, would lead them to the truth.
It is difficult to teach a 7 year old who can't pull himself away from the instant gratification of a video game, just as it is difficult to teach a jurist who embraces, "If it don't fit, you must acquit" rather than follow through an argument.
Thinking takes work. While one is lost in a video game, another is learning through the debate club, how to consider "line upon line; precept upon precept" in thinking.
Politicians pander to the lowest common denominator. They know that a slogan is far more powerful than a complete thought.
We must not follow this thin and beggarly manner here, even in our comments.
Lie detection is hard work, based upon simple principles, stitched cohesively together.
Stop, yield, proceed with caution.
Be willing to be wrong, so that you can be right.
Familiarity with the language of humility can go a long way in life.