Friday, February 28, 2014

Theft Analysis Result

It ain't a sweater and it ain't a hoody, its a Mets jersey!   
by Peter Hyatt

Here is the analysis of the theft statement previously posted.  Many comments posted revealed a solid understanding of the principles of Statement Analysis, and just how important it is to stay within principle. 
What did you conclude?
Did the subject steal the sweater?  
The subject has been accused of stealing an expensive sweater that belonged to "Tommy", while he worked for a company supporting Tommy.  I asked the accused to write out a statement of "what happened" and he produced this.  
I analyzed it, and then conducted an "Analytical Interview", which is just another way of saying that I interviewed him with open ended questions, used his language, and then asked questions from the analysis.  This is the natural by product of the teaching of SCAN from Avinoam Sapir which can be found here.

How did your analysis come out?  You can compare it to mine, which follows the original statement. 
"Saturday March 23rd, Tommy had a small get
together at his house.  Tommy had a monster
 jacket sweater that matched my Jacket. 
I asked Tommy if I could try the sweater
on with my Jacket.  Tommy complied.  I only
had the hoody for about 20 minutes. I
then took off the hoody and laid it
on the back of the recliner.  When I
left the hoody was still on the chair.
On Tuesday, March 26th, at about 1250pm, Tommy’s
mom found me down town and accused me of stealing his hoody. I told her
as politely
as possible what I knew about the hoody
and where I last saw it.  She went on

about what would happen if the hoody wasn’t found…"

This was an actual case that I was asked into.  Tommy is disabled and the subject worked for the company that supported Tommy.  I conducted the interview with the subject. 

Here is the statement, with analysis added:

"Saturday March 23rd, Tommy had a small get
together at his house.  
Do you remember the principle that says that where a subject chooses to begin a statement is important, and sometimes even the reason for writing?  The subject was told NOT TO go to Tommy's apartment when he is off duty, as it blurs professional boundary.  It is interesting that the subject felt the need to explain why he went to the apartment off duty.  It was a "get together", which is strictly social.  I did not know this when I analyzed the statement:  I only knew that going to Tommy's "house" (not apartment??) was important to the subject.  

Tommy had a monster
 jacket sweater that matched my Jacket. 
This is exactly how he wrote it out.  Did you notice that which was crossed out?  Did you catch that he capitalized "Jacket" when it was his, but not when it was Tommy's?
Please also note that here, it is a "sweater."  
This is a great statement for learning about change of language. 
Language does not change on its own:  it changes, principally because of a change in reality.  If the change in reality is not justified by the statement, it may ("may") indicate that the subject is not working from memory; that is, deception is present.  This is important to remember because we have two (2) examples of language change and, fortunately for teaching, we have both possibilities in play.

"my Jacket" has a capital "J" to the possessive pronoun, "my", making it more important than Tommy's jacket
Note that the item in question is a "sweater"
I asked Tommy if I could try the sweater
on with my Jacket.  
"asked" is polite language.  We trust the subject to guide us unless the analysis shows otherwise.  I believe, at this point, it was a polite request. 
Note that it is still a "sweater" as it is still in Tommy's possession. 

Tommy complied
The polite asking came to an end, and coercion began, as the word "complied" means that the subject's will overcame, as if 'ordered' to hand it over.  It is now in the subject's possession: 

 I only
had the hoody for about 20 minutes. 

In the subject's possession, it is no longer a "sweater" (something I wear) but a "hoody", something a younger person wears, and much 'cooler' than a sweater.  The item has changed possession therefore, the change of language is justified.  The subject is telling the truth and there has been a change in reality.  We now know:

When Tommy has it, it is a sweater.
When the subject has it, it is a hoody.

We will now seek to learn how it ends up, as a sweater, which is Tommy's, or if the subject actually stole it, meaning that it is a "hoody."

Recall the example of change of language from car insurance:  "My car sputtered and died.  I left the vehicle on the side of the road."

It was "my car" while it worked, but when it no longer drove, it became "the vehicle."  Once repaired and running again, it will return to being a "car" and will have the possessive pronoun, "my" attached to it. 

The word "just" is a comparison word.  What is he comparing "20 minutes" to?  This is a strong indication that he had it on much longer than 20 minutes...perhaps even to the point of wearing it out the door?

then took off the hoody and laid it
on the back of the recliner.  When I
left the hoody was still on the chair.

Here it remains a "hoody" but we are confronted with another change of language:
"recliner" or "chair."
Please note that pronouns and articles 'don't lie'.  Pronouns and articles are not part of our internal, personal, subjective dictionaries, but are instinctive.   He did not say that he laid it on the back of "a recliner", but "the" recliner.  The recliner had yet to be introduced.  This is red flagged for possible deception. 
Next, we find that "the recliner" became "the chair."  We ask ourselves:
"Is there anything in the text that suggests a change of reality?"
I see that there is nothing here to justify the change.  Therefore, it is likely that the subject is not working from memory, and is not keeping track of his language.  This is a strong indication that he is lying.  When one is not working from memory, it is easy to get language mixed up.  When one is working from memory, a change in language is a change in reality.  This is why the sweater/hoody issue remains the same:  
Tommy has a sweater, but the subject has the much cooler hoody. 
On Tuesday, March 26th, at about 1250pm, Tommy’s
mom found me down town and accused me of stealing his hoody
Here he introduces someone in the statement in an incomplete social introduction.  He did not say "Tommy's mother, Gloria" but "Tommy's mom", which indicates a poor relationship according to SCAN social introduction.  We are now on alert to learn if anything in the statement (and later in the interview) will affirm or deny the principle.  
I told her
as politely
as possible what I knew about the hoody
"as politely as possible" tells us that he was restraining himself and that this was not pleasant.  (The interview revealed very harsh words between them, and Tommy's mother's personal animosity towards the subject)
Note "what I knew about the hoody" is to avoid saying "that I did not take it" as this place was the perfect spot to deny the accusation that he was faced with. 
In a lengthy interview, he said many words but none included "I did not take the sweater" or "I did not take the hoody"
I was seeking to learn if the hoody would return to being a "sweater", which would have suggested that it was in Tommy's possession, yet, it remains a "hoody"

and where I last saw it.  She went on
about what would happen if the hoody wasn’t found…"

She threatened him.  

This statement has almost all truthfulness to it, except about laying the hoody down on any chair.  This is where the change of language showed deception. 
When it was with the owner, it was a sweater, but when it was with the subject, it was a "hoody."
In the interview, the subject kept his written statement on his lap, often referring to it.  He had asked if this was okay to do, and I assured him it was. 

I asked open ended questions and allowed nature to take its course: that is, he was able to see that he was caught.  
As I sometimes do, I left a copy of my analysis on the table, including using a red pen (above) and wrote "deception indicated" on it, and excused myself to go to the bathroom. 
When I came back, he was visibly unnerved by it.  
My job was to get to the truth. 
Do you recall the teaching on "Sermonizing?"
When someone lectures you on something, it is always a sensitive issue.  This subject lectured me about theft.  His father and uncle were both thieves, he told me, and had served time.  He hated thieves, he said, more than drug dealers!  He lectured me at length about theft. 

How did it end?

He confessed. 

He was embittered that Tommy could afford such a fancy hoody while not working, while he, the subject, had gone to school with Tommy and now worked for Tommy but could still not afford such a fancy hoody. 

For this, he lost his job and admitted that he, like his father before him, was a thief.  

There is more to this analysis than what I have posted, but suffice for now, it is a great sample of change of language principle.  Often, a change in language indicates the subject is working from memory and is truthful.  The change is seen in the change of reality: 

"I pulled my gun from its holster and fired my weapon twice at the suspect, and re-holstered the gun."
When it was not in use, it was a "gun", but when it was in use, it changed into a "weapon."  Once it was done being a "weapon", it returned to being a "gun."  This is an indicator of veracity. 

I once worked with a pretty co-worker who did not like certain neighborhoods and told a new worker, "I like going out to that neighborhood with Peter.  He is a good man to have along."
A year later, I heard her say almost the same thing to yet another new worker, yet with a subtle change:  "You should ask Peter to go with you there.  He is a good person to have along."

I asked her if she had a crush on me a year ago.  She was caught off guard and said, "well, yes I did."
I pointed out that she had just called me a "person" and asked her what caused her to change and she said, "I met Heather!"
It was Heather's presence that turned me from being a "man" (gender specific) to a "person" (gender neutral). 
I wonder if she is reading this now...and laughing at me!  

Did you enjoy the exercise?  Please let me know in the comments if you like this type of work.  On many statements, I have not only the analysis, but the benefit of having conducted an interview, or speaking to the Interviewer, and know the entire case. 
As some of you already know, sometimes you can know more about a case from a statement than an investigator working the case might know, even if for a short time! 


Apple said...

I love these lessons. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Can statement analysis be applied to children? Is there an age limit.

Dane said...

I enjoyed it a lot !! Also, what a beautiful baby !!!!

Red Ryder said...

I enjoy them too! You make them seem so easy! Thank you.
It's interesting that everyone missed the social introduction of Tommy"s mom. It didn't even cross my mind.

Unknown said...

It really was a great example of how emotion can can play in analysis. Compare this thread with a highly charged thread (like bear den or elvis) and see the accuracy difference

Shelley said...

This is a great way to learn!!

I am still very new to this so while I was able to catch a couple of the things, reading the follow up you post helps me realize how much I missed and helps teach me what to look for next time.

These are very helpful since we also get to know the outcome (something we don’t get with a lot of the cases you discuss) which also helps validate the analysis as correct.

Please share more of these nameless stories..

It’s a great test to get us really looking at the statements ONLY and focus less on getting emotionally involved in the case as a whole.

floridamomma said...

I love practicing SA on my teenagers. hubby too, but I don't get nearly as much practice with him!

C5H11ONO said...

This was an awesome exercise! I wish you would do more like these!

Anonymous said...

From Vicki-

I love these type of lessons!

Tania Cadogan said...

I love these real case scenes where you know the result and we don't.

it is excellent practice and the reveal at the end lets us see how we did, what we caught and more importantly what we missed.

Between us i think we hit on everything.
Our life experiences and personal lives will reveal some truths or deceptions almost inxtantly ( being a parent for example) whereas they may miss something else and vice versa.

Keep teaching us Peter and thanks for taking the time and having the patience with us.

Ivanna-Anna said...

Yes, Peter, I enjoyed the exercise. Thank you.

C5H11ONO said...

TBI Executed search warrant on Adams Lane related to Holly Bobo disappearance.

forensic reenactment at Peachtree Landing, which happens to involve some divers?

Apple said...

Anonymous said...
Can statement analysis be applied to children? Is there an age limit.
February 28, 2014 at 12:39 PM


My son started using his pronouns correctly at 2.5 years of age :)

GeekRad said...

I loved it! This is one for the printer so I can refer to it. And several posters will be happy with the job they did. Yes, please more lessons where the outcome is known and you guide us in the lessons, not speculation and theory. Thank you!

Unknown said...

I love these kind of exercises, particularly when the resolution is know.

I actually noticed the incomplete social introduction, but I convinced myself that the subject probably didn't know her as anything other than 'Tommy's Mom'.

This taught me to note everything, even if there may be a reasonable explanation, as it may help the picture come together in the end!

Anonymous said...

Great Job Peter.

We need more examples like this.
Thank you so much!!

Sus said...

I enjoyed it and hope we do more. Now that you say Tommy was disabled, there were signs of such..."he complied" as if the writer is somehow in charge of Tommy; Tommy's mother speaking for him; and even the name Tommy rather than the more adult and self-sufficient, Tom.

Nic said...

Thank you, Peter!

I love this sort of exercise! It's nice to tackle something that isn't diluted in a lot of reporting and he said/she said. I find if there is a lot of extra, it's like a loud radio and I can't hear over it. I don't know if my analogy makes any sense, but for me, reading a lot of "supporting" information makes being objective difficult.

JoAnn said...

This was a great exercise! Wow, I missed so many things!!! I didn't even notice the social intro of Tommy's mother. It's so gratifying to see the end result and learn more about the subjects. Thanks, Peter! And thank you to all the posters here - this is the best learning community!

Nic said...

Re social introduction.

Peter, if it is common knowledge who you're speaking about, is it still indicative of a "poor relationship" if, i.e., I say, "my mom"? I always say, "my mom" when talking about her to friends or my extended family, i.e., my in-laws. They've all met her and know her name is "XXXXX". She is "mom" to me. Also, if someone I know, like a new acquaintance or a colleague, has never met my mom and I'm recanting something she said, i.e., advice, I'll say, "My mom always says,..." Not "My mom, XXXXX, always says."

What is your opinion about this?

Anonymous said...

Nic, seeing as everyone has met her, maybe it isn't a social introduction :)

Red Ryder said...

It would be so interesting to take the LSI basic course on scan but my work doesn't warrant it and then there's the distance/time/money factors. A few times Hobs (and John?) recommended some books that were good places to start, could you suggest a couple of titles again because I don't remember where/when that was. Thanks:)

~mj said...

These exercises are very useful, thank-you.

Nic said:
Also, if someone I know, like a new acquaintance or a colleague, has never met my mom and I'm recanting something she said, i.e., advice, I'll say, "My mom always says,..." Not "My mom, XXXXX, always says."

-good question, I am curious about the answer to this as well.

Tea Mouse said...

I love these lessons, thank you for posting them!

Tea Mouse said...

I love these lessons, thank you for posting them!

Amaleen6 said...

C5H11ONO said....

forensic reenactment at Peachtree Landing, which happens to involve some divers?

Not only divers, but they've been at it since yesterday....Hmmm. I wonder if one of the Moorers talked? Tammy got moved to a more suitable location with more privileges and less threat, supposedly, and how much would LE have to go on to come up with a "reenactment" without somebody making some claims about how a murder took place?

I hope one of them is talking. Heather needs to be found so that her family can get out of the torment of limbo.

elf said...

I really like these exercises. They are easier for me to try and analyze, maybe because this one was about theft and the last one was about a stalker. And there's no pictures of victims. I'm.happy to say that I didn't do to bad on this last example, still room for improvement though lol :)
Red Ryder I know what you mean. Id love to do mark mcclish's online lesson but there's just not the extra money foe it :(
I am an avid reader and would appreciate any suggestions on statement analysis books, too.

Nic said...

Anon @ 3:51 I agree. I'm laughing thinking of my friends' facial expressions if I were to say, "My mom, ***" They'd be like, "Yeah. I know her name." (Weirdo)

Whereas if I am speaking to an acquaintance what if I make a "proper introduction" when referring to i.e., my mom? I don't want them to have the impression they're going to meet her some day. To me it's like I'm setting them up to be "in my life" because I'm sharing personal info. *gah*

Maybe... that's reflective of my character (secretive).

Duh, duh duuuuuh......

Nic said...

C5H11ONO said....

forensic reenactment at Peachtree Landing, which happens to involve some divers?

This is new. I googled earlier today.

Divers - initially when someone drowns they sink. Then their body fills with gas and they float. Unless Heather was weighted in some fashion.

It would be interesting to know what the boat launch video captured.

Lemon said...

"I Know You Are Lying" by Mark McClish.
" "I Know You Are Lying" will show you what to look for in a verbal and written statement to determine if a person is telling the truth. The Statement Analysis techniques will also show you how to obtain additional information from a statement. "

elf said...

Thanks lemon:) so sweet for such a sour name lol
nic- I think because you grew up calling your mom 'mom' its like you are giving a proper social introduction... your most formative years, the early years, that was her name as far as you were concerned, right? My son was 4 when he asked me why aunt xxxxx called me zzzz (my name), it was pretty cute when I explained it to him lol I'm sure in a formal environment you would use your manners :)

Dacea said...

Peter, I know there is no way of knowing positively, but today something stood out to me when my daughter and I went to see Son of God. Peter denied (lied about knowing) Jesus 3 times. 3 is the liars number. I wonder if there is a connection.

Red Ryder said...

Thanks Lemon!
Wait! Mark McLish has online lessons too? I am so behind! I'm not sure how much any of this would help me though, I have a bad memory, a leaky one, but maybe if I got the book and read it over and over like Ive done with Peter's teachings here. Sometimes I feel like that joke about how I forgot more than I ever knew (or something like that~I can't remember~llol).

elf said...

Yea its like $250 :( but you get a workbook with it too. I would love to take it but with two small kids and no computer (probably couldn't do it on my phone) I just can't swing it right now. The information on it is on his site. If I had the money id do it in a heartbeat. I'm so glad this blog is free :)

ima.grandma said...

please, more exercises that we can dig into without emotion clouding our first instincts to follow sa principles. these types of exercises empower us to realize how much we have learned. so many situations provided to utilize our newly acquired skills are intertwined with cases we have strong emotions associated.

now to completely contradict my comment, i recently thought about a case from many years ago when a missing baby disappeared from her crib. her name was sabrina and i think it happened in the late 90's. the parents became suspects and i believe there was a movie about it. it has been so long ago, perhaps the emotions would not be so strong now. i know it was sad to hear about it at the time but distance might play into the 40% factor you wrote about yesterday. i'm pretty sure you have posted on it before but it is one of many topics i would be interested to see your analysis. may i place it into the suggestion box?

JoAnn said...

I think the case you are referring to is the Sabrina Aisenberg case in Florida. I believe there was SA posted, maybe from a TV interview the parents, Steve & Marlene, gave. I have found that case to be fascinating as well.

John Mc Gowan said...

Hi ima.grandma, JoAnn.

I found these.

Statement Analysis: Baby Sabrina Case

Baby Sabrina: Statement Analysis, Larry King Show

John Mc Gowan said...

The word "just" is a comparison word. What is he comparing "20 minutes" to?

In his statement he doesn't use the word "Just" but "Only". I know i am nit picking lol. However, we have to go by the language of the author :)

JoAnn said...

Thank you, john!
I started searching, then got distracted by the Bobo case....then forgot what I was searching for in the first place.

ima.grandma said...

Good morning John and JoAnne. Thanks so much for the links. I forgot about the search box. I think baby Sabrina was the first case about a missing baby that I can remember and that stayed with me throughout the years. After all this time, there must be ample information to analyze. I'm fixing breakfast for the grandbabies but afterwards I'll go read and be lazy another day. After all, it is Saturday. All I have to do is convince the little one that greatgrandma is too old to go out and play tether ball; second thought it may take a bit to get to those cases. After all, she thinks her greatgrandma can do anything. I'm still trying to convince why we can't bring two more little kids from the tv commercial to come and live with us, since it only costs 50 cents a day. She already has it figured out where they can sleep. I'm such a lucky grandma!

Red Ryder said...

Free is the right price! Thanks Reter for taking the time to teach us. It has changed how I read and watch movies though:)

Unknown said...

I just want to point out to new readers, going thru the blog from the beginning, as i am:

We have two blues, indicating high sensitivity right at the point in the statement when the subject is leaving the hoody on the chair, and leaving the party...

Unknown said...

I guess i should quote:

then took off the hoody and laid it
on the back of the recliner. When I
left the hoody was still on the chair.

Then, and left. Though then in this case might show a passage of time, so I'd peter reads these old comments, he might reply and correct me. I have no doubt I'm wrong...