Is he a righty or a left? |
Two Lefts Don’t Make A Right
By Peter Hyatt
Two lefts may not make a right, but they sure do make for an interesting story.
Here we find yet another fascinating point for investigative
analysis: the verb, “left” in analysis
is an indication of missing information.
We highlight the verb, “left” in the color blue, as a color of ‘sensitivity’,
when it is used as a connecting verb and find if we have two (or more) “lefts”
close together, we are on target for some important information. .
Principle: The word “left”
when used as a connecting verb, is an indication of missing information.
When the word “left”
is used as a connecting verb, connecting one
place to another, there’s always a missing story. When it is not used as a connecting verb, it
is not to be highlighted. For example,
“I left a message on her voicemail” would not be highlighted for sensitivity.
Only when the word “left” is used to connect one place to another, is it to be
considered sensitive to the subject.
This is an amazing fact of observation in human
language. It is the same in all languages,
and investigators internationally apply the very same principle we do here.
It is also
deceptively simple, therefore, easy to miss.
Here is an example of what appears to be the same thing
being said, two different ways, but, in fact, it is two different issues. First:
“I was in my office, and then I went to the bathroom.”
This is a simple, straight forward sentence. There are no
issues, and nothing to indicate deception, or withholding of information. The subject uses the pronoun, “I”, and the
past tense verbs appropriately, thus appearing to come from memory.
Here is the same
sentence but said differently. It
appears, on the surface to say the same thing, but is actually something very
different:
“I was in my office, and left my office and went to the bathroom.”
What do you think of the two statements? You should ask yourself, as someone
conducting an interview or analyzing a statement for interview questions:
Why is there a difference in language? Why did the subject have the need to use additional words? What caused him to add in that he “left” his office to go to the bathroom, since in order to go to the bathroom, he must leave his office?
Why is there a difference in language? Why did the subject have the need to use additional words? What caused him to add in that he “left” his office to go to the bathroom, since in order to go to the bathroom, he must leave his office?
Humans often speak in an economy of words. In fact, many sentences are abbreviated down
to acronyms such as AWOL, or ASAP with the internet giving way to an all new
way of abbreviating words with LOL, OMG, and so forth. Humans like to economize
their sentences, even when they are incessant talkers, they often take ‘the
short way’ in a specific sentence.
In an investigation, there is ‘something on the line’; that
is, it is not just a casual conversation but one of importance, and as we all
edit our words (otherwise if someone asked you, “What did you do today?” you’d
never stop speaking), we focus in upon what the subject felt was important
enough to say to us. This editing process generally means that in a given
sentence, every additional and unnecessary word because highly important to us.
In fact, we have a
saying in analytical work: The shortest
sentence is best. Here is an example often used:
“I am happy.”
This has the pronoun, “I”, taking ownership, and it is in
the present tense, which is appropriate.
This person is likely happy, without question.
“I am very happy.”
This is a bit sensitive. The word “very” is an additional
word, that brings in sensitivity. It is
through follow up questions that we will learn why the subject’s internal
dictionary chose to lengthen the sentence.
Generally, when someone says “I am very happy” it is, perhaps due to one
of many reasons, including:
Statement Analysis of "Brown Bear" |
- They
were previously unhappy
- They
never expected to be this happy (reference point)
- It
could be something else that makes being “happy” sensitive for the
subject.
“I am very very
happy” now has two indicators of sensitivity and it is through follow up
questions we may learn why two extra words were added by the subject. Any word
which can be removed while a complete sentence remains is “extra” and important
to us.
“I am very very
very happy” now has three indicators of sensitivity making the topic of
being “happy” highly sensitive to the subject.
This should lead the Interviewer to wonder if the subject is attempting
to persuade (himself or the Interviewer) that he is happy. People often reference the Shakespearean
Non-Shakespearean “Me thinks thou does protest too much” in understanding the
additional sensitive language. How many
“very’s” are needed before we learn how unhappy the subject really is?
The shortest sentence is considered best in terms of the
odds of being truthful, and the rule of economy of words best highlights
truthfulness in speaking. “I didn’t take
the money” is such an example. In a theft investigation, if the allegation
is known, the innocent will simply say, “I didn’t take the money” often not
even waiting for you to ask.
What sentence gives you the most confidence:
A
“I told you the truth.”
B
“I have told you the full truth.”
C
“I have told you, 110%, the
honest to God truth”
Statistically, sentence A is the most likely truthful
sentence. B and C attempt to persuade,
highlighting the weakness of needing to persuade. In fact, the “full truth”
tells us that there is something in the subject’s mind that is less than full
truth. For subject C, there is something
more than just 100% truth in their personal, subjective dictionary. OJ Simpson often used percentages well past
100% in his personal, internal subjective dictionary. Statistically, those who have truth
measurements above 100%, and those who call upon Divinity in this manner, are
likely to be deceptive individuals.
If someone says “I would never, ever take the
money” the subject has not denied
taking the money, and his additional wording will likely call your attention to
the sensitivity attached to the allegation. He states that he only “would” not
take it and not that he “did not” take it. That he “would not” future,
conditional tense, is likely true, when you hear this in an investigation: after seeing how it all panned out, if given
the chance again, he likely would not do it, but it does not mean he did not do
it.
Studies have shown, in fact, that the abbreviation of “didn’t” shows an even more relaxed (and
shorter) denial than the emphatic, “did
not.” (Reid Institute)
In this case, he has not only not denied taking the money,
but his extra words tell us that there is more to the sentence: specifically, emotion is in play here. Extra
words give us additional information. Extra words are defined as words which,
once removed, the sentence remains complete. Let’s return to the example of
being in the office, and going to the bathroom.
In the two sentences, the first is the shortest and considered “best” in
terms of analysis: it is likely to be
truthful, and there is likely no more to what happened. The second sentence, “I was in my office, I
left my office and went to the bathroom” uses the verb, “left” as a connecting
verb, connecting the office to the bathroom.
It is unnecessary.
Principle: Unnecessary words are doubly important to the
analyst. In its use as a connecting
verb, between two places, The word “left”
is unnecessary for the sentence to work. It is additional language and
it gives us additional information.
If I am in my office, in order to go to the bathroom, I must
“leave” the office to get there. It
is, therefore, it is an unnecessary connecting verb.
Objection: What possible additional information could
this give?
Answer: It is the unknown, and is why our follow
up questions are vital. The information
that I do know from the inclusion of the word “left” is that there is more to this story than what he has told
me. According to the subject, he did not
simply go to the bathroom, as he did in sentence one, but he “left” the
office. This means that to the subject,
his mind was on the office when he spoke this sentence.
You are not to
interpret any words; you are to listen. In both sentences, the subject was in
his office, and he went to the bathroom.
There is no interpretation involved.
Both statements are truthful statements and have no indications
of deception about being in one room and going to another. We believe the subject in both sentences. We are
to believe what someone told us, and in this case, we should believe that the
subject was in his office, and he went to the bathroom; two locations.
It is, however, in the second sentence, that a “story” of
sorts exists. This is why the subject chose to use additional words regarding
the office. He “left” the office. It may
appear meaningless to you, but it wasn’t meaningless to him: something happened that caused his brain to
tell his tongue: say these words.
Your job is to simply highlight the word “left” when it is
found as a connecting verb, for sensitivity, and if it is unknown why
sensitivity exits, follow up questions are to be constructed.
Let’s look at a few examples of the word “left” used as a
connecting verb. It is something we find
a great deal in criminal activities but don’t discount its use in personal
issues. An investigator wrote:
“I was going to the mother-in-law’s
for lunch and stopped to get her a sandwich at the deli. I left the deli and got to her house and had
lunch.”
She said to me, “What
does this show?” I said that it
tells me two things:
1. That what may
appear to be an error, is really a missing pronoun. She wrote that she was going to “the”
mother-in-law’s” for lunch and not “my mother-in law’s” which lacks the
possessive pronoun, “my”, indicating a poor relationship.
She said that her mother-in-law was demanding, critical, and
that she blamed the subject for just about everything. “There’s just no pleasing her!” she later
said.
2. I also learned that
something happened at the deli which is significant enough for her to
remember, but it is missing information to me and that if I were to interview
her, I would ask her, “tell me about what it was like at the deli…” in an
attempt to let her freely talk about it.
She explained that while waiting in line for the sandwich, a co-worker
was there and got into an argument with her about work which was “way
inappropriate” and “unprofessional” and others could hear the argument. She is
a private person and a consummate professional, so this was not only poor
timing, in her mind, but also unprofessional. This is why she “left” the deli and is the
missing information found at the point of the word “left” in her statement. For
her, the embarrassing few minutes with her co worker at the deli was in her
mind when she wrote the statement, so instead of saying that she went to the
deli and then off to her mother-in-law’s house, she included the act of
“leaving” the deli. It is so simple that
it is often missed.
Here is another example of the word “left” creeping into a
subject’s language.
A man was talking
about his marriage, how beautiful his bride was, and about the time just prior
to the wedding. “I was in New York and then left and came to Boston and got married.” The man was asked about “leaving” New York, since he used the word, it was on his mind. “Oh,
that’s another story”, he said, “I
was with my ex girlfriend and it is a very long story…” and off he went on
a romantic twisting tale of a jealous rivalry for his affections. With the word
“left”, there is always a story to be
told. The story could be a simple, short story of rushing, or...it could be something far more interesting.
In an investigation into a theft of money, a worker wrote in
his statement about his work day which was long and dull, and at one point he
wrote that his supervisor told him to go get the client’s lunch for him. He wrote “I
left in my truck to go to Wendy’s to get the client lunch.”
Sifting through a long and boring statement of hour to hour
chores and his work was not exciting analysis (as you will see in our course),
but I continued with circling all pronouns, and using the color sensitivity
scale on the paper. After I was done, I held up the written statement and saw a
“cluster of blues”; that is, two or
more indications of sensitivity, and it was around lunch time that it appeared
in his statement. I highlighted the word “left”
(color coding is blue on the sensitivity scale) and wondered:
Why did he have the
need to tell me he “left” since he can’t go to Wendy’s without leaving?
Why did he need to
tell me that he “left” in his “truck”?
Why would it matter? Did the
agency provide a vehicle? Was it a long
drive needing reimbursement? If it is
just lunch and the client would like it hot, it isn’t likely a long drive…why
would he have the need to tell me that he left in his truck?
That he “left” to
go to the fast food place is unnecessary.
He can’t go there unless he leaves, but for him, it was not just that he
“left” but he mentioned how he got
there. This appears to be utterly
useless information. When writing out
his statement about theft, why would he need to tell me how he got to Wendy’s? I would find out soon enough.
By simply highlighting “left”
without thought, I stumbled upon a sensitive area in the statement and knew
where to address my questions. I thought
on this as the interview progressed and wondered why, during the description of
his day, was he thinking about his “truck”?
What was the “story” about the “truck” that was missing?
I kept asking him about lunch, and about his truck. I noted that he was annoyed with the repeated
questions and did some body shifting. His statement was long, and I had
constructed questions from it, but kept coming back to him “leaving” and him leaving in his
“truck.” I knew there was withheld
information (missing) and I knew the area of “blue” or sensitivity, was around
the truck. His statement was missing information and it was only through
questioning that I could find out what was missing.
Interestingly enough, his entire written statement, three plus
pages long, was 100% truthful. There was
not a single lie in it, sentence by sentence. He did, in fact, go to Wendy’s in
his truck and did, in fact, by a hamburger, fries and soda. He didn’t “lie”
about anything. This is why we do not interpret anything: we listen.
It was in the story that the small piece of information was
missing:
The stolen money was in a locked box in his “truck” hidden
away. While he was writing out his
statement out on what he did at work that day, what was it that he was thinking
about?
He was thinking about his truck and where he hid the locked
box of money. It was in his mind and
came out in his words. If not for
careful listening, this would never have been known.
I didn’t know he had hidden the money in his truck. I had
believed that he had taken the missing money, but that was from another part of
his statement, in particular, about his activities at 11PM that night.
Eventually, he confessed. Had I not known to highlight “left”, I might have missed the major
linguistic clue.
In researching this habit of language, the Laboratory of
Scientific Interrogation (LSI) found that 70% of the time, the word “left” is
used because the person was pressed for time.
“I left work at
5PM and went home.” Here, the word
“left” is sensitive, but 7 out of 10 times, its sensitivity is due to rushing,
or traffic, or something due to time pressure. When I find this word entering a
subject’s language (or written statement) I often ask if they were feeling time
pressure and it usually is the case. Those who leave work early, when they
should not do so, often use this as well.
LSI found that 30% of the time, it is missing information
that is highly sensitive, or critical to the investigation. These are the
indicators that we often find in theft or assault cases. Here was a part of a
statement from a sexual assault case:
“I was taking care
of her and made her bed, and then left the bedroom to get her medicines”
a staff person said, regarding an allegation that he had molested the woman he
as taking care of. He said, “I washed my hands, gave her the medicine for
the day and left. Nothing happened.”
Here was a case of “two
lefts” making the information highly sensitive to the subject who spoke
these words. In questioning him I would want to ask him to tell me about what
“taking care” of her meant to him. Eventually, investigators found out.
He was arrested and convicted of rape. Let’s look at the
sentence again. This was a transcript of
his interview:
“I was taking care of
her and made her bed and then left the bedroom to get her
medicines. I washed my hands, gave her the medicine for the day and
left. Nothing happened”
If you followed the simple procedure of analysis in
preparation for the interview, you would have highlighted the following words:
“her, the, to, washed, left, happened” as sensitive.
- “Her bed.” It is her bed, and he recognizes this
but then he says he left “the” bedroom rather than “her” bedroom. Why isn’t it “her” bedroom? This was something the investigator
would seek to answer in his questioning.
- “To”. The investigator knew that when someone
tells us what happened, any time they tell us why something happened, it
should be considered very sensitive, since it is outside the boundary of
simply reported what happened.
Therefore, the investigator, in his analysis, always highlights the
words, “so, since, therefore, because, to, “ and so on, showing that the
subject has a need to explain why he did something.
- “Washed” his hands. Remember: we do not interpret, we listen.
He did wash his hands before he went back into the bedroom. It is a truthful sentence. In fact, every word he spoke here is
truthful. However, the investigator noted that the washing of hands is
unnecessary information and knew that unnecessary information is doubly
important to investigations. He
knew, just as social workers know, that there is an association between
sexual inappropriateness and water.
For example, a teacher that finds a child suddenly is washing her
hands 7 times per day and is now concerned that, perhaps, the child has
been a victim of sexual molestation.
It warrants questioning.
Perhaps the child’s skin is itchy and dried out, and that cold
water soothes the itch, and it is not related to sexual abuse. This would be good news, but perhaps it
is something else. A trained professional recognizes that there is a need
to find out why. It is the same
linguistically. Why the need to
mention washing hands?
In the investigation into the murder of a teen hitchhiker in
the Midwest, a trucker was asked to tell investigators about his day. It was the day the girl was reported missing.
“I drove down Route
80, stopped off to get gas, used the bathroom, washed my hands, left the
gas station, got back on 80, proceeded to Route 74 for 4 hours…” and on he
went.
Every word he said was true. It was what he left out which
was critical: he had raped and killed
her. Police later estimated the time of
death to be just before he pulled over and used the restroom. In context, we might have dismissed "left" here as rushing, traffic, or time sensitivity.
It was not.
This highlights deception, overall.
It is extremely rare for someone to lie outright. Most all
of deception comes from information that is left out.
“I heard a gun shot
and found my wife, lying in a pool of blood” is truthful; yet it is missing
one critical point that came out later in this case: he shot her.
Before conducting our interviews, we must be prepared. We begin the interview with setting the pace
of the interview by asking, “Name, address, phone number, years employed” and
so on. We then move to open ended
questions where the subject enters the free editing process. Then we ask
questions from the subject’s own words, and then we ask questions from the
previously written statement.
Where, in the written statement, you have found the word
“left” used as a connecting verb between two places, you will construct your
questions as to why it is present. Most of the time the missing information
will be related to time pressure, or traffic, but almost a third of the time,
it will be missing information critical to your investigation.
Our final sample comes from a man who came home from work to
find that his wife had committed suicide.
“I left for
work at 9AM but decided to come home for lunch at noon. I left the office and got home and
found her dead. That’s the whole story.”
Just stepping back from this statement and seeing the blue so close together, tells me to focus my attention on this extreme sensitivity.
He was eventually convicted in her death. He had come home
an hour earlier than he said, got into an argument with her and shot her.
Neighbors report hearing the gun shot at 11AM, not noon. But if you notice in his statement, he does
not lie. Here you have two “lefts”
making the information in between these two “lefts” critically sensitive.
He did leave his house for work at 9AM. They were arguing bitterly over money and his
infidelity. He said that he “decided” to come home for lunch at noon, but
decisions change. He may have decided
that but after 10:30AM, no one in the office could say they saw him. It is true that he “left” the office, but he
does not say what time he “left” the office. Notice also that when someone uses
a phrase like “that’s the whole story” or “that’s all” (or anything similar) it
is a signal that they want the flow of information to cease.
While some of these appear to be “amazing” finds within a
statement, there really is nothing amazing about it: as a matter of practice on each and every
statement, you take a blue highlighter (blue is indicative of sensitivity) and
outline the word “left” (or “departed”) when it is used to connect two
places. In analyzing software, the word
“left” is automatically highlighted for you.
Your work comes in asking questions around the sensitive
time frame within a statement. This is a
developing skill as you work from the subject’s own language. It is a discipline that avoids leading and
suggestive questions.
Sometimes, two lefts make a right. In allowing the subject
to guide us, we follow his directions and if he calls attention to something,
we want to know what it is, and why it is important to the subject.
12 comments:
Excellent article Peter :)
Lately I've been watching a lot of that TV show 'snapped' and I've been amazed how the principles of statement analysis are so obvious to me now when I'm listening to what the suspects say. 'That's all I know' is a common theme in suspects being questioned by officers. On Sunday they had a case where a mother and son planned the murder of a neighbor (motive-jealousy. Mom wanted to continue affair with neighbors husband) and the mother did state to investigators a reliable denial 'I did not kill ----' but when the officer asked her point blank did she ask her son to kill the neighbor, the mom minimized what she had told the her son, 'I only said I wished she would fall down the stairs and he said she could be pushed' etc. Turns out she didn't kill her neighbor but she did plot and have her son commit the murder.
In the maddie mggann case her parents mention"left"thousands of times.
Thank you for posting this article. This type of article is such a good learning experience for people like me - who have a whole lot to learn!
I hope there is more information forthcoming. I have more questions than answers.
Was he paying child support and wanted out of the payments like DiPetro?
Is he a common, garden variety psychopath? I ask this because of this information from the original analysis - "his younger brother, Roger, who died in a trailer fire in 1989 at age 5." He would have been a year or two older than his brother at the time. Were they playing with matches? Was he somehow responsible for setting the original fire? Was he rescued and his brother perished? Are there any other unexplained fires in his past. Arson, cruelty to animals, and bed wetting are often early indicators for serial killers. If he was a witness to that fire, who knows what it could do to his psyche?
Fascinating!
Thank you, Peter! I found this article really helpful. I was confusing "left"as a connecting verb with the grammar rule (which called *linking* verb). It's not the same thing.
Thanks for another great article Peter!
Thank you for this great article! You've taught about left a number of times but this is the first time where it makes sense to me. I guess I needed to read the material over and over until it finally sunk in! What I find amazing is how these principles cross language barriers and apply, people are people wherever they try to deceive -haha.
OT Update.
Mother of missing child remains in jail on probation violation charges
The mother of missing toddler Myra Lewis will remain in jail after her probation revocation hearing was postponed on Monday.
Ericka Lewis, whose 2-year-old daughter has been missing since March 1, was jailed on probation violations about two weeks ago when she was arrested for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Investigators had located some guns inside the family’s home. Lewis’ probation violation stemmed from a felony food stamp fraud conviction.
Officials said Lewis’ hearing was delayed until May 19 because the sentencing judge was unable to be in court.
The Myra Lewis investigation has stymied authorities, who have searched the land around her house and followed numerous leads since her disappearance.
Family members say they believe the child was abducted and asked that the Sheriff’s Department look into sex offenders who live in the area or who might have been in town.
While they have said they hope that Myra will be found alive, officials have also said her disappearance does not show the earmarks of a random kidnapping.
“The investigation is ongoing, and we can’t discuss it at this point,” said FBI spokeswoman Deborah Madden.
District Attorney Michael Guest said hundreds of hours have been put into the investigation by several agencies.
“The sheriff’s office and the FBI continue to follow up on every lead in this case, and there are still individuals devoted solely to this investigation,” he said.
Myra’s father, Gregory Lewis, told reporters Monday that he had not been aware of his wife’s food stamp fraud convictions, claiming his long hours of work keep him from knowing what goes on with his family.
On the day Myra disappeared, family members told police Gregory Lewis was inside the home with the infant. He was, they say, in a back bedroom resting.
Ericka Lewis’ mother, Martha Sanders, said she feels like the arrest was a tactic to pressure her daughter into giving up some kind of information.
“They can pressure Erica, but she’ll never give in. She’ll never give in because she didn’t do anything,” said Sanders.
Myra’s family has been polygraphed, but police won’t comment on the outcome.
Madison County Sheriff’s Department officials did not return phone calls Monday.
http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20140324/NEWS/303240026
I don't know why this one is so hard for me. I just don't get it.
I think it is really hard to recount events without using the word left.
"My husband was still at work when I called. After he left he called me back. He asked if I needed anything on the way home."
Is that suspicious/sensitive/missing info? If so I still don't get it.
The word "left" is a signal of missing information. Most of it, 70% and upward, is missing information about traffic, time, rushing, etc.
"I left work at 5 and went to the store..."
Instead of:
"I went to the store after work"
I may have been rushing, or concerned about traffic, or the time...
most of the time, it is very little.
Peter
Post a Comment