Thursday, October 2, 2014

Correlation Between Language and Activity


Correlation Between Language and Activity
                                                           by Peter Hyatt

Language is a camera's lens into what happened.  Human communications can be as complicated as the splitting of the atom (who understands that?), yet can be as simple as some of the principles of Statement Analysis indicate.

"I fell down a flight of stairs" case, continued.

When asked to "tell me what happened?", the subject stated that it was 3 steps that she fell down.  The subject also said, "the fall caused pain in my leg" while giving an initial account, over the phone.

I noted two indicators of deception.

One is not Statement Analysis' content analysis.  It is a statistical observation:  the number 3 being often chosen by those who are not truthful.  This observation is credited to retired US Fed Marshal, author, and Statement Analyst, Mark McClish, who not only noted this in his own work, but asked others to contribute to his study.  At no time is someone to say "aha!  the number 3!  they're lying!"

It is only a small tool to take note of; nothing more.

It is possible to fall down 3 steps.

It is possible to be robbed by 3 men.

It is possible to be "just having 3 boats chase us..."

It should not be seen as deception, as we do not, ever, conclude deception on a single indicator.  This is why some comments must be either answered or deleted; this is not a blog for disinformation or error.

Back to the account:

With two indicators of deception, I still did not conclude anything.  It puts me on alert, only.

How did the account end?

This has to do with change of language.

When language changes, there should be justification within the statement, to show what caused the change.  Language does not change on its own.

"Who says I stole the necklace?  I don't steal.  I don't steal jewelry! I saw the jewelry there and all I did was take the necklace out of the case, to show the customer.  When I was done, I put the necklace back in the case.  I don't steal jewelry and I swear to you that I am going to sue this company, once and for all, for these false accusations.  This is about discrimination.  Again and again, I keep saying that I do not steal.  I am not a thief.  I am a loyal, hardworking and honest employee.  When I held the necklace out, I showed the customer how beautiful it was.  I put the jewelry on the customer, and she just didn't appreciate the beauty.  She handed me the necklace and I did what I always do.  I always put them back in the case like I am supposed to.  If you don't trust me by now, I am going to talk to my lawyer!"

Did you notice that, at times, it was "necklace" but at other times, it was "jewelry"?

Language does not change on its own.  Either there is a change in reality, as discerned within the statement itself, or in the follow up interview, or...

the subject is not speaking from experiential memory, and has lost track of the wording used.

In the above statement, carefully view the context.  Does the coloration help?

"Who says I stole the necklace?  I don't steal.  I don't steal jewelry! I saw the jewelry there and all I did was take the necklace out of the case, to show the customer.  When I was done, I put the necklace back in the case.  I don't steal jewelry and I swear to you that I am going to sue this company, once and for all, for these false accusations.  This is about discrimination.  Again and again, I keep saying that I do not steal.  I am not a thief.  I am a loyal, hardworking and honest employee.  When I held the necklace out, I showed the customer how beautiful it was.  I put the jewelry on the customer, and she just didn't appreciate the beauty.  She handed me the necklace and I did what I always do.  I always put them back in the case like I am supposed to.  If you don't trust me by now, I am going to talk to my lawyer!"

The subject is speaking from experiential memory.

While it was in the subject's possession, or associated with the subject, it was a "necklace", but when it was either in the case, or on the customer, it was "jewelry" and not a "necklace."

This is what influenced the language:  the proximity of the item to the subject. 

In our 3 step fall, the subject missed the x-ray appointment, but on the follow through appointment, needed assistance entering the building, but when no one was looking, left without any difficulty in gait.

When the next follow up appointment was made, the subject described the "ever increasing" pain...

in her leg.


The doctor noted:

it was the wrong leg.


Herein a correlation between language and activity.  I have only encountered this once before, but it was a plastic air cast put on the wrong ankle, by a mentally ill subject seeking empathy.  The subject had forgotten which ankle was reported to have been injured.

Like a school child telling a lie, it is hard to keep track of lies, linguistically and it can be just as difficult when language is acted out in reality.

Words are the lens into the subject's event.

Statement Analysis listens...

very carefully.

Keep checking back for another audio lesson to be released.

We are hoping to expand our Statement Analysis services to include audio files, transcription services, and  online courses available via download.

If you would like to help:

 

9 comments:

C5H11ONO said...

I am curious about the lady accused of stealing jewelry. She was speaking out of experiential memory. But when I read the statements some items come at me as suspicious:

"Who says I stole the necklace?
--Isn't there an embedded confession?

I don't steal. I don't steal jewelry!
--This would not qualify as a reliable denial as it isn't in past tense.

Perhaps she didn't take this necklace, but could the statement not be reliable because in the past she had?

I don't steal jewelry and I swear to you that I am going to sue this company, once and for all, for these false accusations.
--swear (Is this invoking God of some sort and don't guilty people do it to convince you)

Again and again, I keep saying that I do not steal.
--Present tense again.

I am not a thief.
--Would one need to ask her what her idea of thief is? Perhaps taking things under a different context doesn't constitute being a "thief".

I am a loyal, hardworking and honest employee.
--She is a loyal, hardworking and honest employee. Isn't that limiting it. Could have chosen to say "person" or "woman" (by the way, I'm assuming it's a woman here because when reading it I got the impression it was a female, - or a gay man - I'm curious if I'm wrong here too).

When I held the necklace out, I showed the customer how beautiful it was. I put the jewelry on the customer, and she just didn't appreciate the beauty.
--When she brings up in the free editing process a statement like this without being prompted, I am curious to know if something transpired between the customer and her that would make her write something like "she just didn't appreciate the beauty". I think the customer told her it was hideous and it was a piece she "coveted". How angry was she after the customer left?

Please tell me if she was truthful or not, because I see red flags for deception.

PS - I'm going to Mark McClish's class in Florida in November and I'm all excited!!

tania cadogan said...

off topic (rolling my eyes)

The family of a 13-year-old who was declared brain dead 10 months ago following complications from routine tonsil surgery has petitioned a judge to have her declared 'alive again'.

Chris Dolan, the family's attorney, claimed he has 'medical experts, including world-class experts on brain death who will testify she is not brain dead'.

Jahi McMath's relatives won a high-profile legal battle to keep their daughter's life support machine turned on at the start of the year, after a coroner issued her death certificate.

The hospital treating Jahi released her into the care of her mother Nailah Winkfield and other family members who agreed to be 'wholly and exclusively responsible'for the teenager.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Jahi spent the past several months being looked after at a Roman Catholic hospital in New Jersey at private expense.

But if the judge sides with the family following their petition at Alameda County Superior Court, it could lead to Jahi being cared for at state taxpayers' expense.

However, Mr Dolan insisted that the latest legal maneuver is not about money.

Although he did acknowledge that 'she would be eligible for the same state benefits as every other person not brain dead on a ventilator, and who gets full medical care'.

He added that the family wanted Jahi to be looked after in California 'and not have somebody pull the ventilator on her if she is in the hospital'.

The teenager suffered a cardiac arrest following a routine operation to remove her tonsils at UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital in Oakland, California, on December 9.

She was left with brain damage that the hospital said was so severe that she was effectively dead with no chance of survival if a respirator was turned off.

Three doctors and the court agreed she was brain dead and the hospital applied to turn off her life support machine. On December 12, Jahi was declared brain dead and doctors sought a medical declaration for her death.

But her family, led by mother Nailah and uncle Omari Sealey, has always refused to accept the prognosis and argued there was still a chance she could recover.

They said that she responded to her mother's voice and asked that she be removed to a hospital that cared for her.

The family won an injunction preventing the hospital switching off life support and agreed a 'protocol' with them in which the teenager could be transferred to another facility while on a ventilator.

In January, Children's Hospital Oakland spokesman Sam Singer criticized the family's decision to give Jahi 'nutrients' to maintain her brain at optimum efficiency.

'This is a deceased young woman,' he told ABC 7.

'No amount of food, medicine, medical machinery, time or hope is going to bring back her back.

'So it's really wrong and unethical for Mr Dolan to mislead the family and the public that there's any amount of hope or any food that could possibly bring back this deceased young woman.'

According to CBS San Francisco, UCSF Doctor David Durand said the hospital was aware of the petition, and that the hospital trusts that 'the California courts, the Alameda County Coroner and the State of California will evaluate any claims made by the family's attorneys and decide them in a lawful and just manner'.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2777489/Family-Oakland-teenager-declared-brain-dead-10-months-ago-petition-court-declared-ALIVE-again.html




tania cadogan said...

Apparantly ( if you are christian) Jesus and Lazaeus came back from the dead with in a couple of days thus creating miracles>

Todays version of a miracle won't be the deceased getting up and walking around etc it will be a bit of paper ceclaring her as no longer dead, resurrected after 295 days and counting.

As a matter of interest , they claim god can do miracles etc. i wonder what they would define as a miracle and what they would be happy with?

Would they be happy with her being in a PSV or MCS for the rest of her life?

Would they be happy and claiming healed if she is conscious but reliant on people for everything 24/7?

Would they be happy if she was mobile and only requiring some help?

or would they want the whole kit and caboodle of her 100% cured complete with everything that was removed?

Which of those would be their miracle?

Would it be only a partial miracle and god could do better if it was anything other than completely healed?

I would like to see an MRI of her vrain to see what is currently remaining and if it is mostly intact or mush?

Anonymous said...

dear tania, according to the testimonies of the doctors who declared jahi dead shd should have gone into complete organ failure by now. they testifidd that she was rotting and decomposition had already begun. that she only had a short time before even the ventilator would not maintain her heart and other organs. thag was 10 months ago. so although most people may consider her existence of no moral value it is miraculous that she has existed 10 months past being declared dead and hasnot decomposed as assumed. that may not be 4miraculous but it certainly should raise questions about brain death and how its determined. if she was truly brain dead she should wouldnt even metabolize iv feedings. as far as recovery, (assuming she is not dead) yes she may always be in a pvs but she is still human, still an image bearer of her creator and is entitled to life.

Apple said...

This necklace article must be a simplified version of actual quotes because it was easy for me to pick up on. Very clear, were these actual quotes, Peter, or just an easy lesson for SA trainees?

-------

Goose,
I just read up on the child you wrote an OT on. Good Lord, its such a good reminder to us all that no surgery is routine. I am glad im not the parent in this situation. But for the grace of God go I.

ima.grandma said...

This stolen necklace scenario reminds me of the Lindsay Lohan drama of 2011. I'm sure there are many other statements she gave the media but here are two different ones I found.



http://www.lindsaylohansource.com/topic/interview/
Since then, Lindsay Lohan has been in and out of rehab four times. Finally, last January, the last sentence under house arrest due to an accusation of theft: just emerged from a clinic for drug addicts, Lindsay had stolen a necklace worth $ 2,500 from a jewelry store in Los Angeles, but she claims to not having done so, even if the court has not declared innocent. 

“I did not steal the necklace. I chose not to declare either guilty or innocent (n is called the American judicial system and no contest, and serves to avoid prosecution in exchange for a reduced sentence ed), otherwise I risked going to jail no, I repeat, have done nothing . She saw my jewels: it seems that I need to go around to steal? The summons to court after the alcohol test, then, had no basis (in February, in fact, the expired ban on consuming alcoholic beverages , ed.) Who had tried to get me wrong, it also said the judge. “


http://news-briefs.ew.com/2011/02/11/lindsay-lohan-twitter-theft-charge/
Just two days after being charged with felony grand theft, Lindsay Lohan took to her Twitter to address the accusations that she stole a $2,500 necklace from a store in Venice, Calif. 

“I would never steal, in case people are wondering,” she wrote. “I was not raised to lie, cheat, or steal… ” The actress also addressed those who wrote headlines about the Kimberly Ovitz-designed dress she wore during her court appearance Wednesday, when she pleaded not guilty to the charge. “What I wear in court shouldnt be front page news,” she wrote. “It’s just absurd."

tania cadogan said...

there is a difference between brain death and brain stem death.

In someone with a dead cerebrum but a living brainstem, the heartbeat and ventilation can continue unaided, whereas in whole-brain death (which includes brain stem death), only life support equipment would keep those functions going.

Yests will have been done by the various doctors including the ones selected by her parents incliding thee apnoea test where ventilation is turned off.
In brain death, as the co2 begins to build, the body will attempot to breathe unaided* due to a functioning brain stem)

If the brain stem is dead then the body will make no attempt to breathe automatically.

They will also struggle to keep her body temeprature controlled since that function also no longer functions, effectively meaning she becomes cold blooded and reacts to the surrounding temperature.

Semblance of life appears due to the artificial ventilation, heart pump and nutrition.

Over time, and it does vary due to patient, technology, medical skills and a whole raft of other things decomp will be slowed, it will however occur since bad bood will be circulating and there is likely to be no self repair to any good degree when cells and tissue break down.
This will start at the extremties and also inside many organs.
What is interesting to me is they show photos of her hands and feet and i think one with her eyes covered (she cannot moisten her own eyes and they will have likely shrunken into the skull)
Why not a full body shot to show she is still alive?
They claim she moves and responds to instructions.
If this were the case why have they not released video showing this and given said video to the courts?

Movement in brain stem dead people does happen.
It is purely random and a result of a build of of co2 or toxins which cause a reflex action( not controlled by the brain or brainstenm) giving the impression of life.

You say it is miraculous she has not decomposed in these 13 moths, in the right environmental conditions some bodies do not decompose, * mummies, Mammoths, peatbog man, leni etc)

Since it is clear you believe in a god, and i asuume happy to believe he will call you when he wants you, why then have they gone against god's will by jeeeping her on support even when even their own doctors said she was dead?
Why not take her off life support and let god decide whether she is dead or whether she is alive?

if she is alive she will continue after support is turned off, if she is dead she won't and god has called her.

By using artificial support, they are denying god's will, even when she is leagally and physically dead, they still deny their god.

Either they believe and will accept his decision or they don't and will fight to keep their dead child from a dignified byrial

Denial is a very powerful emotion.
As it stands they are being used for the purposes of other people's needs especially their lawyer and the doctor who says there is no such thing as brain death.

john said...

I always put them back in the case like I am supposed to. If you don't trust me by now, I am going to talk to my lawyer!

I would flag this as possible with held information. Did she/he really put it back like they are Supposed to.?

Extra words give give us extra information. The shortest sentence is always the best.

I always put them back in the case.

To add The words supposed to is unnecessary and i would focus in this area of the statement.

tania cadogan said...

I always put them back in the case like I am supposed to.

She does not say she put it back in the case like she is supposed to