Monday, November 24, 2014

Deception in Language: Intent


I recently heard that pictures of "dogs and horses" increases readership. Is this true? Or, does it refer to puppies?

It is rare (though not non-existent) for one to lie outright. The ego appears to 'protect itself' from being accused of lying through a complicated process which takes place in microseconds within the brain.  This is why we seek to allow the language to guide us and often conclude:

The subject is deceptive, though every sentence is truthful.  


Actions can deceive. Faking illness to avoid attending an unpleasant social gathering constitutes deception. Temporal distortions constitute deception. 

When I was a boy, it was common for kids to get together socially during the time period they were supposed to be at church.  

On occasions of such deception, kids would stop off at church, pick up the dated announcement bulletin, and then meet somewhere else. 

Time at church:  less than 2 minutes.

Time at social gathering:  More than 1 hour.  

Upon returning home, the teenager announces, "I'm home from church" while dropping the bulletin, with its critical date, on the kitchen table.  

"I'm home" is truthful.
"...from church" is also truthful, since the subject did, in fact, go to the church and had the visible proof in his hands. 

He has not lied, but he has been deceptive.  He knows that his parents will believe he spent his entire time at church.  It is the missing information that is critical.  

We saw this in Shawn Adkins' varied responses about him "going to work" the day murder victim Hailey Dunn was reported missing. 

He showed up at work, knew exactly where to go to be seen on video, bought a soda, and left.  He had other things to attend to that fateful day in which Hailey Dunn's remains needed to be disposed. 

When asked why he did not report going to his grandmother's, he  answered that he was not asked "where else" he went.  This is a strong reminder for investigators to be mindful of the temporal lacuna, the missing "space" of time within language.  "And then..." or "Next thing I knew..." and "After that..."

Adkins blamed investigators for not knowing that he went to other locales that day.  


Acts of omission constitute deception

Deliberately withholding  or suppressing information by the subject to cause the recipients (audience/Interviewer) of communications to believe something is true when it is not, constitutes deception. 

True statements carefully edited within micro seconds can formulate a lie. This is far more common than a direct, confrontational (internally confrontational) lie. 90% + deception is via this mode. 

A person wants to get cash or store credit for a stolen item and speaks to the clerk and says, 

"I just spoke to your manager. I'd like to return this item" 

What does this imply?  

It is intended to deceive the clerk that the manager gave permission or authorization for the fraudulent return, when in fact, the subject did speak to the manager and asked where a certain item could be found.  

Technically, it is not a lie.  

This is a process that takes place very quickly.  

The deception is seen within the missing information.  How can something be seen when it is missing?

It is the linguistic indicators that must be pounced upon, as well as the thorough understanding of Analytical Interviewing: 

that a subject is not likely to lie outright, but to deceive by withholding or suppressing information. Therefore, the proper questioning is necessary. 

"What time did you go to the airport?" the detective asked OJ Simpson.

"The first time?" Simpson answered the question with a question, quickly recovering himself, without the detective following up on the 'error' by Simpson, indicating that he began a first trip to the airport, which was disrupted (change of plans when he went to his ex wife's home) only to go to the airport a second time.  

We highlight deception in the "intent to deceive" within language.  

27 comments:

Katprint said...

Legalese = fraudulent concealment.

Anonymous said...

I knew he was guilty from the photograph in which he dressed the part of a prisoner in his black and white striped shirt.

Often these morons think more highly of themselves than they ought. Fantasy, drugs, and a society that allows the lunacy to continue.

Colorado City has seen its fair share of drug, alcohol, and child abuse over the years. Texas, in general, is a hotbed for lunatics running drugs off the border, human trafficking, and the conspiracy writers that attempt to cover for these ignorant inbreds.And, as usual, there's always that willing pychiatrists that will peddle for those unable and/or unwilling to see the deceit. And, oh yes, the ones that merely show up at church for a pamplet now and then...

Now and then again; it will never change if it allows others to profit from the misery.

Peter Hyatt said...

Katprint said...
Legalese = fraudulent concealment.
November 24, 2014 at 11:28 AM

you rock!

Peter

john said...

OT Update:

Former model accuses Bill Cosby of drugging her wine before sexually assaulting her as she says he may be the ‘greatest serial rapist that ever got away with it’


Jewel Allison, a former model, claimed that Bill Cosby drugged and sexually assaulted her at his home in the late 1980s

Ms Allison alleged the comedian, now 77, made her touch his genitals
Comedian has refused to respond to the claims, calling them 'innuendo'
At least 18 women have now come forward with assault allegations against the TV star



Read more:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2847271/Former-model-accuses-Bill-Cosby-drugging-wine-sexually-assaulting-labels-greatest-serial-rapist-got-away-it.html#ixzz3K0plSJs1

Anonymous said...

OT. Have you heard anything about an arrest in the Ayla Reynolds case?

GetThem said...

Missing information in otherwise truthful statements. Something I deal with my kids and homework. That sentence about going to church sounds good, but as a parent, makes me want to immediately question what happened at the Service. The battle of wills when I know there's missing information but can't quite ask the right question. Frustrating and leaves me in a weak position because I can't accuse when I can't understand how to ask the right questions.

McCannsWereFramedByPJ said...

OT- gardener in Madeleine McCann case says, "I didn't see her." Also, allegedly, he 'found' a letter telling where she could be found at the bottom of a reservoir, saying, "it's the perfect place to dump a body". Still sure the parents have guilty knowledge of her death?

Anonymous said...

Correction: he said, "I NEVER saw them..that little kid..." Two separate interviews to analyze. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-cops-ignored-tip-off-4688474

Anonymous said...

Watch how the Gardner touches his face when he says, "I never saw that little kid" in first interview. His body language is revealing.

Skeptical said...

This reminds me of the car race between the Americans and the Russians.

The American newspapers reported that the Americans won and the Russians were second.

Pravda reported that the Russians were second and the Americans came in next to last.

Deception of perception?

McCannsWereFramedByPJ said...

More McCann scoop...Robert Murat to be questioned again. The gardener worked for Murat's mother as well as the resort. Murat married once of the other suspects, the German woman. How convenient if Portugal has spousal immunity- they won't be able to testify against each other. Too bad he couldn't marry all of the other suspects too. lol.

Jen Ow said...

Breaking news:

Grand Jury returns no true bill, and does not indict Officer Wilson on any of the 5 possible charges in the shooting of Michael Brown.

tania cadogan said...

regarding the lake and the mccanns

In February 2008, a team of divers hired by Portuguese lawyer Marcos Aragao Correia searched the Barragem do Arada reservoir, which is 35 miles east of Praia da Luz.

The human rights lawyer claimed that underworld criminals told him Madeleine was dumped in a nearby lake that was “deserted with lots of trees and a beach area” - however the search came to nothing


He initially claimed he had been told by underworld members which then changed to he had psychic visions. Basically the guy had mental issues.

The current thesis after gerry said find the body is that she was possibly cremated at the same time an older woman was.

The mccanns particularly gerry seem to be pretty sure that Maddie's body will never be found

tania cadogan said...

regarding the lake and the mccanns

In February 2008, a team of divers hired by Portuguese lawyer Marcos Aragao Correia searched the Barragem do Arada reservoir, which is 35 miles east of Praia da Luz.

The human rights lawyer claimed that underworld criminals told him Madeleine was dumped in a nearby lake that was “deserted with lots of trees and a beach area” - however the search came to nothing


He initially claimed he had been told by underworld members which then changed to he had psychic visions. Basically the guy had mental issues.

The current thesis after gerry said find the body is that she was possibly cremated at the same time an older woman was.

The mccanns particularly gerry seem to be pretty sure that Maddie's body will never be found

Anonymous said...

The lake is a red herring. The McCanns are innocent.

Anonymous said...

The gig is up for Murat, Michaela, Malinka, the gardener/handyman and other peodo's operating in and around Portugal. Hopefully, Madeleine is still alive. Some evidence that she was in the summer of 2013.

Amaral is a lying corrupt, used-to-be cop said...

[Correia]initially claimed he had been told by underworld members which then changed to he had psychic visions. Basically the guy had mental issues.

There you go again.

This "mental issues" claim is all from Goncalo Amaral who said Correia was crazy and a harm to himself and others. Surely it has nothing to do with the fact Amaral was suing Correia for defamation?

Amaral is a convicted liar, convicted for falsifying evidence (in a case Correia was involved in as an attorney), removed from the McCann case following a huge amount of criticism for how the case (Amaral led) was royally botched. That's why they REMOVED him from the case very soon after the McCanns' were named as suspects.

When Amaral and Correia faced off in court about whether Correia slandered Amaral- do you know who won? Correia

Something comes up that suggests someone other than the parents are involved in Maddie's disappearance? You guys pull out something from Amaral's days on the case. Why the McCann haters cling to the words of this known liar and incompetent, corrupt cop is beyond me.

Anonymous said...

Wasn't Amaral involved in Joana Cipriano's case where her mother was beaten into a false confession? Little Joana went missing near PDL a few years before Madeleine.

tania cadogan said...

Anonymous said...

The gig is up for Murat, Michaela, Malinka, the gardener/handyman and other peodo's operating in and around Portugal. Hopefully, Madeleine is still alive. Some evidence that she was in the summer of 2013.


What evidence would that be anon?

The cadaver dogs reacted not only in apt. 5a, they also reacted to a child's red top. kate's clothes, cuddle cat and the hire car.

Both kate and gerry have told us Maddie is dead, as has their spokesman.

There has been no forensic evidence to indication abduction, nor the existence of a live child and no genuine sighting of Maddie anywhere in the world ( sightings were either of an innocent child or bought and paid for by the mccanns and their private investigators as well as some of the tapas group.>

Truth be said there is little forensic evidence that Maddie was even in apt. 5a during the vacation.

The only alleged paedos in PDL in regard to mMddie are gerry mccann and david payne and their interesting discussion about what she would do ( said in front of independant witnesses) and paynes predicliction for bahing other peoples young children.

All the evidence found so far that has been revealed to the public via the police files, points the finger straight at the mccanns and the tapas 7

tania cadogan said...

Anonymous said...

Wasn't Amaral involved in Joana Cipriano's case where her mother was beaten into a false confession? Little Joana went missing near PDL a few years before Madeleine


The mother was not beaten into a false confession, she could not identify anyone allegedly involved, her story kept changing , and it was likely she had been beaten up by other prisoners who do not like child killers, or she threw herself down the stairs.

Dr. Amaral was found guilty of perjury in that he he stuck by his statement as to what he had been told regarding a crime against cipriano which had not in fact occurred.

The collective of judges at Faro court - made up of 3 judges and 4 jurors - considered that Leonor Cipriano was tortured; even though it could not be proved by whom.

As a result, the 3 PJ officers accused of aggressions were acquitted.

Gonçalo Amaral was found guilty of false testimony because he upheld, under oath - five months after the 'events' - the version that he had been given by his subordinates, i.e. that Leonor Cipriano had been injured when she tried to commit suicide by throwing herself over the railing of the stairs inside the PJ building in Faro.

This was considered to be a false testimony because the facts that Dr Amaral testified to, could not be proved.

His defence, according to what we could read in the papers throughout the trial, and to statements that his lawyer made to the media, outside the court building, was that he could not have given another version of the facts because this was what the inspectors who witnessed the episode, reported to him

Anonymous said...

That's just not so.

It was taken as proven that Leonor Cipriano was beaten by elements of the Judicial police who could not be identified, and she didn't fall on the stairs, as was suggested. However, the court failed to ascertain the perpetrators of the aggressions.

Why couldn't she identify them? Because they put a bag over her head as they beat her!

The only alleged paedos in PDL in regard to mMddie are gerry mccann and david payne and their interesting discussion about what she would do

I was seated between Dave and Gerry who I believe were both speaking about Madeleine. I don't remember the conversation in its entirety, but it seemed they were discussing a possible scenario. I remember Dave telling Gerry something like "she", referring to Madeleine, "would do this".

When he mentioned "this", Dave was sucking on one of his fingers, pushing it inside and outside his mouth, while with the other hand he made a circle around his nipple, in a circulatory movement over his clothes. This was done in a provocative manner and carried an explicit insinuation in relation to what he was saying and doing.


That? For that you are accusing two men of being pedophiles? Talk about no evidence- she admits she doesn't know what they were talking about. It reads to me he's asking if she breastfed. You seem to be implying that he's casually saying what in the middle of a room of adults? That a 2 1/2 year old was giving blow jobs to men?

Talk about a lack of evidence!!

So, protect the New Zealand pedophile convicted of crimes against children. Oh no, British media and NZ media said he could have been there, but you know better?

Protect Murat who had child porn in his computer! Protect Amaral who is a convicted liar who oversaw a beating of a woman by...someone...she couldn't make out their faces through the bag over her head.

Protect all these criminals because if you don't it might create some kind of reasonable doubt about the hated, rich, picturesque McCanns.

And we can't have that now can we?

Cheez Miss said...

I wonder if the process of analyzing statements for deception -- analyzing the use of pronouns, tense, etc. - also apply to statements that are in a language other than English? or are spoken by someone though in English, is not a native English speaker?

e.g. an actor in the Philippines who is to be married to a fellow actress was rumored to have had a one night stand with another celebrity. when asked about the rumor, this is his statement:

Those in parentheses are translated from Tagalog to English

(I already issued a statement before. I said that -issue - I used the term 'Baloney'. They got it) out of nowhere...I don't understand & I don't know how it happened. (For me) there is no reason for that to happen (because the) status (of my) relationship (now) with Marian (we're very happy) and I would describe (as like) we're almost at our peak of happines....(We're a lot stronger now so I said) there is no room for that to have happened. Even (a) slight...) possibility so it's impossible. It is not true. (In terms of my interaction with the person (you're referring to, I worked with her) only several times. We don't even consider ourselves as very good friends because you know we're just acquainted. We see each other in (a show) & it's also unfair for her because she's also in a relationship & it's totally not true.


So to whoever is (maybe) fabricating these malicious stories (I hope they stop) because it's not fair to everybody specially to the people who believe that it's true. (Of course) in a way it affects lives. (Like I said) it'svery irresponsible for that thing to happen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ex_2AgeeQfc

tania cadogan said...

Murat did not have child porn on his computer>

Anon since you are so adamant the mccanns are innocent, i would be interested to see why you believe this despite the forensic evidence, the admission by the parents that Maddie is dead, their refusal to do a police reconstruction, via a 3rd party, kate refusing to answer 48 questions despite admitting that by doing so she was hindering the search for Maddie.
Their no searching, the not calling out to Maddie, their jogging, their world travelling to places where Maddies was not seen or going to be seen, the hiring of dodgy private investigators with no experience of looking for missing persons but experience in money laundering and drugs ( some of whom were jailed for drugs)
The changes in stories, the suing and threats to sue anyone who questions their version of events, the admission by kate she wanted to murder her children and herself and gerry so they could all be togeather and so on.

Pray tell me, what makes you believe Maddie was abducted as per the mccanns version of events?

GetALife said...

Tania- keep up dear. The parents are NOT suspects. Murat and Co. are. Do you really think Scotland Yard would spend MILLIONS to indict the parents of giving their daughter too much antihistamine on vacation? This is a case about international human trafficking with wide ranging implications involving citizens of many different countries. Madeleine and her parents were UNLUCKY. It could have happened to ANYONE. Leave them alone.

Anonymous said...

It seems there are a couple of us refuting your McCann theories. In this thread, I’m anon at 3:11 and 9:37 and for the record, I didn’t claim the McCanns are innocent. Just that the more you attempt to prove it, the more holes I see in the “McCanns are guilty“ "argument."

Murat- OK, not child porn. Interesting when you do and do not correct false media reports. Are you able to admit the police, under Amaral, leaked incorrect information about the DNA tests in the days before the McCanns were named as arguidos?

48 questions- Try and follow this: Kate and Gerry McCann answered tons of questions police answered. Many more than 48. For months they cooperated with police, despite many mistakes on the part of the police including contaminating the crime scene, not following up on leads of sightings including Tanner’s. In September, four months after Maddie vanished, police got a DNA report that said “inconclusive”; the police reported to the media that this report said “100% match to Maddie’s DNA.” They misrepresented evidence, and within days of misrepresenting evidence, they named the McCanns as suspects. The McCanns got lawyers as is their right. Gerry answered “the 48 questions” (so if answering the 48 questions is a sign of not being guilty, have you acknowledged that Gerry McCann is not guilty?) However, as it became quite clear the police were completely messing up the case, misrepresenting DNA evidence, and led by a man who covers up for men who beat confessions out of mothers, I do not blame Kate McCann one bit for refusing to answer their questions. Her response to the one question she answered ON THAT DAY, clearly shows sarcasm: she is frustrated with these incompetent boobs who at that point are clearly using a misrepresentation of the DNA report to railroad them.

But stop pointing to that one day she refused to answer questions while ignoring the hundreds, possibly thousands, of questions she answered in the four months prior to that one day.

So, let me get this straight: they hired private investigators but they did nothing to search for Maddie? Statements you have alluded to indicate they DID search for Maddie that first morning after she was missing but LATER ON did not physically search. Yet you insist it is evidence they never searched. Also, many times police do NOT want parents to search. Did you want them to tell police- "so sorry, we can’t answer your questions now because we have to physically search." Then you’d say “look, they won’t answer questions!" The Tapas friends searched, but you still accuse them of all being involved in a cover up. Mrs. Cipriano searched for her daughter yet you still accuse her of murdering her daughter and lying about how her eyes and face were beaten black. So, which is it? Searching would indicate a lack of guilt or not?

Anonymous said...


Forensic evidence- so let me get this straight- you make the claim the apartment was so scrubbed down there was no evidence of Maddie even being there, you never acknowledge that the police misrepresented the conclusions of the DNA evidence, never acknowledge the police contaminated the crime scene, but still insist there is forensic evidence that the McCanns killed Maddie?

Even IF the cadaver hits were real (though, you should really read the handler’s disclaimer as to the extent of what the hits mean). There is no indication the hits were Maddie’s, there is no indication of who caused what. It is not even proof that Maddie was killed, much less who killed her.
Also, help me understand what this means from Martin Grimes’ report:

“No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.”

So, when you say forensic “evidence,” are you referring to the dog hits which, in the report about them, the handler says have no reliability as evidence?

Third, if these dog hits are so important in an investigation, why did it take the Portuguese police three months before trying it? What had happened in the apartment in the three months time? How can you explain a hit in a car the McCanns didn’t have until weeks after Maddie went missing? Where did they keep the body? If Smith’s sighting is indeed Gerry McCann, and he’s the one carrying Maddie’s dead body, why no hits on his clothes? How could this couple, with the world and police watching at this point, hide, remove, and dispose of her body? There is simply NO evidence of that, aside from the cadaver hit of something that cannot be linked to any one person. The cadaver hit that

“No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.”"

Since you say it is evidence, what corroborating evidence can you cite to confirm it?

Anonymous said...

Shawn and Billie, i think you have done a fine job of proving neither one would make a credible witness should either one testify against the other.
on the other hand,
while "pointing" the finger at Shawn, Billie did not leak knowledge that she knows Shawn is responsible.

Shawn did not hide the fact that he only told LE the stuff he himself thought might pertain to "Hailey missing", everything else he did was none of LE's business.

most of their statements are two/three times hearsay. Shawn told Billie what Hailey said and Billie told cops what Shawn said. did Billie misquote Shawn? did she hear what she wanted to hear and translated it to LE in her own words?
this is why it is important to have the exact words of the first time the subject speaks them for your analysis.

LE has also been good at legalese when it came to the "childporn" but they have not shown legalese when it comes to Shawn and Billie's statements and activities.... why?