The following is a statement posted anonymously online. I have found it by googling "trickle truth", the term given when one party withholds portions of truth from another, yielding information in a slow, reluctant process.
It violates "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" in the most common form of deception: editing out, or suppressing information. Keep in mind that given the nature of remaining anonymous, a complete social introduction is not expected.
This statement reveals much:
a. How surprised was he?
b. What does he think of the relationship? Remember: language is not reality, it is the perception of reality.
c. What do change in verbs tell us?
d. Change in language?
e. Unnecessary connections?
Question for reader: Do you believe him? Or, is this something made up, posted anonymously, for attention or something similar?
"Here's a personal example of how trickle truth works in a real life scenario:
Where someone begins a statement is important and often the reason for writing. I do not have the original context, but he may have been asked to explain the term, "trickle truth", which is what he also ends the statement with.
Is he truthful?
Does this come from experiential memory? Or, does the language indicate deception? Remember, an opinion will not be seen as deception, even if it is wrong. Deception is seen when one intends to deceive another.
A month before my wedding, my soon-to-be-wife had a minor freak-out. Seemingly out of the blue she informed me one evening that we should go for a walk because she needed to talk to me. I said okay and we took a stroll along the lake.
Thus far, we learn:
a. "seemingly out of the blue" uses the word "seemingly" which signals to us that the subject did have some hint that something was not right.
b. Note the use of "my soon-to-be wife" uses the pronoun "my" and the title, "wife" with only the name missing. It is an anonymous post, therefore, the use of the name is not expected and should not be considered an incomplete social introduction. Note: "we" and "my" and "wife" tell us that from his perspective, this is a good relationship.
c. "she informed me" is formal language. It is not "she said..."
Note consistent past tense verbs used thus far. This is about to change:
About ten minutes into our walk she sits down and tells me she's having doubts about getting hitched. I stay calm and ask her why. She responds with a lot of peculiar reasons that didn't make much sense but finally slides in that she's been chatting it up with a co-worker and enjoys the flirting. She tells me that she's not really attracted to him but she likes the attention and even offers to show me his picture on her phone. She was right--not an attractive guy--frumpy, morose, looked rather like a putz and had even nicknamed himself Stupid F**** at work...a real mope of a dope. She said he meant nothing to her but the fun she had flirting made her question the wedding plans. Anyway, I take this all at face value and tell her she needs to think good and hard about if she wants to get married because if the answer is no, then we need to call it off and tell all the invited guests to cancel plans. Two days later she assures me she was just being silly, wants to get married more than anything and we move forward. Again, because I trusted her completely, I took it all as the truth.
In the first part (I have used spacing for emphasis) he was consistent in the usage of verbs, past tense. He used the word "we" twice, in only three sentences. Now, we have a longer paragraph and the word "we" is only used once, and in context it is about the decision to call it off. This tells us how he views them.
Note how it is absent during the account of flirting.
Note how the past tense verb became present tense verb usage during the painful admission of flirting. If he is truthful, this tells us that at the time of the writing, the event he described, was still causing him emotional impact. This is common in PTSD sufferers, including sexual abuse victims.
When the account is over, he returned to past tense verbs: "I trusted her..." and "I took it all as the truth."
Note her need to denigrate (by comparison) her love interest's appearance.
Note "his picture on her phone." We note "phones" in Statement Analysis as "people" because "phones do not talk; people do."
Two days before the wedding and suddenly something is feeling off. I arrive in a city I've never been to before, get introduced to a whole bunch of friends/extended family I've never met and the whole day my fiance is ignoring me and spending the majority of her time on her phone, texting and playing games.
Note what is important to him is what he has added in his account. No one can tell us everything they did; we all edit. Therefore, what remains is important:
He drove in unfamiliar territory. This may have made him uncomfortable.
He met people he had not met before, "a whole bunch" and used "get introduced" further adding words to show how uncomfortable he was.
"...and the whole day my fiancé is ignoring me" is given in comparison to the level of discomfort of people and places unfamiliar to him. In context, this is a signal that he:
a. expected comfort from her
b. would have been more comfortable with her near him.
Note that her "phone" reappears in his language.
Note the return of present tense verbs.
Note that "texting" (communication) comes before "playing games."
I let this go on until we get to our hotel room and then ask her WTF is happening and who the hell has she been texting all day. She admits its this coworker and that she's just under a lot of stress and its nothing. I call bull*** and threaten to call my parents or Best Man and have them get me to the airport but she breaks down crying and insists she's just being stupid and wants the wedding to happen. I'm about 5 seconds from calling anyone who can bail me out when she swears that she's just nervous and anxious and confused and truly wants us to tie the knot. Again, because I loved her, because I trusted her, because we'd lived together and built something over 5 years together, I took her for her word. The next day went ahead without incident and the day after that we had a wedding for the books. It was an amazing day from start to finish and everyone there said it may have been the finest, funnest wedding they'd ever experienced.
Without full analysis, I have emphasized enough to show:
the "phone" mentioned again, is sensitive because of "who" she was communicating with.
The word "nothing" is used here. Please see analysis on "nothing happened" in an open statement.
Note the present tense verbs are used to show ongoing impact until the word "love" enters his language: it is past tense.
Note "trusted" is also past tense.
This indicates that at the time of his writing, he no longer loved nor trusted her.
yet, with the word "we", at the time of the event, he still saw genuine hope. This is to say, at that time in the event (not the writing) he did love and trust her in spite of what she was caught doing.
He now also relates 'emotional theft.'
He showed that he needed her comfort (he was not comfortable in new surroundings with new people in this setting), but instead, she was communicating with a man she had derided, earlier, to him. This man was getting what the subject felt due to him. (see part one for definition of 'cheating' in context with expectation.)
I have edited out some of his descriptions that follow as the language is not appropriate for me to post here, as I continue to use **** in the words.
For days later things started to unravel fast. The trickle became an ever-increasing flow. First, after a night with friends to celebrate our union, she gets totally wasted and, upon returning home, tells me, "I don't even see us lasting a year together. But the good thing is, I've got someone waiting for me...and I know he has a ***** *****...but he **** really ***** and he ****************!" She then blacked-out and didn't remember it the next day.
Continue to follow verbs.
(In vino veritas?)
I on the other hand, went through her phone, found his number and texted him, asking point-blank if he was really in fact **** ***** ***** my wife. After trying to reach her by phone (she was passed-out) he finally replied that yes, he probably wasn't a very good person, but it's a choice she'd have to make and that I probably wouldn't like what she chooses in the end.
The next day she sobered up and, when confronted with the texts, broke down into sobs and swore she'd stop talking to Stupid *******r.
past tense language.
Now the change, again. By now, you should be able to see if the changes in verb usage are consistent or not. Inconsistent would cause us to explore if he is making things up, while consistent should cause us to explore ongoing emotional impact:
A week later, she packs an overnight bag to stay at a girlfriend's place, walks out to "find herself," and I tell her not to come back unless she's serious about making things right. 2 days later she's back crying and sorry for being confused and then, the next weekend, I find out everything that had been kept from me.
Turns out, for about 3 months before the wedding, she and Stupid ****** had been walking home together after work. On top of that, on the nights I was at work, she was over at his place. All her happy little text check-ins were really timing cues so she could be back home before I got in, to pretend she'd just been on the sofa the whole evening, waiting for me. She'd gone out with him countless evenings to the bars, met his kids and formed friendships with them and, based on some of her comments, its highly likely she brought him back to our apartment when I wasn't around. In the end, they were having a full-blown affair because, well, I trusted her implicitly and never imagined she could stoop so low.
Her final words, on the day she left, were, "With you I'd have the life I've always dreamed of. But he has the condo I've always wanted, so I have to go." She left and I haven't heard from her or seen her since. In February it'll be 6 months since she disappeared from my life.
That, sir, is trickle truth in action. It is the act of revealing just a little at a time, to manipulate a trusting innocent, to keep a lie going as long as possible until the guilty have a final solution in play.
She was also good at gaslighting, which is an attempt to re-write the past, claiming things happened another way, in order to keep the innocent confused and questioning their sanity as their world seems to fall apart around them.
Hope that helps you get a handle on what it's all about. Good luck to ya, however you decide to proceed."