Monday, August 3, 2015
DeOrre, Backwards Speech, and Psychics
An improbable account from his parents, the missing toddler has captivated us.
In Statement Analysis, we have a scientific process by which we apply techniques that, evenly applied, are based upon:
decades of research using the polygraph, particularly in the "SCAN" (Scientific Content Analysis, from Laboratory of Scientific Interrogation), the brain-child of Israeli immigrant, Avinoam Sapir, but also of:
lengthy research that went into the "Reid Technique" and others, including Nathan J. Gordon and William L. Fleisher's work, "Effective Interviewing and Interrogation Techniques" that, in its third edition, gives interviewers from law enforcement, civil investigations, counselors, therapists, human resource professionals, journalists, social workers, and so on, a great advantage in obtaining not only truth, but content.
With "backwards speech" and "psychics", we have carnival like attraction that even Paul McCartney had some fun with, in the early 90's, with "Free As A Bird" single, the "Beatles reunion" song in which he, George Harrison, and Richard Starkey, (Ringo) used an old demo recording from the late John Lennon and added their voices and instrumentation to construct a song as a "reunion" of sorts, of their pop band.
I love the song as I thought it was a lot of fun to hear them together, with the best compliment coming when people said, "It sounds like the Beatles!" in reviews.
At the end of the song, Paul added a backwards recording, as a way to poke fun of the "Paul is dead" rumor of 1970 (or so) where people claimed that messages were sent backwards in speech. Therefore, when you play "Free As a Bird" ending backwards, you hear him saying something to the affect of "that came out alright, didn't it?" as a joke.
I have covered much about psychics, honing upon several elements, in particular, including deception in their "visions", that is, to show that their words do not come from experiential memory. In other words, the words of a psychic do not come from memory of having first hand experience talking, or seeing, anything.
They are deceptive.
Our words reveal our background, experience, priorities and personalities. Psychics claim to obtain knowledge beyond the limitations of human nature, that is, our senses. Their claims are many centuries old, and their words often reveal personality disorders of those who have desperation for recognition in this world.
They are deceptive.
Like most liars, psychics become enraged when seen as such. They are often unbalanced, and, have, for many years, used carnivals, or carnival like atmospheres, to "fleece" people. When a child goes missing, there is no more vulnerability than what the innocent parents feel, and to prey upon such vulnerabilities with fraudulent claims, is beyond adequate description of how low a human being will go for recognition (which leads to money) or attention.
In short, no "psychic" in spite of the thousands 'out there' via social media has ever located a single missing person.
You have better odds of winning the lottery, several days in a row, than a psychic does finding a missing person. At best, the broken clock being correct twice, the more vague the psychic is, the better the odds of appearing, at least, accurate, is.
Backwards language joining with psychic claims is not surprising; they are similar in that they have no basis in reality, science, or even common sense.
At worst, the "backwards language" person risks brining emotional and potential financial harm to the family of a missing person but there is also that element of Statement Analysis which concerns me:
This is also true of "leakage" with authors (Jonbenet, Amanda Knox) picking up words that may, perhaps, be signals of leakage in language, thus "proving" guilt.
To be sure, the notion of "leakage" is real in Statement Analysis, but it is never elevated to a "strong indicator" of proof of anything. Rather, it is something we use effectively once deception has been proven in the analysis, for content purposes.
For example, when Caylee Anthony went "missing", the mother, Casey, was indicated for deception.
In her statement, we learned:
1. Caylee was dead
2. Casey needed an alibi.
These two assertions were in the analysis conclusion, and were not difficult to ascertain.
where was Caylee?
When George Anthony and Cindy Anthony, Casey's parents, spoke, they, too, were indicated for deception.
They knew Caylee was dead, and all their claims to the contrary, showed deception, and they knew Casey was involved, and all claims to the contrary showed deception.
That George and Cindy knew Caylee was dead, and Casey was involved, was not difficult to ascertain.
where was Caylee?
Cindy Anthony, in particular, was the dominant parent and her language even showed a bullying of George, as well as aggression, defiance and one who had a strong comfort level with deception (as did her husband) yet who possessed an ability to justify or quiet her guilty conscience. The best way to get her to talk and reveal her aggressive personality was to challenge her veracity.
Tim Miller, at no small expensive, moved his helicopter and horses from Texas to Florida to help find Caylee. When he arrived in Orlando at the home of George and Cindy, Cindy refused to assist him in finding Caylee by running interference; he was not permitted to even speak to the one who saw Caylee last: Casey, her mother.
Tim tried various means of getting, in the very least, a starting point, for the search but Cindy blocked all attempts at locating Caylee. Cindy wanted the public appearance of finding Caylee, while protecting, at all costs, the burial location of Caylee's remains.
She did not "sabotage" the search, she caused it to be canceled, instead. She even took to, as is the habit of liars when challenged, attacking, personally, the one she deemed her enemy: the man who came to find her "missing" granddaughter, Tim Miller, telling the press he was a "drunk" among other things.
After she uncerminoniusouly kicked Miller out of her home, she went to the press (of which even Casey's own jailhouse words revealed Cindy's personality and love of attention, calling it a "cameo") and announced,
"George and I don't believe Caylee's in the woods, or anything."
When I heard this statement live, I said, "Caylee's in the woods."
This is an example of leakage; that is, even while being deceptive, people may just 'leak out' information they did not intend to share, simply because it weighs so heavily on the mind.
It is most inexact, at best, and is only used in the realm of "perhaps" and "maybe", but not "definitively so" in our conclusions. It is valuable and is something we use to view content, but it does not, for example, follow the accuracy of pronouns, or articles.
It is a small tool, howbeit valuable, but it is not concessionary, within itself.
I do not wish the nonsense of "backwards language" to be confused or even associated with Statement Analysis or leakage, in the minds of readers.
Law Enforcement has, at times, spoken with psychics. There are several reasons for this:
I once analyzed a statement from a psychic that showed guilty knowledge of the crime.
Because he did it.
There is a psychological need on the part of those who claim to have psychic powers to be recognized as special, unique, and so on. They are often narcissistic and this is something that is sometimes shared with criminal elements.
Therefore, any and everyone that calls in about a case is looked at as a possible suspect.
Next, law enforcement sometimes fear bad publicity, especially when "reality" shows include "psychics" and our ill informed and undereducated public, who is more prone to repeat a bumper sticker of deception, than think critically, will embrace and 'demand' law enforcement "uncover every possible tip"; that is, until they are overwhelmed and announce that they are not taking any more calls from psychics.
This was the case with Baby Ayla. So many "psychics" called in with "tips", some even claiming to have spoken to Ayla (who, statement analysis revealed, was dead before she left that home that night, something seen in the father's language long before we learned of the blood found cleaned up at the house). No one "talked" to Ayla, just as no one "conversed with Hailey Dunn" as they claimed.
Those who make claim to have "intuitive gifts" (just a name change from "psychic") are liars and will become very angry, filled with venom, for having their mask pulled off, and their deception known. Remember the one who just happened to have the same first name as a suicide victim? She made it her life work to torment the teenager's mother to the point where she actually got herself on television.
She is a liar.
She is a fraud.
But she is also so acutely desperate for recognition that she will bring irreparable harm and a life time of pain to others, just to feel important for a short period of time.
They hold others in contempt, often with deep resentment for their own families, as people are seen as those who can be readily fooled with lies.
They claim to obtain information beyond human senses; that is, you must accept them by debasing science which leads me to "backwards language."
Our brain learns through repetition and has an emotional capacity which shows positive reaction to logic.
We "like" that 2 apples added to 2 apples gives us 4 apples.
It makes sense, and gives us a sense of security, as we, the higher creatures, possess detailed linguistic abilities that no other created beings have.
We learn chronologically, as well.
We see, with our eyes, and store in memory, over time, making recall flow with a certain speed of transmission that is very very fast.
When we are asked, "What did you do this morning?", we reach into a dictionary of words, in our heads, that numbers 25,000 or more words, and decide:
a. which words to use
b. which events to report
c. which words not to use
d. which events not to report
e. what verb tenses to use
f. what pronouns to use
g. where to place these words to make sense
All this takes place in less than a millisecond of time.
When we lie, we go into this 25,000 plus dictionary, and we think of how to avoid telling the truth, which interrupts this speed of transmission, causing a form of 'stress' in the person speaking.
This "interruption" or "pause" is seen in, quite often, extra words, or self-censoring, or due to the fact that the words are not proceeding from experiential memory, confused pronouns.
These few elements mentioned (additional words, self-censoring, confused pronouns) have been studied for many years and fall into patterns where the liar can be caught, or seen as such.
We do not study backwards spelling giving the brain no reference point for backwards words.
I once met a man with adult autism who had a knack for speaking words backwards. It was interesting for a bit of time, but when weeks turned into months, it was annoying when communication was intended.
The average person with 25,000 words does not spend time learning, and then concentrating on spelling and saying words backwards, leaving no brain recognition patterns.
Therefore, when "backwards language" is used, we can either:
a. force our belief of guilt into the words and find something that fits;
b. just amuse ourselves and can force any meaning we wish, into any statements we want to have, eventually in this "hit or miss" game, we will find something to match what we want.
The same is with Andrew Hodge's books. He finds "leakage" wherever he wants to find leakage and just because
Yes, a therapist who is talented in listening will eventually grasp that "boy, it is cold out" has something to do with loneliness rather than weather, but will not 'force' meanings into anything, but will explore possibilities. Perhaps it means weather, but perhaps, especially through the lens of statement analysis (repetition means sensitivity) will search for loneliness.
When I hear "water" in a statement, I do not rush to conclude, "sexual abuse!" but know that I should explore for it as a possible element in a case.
Taking "backwards language" or "leakage" or "psychics", and we can say
Apple means Orange at any time, for any reason, if, of course, we wish to find oranges.
Imagine a cursory reading of Statement Analysis, believing a case, and then forcing this belief into the language?
Recall the self proclaimed "criminal profiler-journalist" who insisted something was innocent because "he never referenced her in the past tense!"
I wish she had read the analysis a bit closer. In her case, a powerful political agenda overruled reason and logic, which coupled with a desperate need for attention, to bring her to the place of folly overruling sense.
Science teaches us that we gain knowledge through our senses.
Psychics claim to gain knowledge outside the laws of science.
Emotions run very high and emotions, themselves, become little 'tyrants' who do not like to be questioned, which is why when one does not agree with this "emotional view they often go into attack mode, and you and I must be "morally inferior" because:
science is something we can apply over and over and get the same results.
We are not enslaved to inconsistency, or arbitrary application.
Statement Analysis is taught, learned, practiced and has well above 90% results (this is an accepted level for polygraphs, which we supersede greatly), while psychics have 0% success.
Principles are memorized and implemented, but there is something else that we do:
We study and learn the psychological basis for our principles.
For example, I received a call to assist in a theft case.
Local PD had not found the thief and concluded that too many employees had access to the missing money.
I told the owners, "If one of your employees stole it, and you have each one write out what they did from the time they got to work, until the time they left, I should be able to tell you who did it, how they did it, when they did it, and perhaps even why they did it."
One employee wrote, "I woke up, brushed my teeth, got dressed and went to work."
She wrote out her entire day, but this sentence, alone told me:
1. She had been asleep.
2. She brushed her teeth
3. She got dressed.
4. She went to work.
These are, statistically speaking, very likely to be true. I know this by the sentence structure.
I believe she had been asleep, and I believe she brushed her teeth and got dressed and she went to work. All these things are accepted by me, as fact, due to the sentence structure.
Next, she "told" me some things that are helpful to know.
I "know" she brushed her teeth but what I do not know is why she felt the need to tell me, the investigator, that she brushed her teeth.
Statistically I know that the inclusion of personal hygiene is associated with the concealment of information, later on in the statement, most likely related to personal information.
Statistically, this personal information is often found to be that the writer (the "subject") is a victim of Domestic Violence.
Psychologically, it makes sense.
Having worked with victims (and perpetrators) of D/V for many years, I know that most victims are controlled, on a day to day basis, not by violence, but by the threat of violence leaving them with a life that is stressed continually, as if "walking on eggshells", worrying that she just might say the wrong thing and trigger his rage.
Her world feels "out of her control" due to this lack of certainty that he will blow up, or awaken in anger, or she will say something to trigger his rage.
When she brushes her teeth, what does she do?
a. She has control over something in her life, even if but for a few minutes.
b. She may even lock the door, increasing her sense of control and safety.
Therefore, you and I might not ever include the "needless" detail of "brushing teeth" but to a victim of Domestic Violence, it is something so important, that she felt the need to write it in a statement to an investigator.
I do not "interpret" bushing teeth as anything. She brushed her teeth and I believe her.
I do, in addition to believing her, ask myself, "Why did she feel the need to tell me this?" and I explore, that is, I look for concealed information later in her statement, that is of a personal nature.
In this case, she was living with a violent boyfriend who had bullied her for information on the company's security system. When I asked the owner, "Is she is a D/V relationship?", yes, the owner did look at me as if I was a genius or had some unknown ability to "see" what others could not see.
It is not so.
It is from the work of others, long memorized and practiced with hard work, more hard work, and when finally exhausted, a bit more hard work.
It is something that is taught to all.
It is not reinterpretation, nor is it "inside" knowledge that was obtained outside the realm of human senses.
It is not something that is made from backwards language.
In fact, it is likely you could prove anything from any statement, by either twisting and declaring it to be "leakage", like the Hodge books, or push the words together, with no spaces, look at them backwards, and play "Scrabble" by formulating words that fits your agenda or conclusion.
Therefore, you have to take a case where you have read actual analysis, or have a very strong opinion on a case, and then force your theory (already accepted by others) into this same article to "prove" your assertion.
It is unscientific, illogical, and as equally fraudulent as the claims of psychics.
It may make people "feel good", especially about an opinion that agrees with them, but it is not something that can be taken and scientifically applied to produce the same results, time and time again.
You've landed at this blog because you enjoy not only discerning deception from truth, but because you respect how principles are applied, each and every case, in the same, even-handed matter.
You only "know" what others do not know because you take the time and effort to listen and to learn, but it is not "magic" and it engages the senses, rather than suspend the laws of nature.
I am acutely aware of the fallen standardized grades of Americans and how feelings have trumped reason and how those who do not "feel" the same are demonized and their freedoms shouted down. I am aware of the "Casey Anthony Jury" and just how critical thinking has been discarded. I see how effective propaganda has been on the masses and how "if it don't fit, you must acquit!" holds more meaning to many than following an argument. I read the comments that follow news paper articles and shudder as illogic is embraced and how politicians, in ways I did not conceive possible just a few short years ago, manipulate a population with a complicit media, into building a voter base who are blindly loyal, no matter how destructive the ends. I do grasp this.
Yet in the quest for truth, we follow reasonable arguments, logical principle, and we seek to apply it fairly.
You may lift our principles and apply them anywhere, with no special "extra sensory perception" needed.
Eventually, some 'psychic' is going to say "I see the child in the woods, scared and crying for mama" and a child is going to be found in the woods and someone will ask him, "were you crying for mama?" and for a short season, the 'psychic' have Facebook popularity and may even reign for a few months, until another child disappears and their fanbase demands an answer.
Backwards language is not analysis and just because the forced conclusion agrees with your opinion, it remains a game of Scrabble beginning with a premise to prove, and the words, running backwards, are sought to fit into the theme.
It is a game, if not an interesting game.
It is not justice.
It is not science.
It reminds me of "Fischer Random Chess" where Bobby Fischer, convinced that chess would be "solved", invented a version of chess in which the pieces are 'juggled' before the game, by a computer, nullifying the opening theory that has been memorized deeply by grandmasters.
It never took off as people still love traditional chess.
If you have an hour free, try it yourself on any statement and input your theory and see if you can make it fit. Chances are, if the article or statement is long enough, you can make it fit your theme or presupposition, especially if you remove spaces from words when setting them up backwards.
This can also be done in "crossword puzzle" style; horizontal and vertical, and the same statement can be "puzzled" or set up to first prove one's guilt, and then to prove one's innocence.
Both from the same statement.
Psychics and "backwards speech" are equally useless in investigations but at least backwards speech can be entertaining, as a game, perhaps even provoking thinking as Scrabble requires, for those learning language.
As to obtaining truth, we remain committed to old fashioned hard work in analysis.
The psychic's language shows passivity, vagueness and words that do not come from experiential memory. They are deceptive.
One is outright deceptive, while the other is more a game, similar to a crossword puzzle, but when both claim to 'prove' anything, guilt or innocence, it is an ode to folly, illogic and gamesmanship.
Law enforcement wastes time due to fear of an ignorant public being churned by a malicious media, demanding to know why they are not following "all" the tips.
Even paying someone to answer the extra phone calls from these narcissistic opportunists is a waste of resource.
Backward speech is similar to the spam comments that say, "I lose my husband, Raefelo until I contact the great Doctor Manzieher who cast spell and I lost weight, find my love now and have 2 new babies" and give you a web site to click on to with the promise of "weight loss", "love" and "instant success" in business.
I think one may have more success, as George Anthony discovered, with falling upon each job, filing for disability, and subsidizing an Nigerian princess, who will deposit 3.2 million dollars in your account if you give her your account number.
These, as well as my favorite fortune cookies all have the same level of success. They are "entertainment purposes only" and should not be presented as anything else.
If you apply Statement Analysis principles to the backward speech claims, you will note deception, including the use of passivity in speech.
If you apply Statement Analysis principles to the claims of psychics, you will find passivity, vagueness (the avoidance of detail) or indicators that experiential memory is not in play.
Scams have always existed, yet when a loved one goes missing, the ability to resist suggestibility in any form, is greatly diminished. This is why the Facebook psychics are called 'vultures' who prey upon the vulnerable.