For one area of Statement Analysis, it really is this simple to discern deception.
Statement Analysis is the scientific breakdown, examination, and re-configuration of words within sentences and sentences in correlation to one another.
The words we speak reveal our intellect, emotions, history, background, life experiences and when enough words are used: our personality is revealed for us. Personality type can be a very important aspect of analysis in interview preparation: knowing when to confront and when not to can be the difference between justice lost and justice realized.
Recall the recent controversy regarding Donald Trump and Obama as a muslim and Ben Carson's statement that Islam (Sharia Law) is inconsistent with the US constitution has raised the question that was quieted in 2008: Is Barak Obama a Muslim?
The political sides line up with some, rather than answering the question for themselves, use the tangent of avoidance with the allegation of "racism", though no specific race is cited in Islam.
What one believes, one acts upon. Though cynics like to dismiss any sense of honor or trustworthiness with "they are all liars!", more times than not, this dismissal is a defense mechanism, also designed to avoid the question, "Why are you voting for such a liar?"
We all reveal ourselves, especially our motives.
To not answer a question is to indicate specific sensitivity towards a question, even if the question is in the imperative, or simply unspoken but understood.
Human communication is complex.
Pronouns, however, are the exception to the basic principle that has to to with the complex system of "de coding" a person's personal dictionary that one uses to communicate as so many words have such different meanings to different people that miscommunication is common, true enough, but it is that deceptive people are often very good at 'splicing' words in a way to allow for them to later say, "What? What are you talking about? That isn't what I meant at all!"
In fact, the deceptive person, practiced in this form of communication since childhood, presupposes your interpretation of his words in order to get past the issue at hand, via deception.
The single widest topic of interpretation for language comes in association with sex.
Human sexuality, itself, is complex, and any seasoned interviewer knows: what one defines a word within the topic of "sex" may vary so widely, that unless specific interpretation is given, error will be made, and deception will pass unnoticed.
Or, as another put it, "Always ask someone to define any term used in the topic of sex, but before you ask for definition, fasten your seatbelt. You are going on a ride."
This is true.
The various definitions given to even body parts can be how a deceptive and guilty person passes the polygraph!
"Did you molest the child?"
If the subject's internal subjective dictionary has defined "molest" as "causing pain" or "causing unwanted pain", and believes, internally, that what he did was "tickle" the victim, he could pass the polygraph.
If the time was taken to "de code" his personal dictionary before the polygraph, the "ground rules of language" would be established.
He could then be accused of "tickling the chest" of the female child and the polygraph would not allow him to escape the emotional and intellectual connection he has with the words because:
The words are his own.
This is key.
This is why child protective caseworkers who investigate abuse claims regarding children are trained, state to state, to not accept a single term without asking, "What does _____ look like?" or "Where is your ______ on your body?" (allowing the child to point, which, especially on video, makes for a legally sound case).
Recall the recent controversy in New York where women are demanding "equal rights" of going topless in public. What is not understood is that by "de-identifying" female breasts as distinctly sexual, all the child abusers convicted for touching a female child's breasts would have to be released, and the now "legalization" of fondling would lead to an even greater epidemic of sexual abuse.
Hence the folly of a society that looks in the mirror, scientifically identifies gender, but overrules science in the name of "identity." The parents, teachers, nurses, and other professionals who teach children, "your private parts are those covered by your bathing suit" will have to be changed should this foolishness in the name of egalitarianism be accepted in New York.
Each one of us has a very personal dictionary where words are subjective. Recall the example in seminars of the word, "boy" where one person says "boy is a new born male child" (the audacity of scientific identification of gender!), while another says, "boy is my 21 year old son in the military."
Each word must carefully be explained by the subject so that the victim is protected.
The exception to this is:
1. Objective Time on a Clock
If one says, "It is 10 minutes past noon", this is a precise time, common to all. There is no subjectivity, nor chance for interpretation. Both honest people and deceptive people will use general terms to avoid either being wrong (honest) or being too exact, (deceptive) which is sometimes useful when we hear someone, most unexpectedly say, "it was 2:26", without rounding off the time in any manner. Deceptive people, wishing to be believed, may do this, especially if they are certain, as to appear to b honest. When the deceptive person points to an exact time, it is often accurate, which gives them confidence, while beneath this accuracy is the need to sound honest due to other elements of deception.
Articles are instinctive in the element of prior knowledge. This is limited to "a" versus "the", and excludes "a" versus "an", which is something that reflects (more often) education.
The article "the" is used, intuitively, once a noun has been identified, which is why even a child will say "I went to a store", and once the store is known and referred to, it can become "the" store.
"I saw a puppy! The puppy licked my face."
Once introduced, without having the need for pre thought, the five year old moved from "a" to the article, "the" quickly.
Pronouns are something rehearsed by humans millions of times. They are 100% efficient and no "error" can exist without deception. It is the one area of Statement Analysis that is simple
It is reported that up to 70% of existing police files on unsolved cases have a "confession by pronoun" contained within them. Some believe this number is even higher.
Here are some examples of "confession by pronouns" in statements:
"So he came up from behind me and just started touching me. I said to him to stop but he refused to listen to me. His hand was inside my shirt when we heard a knock on the door, so he stopped. We finished up the assignment and later he said he was sorry."
In this, you will note that the alleged sexual assault began with the perpetrator's location and "started touching me." Once she is being "touched", the alleged crime has begun.
Next you should note that "his hand was inside my shirt" is in what we call the "passive voice", where no responsibility is assigned (unless his hand has a mind of its own), which is to say that this is a signal of not only a 'weak commitment' to what happened, but a concealing of specific information of just how his had got inside her shirt. Did he unbutton her blouse? Did she unbeaten it?
There are other issues there, but the most blaring is this:
After the alleged sexual assault, she used the word "we" to identify herself and the alleged attacker.
Decades of sexual assault statements tells us something we instinctively know and knew:
The victim does not associate herself closely to the attacker.
The word "we" connotes unity and cooperation. In truthful statements, the victim does not use the word "we" but instinctively separates herself from the attacker with "he and I" rather than "we."
There is an emotional disgust that simply does not allow for "we" in those statements.
In false claims, the word "we" not only has consistently revealed consensual contact, but often ties shows that the accuser and accused had a relationship where the accuser had denied any such relationship.
Before the assault, many truthful rape victims have used "we", but once the assault takes place, there is a dramatic change in her perception of reality: there is no "we" between them.
Another consistent issue is that when one claims to have been alone, the word "we" tell us, with 100% certainty, the subject was not alone.
Recall the murder trial of Dennis Dechaine and how he claimed to be alone when he said, "we were losing daylight."
In spite of his attorneys' best efforts, the jury didn't buy it. He was still with his victim.
We are, in spite of all modern claims to the contrary, possessive creatures. We "own"what we wish to (sometimes even while claiming to the contrary) and refuse to take ownership of what we do not want ownership of.
We learn possessive pronouns before we learn to speak.
Toddlers often open and close their hands, palms out, while "wanting" or "taking ownership" of what they want. When they do learn to speak, pronouns are among the first things they say with the word "my" closely following their first word of "mama" or "dada" when they say, "my Dada", "my baba" and "My Mama", claiming their own.
Mark McClish pointed out that Canadian murderer, Stephen Truscott, freed after pop stars took up his cause, attempted to deny knowing the victim, said, "I hardly knew my victim" and later, also as part of his 'story' told in his release. He even used the word "we" while describing he and his victim riding on his bike.
In studies, we look at "confession by pronoun" where the various subjects have, inadvertently, used "we" to connect himself to the criminal.
Here is a "pronoun confession" from a case that eventually led to the "victim" being found out to be a member of the gang that had robbed a company:
"They tied me up and made me give them the code. Then we went to the truck and..."
I did not need to debate whether his wounds were superficial or not; it made no difference whether the gang members beat him up enough to make it look real or not: this one statement was all I needed for my conclusion. It proved correct.
OJ Simpson used the phrase, "my guilt" as did Patsy Ramsey. It is to take ownership of what belongs to them, something they have been using for decades with perfect accuracy.
When challenged, Barak Obama used the phrase "my muslim faith" which takes ownership of it. That his book shows Islamic influence, or his suspension of immigration laws, degradation of Christianity, and even the recent yielding of the nuclear weaponry to Iran, may all confirm it, but it is the instinctive and intuitive use of "my" that settles the issue. We take ownership of what we want to, and we do not take ownership of what we do not want to, and our success in this is to, in the least, dating back to our first use of the English language. The controversy today is only for those who do not recognize deception.
Even the word "our" has been shown to indicate cooperation between an alleged victim and the criminal perpetrator, as he connects himself to the crime and the crime scene.
More than 70% of police files may contain "confession by pronoun", which is why transcript review is critical.
Once identified, the work begins, including:
1. Re-opening a closed case
2. Evidence gathering
3. Effective interviewing
4. Concise writing
The pronoun will tell the truth, but it does not prove the truth in court.
How could the number be so high?
In spite of what advocates and main stream media portray, percentage wise, few people are wrongfully convicted of crimes. Those who "didn't do it" often say so, early, and there is no large "file" available. They might have passed a polygraph and were dismissed from the case, or their reliable denial was recognized, and an alibi established, or...for whatever reason, no case file"of their own exists, or they have only a small role in another's file.
This is to say: the number of falsely arrested individuals is very small, and the number of wrongfully convicted is even smaller.
We sacrifice in numbers to protect the innocent putting the burden on the state to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, one's guilt, owning that it is better for 10 guilty to go free, than 1 innocent be wrongly convicted.
It happens, but it is rare. Kevin Fox comes to mind, and it is a tragic case, but it is one, and not one-thousand. I agree that our system is set up in a manner that although the guilty may not be caught, we are much less likely to convict the innocent, than in other nations.
I have been asked to join teams, especially for those on death row. In every case I have reviewed, police and law enforcement were right. It became apparent to me, in several of these cases, that the advocates were not so much convinced in the innocence of their client, but were against the penalty.
I have been asked to discern deception, only to do just that, to the dismay of the "truth seeker" who claimed to "only want justice."