Friday, October 30, 2015

Test: Truthful or Deceptive?

Readers frequently say that they love short tests or quizzes  especially those which require a single answer:  truth or deception. 

Did this happen as reported?

Pronouns are not subjective.  They are intuitive, and as English speaking people, we use pronouns millions of times giving them 100% accuracy, with 100% being "complete" for analysis.  There is no "101%" in analysis.  Those who use figures of speech greater than 100% will reveal their own subjective understanding of "100%" such as OJ Simpson and Joey Buttafuoco.  

Question for analysis:

Did this happen?   

Specifically:  Was the subject (writer) truthful about the gun?   


"...well it was like this.  We went to his parents' house for dinner and he had a six pack by himself so I drove instead.  While we were on our way to the mall, he told me to stop at the Bloom to buy more beer but I told him no he had enough but this only got him angry more.  He punched me on the side of my head.  I tried to steer the car but I almost lost control.  I told him that he was mental and unless he gets help I was done.  He put his gun to my head and told me if I did not stop talking he would shoot me.  I said we are driving so you die too.  He said try me and he didn't care.  I said we could talk it through and he told me he hated me and that he wasn't fooling around and to shut up..."

For formal training, please go to HYATT ANALYSIS

For your business or civil investigation, we tailor training on how to do a legally sound non intrusive interview to weed out those who will bring trouble to your company.

For Law Enforcement, we have Police Seminars, individual training, as well as specific training for Sexual Abuse cases, as the language of sexual abuse victims can be not only complex, but may be seen as deceptive when, in fact, it is truthful.  There is no substitute for formal training, and professionals who have had "101" or introductory training, must have in depth, challenging training.

Lie Detection is hard work.  If it was easy, we'd see the results, instead of the epidemic of successful deception today.

Detectives, patrol officers with hope of advancement, attorneys with litigation responsibilities, Human Resources, medical professionals, therapists, counselors, and others have had successful training as well as 12 months of ongoing support as they move towards excellence.  Those who complete our two year program are not only proficient in Statement Analysis, but apt to teach and lead others.

65 comments:

GeekRad said...

KWES news west 9 aired a special report last night, an interview with Clint Dunn. Tonight they will air the interview with Peter. Thank you for what you bring to this investigation. You and Clint are Hailey's biggest advocates.

Anonymous said...

I would conclude DECEPTION - I know there is the blues and sensitive, but I just indicated "DECEPTION" in the areas that helped me to my conclusion since I cannot color code :)


1. "...well it was like this (DECEPTION).
2. We went to his parents' house for dinner and he had a six pack by himself so (DECEPTION) I drove instead.
3. While we were on our way to the mall, he told me to stop at the Bloom to buy more beer but (DECEPTION) I told him no he had enough but (DECEPTION) this only got him angry more.
4. He punched me on the side of my head (PROBABLY TRUE).
5. I tried to steer the car but I almost lost control (DECEPTION).
6. I told him that he was mental and unless he gets help I was done (POSSIBLY TRUE).
7. He put his gun to my head and told me if I did not stop talking he would shoot me (POSSIBLY TRUE).
8. I said we are driving so you die too (POSSIBLY TRUE).
9. He said try me and he didn't care (POSSIBLY TRUE).
10. I said we could talk it through and he told me he hated me and that he wasn't fooling around and to shut up..." (POSSIBLY TRUE)

Lines 1-3, 5 could indicate deception. The subject used 3 lines to describe the before events, and at least 6 lines to describe during the event.

Can someone please point out my mistakes if I erred in labeling deception vs truth? I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks!

-KC

The Sheep said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
foodiefoodnerd said...

Anon @11:59 called deception on the first three lines, but I would just call them sensitive at this point.
The "well, it was like this" intro set off my male bovine feces detector, but we don't know her speech patterns from this short sample.

Unless his parents live at the mall there is a gap of time after dinner at their place. I'm guessing that is sensitive to the gun incident if there was one.

Line 5 doesn't make sense in two ways: she tried to steer BUT almost lost control implies she gave up steering and just sat there with her foot still on the gas.
She points out that shooting her would cause her to crash, but the effect of punching her on the side of her head nearly causing a crash went uncalled?

The final sentence doesn't match the rest. He's punched her head, even not while she's driving that isn't a conversation starter.
He's reportedly had at least six beers, likely more at dinner if he's still as wasted as she wants us to believe.

Emotions placed during the action indicate deception, but her boyfriend punching her head, nearly causing her to crash and shoving a gun into her ear, any one of these I expect her to mention fear, anger, something at the end!

I don't know if Peter didn't give the ending (including any stated emotions) because it isn't relevant to this exercise, or if it gives away the answer, but I'm very curious how she says it ended.

With just this segment, I think they had a big argument, maybe over what happened at dinner or in the gap of missing time.

She's mad and wants revenge, and knows she can get him in trouble about the gun -- is he a felon, is it stolen? Was his real threat ending their relationship, not their lives?

Argument yes; gun probably; same incident? Probably not.
Deception isn't necessarily related to the specific situation; she could be lying about, or trying to hide, something else while reporting this.

foodiefoodnerd said...

Whoops, I forgot to list the bluest red flag of all!
Turning down his demand for more beer only made him MORE angry -- they were arguing before this incident, maybe even at his parents' home or before.

BallBounces said...

...well it was like this. -- sounds like story-telling -- once upon a time as opposed to "this is what happened".

… he had a six pack by himself -- What does this mean: a) he was the only one in the house drinking? b) the author didn't have any drinks? c) he, himself, drank 6 beers?

... so I drove instead. -- He normally drives? What is the significance of her driving? Was there an accident or something? She sees the need to indicate why she is driving and not the guy.

… While we were on our way to the mall, he told me to stop at the Bloom to buy more beer but I told him no he had enough but this only got him angry more. -- he told me/I told him -- the verbs are balanced here. This is the first indication he was angry, yet she says, "got him angry more" -- what is missing from this statement?

… He punched me on the side of my head. I tried to steer the car but I almost lost control. I told him that he was mental and unless he gets help I was done.

...He put his gun to my head -- Note familiarity with the gun. His gun, not a gun. Where did the gun come from? Was it already out? Was he packing and did she know this? Did he get it from the glove box? Missing information.

… and told me if I did not stop talking he would shoot me. I said we are driving so you die too. -- This would be a gutsy thing to say. An unexpected response?

… He said try me and he didn't care. I said we could talk it through -- He said/I said -- the verbs are balanced. Talk it through is an unexpectedly mild response to a gun to the head. Makes the author look good. But the verb "said" appears weak. Wouldn't you be pleading, rather than saying? Wouldn't you express some emotion here about being fearful for one's life? It is oddly dispassionate. Unexpected.

… and he told me he hated me and that he wasn't fooling around and to shut up…" What happened next??!!

Overall, there are some indicators that this is not a truthful account or an accurate account of what actually happened.

BallBounces said...

… He punched me on the side of my head. I tried to steer the car but I almost lost control. I told him that he was mental and unless he gets help I was done. -- Told him? Didn't scream at him when struck? Didn't physically push him back when struck? The verb seems impassive. Minimizing own (expected) emotional response to make author look good?

foodiefoodnerd said...

Thanks, GeekRad. Does your geekology include ability to post a video or link to one?

If so, maybe even one of our awesome transcribers -- lookin' at YOU, Grace4Ayla and ima.grandma -- would be so kind as to post a text form in which to sink our teeth and highlighters? :^D

foodiefoodnerd said...

Anon @11:59, what caused you to flag the buts and becauses as deception, over noting them as sensitive for further questioning?

Thinking about how you got there and why you believe or disbelieve helps your learning process, and articulating your reasoning helps give us noobs perspective and other ways of looking at the information.

John mcgowan said...

"...well it was like this. We went to his parents' house for dinner and he had a six pack by himself so I drove instead. While we were on our way to the mall, he told me to stop at the Bloom to buy more beer but I told him no he had enough but this only got him angry more. He punched me on the side of my head. I tried to steer the car but I almost lost control. I told him that he was mental and unless he gets help I was done. He put his gun to my head and told me if I did not stop talking he would shoot me. I said we are driving so you die too. He said try me and he didn't care. I said we could talk it through and he told me he hated me and that he wasn't fooling around and to shut up..."

Is the driver male or female?


"...well it was like this"


He begins with "...Well." The word "well" is to pause, and gives him time to think about his answer. What was the question asked that caused the need to think?


"...well it was like this"

Where there is a "this" there is usually a "that". "This", is close and "that" is distant. Has he just heard another version of what allegedly happened for him/her to say "it was like this"

Parent to little Jonny: "The teacher has told me you pulled little Chloe's hair.

Little Jonny: I didn't do "that" i done "this" (ruffled her hair)


"We went to his parents' house for dinner and he had a six pack by himself so I drove instead."

Here we have an improper social introduction. Suggesting at the time of the statement the relationship was not good. It could also be that he has already introduced the other party before hand. It could also be that he doesn't want to name the other party. Whom is "we"

"We went to his parents' house for dinner and he had a six pack by himself so I drove instead."

He/she doesn't tell us that they arrived at "his parents house for dinner" or if they stayed and had dinner. He/she doesn't say he drank the six pack.

"So i drove instead"

Here we have a need to explain making driving highly sensitive. Is this because whomever he/she was with was drunk? Did he drink the six pack for after all?

"While we were on our way to the mall, he told me to stop at the Bloom to buy more beer but I told him no he had enough but this only got him angry more."

Still no introduction of whom he/she was with.

"While we were on our way to the mall"

"He told me to stop at the Bloom to buy more beer but I told him no he had enough but this only got him angry more.

"this only got him angry more.

Was he angry before this? If so, why?

Cont..

John mcgowan said...

Cont..

The word "told" is much stronger than the word "said" Suggesting an argument, as we see in the next sentence.

"He punched me on the side of my head."

This is likely true. He/she uses past tense and location.

"I tried to steer the car but I almost lost control."

"Tried" is to fail.

"I told him that he was mental and unless he gets help I was done."

"Told" is stronger that "said" are they arguing over something else?

"I was done."

"Done doing what"?


"He put his gun to my head and told me if I did not stop talking he would shoot me."

"His gun"


This is interesting. When something new is introduced it is an indefinite article, Ie, "a car" Once it has been introduced it becomes the definite article "the car"
He/she does not say "He put (a) gun to my head and told me if i did not stop talking he would shoot me", introducing the gun first. But says, "his gun" (possessive). By saying "His Gun," he/she has seen it before. He/she knew he had a gun on him. Did he/she have a gun also and this is why he/she said "his gun"? Why was he carrying a gun around with him? Were they going to rob some place? The "Mall"? Was he in trouble? Were drugs involved? Were they going to buy drugs. Was someone after him/them?

"I said we are driving so you die too"

His/her language has softened.

"I said we are driving so you die too"

Ahh, those pesky pronouns. We shows unity. If the argument, the punch and the threat to shoot He/She was for real, would unity enter his/her language. To add, two people can not drive the same car at the same time.

My brains hurting, lol

Anonymous said...

"we are driving" is where the pronoun shift occurs and it is also at the point the gun is mentioned.

lynda said...

"...well it was like this. We went to his parents' house for dinner and he had a six pack by himself so I drove instead. While we were on our way to the mall, he told me to stop at the Bloom to buy more beer but I told him no he had enough but this only got him angry more. He punched me on the side of my head. I tried to steer the car but I almost lost control. I told him that he was mental and unless he gets help I was done. He put his gun to my head and told me if I did not stop talking he would shoot me. I said we are driving so you die too. He said try me and he didn't care. I said we could talk it through and he told me he hated me and that he wasn't fooling around and to shut up..."


This is possibly a long term relationship, perhaps also partners in crime, where to much drinking, carrying weapons, verbal and physical abusive is the established norm. They went to dinner at his parents and BOTH drank. They got into argument in the parents house. Something happened in the house before they got into car, possible physical abuse. Fueled by alcohol or possible drug use before getting into the car, the argument escalates. There is missing information about all the events preluding the strike on the side of the head. Again, physical abuse has happened before, she is not shocked by it, nor by him pulling a gun. She perhaps eggs him on to escalate argument.
I think it is true that he pulled a gun on her but she has guilty knowledge about what really happened and loads of missing information that would not put her in a good light.

Juliet said...

I think the soft language and her seeming not too phased is due to her being a victim of domestic violence - he's done that type of thing to her before, so she knows he won't shoot her - they have a volatile relationship.

Jen Ow said...

"We are driving"....

Only one person can drive.

Sus said...

"Was the subject (writer) truthful about the gun?"

Yes, though possibly she leaves out information leading up to him pulling a gun on her. I don't know why. I can speculate (since I can't question her) that she was drinking, also. "He drank a six pack BY HIMSELF" Or that she has no license to drive. "SO I drove INSTEAD." Or that she feels she was part of the cause by not doing what he TOLD her.

She is using the word TOLD up till he pulls a gun. This indicates strong words or an argument.

She uses the pronouns "I" and "he". The are separated in their views.

She introduces the gun as "his." It wasn't a gun because it wasn't from a stranger, and didn't come from nowhere. It wasn't the gun, as if it had been introduced. But "his" that he carries. I think this indicates experiential memory.

After he pulls the gun, her language changes. She switches to the pronoun "we" and softens to "said" rather than "told." She's telling what her reaction was toward him. It was to unify them with "we." It was to not tell him any longer.

I note in the next part he also "said" rather than "told." , but then must have gone back to anger. In her next statements he "told" her.

In summary, though principle teaches "we" is not used after a violent act, in this case it would be appropriate. She is relaying how she attempted to escape the situation by unifying them.

Betsie said...

are most people not answering the question by writing truth or deception? I am still trying to figure it out before I write but it looks fake to me. John your brain hurts but I cant tell if you say it is fake or true?
Ballbounces: you say fake?
how come people are so sure? When do we get the answer to this?
JenO, does your post mean fake?
LYnda voted true.
I am trying to see what everyone says. Ok I am going to say fake too because of the pronoun we after he hit her and the gun thing. Because we means togetherness.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"we are driving" is where the pronoun shift occurs and it is also at the point the gun is mentioned.

October 30, 2015 at 2:00 PM Delete


what she said.

russ said...

I thought she was telling the truth, but I'm usually terrible at this, even though I like it.

Michele said...

John said: "I said we are driving so you die too"

Ahh, those pesky pronouns. We shows unity. If the argument, the punch and the threat to shoot He/She was for real, would unity enter his/her language. To add, two people can not drive the same car at the same time.
_____

When I read this I thought about what I would say to someone holding a gun to my head, as I drove. I'd use "we". Trying to convince the crazy person that we are in this together - almost a Stockholm syndrome type of response.
It also sounds almost placating. S/he knew the passenger had a gun and has probably been threatened before.

John mcgowan said...

Michele said...

"When I read this I thought about what I would say to someone holding a gun to my head, as I drove. I'd use "we". Trying to convince the crazy person that we are in this together - almost a Stockholm syndrome type of response.
It also sounds almost placating. S/he knew the passenger had a gun and has probably been threatened before."


Hi

That is a very good point.

------

"He put his gun to my head and told me if I did not stop talking he would shoot me".

Its this part that's niggling at me.

He put his gun to my head and told meto shut up or he would shoot me, is a lot more aggressive, and believable.

I will be honest. I'm struggling with it.

Sus said...

John,
Also, when she switched to...
"He SAID try me and he didn't care."

Why did she use SAID, not told, here?

Betsie said...

NO kidding here are you of you afraid to commit to an answer? I was and still am but I am learning.

Sus said...

Betsie,
I committed to yes, he held a gun to her head. I posted my reasons above.

I also committ to my right to change my mind. Haha. I'm discussing the reasons that I hesitated with that yes. The main one for me being that she noted HE SAID while he was holding a gun to her head. I would think it would be much tougher language, still in the argument. But, one possibility is that she calmed him down for awhile. He then went back to "told."

John mcgowan said...

Betsie

It's not about being "afraid to commit" I said i was struggling with certain parts of his/her language, re putting the gun to his/her head and saying "if I did not stop talking he would shoot me" The language here sounds to soft. This doesn't mean it did not happen. I do believe he had a gun as i stated above. Whether he put it to his/her head is a different matter, and going by the language (soft, none aggressive) i don't think he/she did. Yes, i have qualified my answer. That's as far as i'm going to go.

Matt Whan said...

"...well it was like this"

Subject uses the word "like" to describe the event. Not that the incident went this way, which would be more reliable, but that it was "like" this.

"we" shows unity and cooperation and remains consistent throughout.

"his parents'" Improper social introduction. Suggests a poor relationship.

"six pack by himself" by himself being unnecessary wording and has been tagged as important for follow up. The fact that this man had a six pack to himself seems significant.

"so" highlighted in blue as scoring the highest sensitivity. Subject feels the need to describe why something happened in anticipation of being asked. Possibly due to her being upset at his drinking, and having to drive them. What she doesn't say, cannot be said for her.

Temporal lacunae arises between his parent's place, and driving to the mall. Follow up interview should take into consideration the gap between events.

"told" strong, authoritative language, consistent with an argument which appears to be taking place.

"Tried" indicates failure.

"but" refutes that which came before it. Subject "but I almost lost control." Almost reduces credibility and appears to be qualifying language.

From "told" to "said" subject changes from the authoritative "told" to the passive "said" suggesting she took on a more submissive role as soon as the gun is produced. Change in language indicates a change in reality. In this case, the gun brings an introduction of fear.

"he said try me and he didn't care" subject begins with quoting the other's words, but changes to the present tense "and he didn't care" would you have said "he said try me, I don't care" or would you have said the same as her?

"fooling around" is unexpected. Given the high-stress, fear-fueled emotions at the moment, and the supposed anger of the accused, I did not expect to see "fooling around" in an open statement. perhaps "f***ing around" which is more unstable, angry.

In conclusion, given her language, I believe she is being deceptive.

I hope I'm atleast on the right track, it was a struggle.

Matt Whan said...

"he said try me and he didn't care" subject begins with quoting the other's words, but changes to the present tense "and he didn't care" would you have said "he said try me, I don't care" or would you have said the same as her?

Not present tense, I don't know why I wrote that. Changes from quoting to paraphrasing would be more accurate.

BallBounces said...

I wouldn't make too much of "we were driving". If I say my wife and I and our two dogs drove to Phoenix, it does not mean that the dogs shared in the driving; it may mean we went to Phoenix (as opposed to being or going somewhere else), or it could mean we went by car instead of e.g., by airplane. If I say I flew to Phoenix, it does not mean I flew the plane. If I say we flew to Phoenix, it does not mean we shared the duty of flying the plane.

The point of "we were driving" was that they were both in a moving car, so if she, the driver, was shot, they would both suffer harm from a crash.

ima.grandma said...

Yes! BallBounces. I immediately did a double-take when I read that line and needed to re-read. My thoughts then matched your example; you stated it beautifully. Thank you.

BTW ~ I love your name. Love, love, love it! I also checked out your web site quite awhile back. I like it. A lot.

Juliet said...

'I tried to steer the car but I almost lost control.' She tried to steer it - tried so failed. Almost lost control - so did not lose control. That's self contradictory. Can that be true - is she just being incoherent, and befuddled there? If that part isn't true, I'd wonder if they were even in the car, or if she was not the driver. Was he the driver, and she tried to grab the wheel to steer it more safely? I think they both had been drinking as she did not need to say he had a six pack 'by himself'. I think maybe she changes from 'I drove' to 'we were driving' because when they got back into the car after the mall, he was driving. If he was driving, and If he had shot her, he would not die, too - in which case she either didn't say 'we are driving so you die too' or he didn't threaten her with a gun. Maybe the argument was over who was the least intoxicated and who should drive the car. So, I say deceptive, but I also think she has been threatened by him as described,though not necessarily then. Still, I don't know, it's a guess.

Anonymous said...

TRUTH. Tone remains consistent.

lynda said...

Sus said...
John,
Also, when she switched to...
"He SAID try me and he didn't care."

Why did she use SAID, not told, here?

Sus...I think she used "said" instead of told because this type of situation is fairly normal for her. She is not speaking of him as some stranger that suddenly punched and pulled a gun on her. Her words do not reflect surprise or anger and she immediately comes back with "we both die if you do it" She considers him her partner and is blase to the gun and him hitting her.

In going over the statement again, I now am wondering about these points..

"if I didn't stop talking"
"to shut up"

Let me prequalify what I am thinking...in NO WAY do I think anyone ever brings about some asshole hitting them or pulling on gun on them!

She mentions her "talking" in 2 different places with the result being first a punch, and then a gun pulled on her. In her recitation she is leaving out exactly what she was saying to him, or the severity of what she was saying to him, we just know that her continued "talking" escalated the argument. Verbal, physical punch, gun. She omits any information of what her actions were except that she told him he had enough. For a moment, I thought maybe HE was driving and she was covering for him by saying she was driving, particularly with the "I tried to steer the car but I almost lost control." How do you "try" to steer a car if you are a driver? That sentence made me think that she grabbed the wheel at one point and "almost lost control." Wouldn't one say, "When he punched me in the head it made me lose control of the car, or the pain caused me to almost lose control." It's just a weird sentence to me.
Also, the way she speaks about the gun sounds like it was on his lap or within easy reach. He didn't "pull" out his gun, he didn't "get the gun from under the seat, or the glove compartment" Another reason that makes me think he may have been driving. I could be way off here, and probably am :)
She actually NAMES the carryout. This is sensitive? Were they actually on their way, drunk, to do something at the carryout besides buy beer? That caused them to already have a gun out and easily accessible?
There is so much missing information from the statement, how much time elapsed from beginning to end? What did they do after dinner as I believe argument started during dinner. If she counts his drinks, they started the argument at dinner or before. Why were they going drunk to the mall? Why was the gun lying out and about?

Anonymous said...

@foodie...

I simply wrote deception for anything that wasn't outright truthful because Peter indicated above the short answer is truthful or deceptive. I was only trying to keep it simple, but now I can see how it would be confusing.
-KC

BallBounces said...

Ima.grandma. -- thank you.

Anonymous Juliet said...
'I tried to steer the car but I almost lost control.' She tried to steer it - tried so failed. Almost lost control - so did not lose control. That's self contradictory.

I don't see an intrinsic contradiction here. "Tried to steer" would be a vernacular or casual way of saying "I tried to keep driving and keep the car under my usual optimal control" (where "steering" is more or less synonymous with "driving"). "But I almost lost control" would then mean that she had difficulty steering and thus keeping the car under control. It suggests he was physically impeding her attempts to steer the car and that her attempts to steer the car were suboptimal. It does not mean she did not in fact steer the car at all.

What is going on here is a contrast between usual or optimal practice and operating in a degraded way because of an impediment.

Let me try again. Someone could say "I tried to steer but he kept grabbing the wheel". This doesn't mean the person didn't steer at all, or completely stopped steering; it means the act of steering was impeded and impaired.

Juliet said...

Ball Bounces - lol, thanks for that. I see what you mean. This is doing my head in - I think if someone is at the wheel they have to be steering not just trying to steer - but a passenger can grab the wheel and try to steer. Only the driver has control over the vehicle, though - so I suppose she would have to have been the driver.

I like that her response to him putting a gun to her head and threatening to shoot her if she doesn't shut up is to suggest they talk it through - she can't have taken his threat too seriously.

Anonymous said...


UNRELIABLE, DECEPTIVE
To add to what others have said...
I have a feeling that up to the punch, althoug missing info in it, the bits of events are from that particular day.

Starting from "I told him he was mental..." I feel this comes from another incident, perhaps from variuous ones in the past.
The expected after being punched and the car swayed would be to yell something like "Are you mental ?!?!" But that the writer would continue with anything that would anger him including a threat to break up "we are done" makes no sense to me! Unless the driver is under the influence too.

John mcgowan said...

Iv'e just read again Peter's introduction and he mentions pronouns as being 100% accurate, which makes me believe that pronouns do play a role in this event.

elf said...

I think the statement is true. I don't think this is the first incident of domestic violence for the subject and she is used to downplaying incidents like this and covering up. When the passenger puts his gun trista the drivers head he told her to shut up-front told is a strong word, she responded by saying that they were driving and by using the softer word 'said' in past tense means she tried to defuse the situation which would be logical because if a person has a gun pointed at them that person wouldn't want to incite the person holding the gun more; especially if the person holding the gun was angry and drunk. To me, the subject comes off as just stating the facts and she's used to that behavior.

elf said...

To not trista , shut up not shut up front. Auto correct is terrible :/

foodiefoodnerd said...

Quoting John
"(from article)'We went to his parents' house for dinner and he had a six pack by himself so I drove instead.'

Here we have an improper social introduction..."
~~~

The ellipsis at the beginning indicates missing words, and by the context of this excerpt (it's not a full statement, but taken from one) it's clear the interview had already started.

It reads like we just missed the social introduction since the first reference is "his" parents' house" not "my boyfriend's parents' house.

foodiefoodnerd said...

There is pronoun sensitivity around "his" gun. There is missing information as to how and when his gun made an appearance just before he shoved it into her ear.
I think she also is trying to emphasize that he has a gun, maybe he's a felon and thus not allowed?

We don't see the ending (yet?) or her emotions, if she described any, but what is included reads pretty flat for the scene she describes regardless of her experience with DV before or with him.

Even believing he wouldn't intentionally seriously harm either of them, an angry drunk fumbling with a gun and preventing her safely controlling the moving car would scare and hopefully anger a reasonable person.

I'm now even more sure than my original answer that any serious threats were to ending their relationship, not their lives.
He likely has the gun; it just wasn't involved here.

Someone thought her specifying the store's name might indicate they intended to rob it.

With as much important information as she omitted, from how much if any she had to drink, to what happened at dinner and how they left his parents' home and drove toward the mall, I would expect her to self-edit the beer store's name if anything about it could put her in a bad light.

foodiefoodnerd said...

Yes, pronouns are intuitive and 100 percent reliable as to truth, but people more often than not use "we" drove.
It's still accurate because they don't think they all were operating the car simultaneously, and are not trying to imply it.

We're assessing truthfulness, not her grasp of physics or grammar.

The rest of her I and we usages conform to logistics, with singular actions and quotes attributed to one or the other, and we for what they both did.

Her account us still unreliable; this just isn't one of the many red flags.

Matt Whan said...

I'm looking forward to Peter posting the analysis so that we may compare our conclusions with it.

klv said...

I think she is reliable. Her pronouns and tense are consistent and never show unity with the gun-holder until the last "We're driving" -- which is appropriate in context.

Thank you, Peter. I'm learning ;)

Peter Hyatt said...

Whay do readers make of the "we" AFTER the assault?

klv said...

"We can talk it through": They were a couple, or partners. Her appeal at unity (reminding & bargaining) seems appropriate there...Also sounds like he may have suicides at the end :(

klv said...

SuicideD.

klv said...

If he did suicide, IMO it explains her terseness and brevity; she's traumatized and coping by sticking to bare facts.

Sus said...

Usually "we" is unexpected after an assault, but in this context I think it is appropriate. She is telling her words toward him. She was emphasizing unity to him.

I notice she also changed from "told" to "said" at that point. Which may mean he had the upper hand and she wasn't arguing any longer, but calmer, more pleading??

foodiefoodnerd said...

Since we're to start from the presumption of truth and not waver unless something sounds wrong, my first thought is still the common phrasing of "we" drove, but keep listening.

OK, I just now noticed I'd missed the second we after the driving reference, wow, fail.
But in context it still flows like natural speech, which could be a clue in itself.

Peter, do the we references drop as naturally and quickly when it's a longterm relationship as compared to a date rape or acqaintance assault?

Lisa said...

I think the story is reliable. The pronouns are unified until the request to go to Bloom. I assume/question if "I was done" means threatening a life partner relationship would be terminated.
I assume/question if the gun stays at the driver's head through out the end of the narrative. So after the assault is not part of the clip maybe. During the assault the driver unifies pronouns again. I would too, trying to defuse the situation and get the gun put away.
Ok, I'm in for the quiz, too. Thanks. Lisa

klv said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
klv said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Peter Hyatt said...

the pronoun "we" indicates some form of unity between them.

In rape cases, we do not see this after the rape. When we do, it is a signal of a fraudulent claim of rape.

In this statement, the pronoun "we" emerges after the assault and the gun is out.

what do you make of this?

Peter

klv said...

IS this a rape claim? I missed the specifics of an assault. I guess I'd better go re-read!

BallBounces said...

Pronouns after the assault:

I told him that he was mental and unless he gets help I was done.

I/him/he is straightforward. OK.

He/I. is OK. But, interesting she does not say, "we were done". "I was done" may be more of a negotiating phrase rather than a statement that the relationship would be over. Note: Done what?? We assume she is talking about their relationship -- but she doesn't actually say what she is "done" about.

He put his gun to my head and told me if I did not stop talking he would shoot me.

He/my/me/I/he/me. Very straightforward. OK.

I said we are driving so you die too.

I/we are driving. See my other comment about "we are driving". Could have said, "you're in the car too, so if you shoot me, we both die".

Two possibilities with regards to use of "we".

1. She could be reporting her recollection of her actual words used, in which case "we" would be expected because it would be difficult in this moment for a person to instantly detach herself from their relationship, view it as irreparably broken (which she clearly does not given her comment about him getting help), and use a me/you construct.

2. She could be using "we" as reflective of their current relational status at the time this account is given. In this case, it indicates she still views themselves as a couple.

It is impossible to indicate whether this would indicate deception because we do not know the greater context of this account.

He said try me and he didn't care.

He/me/he. Sounds straightforward. OK.

I said we could talk it through and he told me he hated me and that he wasn't fooling around and to shut up…"

I/we. My comments regarding the use of "we" in the I/we above this one apply here as well. Too soon to detach from relationship if reporting what was said, and we can't tell if "we" in the present context indicates deception because we don't know the greater context of this account. Insufficient information.

He/me/he/me/he. Straightforward.

Conclusion: Greater context needed in order to use pronouns to test for deception.

foodiefoodnerd said...

Two questions:

Does this apply the same when they are in a longterm relationship, as it does for a date rape or when the assault is by an acquaintance?

This excerpt doesn't include a claim of sexual assault; is it mentioned elsewhere in the interview?

You also emphasize context, and that SA
is complex, requiring years of experience. Pronouns might be 100 percent intuitive, but couldn't that in itself misdirect an inexperienced analyst?

(how would you feel if, after all of your hours of articles, lessons and patient feedback since starting this site, every one of us responded with only "Ha! She said 'we' after the gun was out, LIAR!!!" while not focusing on anything else?

Peter Hyatt said...

I will post the answer shortly.


Always remember what Heather says:

"Peter is always wrong. That's what is so right about him."


Peter

Juliet said...

Starting over:.p I think she doesn't take seriously his threat to shoot her if she does not stop talking as her response is to keep on talking, which is pretty dangerous unless she has reason to believe he won't shoot her. It seems this has happened before - he wants to do what he wants to do, and her objections and 'telling' him what not to do make him very angry. I think it's the punch which makes her almost lose control of the car.

'I told him that he was mental and unless he gets help I was done' - mixed tenses, but as he could only get help in the future, is that an expected use or does the tense mean it is not from experiential memory? Should she be expected to have said 'unless he got help/agreed to get help'?

'I said we are driving so you die too' - again present tense, so did she say it, or is she making it up as she goes along? I don't know, because if she is recounting the actual conversation, just quoting the words spoken, then they would have been in the present tense. Yet she is sometimes saying what actually was said - 'we are driving so you die too' - 'try me' - the rest is just how the exchange went - he wants more beer, she says no, he's had enough; he punched her, she tells him he is mental, etc.

'you die too' - sounds more like a threat than an attempt to point out the reality of the situation; if she was trying to make him see reason would she not have said 'we are driving so you will die too'?

'I said we could talk through'. 'Could' is like a future possibility? I don't know if that speaks enough to the immediacy of the situation. Would she not have said, 'let's talk it through' or 'we can talk it through'?

'We are driving' - I get that some people say 'we are driving', but everywhere else she says only that she was driving - it's only at this point she becomes 'we'. It might be an attempt at unity, to diffuse the situation, as others say. I can't see, though, where she is attempting to diffuse rather than exacerbate the situation - she keeps talking, and 'you die too' sounds like a threat.

She begins with 'it was like this' - so it was something like that, but not actually as stated?

elf said...

I think the subject used the word we after the assault because they were both still in the car so anything that happened would happen to both of them. Also, the use of 'we' when the subject says "we can talk this out" may have been an effort to show the aggressor that they are on the same side, so to speak. A person with a gun pointed at someone else may not take it to well if he was told he was getting dumped.

Juliet said...

So did he shoot her or did she shoot him? Or did no-one get shot?

foodiefoodnerd said...

Juliet, you've probably read Peter's answer and explanation, this is just fyi as you read future statements:

"'I said we are driving so you die too' - again present tense..."
~~~

This is actually past tense:
"I said, 'We are driving, so you die, too.'"

She didn't say, "We were driving..." to him, because at that point they are still driving (well, ok, her, then).

It's like when people say, "I told my 5-year-old daughter that I loved her."
Uh, did you change your mind, meet another kid? :^D

You actually answered it yourself with the warning about getting help. She didn't mean if he hasn't already gotten help at this point; she clearly meant in the future.

(but I would hope if that was the case she would wait until she's not driving at gunpoint of an angry drunk to say it.)

foodiefoodnerd said...

Heather can say you're always wrong, but it is impossible for you to say truthfully that you are wrong 100 percent of the time. :^D

Peter Hyatt said...

think of someone trying to give an exact quote...if they enter into the actual words, they can go into present tense language in the quote.

Juliet said...

Respective thanks - that should have been obvious. Yes, I read Peter's answer and explanation, but I don't know how rape figures in it - Peter, was it a rape allegation, or was she raped but didn't acknwledge it as rape because she didn't want to end the relationship? I should have just left it alone after my first comment - it read true to me, but then I thought, as the consensus was towards deception, that there probably has to be something deceptive in there somewhere - but my reasoning was just wrong. Not good, not a happy bunny. :-/