What does it mean to "commit" to a sentence?
What does it mean to "distance" one self from commitment within a sentence?
What does it mean to "run away" from commitment?
A person commits to a topic, within a sentence, by the use of the pronoun "I" and the past tense verb. If someone said,
"I went to Macy's on Friday night, at 7PM", the structure of the sentence tells us that statistically, it is very likely to be true. If someone said,
"Went to Macy's on Friday night, at 7PM" the commitment is reduced. The subject has dropped the pronoun "I" which makes it "unreliable."
It does not mean it is not true, but it means that he has not committed to the assertion of the sentence.
If the subject did commit to it and did not go to Macy's, it is a fabrication of reality, a signal of a pathological liar, who will lie upon topics even unnecessary. This form of lying is rare, and is a signal of danger: this person will do anything it takes to protect himself, including harming others.
"I went to Macy's on Friday at 7PM.
i went to Starbucks to have coffee later on.
I got home at 1AM."
Here we have the 2nd sentence with the pronoun not capitalized. This could be simply a mistake, but in lengthy statement where this change is continual, the lower case should be considered a "downgrade" for good reason.
I recently analyzed a statement in which the subject wrong a number of sentences with the lower case "i" and each one proved to be false.
Parents of small children learn that guilty children hide behind the pronoun "we", as a crowd eases the personal spotlight of guilt, and teens often drop pronouns entirely.
Parent: "Where were you last night?"
Teen: "Last night? Uh, I went to the movies with friends."
a. Answering a question with a question.
b. Avoiding pronoun connection to "friends"; as they are not "my friends"making the identity of the friends 'sensitive' to the teen.
c. The odds are that he did go to the movies. He is committed to this.
d. "with" between people indicates distance. The distance could be anything from some liked the movie while others didn't, to something more nefarious.
Parent: "What friends?"
Teen: "Oh, you know, the usual."
Avoidance noted; the question is now 'sensitive' confirmed. He went to the movies, specifically, with someone his father had told him to avoid as a trouble maker
Parent: "Where did you go after the movies? You were home late."
Teen: "Just hung around."
No pronoun means no commitment: this subject does not want to tell his parent who he was with, and where they went afterwards, and likely, what they did. The word "just" is a comparative word: he is comparing "hanging around" with what they actually did, and it entered his language.
Teen: "Went to the bowling alley. Had some laughs, that's all, and then, after that, I came home."
a. "Went" is missing the pronoun "I" or "we": No commitment to the bowling alley so we cannot know if they went to the bowling alley but if they did, what took place there the subject wishes to distance himself from.
b. Temporal lacuane is a skipping or passage of time, doubled up (very sensitive) "and then, after that..." It means that the parent-investigator should focus the question in the missing time period.
c. "I came home" is reliable: commitment with "I" and past tense "came" = reliable. It is a strong commitment, just as "I went to the movies" is also a strong commitment.
Surprise, surprise: he went to the movies with a crowd he was to avoid, and after the movies, they went to the bowling alley where they met a 21 year old trouble maker who they paid to buy beer that they drank, under-aged, in a parking lot.
Commitment and Violence
A home entered by a stranger is upsetting but a home invasion in which violence is done is highly intrusive and the language must reflect this. If the language does not, you may be looking at deception.
When it comes to a highly personal attack, to refuse to use the pronoun "I" is seen in one of several ways:
1. It is missing.
This is a reduction of commitment to the event in the sentence.
When it comes to assault, including sexual assault, we look for strong commitment to match the strong emotion of intrusion:
"Went to the bar on Friday and this guy had his hands all over me, no body has a right to touch another person who does not want to be touched."
This subject does not even commit to being at the bar. She may have gone but if following the principle of letting the subject guide us, she did not say "I went to the bar..."
a. maybe she did not go
b. she went but psychologically is distancing herself from it
c. Why might she distance herself? Something there happened that she does not want to be associated with?
d. She distanced herself because she was not sexually assaulted.
An assault is very personal. In analyzing some of the alleged victims of Bill Cosby we noted that the subject made strong pronoun connection to the assault, just as we noted that the pronoun "we", something that indicates unity and cooperation, disappeared from the language as soon as the assault took place. With women who were abused in childhood, we have an entire section focused upon the uniqueness of their language; including those sexually assaulted during critical brain and speech development.
Pronouns, alone, lead to arrests. One study states that as much as 70% of cold case homicide files contain confession by pronoun. A police captain reported that in his semester of Statement Analysis at the FBI Academy, pronouns were given a full 8 hour course by themselves. They are 100% reliable in guiding us.
Recall Dennis Dechaine's testimony: "I was standing admiring the deciduous trees, and we were losing daylight..." when the prosecutor interrupted and said, "Mr. Dechaine, who is 'we'?"
His defense attorney stood and request recess as Dechaine did not know what to say since he had claimed to be alone in the woods, lost, and had "never" met his victim.
Overnight they came up with a strategy:
"By using the word "we", I was referring to everyone, you know, the entire community losing daylight,..."
The jury didn't buy it and he was convicted in the murder of the little girl, Sarah Cherry.
In false rape cases, confessions have been obtained by confronting the deceptive accuser with her pronouns. This is consistent in my work and in those who employ Statement Analysis in their investigations.
In a lengthy interview, the alleged victim had me close to tears. I was convinced, as were other professionals, that she had been assaulted.
"I was at the movie theater with him and that's where he did it. You know, I can't say it (crying,) it is too horrible."
"What happened next?
"After he did it to me I froze in fear and when the movie was over we drove home and I went to my room and told my friend what happened and I called police."
I heard "we" and my emotional path was disrupted. That was all I needed, though I continued the interview until she was brought to the point of having to give details of the assault, of which she then used passivity in language and lots of tears.
Not only was the life of an innocent 19 year old on the line, but there were other very alarming aspects to this case.
A medical doctor and a therapist's license were on the line. The only evidence I had that this did not happen was the pronoun "we" found after the assault. My immediate supervisor said, "Do you really want to hang this entire case on a single pronoun? Everything else fits."
I said that I did. The passivity could be explained away by a court appointed psychologist; I knew that.
This was about justice, but one professional reminded me: 'yeah, it may be about justice, but it is also your career on the line.'
There was a 19 year old kid about to have his life destroyed due to a liar.
I said that the alleged victim must be confronted in her therapist's office because she could have an unpredictable reaction.
She was confronted with this, "Research has shown that victims are so disgusted by the rapists that in her description, once the rape has taken place, victims will never use the word "we" to relate to herself and the rapist; the animosity is too strong and the victim is too disgusted. "
She confessed calmly and said that he had found another girlfriend. I did not see that coming. I thought the confession would be histrionic.
When asked what she thought about him being 19 and spending years in prison she said, "well, that's his problem."
Pronouns do not lie.
"He grabbed me and put his hands on my breasts and I told him to stop it but he wouldn't. He punched me in the face and told me to shut up, bitch. "
The rule of commitment: Strong pronoun usage and past tense verbs. This statement is very likely to be truthful. In this statement, not only do we have short sentences (best) but we have:
a. Pronoun commitment
b. Verb commitment
c. Communicative language that matches intensity with "told" instead of the softer, "said."
In crimes that are "up close and personal" the language will match it. When someone does not believe what he or she is asserting, the language reflects it.
In the "kidnapping" of her granddaughter, Phoebe DiPietro, mother of Justin DiPietro, tried to convince the media that she was, herself very afraid because of something terribly invasive:
A stranger had entered her home in Waterville, Maine, and had stolen her most prized possession: her granddaughter, Ayla Reynolds. She wanted media to believe the kidnapping, which had to be planned, but her words gave her away:
"When someone is casing your house and you are waiting for the sheriff to call you..."
She would not commit to kidnappers casing her own house, nor did she expect a phone call from the sheriff about the kidnappers. She knew what had happened to her granddaughter with the likely explanation from her son of an "accident" and panic cover up.
In the same interview, she also 'led' the media with her "yes or no" answers with the claim that there were no parties that night in her home, and she did not "hear" anything (i.e., the kidnapper). When the analysis showed "deception indicated", the next day she 'apologized' and admitted: she was even in the home the night that Baby Ayla met her fate; she had stayed elsewhere. She did not believe her own assertion, which we knew from her language.
People who are victims of home invasion also commit to this because it is so personal and not 'universal.' The often suffer PTSD like symptoms for years, with hyper vigilance and nightmares.
What might produce softer, 2nd person distance?
Dropped wallets, and lost cell phones where not only to we have a universal and common experience, but we have no personal invasion of space and no contact.
The more intense the event, the more intense the language.
This is where intuitive police often shine.
In trainings, I show a short video clip of a victim who alleges a horrific violent act and she cries real tears.
I then ask,
"What do you think?"
In the years of using this exercise, perhaps 1 of 10 believes it credible.
Most do not know why they do not believe her.
I then do this exercise:
I describe the assault in detail.
I ask them to write out a list of all the words they expect to hear.
I then play the entire interview, which is only 5 minutes long, asking them to jot down any word the victim uses that 'surprises' the investigators.
I then ask them to compare the two lists and they now understand why they felt 'uncomfortable' with her statement, although her body language has not red flags of deception commonly known to investigators. This is because she was genuinely upset, and cried real tears and had genuine fear due to what she was doing.
I then distribute a report submitted to the FBI on the case in which the pronouns show deception.
It is now an essential portion of training.
Question: What does it mean to "run away" from commitment?
Answer: It means that the assertion in the sentence is highly personal and intrusive, but the subject has not only refused to commit to his assertion with pronoun and past tense verb combination, but repeats this refusal. The more 'intrusive' the allegation, the more distance is seen in the refusal to commit.
There is a progression of intrusive nature in the murder of Amanda Blackburn, the 28 year old who was shot in the head during a home invasion robbery in which her pre born child also died, while her 1 year old was in the home. Each detail 'raises the level' of 'intrusiveness' in the crime:
a. Home invasion is intrusive and personal
b. Home invasion that includes wife, pre born child, and child increases level of intensity
c. Murder of home invasion that includes wife, pre born child and child further increases
d. Head shot murder, very close and personal, increases this level of intensity
e. Any possible struggle makes it even more so.
Therefore, the language of the victim's closest survivor is the husband. Husbands and wives often "enter into each other's language" in a way that, after years of closeness, literally begin to share the same personal, subjective internal dictionary. The closer they were and the more years spent together, the more this phenomena in language is evidenced. This is where people will say, "you two kinda look alike" as they not only share a dictionary, but will mimic each others' face expressions.
In the Blackburn murder, they were married a short time and the marriage was very negative according to both, yet points a through e still apply, as this was the husband's home, wife, child and pre born child. When he refused to use the pronoun "I" about:
1. his thoughts on who did this
2. his thoughts on why this happened
3. his emotions on what happened
he, literally, "from commitment.
As a narcissist, he used "we" which must then be understood in his own reference: Perhaps his ego is such that he always uses "we" in speech. This is answered in other videos where he uses the pronoun "I" normally, including his own negative emotion expressed in not having a large number of people attend his church. He used more negative words to describe his feeling over a failed number than he did over the murder of his wife and pre born child, his home invaded, and his 1 year old exposed to acute violence.
He did not 'psychologically distance' himself: he ran away, psychologically, to the protective covering of a crowd. This is consistent with guilt rather than denial. This is something we see in the guilty, as well as in children who do not wish to be blamed. The only remaining question in this sphere is the cause of guilt.
As humans, we do not like having our space invaded, especially the place where we sleep. Sleep is a vital point in life so much so that without it, we will not survive. This is why we flag "location" of sleep, often as a refugee from something or someone. When someone invades our home, it is where we eat (to survive) and sleep (this is where we are very vulnerable, making it very sensitive to us).
Home invasions will trigger up close personal language due to the strong emotions that come from having our place of safety violated. It is only increased with each level of personal 'assault.' It is expected, therefore, in language.
Is it guilty knowledge in the death of Amanda Blackburn and his pre born child, or
Is it guilt from the feeling of being free from a very negative marriage, knowing that a divorce would mean the end of his career?
Formal training has an entire section dedicated to pronouns alone. They are instinctive, intuitive, and exempt from the principle of subjectivity in language. Used millions of times from our earliest days of speech, they are 100% effective in lie detection. Often those with intuitive skills benefit as they know how to use the tools, but learn what happens when a much sharpened and honed tool is placed in their hands.
Training: Hyatt Analysis Services
Seminars and in home training, with Continuing Educational Units from University of Maine.
Trainings for Law Enforcement, Hiring, and Social Services (child abuse, therapy, etc), as well as journalism, civil investigations, court preparation, and interviewing.