Thursday, March 31, 2016

Blackouts Quiz: "Statement Analysis Confession"

           What is a Statement Analysis Confession?

Here is a basic analysis and an example of "Statement Analysis Confession"; that is, when a subject who is deceptive gives linguistic evidence of admission of the falsehood.  It is more common than many might realize, with cold cases often containing "statement analysis confessions" via pronouns.  

Memory blackouts from alcohol are the most serious and the least likely to be recoverable.  Blackouts from drugs or trauma are more readily recoverable. 

Here, however, we have the phrase "I don't remember" in an open statement; words freely chosen by the subject, and not part of a question asked.  It is important to note where, in the statement, this is produced.  The closer to the top, the greater the possibility of contamination; that is, the subject is responding to something a police officer or interviewer said.  However, when it comes 'later' in the statement, the odds of contamination are reduced. 

In this case, it was at the end of her entire statement.  Only a portion is given here.  This allows us to consider the difference between "withholding information" and "suppressing information" within analysis, and how it impacts the interview strategy.  

          What is a "statement analysis confession?"  

"All of a sudden, I felt somebody yank and grab my hair and I swung a punch around trying to whoever it was off.  I fell to the ground when I got back up the other person hit me in the head with something and I don't remember much of anything after that, everything went to a blur."

1.  "All of a sudden" is the language of story telling.  By itself, it does not indicate deception, but should cause us to ask:  

"how long has it been since the assault?"  

With months or years of processing, the 'sting' may not exist and it could move into story telling.  This was hours from the assault. 

2.  "I felt somebody"

"felt" is a perception and the language of assault is much stronger.  An assault is personal and intrusive and the language should reflect this. 

"somebody":  at this point in the story, the subject does not know the gender of the attacker.  I mean this sentence literally.  

This is proof of story telling.  

This is because at the time of the statement the subject knows the gender and is not interested in re-creating a story to include her own 'unknown' shock or surprise.  This is a criminal report of an assault and using "somebody" only works if the subject never saw the assailant.  This is a signal of concealing identity and an affirmation of story telling. 

Story telling, years later, can be true.  It simply means that the subject has long processed the trauma of the brain.  

3.  "yank and grab" is Casey Anthony's "dead squirrels climbed up into my engine" statement.  The squirrels had to climb first before they die.  Here, one must "grab" before one can "yank", or pull violently.  Oops.  This indicates that experiential memory is not in play.  

4.  I swung a punch around 

This is the same thing as above.  She should swing around first, and then punch, but she is not working from experiential memory.  

5.  I swung a punch around trying to whoever it was off

Here, she continues to conceal the identity of the assailant, yet here, she uses deliberate gender neutral language.  Most deceptive persons will use "get him off me" knowing that most assailants are male.  

"Off":  she has not told us that the "whoever" was on top of her.  

6.   "I fell to the ground when"

"I fell to the ground" is a very important sentence.  Since we have already seen that the subject is deceptive about what happened, this is a valuable sentence giving us insight into the subject's personality and just how far she will go with deception.  It tells us that we are very likely to be dealing with a habitual liar; one who has lied her entire life, and is unafraid of fabricating reality.  No matter what the intellectual level is, and the educational level, this person is confident in her own abilities to get away with lying.  She is likely one of which we will find:  this is not her first time in exploitation.  

The motive?

Money.  (this came from other statements)

This is a long term, personality driven liar who will put herself above the needs of society, including her own children.  

"I fell to the ground" uses the pronoun "I", and the past tense "fell", increasing its reliability (hence, the chronic liar status) but it is immediately weakened with the word "when", which introduces the element of time into the statement.  The timing should not be part of the trauma of being forced to the ground.  

Yet, this presents another problem:

"I fell" is not, "I was "yanked to the ground" or "I was knocked to the ground..."

"I fell" puts the responsibility of falling, not upon the assailant, but upon the subject herself. 

You may assume that it was the yanking and grabbing but in Statement Analysis, we do not assume, nor interpret.  The deceptive subject wants us to assume and to interpret.  We don't.  We listen.  

She id  not say "He caused me to fall to the ground by yanking my hair" which would have included even more direct lying.  Even liars struggle to directly lie and add in detail. When they do add detail, they slow down the pace by adding in an over-abundance.  

7.  "when" 

Here the element of time is about getting back up.  How long were you on the ground?  What did the assailant do to you when you were on the ground?

"when I got back up..."  speaks to the period of time in the statement, which is utterly unnecessary.  The assault had to take place in time and this too slows down the pace. 

8.  "the other person" is the Statement Analysis Confession

Where as the sentence, "I fell to the ground" impacts our interview strategy, our most focused tactic will be, later in the interview, to inform her, "I have your confession here" to watch her reaction.  

"person", as you know, continues to conceal not only the identity, but the gender.  This may hint towards her being the assailant, but it is not enough to make a conclusion...that is, until she used the word "other."

The word "other" is her "Statement Analysis Confession" that she is not only deceptive, but she is 'responsible' for the black eye.  

She gave a description of an assailant's actions only.  

In this statement, there is only two people present:  one is the subject; the other is the attacker. 

The word "other" only works when more than one attacker is identified.  It presupposes plurality.  

To use the word "other" in the attack is to align herself as one of the attackers.  

Although we now know that she is not only deceptive, but has identified herself as the 'assailant', we finish this short portion of the statement:

the other person hit me in the head with something and I don't remember much of anything after that, everything went to a blur."

Always listen for "I don't remember" in an open statement.  If you are certain that there is no contamination (here, there was none), where the subject feels necessary to address something that she struggles with, it is a strong signal of "suppressing information."

To "suppress" information is different than concealment.  The difference for us is in emotional effort.  This is a signal not only of deceptive information being withheld, but that the subject actually wants to confess and tells the one trained in both Statement Analysis and Analytical Interviewing:

"She is going to confess."

All that remains to be done is to conduct the interview in this way:

1.  Open Ended Questions. 

"Tell me what happened?" followed by "what happened next?"

2.  As questions based upon her answers. DO NOT introduce new words, but use only hers.  Say little.

3. Ask questions based upon the analysis, in this case, not only motive, but..."when" questions above.  DO NOT yet yield much. 

4.  Ask follow up questions based upon her answers, again, letting her interpret her own words.  

5.  Keep emotionless "dead pan" demeanor, especially with "yank and grab" moments. 

6.  Bring her to the confession and tell her, "I know the identity of the person."

This is where you, the interviewer, will not do some of the speaking and changes from interview to interrogation, yet in this case, you have gone from 'subordinate', allowing the liar to 'control' the interview, to, not so much challenge, but a sudden shift in demeanor:  your confidence will unnerve her. 

She is to be brought to her own words including the "confession" and she is likely to confess rather than lie about her own lie.  

7.  Allow her to excuse her behavior with, "I have to feed the children" or "My boyfriend really is violent and he..."

Yet, keep in mind: 

The analysis suggests that his is not her first time at it.  She has likely done this before and she is willing to allow someone to go to prison and ruin a life, so that a company will cut her a check. 

Update:  The analyst assisting the investigator did research  and learned:  
 the subject did the same thing in the past, also employing poor cosmetological skills which a close up photo was used to confirm the analysis.  The motive then was the same: 

to exploit a business and obtain money her hands did not earn.  


This was a simple statement; easy to analyze, and is offered to not only highlight a few of the principles we follow, but to highlight how people actually 'confess' via statement analysis.  It is exciting and infuses the interviewer with confidence that says "I know what happened and I am going to get the subject to own it!"

If you wish for training in Statement Analysis, we offer a pathway of expertise beginning with:

1.  Statement Analysis Training.  This is not a short, 101 introduction but a course you may take at home. This is a thorough course and quite different from some of the good introductory courses available.  The introductory courses often 'grab our attention' for training, which is fuel for education.  However, basic introductory courses can lead to oversimplification of principles, leading to errors.  

Our investigators and analysts are reporting near, or 100% success rate in determining deception in their cases, including live, unadjudicated cases.  Introductory courses have their place, but the professional who's interest is piqued, must push into disciplined learning.  Without, discredit of our science, and lowered results will take place.  

 Successful completion allows for entry into:

2.  Ongoing monthly training.  This is one day (only!) per month, and you work with professionals where you will grow. 

3.  Advanced Training.  This is also a take home course, consisting of 400 pages and 12 hours of lectures where you learn advanced techniques, including:

*the language of sexual abuse victims
*the language of those sexually abused in childhood
*introduction to Analytical Interviewing
*Profiling by language 
*Anonymous Author Identification
*Vetting for Security

University of Maine CEU credits available for training.  Please note that without formal training, the Advanced Course is not offered. 

See Hyatt Analysis Services  and contact us for training today.  It is traction for your career, as well as strength for your resume and those who commit to long term training will find the move from analyzing statements to audibly analyzing interviews.  

Police, investigators, journalists, therapists, attorneys, human resource professionals and others within communication, including those who wish for justice, become proficient with training. 

Each enrollment's tuition includes 12 months of e-support.  

The Advanced Course is lengthy, and challenging.  Certification is only granted after satisfactory test results and approval of thesis submission.  *It is not offered to those who have not completed "Statement Analysis Training" or have had a suitable formal training from an approved agency.  This limitation is done to protect our science.  As the analyst moves into the realm of profiling, he and she will move into the realm of subjectivity and touch upon psychological profiling to the point where if a solid foundation does not exist, the element of error is likely to be introduced.  

There is no substitute for professional education in analysis.  


Nic said...

Peter said,

"I fell" is not, "I was "yanked to the ground" or "I was knocked to the ground..."

"I fell" puts the responsibility of falling, not upon the assailant, but upon the subject herself.

Fascinating. I hadn't considered some verbs as "consequential" before, but it's really obvious when you point it out. Statement Analysis (you, Peter) are teaching me that there is so much I take for granted about the English language.

Anonymous said...

I missed a doctor's appointment two days ago and was afraid I wouldn't get another appointment.. so I lied and said I had a family emergency. I felt shitty about lying all day and the only reason I'm telling you about it is that after I hung up I thought about what words I had used and I had said "I'm so sorry" at least 4 times. It was so obvious I was lying.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

We just finished a training lesson (monthly) where several participants have been blog readers for years and their heads are spinning from what we learn of the English language and how easily missed even confessions are!

Nic, you'd prosper in it! We all expressed the same attitude that you do.

I went into a murder statement cold; this is so that I can be pushed and learn from others while putting myself on the hot seat.

It is fresh and new to learn each time!


Bobcat said...

Peter, would you analyze this brief statement?

Shannon In CA said...


I know you just did a "test" (this one) but I'm curious as to whether you'd be interested in doing another "quiz" with this statement. It's a bit longer than most you use, but I'm really curious about it.

I'm just going to post it here in case anyone wants to chime in on whether they think deception is indicated or not.

Here it is:

When I was 16, there was a creepy guy with a beard loitering outside my work. It creeped me out bc he was there a long time (couple hours maybe). I was scared but I left work anyway. I lived in a condo complex across the street. It was about 9pm and poorly lit, although the area was pretty nice. That's why in general no one worried about me walking home. It was literally across the street and then maybe a quarter of a black through the complex to our condo.

Lucky for me it was the building on the street...just facing inside the complex instead of facing the street. But if it had been farther in the complex, I'm quite sure I'd have been at a minimum raped. More than likely, I'd be dead.

After I left, I walked between two buildings, where a driveway into the shopping center was. I crossed the street, and see the guy walking on the sidewalk behind the shopping center. He'd been at the door when I left. Now he was walking the same direction as me, but still next to the shops, instead of the condos.

As I'm walking, I try to stay calm...I tell myself he's just coincidentally walking at the same time as me, right. Halfway home, I look again...just a glance over my shoulder. HE'S CROSSING THE STREET.

I didn't know what to heart felt like it dropped into my stomach. I walked a bit faster...didn't run. Cut through grass instead of the path. My heart was hammering the whole time.

I expected at any second to be grabbed by this guy. THANK GOD I didn't run. THANK GOD my condo was at the front of the complex. He wasn't going to risk grabbing me off the street I guess. He wanted it darker.

When I got to my stairs, I bolted up them and looked down as I grabbed the door. HE WAS THERE IN THE ENTRYWAY TO THE FOUR UNITS. He looked up at me and took off.

That guy waited around for me to get off work and then followed me home. I'm seriously lucky to be alive. I'm nearly 38 and I still get chills when I think about this.


Anonymous said...

Peter, a lifelong, habitual liar with a long history of theft and destruction; who doesn't hesitate to put an innocent person in prison; and/or harm her own children with her lies; and is fully confident in her ability to snow anyone; would really rather confess than lie about her own lie?

I can't wrap my brain around that one!

John Mc Gowan said...

OT Update:

Creato lawyer files motion seeking dismissal of murder charges, alleges 'unfair' grand jury process

Lawyer for accused father claims flawed investigation by medical examiner is reason for release from jail

Anonymous said...

Shannon D, it reads like an exercise from Peter where we're to blue all of the deception indicators, and he had a little fun competing with himself seeing just how many he could cram into one statement! :^D

She's all over the place with her timeline.

She jumps between past and present tenses, with a few futures tossed in for color and texture.

She's storytelling, and not very good at it.
Yes, that's normal 22 years on, but rather than her brain processing the trauma she's amping up the adrenalin and drama levels.

She tells what didn't happen.

She introduces time into her statement "seconds"

She weakens and decommits with "in general"

A time-lapse left directly after a but - triple word score!

Extra information: four units, shopping center,

She tells what he was supposedly thinking and planning.

She tells what he didn't do.

She drops pronouns like breadcrumbs leading us into SA utopia.

She repeatedly tells how lucky she is being followed by a creepy presumed rapist.

She skips forward missing blocks of time and detail, twice with "left"

She repeatedly invokes God, placing herself on his team.

She has need to persuade and convince us of many details.

Her emotions are inserted all through the tale. Some in rather odd places.

Her description of the location is also inconsistent.

She gives a lot of background, set up, explaining. The ending just ... ends... he'd intended to "rape her at the very least" and he turned and walked away even though she hadn't screamed or shown a weapon?

Why thank God she didn't run?

"black" instead of block" imbedded agenda, simple typo, or Freudian slip?

Just for starters, I don't want to hog all of them! :^D

John Mc Gowan said...

Related OT:

Taylor Gould: No memory of a murder

Taylor Gould tells Det. Paula Hamill she and her boyfriend, Rahul Gupta, drank so much she couldn't remember what happened the night their friend Mark Waugh was murdered.

Interrogation clip.

Anonymous said...

Sorry for the half-sentences - I haven't slept, and meant to plug in the rest of multiple examples of those deception indicators.

Anonymous said...

Peter, I'm not disputing SA principles here; I'm asking if this level of liar is the rare sociopath who can pass any test while blatantly lying?

Nic said...

Thank you for your encouragement, Peter. I'm tackling your book "Wise As A Serpent; Gentle As A Dove: Dealing With Deception" as we speak. I've had it for some time, but it's taken me this long to read it. I would like to read your book first and tackle the basics before proceeding.

Since I've taken inventory of my life (some of the emotional process I've recently shared here,) I think I will be a better candidate. There is definitely less "noise" now when I try to apply what I'm learning. Less noise means better concentration and retention. :0)

GeekRad said...

Shannon D, she is story telling as foodiefoodnerd points out. She changes tenses often and gives a lot of background detail. It reads like a story.

Nic said...

Can we address God and religion in statement analysis? I've done a quick search on this and I have only been able to come up with "I swear to God", (Casey Anthony,) or "God help me." Specifically I would like to address this:

... Burn in hell, Kyle Parker,” father Justin Ammerman told WTHR. Grandfather Daniel Morgan added, “Kyle or whoever is the cause of it, I hope the wrath of God comes on him.”

... He also said that Shaylyn’s father Justin was never in the room while the three were hanging out.

... Thursday morning Heavy spoke with Shaylyn’s paternal grandmother, Tammy Morgan. At the time, many were taking to Facebook speculating that Shaylyn’s father, Justin Ammerman, was involved in the disappearance of baby Shaylyn. When asked about this, Tammy replied, “It’s absolutely ridiculous because i know better. I know for a fact he was asleep. No way he would hurt her in no way whatsoever, or her uncle.”

There are red flags all over their statements (saying what didn't happen as oppose to what did, for instance, not using Shaylyn's name, and referring to what happened to Shaylyn as "it" instead of what it was "murder").

My basic understanding is that deceptive people will use God as a means to elevate themselves above reproach. i.e., God is truth and we are expected to "just" believe.

Their statements strike me that there is knowledge of the kind crime committed. That there is much more than "just" a murder, there is knowledge of unspeakable and unforgivable action (wrath, burn in hell,). They definitely strike me as very sensitive.

I believe the father and grandfather were quoted on March 24th right after they found Shaylyn and before the preliminary COD was announced. (The article was updated on the 26th so I can't be certain.)

I also believe the grandfather is incriminating someone else, "or whoever it was". Even the grandmother refers to someone else (or her uncle). Tammy doesn't use Shaylyn's name or her son's name (concealment?/embedded knowledge?)


Nic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shannon In CA said...

Interesting. Thanks!

John Mc Gowan said...



I don't know if you've ever covered this case. I have looked through your search engine, to no avail.

There is an interesting denial at the bottom of this article. He starts off well, then it all goes pear shaped. Whether it is contaminated or not, i don't know.

New York millionaire facing 4th trial for wife’s killing

NEW YORK– For more than 15 years and through three trials by jury, Cal Harris has maintained that he didn’t kill his wife on September 11, 2001.

On Thursday, Harris will stand trial for the fourth time for the killing of his estranged wife, Michele. This time, there will be no jury.

His defense team believes new evidence and a “neutral and fair magistrate,” will get him acquitted, said Donna Aldea, one of his defense attorneys.

Michele Harris’ body has not been found, nor has a murder weapon. But prosecutors suggest he struck her when she arrived at her home in upstate New York that night, then got rid of the body and the weapon.

They charged him with second degree murder in 2005.

The trials that followed resulted in two convictions that didn’t stick, then a mistrial.

Harris thinks the difference in this trial will be a “neutral and fair magistrate, who can get him acquitted. He thinks this is his best bet,” Aldea said, adding that Harris had requested a jury waiver after his first trial but it was denied.

New evidence

Aldea said new evidence would be entered for this trial: items found in an outdoor fire pit at a home near the Harrises’ home that was once owned by Stacy Stewart.

Stewart, an ex-boyfriend of Michele, was last seen with her the day she went missing, the defense claims.

Harris’ lawyer Bruce Barket said they found a bra strap, charred fabric that matched the color of clothing that Michele was last seen in, buttons and more in the pit.

Stewart could not be reached by CNN for comment Wednesday.

The Harris family

Cal and Michele Harris were raising their four children in their upstate New York home, which sits on a 200 acre estate in Tioga County.

Despite living together at the time she disappeared, the two were leading separate lives while finalizing their divorce.

One of the assets to be contemplated in the divorce: Harris’ $5.4 million net worth.

Barket told CNN in 2015 that this was not a motive for murder.

“The divorce was ending on friendly terms and ending on Cal’s terms,” Barket said.

Michele was last seen around 11 p.m. on September 11, 2001. The next morning, Harris noticed that Michele hadn’t made it home and called the family’s nanny, who found Michele’s car at the end of the driveway.

Harris, owner of a number of car dealerships, went to work.

“When he woke up that morning he thought Michele was just with her boyfriend or was out drinking as she had done on numerous occasions before,” Barket said.

The trials

In 2007, the jury of the first trial convicted Harris of second degree murder.


John Mc Gowan said...

Five months later, a judge overturned the verdict after a man came forward claiming he saw Michele Harris with another man in her driveway the morning after prosecutors alleged Cal Harris killed her.

“There’s a man at the back of the pickup; there’s a woman at the side of the pickup. It’s the woman I believe was Michele Harris,” Kevin Tubbs, the witness, told CBS’ “48 Hours.”

Two years later, Harris went on trial a second time. That jury also convicted him.

After Harris served about four years in prison, the New York Court of Appeals overturned the conviction, agreeing with Harris’ defense team that one juror had a preconceived notion about the case.

Harris then hired a team of lawyers to launch an investigation to find out one thing: What happened to Michele Harris?

“He asked us to do one thing the police didn’t: solve the case,” Barket told reporters in 2014. “He hired a team of lawyers, a team of investigators, he’s literally spending his last dollars to try and figure out what happened to Michele Harris.”

At the same press conference, the eldest Harris daughter, Kayla, spoke on behalf of her siblings, who stood by their father.

“We need to know what really happened to our mother; we know that our dad had nothing to do with her disappearance,” Kayla said. A tip line was opened for people to phone in any information they might have not spoken to authorities about for more than a decade.

Last year, Harris’ third trial was declared a mistrial when the jury could not agree on guilt or innocence.

The defense could not argue double jeopardy in any of the trials because Harris was never exonerated of a charge, Barket said.

Harris spoke to the media in 2014: “I did not have any involvement in Michele’s disappearance. I would never hurt the mother of my children and I would never do anything to hurt them.”

Nic said...

The grandmother also says, "I know" twice in close succession. She also puts Adam and Shaylyn together (her uncle).

Nic said...

The grandmother also doesn't give a reliable denial, either. She doesn't say, "Justin didn't kill Shaylyn." She says, "No way he would hurt her in no way whatsoever."

"hurt" minimizes what was done to Shaylyn.

"would hurt" is future conditional.

"no way" times two in close succession. Double negative equals a positive.

"he would hurt her" is embedded.

John Mc Gowan said...

Hi, Nic

I found this if it's any help?

Faith, Language and Lie Detection

Statement Analysis Blog said...


"pear shaped"! I love it!

That you are even considering contamination shows an open mind. Very good!


Statement Analysis Blog said...


I appreciate the 'emotional toll' you cite.

The book is more about catching interest and application in a private sense, and less in teaching.

Curious: how many years have you been here?

Curious, too: Did you understand the "statement analysis confession" and why it must be in quotes?


Nic said...

Thank you John. The article you linked does reinforce what I was thinking, but the grandfather and father are using divinity differently. The father is condemning to hell and the grandfather is "hoping" the wrath of God comes on him.

"comes on him"

Knowing now what Shaylyn ultimately suffered, to me his reference has a subliminal reference.

Shannon In CA said...

I do have a really hard time believing the father wasn't involved at all on this one. But I also fully believe that davey Blackburn was involved with his wife's death so I suppose I could be wrong. But something doesn't sit right with me about shaylyn.

Tania Cadogan said...

No way he would hurt her in no way whatsoever, or her uncle.”

When you read it as written, we are being told no way would he hurt her.
We are also being told no way would he hurt her uncle.

No reliable denial is given he did not kill Shaylyn
what we do have is qualifiers.
No way is repeated twice making it sensitive.
Whatsoever is also a qualifier.
Then we have the uncle tagged on the end, for what reason?
As written see my first two sentences.
There is nothing added to the uncle reference to indicate what he (the uncle) would do or not do.

Nic said...

Sorry, Peter, I missed your post.

Following the reporting of Kyron Horman's disappearance brought me to your blog. So I've been following you off and on since 2010.

Curious, too: Did you understand the "statement analysis confession" and why it must be in quotes?

I thought I did. She's not responding to the accusation that he had anything to do with Shaylyn's disappearance. She is responding to Shaylyn being "hurt". Her statement is in quotes.

Now I'm thinking I don't understand. :0)

Tania Cadogan said...

I forgot to add, kill is minimized to hurt.

Nic said...

“statement analysis confession” is placed in indirect quotes because the confession is via the analyst, not the subject.

My understanding:

A “statement analysis confession” is admission of guilt or knowledge via “linguistic evidence of admission”. There are two kinds of deception to consider: suppressed information and withholding information.

The "statement analysis confession" occurs as a result of the subject confessing suppressed information because they struggle with it and want to address it (emotion). Withholding information is about working to conceal the truth for personal advantage, i.e., money/no jail time.

What I have learned:

In the grandmother’s statement I linked to, I cannot say for certain, without seeing a transcription of the interview, whether the reporter used all of the grandmother’s statement, i.e., if there were other questions he asked her besides if Justin “took” Shaylyn, such as, if Justin would hurt her. If the reporter had asked her that question, or if it was directed to someone else and she heard it, she might have felt the need to respond to it herself. If the later is the case, then the statement is considered contaminated and “he would hurt her” is essentially part of the question asked and not words freely chosen by her.

Therefore, I should consider the grandmother’s statement as contaminated.

Nic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nic said...

I forgot to add above that if the analyst is dealing with surpassed information, then they can pretty much assume that the subject wants to confess. Asking open-ended questions around the statement analysis confession detected by the analyst, being careful not to introduce new words/to only use the subject's words, will hopefully get the the subject to confess themselves.

Anonymous said...

"Pear-shaped" - one of the funniest lines from the oldie Legally Blonde!

Silly movie but with cute little lines like that, still fun to watch on occasion.

Nic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nic said...

Regards divinity in statement analysis, I've been spending some time trying to get my head around, persuading versus papal infallibility. I guess what it boils down to is the level of sensitivity the subject is feeling?

Peter said:
"Divinity" within the interview is a red flag for deception and beneath it is a desire to persuade someone, hoping that the Interviewer, too, will be a person of faith. The need to call for Divine approval, itself, is a weakness.

"...and as he grabbed me I just prayed 'Lord help me' and …”

Calling the Lord/Godhead, influential person (passing judgement (verbal/written)), virtuous/having moral standards


... “Burn in hell, Kyle Parker,” father Justin Ammerman told WTHR. Grandfather Daniel Morgan added, “Kyle or whoever is the cause of it, I hope the wrath of God comes on him.”

Condemning (casting judgement (forcible)), Dogma/supreme authority/infallible, righteous/being morally right

"cause of it" - The linked article was initially published the night Shaylyn was found, but was subsequently updated. If the grandfather said “cause of it” before Shaylyn was found, then it appears the grandfather is concealing information (she was missing so he could have said “or whoever took her”). If it was made after they found her (dead), then he could have said, “or whoever killed her”. Either way, he doesn’t address the publicly known what or even to whom (Shaylyn). So I say, deception indicated.

There is the unexpected “come on him” as opposed to “come unto him”.
As I said above, there are two date stamps associated with this article. (Thursday and Saturday.) The preliminary COD (asphyxiation) was made Friday. Details weren’t released until Monday.
leakage/withholding information

Something to consider: the on-line (informal) definition of psychopath is: an unstable and aggressive person. The example they give is, "schoolyard psychopaths will gather around a fight to encourage the combatants".

Nic said...

"the" is known = whoever is the cause of it

"a" is unknown = whoever caused it


withholding information

Anonymous said...

Peter, would you please consider sharing some thoughts on the infidelity accusations involving Ted Cruz, Amanda Carpenter, Katrina Pierson, Sarah Isgur Flores, etc.

This is a golden opportunity for statement analysis because we have 4 named people accused, and no reliable denials from any of them.

Even if you support Cruz politically and don't want the accusations to be true (and they might not be), this is a rare and fascinating opportunity for statement analysis because one accusation involves MULTIPLE people who are each indicating deception in similar ways.

What do you think?

They've all said the stories are "tabloid garbage."

A few other quotes:

Amanda Carpenter: "What’s out there is tabloid trash. If someone wants to comment on it, they can talk to my lawyer. It’s categorically false. You should be ashamed for spreading this kind of smut. Donald Trump supporters should be held to account for it."

Sarah Isgur Flores: Has been completely silent--has not commented at all

Katrina Pierson: "What's worse? People who actually believe the trash in tabloids, or the ones who know it's false &spread it anyway? #stupidity on all levels"

Katrina Pierson: "Of course the National Enquirer story is 100% FALSE!!! I only speak to myself, however. Carry on..."