Wednesday, April 13, 2016

Woman Jogger Attacked By 3 Men Analyzed

This is the case of a woman who claimed to be attacked by 3 men.  I recognize that a number of people felt she was deceptive, but this is not a correct conclusion. 

When someone tells us "why" something happened, within a statement, it is considered 'sensitive' in that no one has asked, "Why did you...?" and noted.  It may signal that the subject anticipated being asked why something was done, and wish to answer it first, possibly preempting the question.  

It should be labeled as very sensitive to the subject, and we look within the language to find out why it may be so sensitive.  In this regard, we are 'slaves' to the statement. 

*Even with training, it takes time, patience, correction, and peer review to reach excellence.  

I am concerned and have addressed this in trainings, with the use of the number three in analysis, as too many rush to conclude deception.  It is not part of the SCAN technique brought out by Avinoam Sapir, yet it is something to consider if there are signals of deception in a statement that are strong.  It means that if someone is going to fabricate and needs to choose a number, 4 sounds too much, and 2 sounds too little, with alcoholic drinks the exception. 

It should only be used as an after thought, such as measuring the form of a statement for reliability.  It is one of many tools.  

In a singular event,

Look for:

a.  Linguistic commitment (Pronoun "I", past tense verbs) 
b.  Location of emotions  
c.  Time
d. Sensitivity indicators
e.  areas of weakness 

Remember:  Deception is not difficult to see.  If it is difficult to spot, you are likely not seeing deception.  

Content, leakage, and other such detail:  this is difficult to spot and this is where error is commonly made. 

Here are just a few thoughts to consider:  

One of them had a bike and as I approached them they were on the pavement so I ran onto the road. 

Here she tells us why she changed direction, without being asked.  She now tells us why she ran on to the road, though she has not been asked.  

We now wish to know why she felt the need to tell us that she went from the pavement to the road.  Will she, in the statement itself, show us why this is?
Is there anything about this location to which she may have anticipated being asked, "Why were you in the road?"

Notice the pronoun "I" puts herself psychologically into the scene. 

Then one of them put his bike in front of me to block me. Then the other two men circled around me.

We have another explanation of why something was done.  This is a sensitive part of the statement.  

“They tried to pull my trousers down and then started touching me between my legs and smacking me on the bottom.

They 'failed' to pull her trousers down.  Note "my" trousers.  This is strong, personal ownership.  

"started touching me between "my" legs and smacking "me" on the bottom."

Note that "between my legs" is different than "on my bottom"; which is "the" bottom, instead. 

What is the difference?

The pants had ownership.
In between the legs had ownership, but the "bottom" did not. 

Note the difference between "touching" and "smacking" in her description.  She is literally bringing the listener/reader into a very personal and intrusive scenario.  

I didn’t really know what to say or do. It went on for a couple of minutes and I tried to get past them but the man with the bike kept moving it in front of me.

Here may be an answer to a question we raised earlier due to the close proximity of two 'blues' or sensitivity in the statement.  She felt the need to tell us why she moved from the pavement to the road.  She felt the need to tell us why one of the assailants blocked her.  

She felt the need to tell us these things without being asked. 


We like to hear people tell us what they said, what they did, and not what they did not do nor say.  Here, however, she tells us that she did not know what to say or do, with "really", indicating that she had some idea.  

Consider this as a pause in the action.  Something "started" and it should resolve.  At this time, "touching" is not as harsh in language as "smacking" which tells us there was a difference between whoever was "touching" and the one who was "smacking."

It is clear to us that it is a crime, but she likely struggled to discern if these were intending on making this a form of "horseplay" (no matter how vulgar or illegal) of if they intended to rape and harm her, possibly even killing her. 

She had some idea on what to say and do, but was not certain.  Should she run?  Should she hit back?  Was it an inappropriate 'friendly-type' (in HER mind), and would they just stop, or would her action escalate them?

This is a critical call for sexual assault victims.  

If they 'stay cool' maybe they will 'wake up' to the inappropriate and illegal nature of what they are doing, or, if the victim reacts with anger, violence or screaming, would they immediately slam a fist into her?

Victims sometimes freeze not knowing if they should run or fight.  To freeze is the worst in terms of long term results. The article tells us, almost this exact thing with the following sentence:  

She said she was worried they would take her to a nearby alleyway and attack her. But she managed to escape and ran the short distance home.  (end)

This is to be caught "in the middle" of not knowing if this is a really bad and inappropriate joke on their part, or if they were 'testing the waters' to see if she would yield.

Here is something to note about sexual abuse victims:

Those who were sexually abused in early childhood often feel that they have "no right" to stop the attack.  If abused pre speech, during development, it is possible that what you and I accept as a norm, that is, boundaries, this part of the brain was not developed.  **please consider:

Some adult victims of sexual abuse never learned where their body ended, and another began.  I have addressed this in depth so please search if interested, but suffice for now:

I have investigated and interviewed many men who prey on such victims.  They know them, they recognize them, and they sense the weakness within them.  They often put out such feelers as vulgar humor, or, like these men, actual physical contact.  Many will walk away when resistance is offered, but there are some who are sexually aroused by the woman who fights. On some level, female victims seem to sense this animalistic characteristic and try to remain still and silent, or talk down the one who appears to be aroused by fight.  *******************

As to her confusion...was this a crime?  was it a joke?  Was it like dealing with a nasty dog that if I run, its prey drive will kick in?

What does she tell us?  She did not "really" know what to do and what to say!  She had some idea, hence, the word "really", but she did not have certainty.  The analyst/reader should be now aware of the two areas of sensitivity above where she explains 'why' action took place:

The subject, herself, tells us of confusion or uncertainty as to the course taken for safety.  

There is no context in which a nefarious reason may arise by being asked, "Why did you go from the pavement to the road?"; therefore, the sensitivity may be due to:

The subject questions her own judgement.  

As she goes into memory, she shows a questioning of her own actions, and as she comes to the realization of what happened, she "understands" that he moved his bike to block her path.  

Let us see if the statement, itself, affirms this, or not.  

 This next sentence is a sad commentary on how bad it has gotten in a society that thinks that sex is nothing more than biological urges to be satisfied sans morals:  

She added: “I was ok at first but I then called the police just to make them aware of it. But they told me it was sexual assault and they were glad I called them.
“I called my brother and then just burst into tears.”

She needed affirmation from the police that what she experienced was not just inappropriate, but criminal.  

Hence, she reveals more information about herself, her life experiences, and her perception of what took place!  

This is to affirm her truthful account of not "really knowing" what she should have said to them, or what she should have done differently. 

This is why she showed such sensitivity in this area:  it is not about her being deceptive, it is about her own background and experiences in life that hindered her ability to discern what intention these three had towards her.  She was not certain to "run" and trigger the prey drive, "fight" and trigger their own violence, or 'de escalate' by nervous laughter and 'no thanks, not interested, moving on...' type of escape.  This also suggests that as they may have 'joked' and 'toyed' with her, the attempts at removing her pants were likely easy and feeble at first, testing her reaction like a lion might with a prey, to see if it is going to fight or run.  

Placement of Emotions

Here is the addition of emotions in the account after the assault.  This is an appropriate place for them.  Deceptive story tellers often put the emotion in the assault itself, which is exactly what you would expect in a fictional account.

"The three men were touching me and I was terrified and I said..."

The time it took to frighten her is an indication of high hormonal level at the time of the assault.  It takes time to process.  

Recall my description, many years ago, of the 9mm pointed at my face.  I wasn't frightened and kept my cool, like a "hero."

An hour later, my hands shook from fear, like a "coward."

Neither classification is correct; it is the time it takes to process, along with the presence of mind in emergencies (training is the number one factor here) in how the brain reacts. 

Claire is an avid runner but said she has been left scared and will no longer go running after dark.

*She will be scarred for a long time and is best to journal it out, processing with someone who loves, of whom she may trust.  

She now looks back, as a runner, considering:  

She added: “I never run with headphones in so I know what’s going on around me and I have lived here all of my life so always felt safe. But I won’t be going out in the dark anymore. It has really shook me up.

“I feel angry that these were men who should have known better and known what they were doing was wrong. I just want people to be aware of this.
“These men will have mothers and sisters, how would they feel if someone did that to them. It’s disgusting.
I felt I had to tell people about it because the next person might not be so lucky.”

They "should have known better" tells us more about her own thinking.  It may have started in a joking, or jesting style, as they were 'testing' her reaction.  This tells us more about herself, and what level of inappropriate behavior she has been subjected to, OR that she considers 'normal' or acceptable, than it tells us about the perpetrators. 

Some have likened this to possibly media withholding the identity of the sexual predators due to the politically correct empowerment of Islamic rape, but the phrase she used may have been in reference to their ages, or maturity level, or even, perhaps, her perception of them in their dress and language.  True, some victims actually fear being called "racist" and "Islamophobe" for being a victim of rape by Islamic supremacists and it is true, main stream media will omit details that will suggest the koranic teaching about rape, and it is true, some schools have deliberately engaged in 'social engineering' of children, predisposing them to Islam, but here, it may not be the case.  Europe's criminal self loathing sets a difficult stage in this regard.  


The anger and lecturing she does is victim appropriate.  

that she needed affirmation from police is quite telling, but also quite sad.

Analysis Conclusion:

There are no signals of deception in her account.  Those of you caught off guard by the number 3 may have read my caution on Facebook about this.  I considered leaving it blank, and wondered how this may have impacted some of your thoughts, but ask you not to be discouraged; it takes a great deal of time and training to even experience the volume of statements that can help you build your own 'data base' of understanding.  

We also note that some behavior that begins, is disrupted in the statement, while for sex victims, some continues on, via its impact; nightmares, intrusive thoughts, etc. 

Deception must jump out at us and in training, after reading lots and lots and lots of victim statements, the analyst learns to use principle properly, with a larger view that can only come through much repetition.  


boston lady said...

This is off topic but thought it would be a good case to follow. The defendant - a former doctor - made a statement "I didn't do anything to hurt the baby in any way," Macharla said. And yet, the prosecution countered with a statement and listed the injuries the 6 month old sustained. (see statement below) The infant presented with a fractured spine, bleeding into the brain and eyes. I think the former doctor did a lot more than just hurt this poor little infant.

A former doctor is accused of killing a six-month-old girl in her care, but lingering questions about the baby's actual cause of death has her lawyer demanding the charges be dropped.

Dr. Pallavi Macharla is accused in the 2014 murder.

"I didn't do anything to hurt the baby in any way," Macharla said.

The former diabetes doctor was watching the baby in her Burlington home when District Attorney said the baby stopped breathing.

The medical examiner blamed shaken baby syndrome, ruling the death a homicide.

Attorney JW Carney said the baby died from sudden, unexplained cardiac arrest.

Carney said based on new advances medical experts, including the medical examiner who made the initial homicide ruling, can no longer say what killed the baby.

"This is the third in the last three years that a medical examiner who initially concluded that a child died from shaken baby syndrome later reconsidered that finding and concluded that the child's death could not be stated as a homicide," Carney said.

The district attorney said the chief medical examiner's opinion is unchanged, pointing out the doctor waited to call 911 and was running an unlicensed daycare.

Carney said she panicked and that she was only a babysitter. The baby was the only child in her home at the time.

"I pray to god the truth will come out in this matter," Macharla said.

The District Attorney released a statement about the case on Wednesday: The Commonwealth is proceeding with the prosecution of this case because the only plausible explanation for the death of this otherwise healthy six month old baby is the defendant's conduct on March 27, 2014. The baby was normal, happy and healthy when delivered into the exclusive care of the defendant on that morning. She had no underlying medical conditions that would explain the fractures to her spine or the bleeding in her brain and eyes. Any suggestion that there was a problem with her heart is belied by the fact that her heart was successfully transplanted into a baby who is thriving. The Chief Medical Examiner of the Commonwealth remains firm that the baby's cause of death is "blunt force trauma and shaking injuries" and the manner of death is homicide. Under the circumstances, it is appropriate for a jury to decide this case.

Tania Cadogan said...

Off topic

It has been almost 20 years since the body of JonBenet Ramsey was found in the basement of her family home in Boulder, Colorado just one day after Christmas, and the investigator hired by her parents to find the person or persons responsible for her death is now revealing who he believes killed the child beauty queen.

In an interview with InTouch, Ollie Gray, who continued to investigate the murder case even after he stopped working for the Ramseys, claims that the child's killer was a local 26-year-old who family owned a junkyard on the outskirts of the city - Michael Helgoth.

'Based on what we know now, I believe Helgoth and his accomplices committed the crime. There's no doubt about it,' said Gray.

That opinion was backed up by John Kenady, a man who used to work for Helgoth, who told the magazine; 'There was a tape recording made by Helgoth. And in it, he said he killed JonBenet.'

Kenady also claims that someone close to Helgoth still has the tape, which was overlooked by police during the investigation.

Kenady claims that he first grew suspicious of Helgoth a month before the murder.

'In late November, Helgoth had told me that he and a partner were going to make a great deal and they each will bring in around $50,000 or $60,000,' said Kenady.

'I will never forget they were walking toward his house and he said, "I wonder what it would be like to crack a human skull."

'I was amazed. I thought it was a very odd thing to say.'

The body of JonBenet was found bludgeoned and strangled hours after she was reported missing and covered by a white blanket with a nylon cord around her neck, her wrists bound above her head and her mouth covered by duct tape.

Her skull was also cracked.

Her parents John and Patsy had called police to report her kidnapping and said they found a note demanding a ransom of $118,000 for her safe return - and that they had not contact the authorities.

Despite this, police arrived to their home shortly after in clearly marked vehicles.

John and Patsy would remain the primary suspects in their daughter's death for more than a decade, and it was not until 2008 that police finally cleared them of any wrongdoing.

At that time, Patsy had been dead for two years after a lengthy battle with ovarian cancer.

She was initially suspected by many of being the murderer after reports emerged that handwriting on the ransom note was similar to her own, but after she willingly provided a sample to police it was determined she did not write the note.

Many also suspected someone in the family as they claimed there were no footprints in the snow around the house and the ransom amount was the exact amount that John had just received in his annual bonus.

Gray however says that if police had just listened to Kenady they could have solved the case, but they refused to call him back despite the fact that he reached out almost 20 times with information about Helgoth.

'Kenady provided very relevant information that should have been a priority lead,' said Gray.

'But I got the distinct feeling that the Boulder police had absolutely no interest in anything that took away from the theory that John and Patsy Ramsey killed their daughter.'

Then, on February 13, 1997, Alex Hunter, who was then the district attorney, held a press conference where he spoke to JonBenet's unknown killer, saying; 'The list of suspect narrows. Soon there will be no one on the list but you.'

Tania Cadogan said...


Helgoth died of an apparent suicide two days later at his home. Kenady believes he was murdered by an accomplice or accomplices who were with him when he killed JonBenet.

'The gun was found on Helgoth's right side, but the bullet hole goes from left to right. It doesn't make sense why someone would commit suicide in that manner,' said Kenady.

'He was murdered to keep his mouth shut.'

A few years after his death however Helgoth was cleared when it was revealed that none of his DNA was found under JonBenet's fingernails or in her underwear.

Gray however thinks that he is the killer, and claims he knows how to officially solve the case once and for all.

'If they could find out who killed Helgoth it could lead police to his accomplices in her murder,' he explains.

Many however still believe it was a member of the family, something JonBenet's father addressed in an interview with Barbara Walters that aired last year.

Appearing on Barbara Walters Presents American Scandals, John said that he and his late-wife Patsy did everything they could to protect their son Burke from learning that he was being accused of murdering his sister.

No one in the family was ever charged in the death of the six-year-old, but for years tabloids and members of the public believed they were the culprits of this unspeakable crime.

Most of these stories focused on parents John and Patsy, but some went so far as to claim that Burke had been responsible for his sister's death - despite the fact that he was only nine-years-old at the time.

'We tried to shield him from that,' John said of the tabloid reports about Burke.

'Friends would ask us, "What can we do to help?" We said, "Next time you go in the supermarket, call the manager over when you see our child’s photo on the front cover, and ask him to remove it." A lot of them did that.'

Stories would point to the fact that Burke was in the house when JonBenet was reported missing, but his parents always stood firm on the fact that he was sleeping the entire time and did not wake up until after they called police.

He was exonerated by DNA evidence in May of 1999, a little over two years after the murder.

Burke - who is now 28-years-old - has never spoken publicly about his sister's death and has kept a low profile for the past decade.

John also said that he still believes the killer will be found.

'I think we will have two ways that will happen,' John tells Walters in their interview.

'It will either be a DNA match or someone who knows something will become angry or bitter against this person and will tell.'

Male DNA was found on the underwear of JonBenet when her body was discovered, but authorities have never been able to match it to a suspect.

There was also a bowl of pineapples found in the kitchen when the young girl was first reported missing but police on the scene allowed someone to clean the bowl.

This ended up being a crucial error as JonBenet was found with pineapple in her stomach when her body was examined by the coroner.

The house was also not sealed off by police and friends and family were allowed to come and go during the initial investigation, contaminating the crime scene.

John - who was briefly linked to Natalee Holloway's mother Beth in 2007 and remarried in 2011 to Jan Rousseaux - also discussed how he lost his millions after the death of JonBenet when he decided to move the family out of Boulder and back to Atlanta, not realizing the stigma that would be placed on him by the public and how difficult that would make it for him to obtain a job.

Tania Cadogan said...


'I was told by a very experienced FBI person that most victims of violent crime end up broke,' said John.

'It's very expensive to deal with the justice system. You make bad decisions - you sell your home, you quit your job, you move, you change jobs.'

In addition to losing JonBenet, John had also lost his oldest daughter Elizabeth from a previous marriage in 1992 when she was 22-years-old after she was in a car accident.

As a result of what he has gone through, he now has advice for others who might face a similarly tragic situation.

'When something really tragic happens in your life, put your life in park. Give your checkbook to a trusted friend. Avoid making any big decisions,' said John.

'Because you're just not capable of making good decisions.'

The case will be revisited later this year on CBS, where they are planning an unscripted miniseries which will reunite members of the original investigation team and bring in new experts to re-examine the murder mystery.

JonBenet, who would now be 25 years old, is buried next to her mother Patsy in Georgia.

Anonymous said...

Peter -

I am going into the medical field, starting as RN and then hopefully one day becoming a NP. Can you tell me if (and how) Statement Analysis training would benefit someone in such a profession?



Hey Jude said...

Thanks for the analysis, Peter. I did not stop to consider she may have previously endured unwelcome attentions - that would make her reactions/non-reactions fall into place. Also, I saw stuff that probably wasn't there - missing what is, finding what is not.

I got it a bit right, which I recognise is only a bit better than getting it all completely wrong. I don't know enough SA principles well enough, so I keep jumping into imagining the situation. I like the comments where people actually DO analysis because they know how to do it, without interrupting themselves and wondering all over the place. I am going to read up and remember - it's remembering which I find difficult.

Seagull said...

I was wrong, misinterpreting what I thought I knew. The analysis has taught me a lot. I noted the emotions in the right place but missed what was really being said. I need to step back and consider the content of the statement and follow it through to the end as it progresses before reaching a conclusion. Lesson learned. I've printed the analysis off as a reminder, more haste less speed especially when I'm very tired. The advantage to being proved wrong is that you've learned something new. I have.

Tania Cadogan said...

'It will either be a DNA match or someone who knows something will become angry or bitter against this person and will tell.

hmm This not That person?

Statement Analysis Blog said...

RN student,

Medical and Psychological professionals take training. This is nurses, therapists, MDs, and so on. It goes so far beyond simple investigation of truth versus deception that they learn how to better diagnose (remember how much is due to a patient's own testimony) as well as the intense increase in listening skill, and how this benefits all verbal interaction. They also add to training with their unique perspective.

It is invaluable.


Anonymous said...

Peter, how do you analyze the statement of a known habitual liar and attention seeker who is an actual victim?

Particularly one whose proven lies frequently involve him or her being a victim?

Do you approach the interview differently, ask different questions? Is contamination more likely?

I would struggle with bias in that situation, including a troubling lack of sympathy especially for someone burned by his or her own brand of treachery.
(that probably can't be good for accuracy, huh...)

Anonymous said...

It's nice to be able to post anonymously here. As a victim of early-childhood sexual abuse, I have found this blog/website stunningly accurate in understanding the experience and statements of victims like this one. To me, that level of insight/understanding is INVALUABLE and RARE. Wouldn't it also be invaluable to law enforcement? Is law enforcement hiring people like the owner of this blog??? And paying them A LOT???

Anonymous said...

....because I worry how hasty people are to cry "LIAR" when someone is telling the truth, and it's horrifying that real victims are analyzed and doubted and questioned.

Katprint said...

I hesitate to post anything involving three men, as I hesitate to post anything about bad things that have happened to me personally because of not wanting to be shredded by trolls (nor have I ever reported attempted rapes to law enforcement for pretty much the same reasons), but I would point out that many small cars have room for 4 people: the victim and 3 perpetrators.

Anonymous said...


Sheriff Bateman's wife releases statement: 'I do not believe anything that occurred between us is criminal'

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Anonymous said...
....because I worry how hasty people are to cry "LIAR" when someone is telling the truth, and it's horrifying that real victims are analyzed and doubted and questioned.
April 13, 2016 at 8:15 PM

We should stop analyzing "real victims"?

Wait, how would we know that they are "real" if we don't analyze?

This folly would lead to chaos. Can you imagine what would happen to our courts and prisons if it was announced to the country that anyone claiming to have been a victim can be assured that their claim will not be analyzed!

Maybe anonymous did not have her coffee yet.

Hey Jude said...

Anon @ 6.59 - Mrs, Bateman's definition of 'heated argument' is interesting, poor woman.

Anon @ 8.15 - Would you prefer that everyone who claims to be a victim be accepted as such, no questions asked? That would lead to many miscarriages of justice (one reason for their being a judicial system, to prevent such), or in other cases tarring of reputations (recently, Banana Girl's housemates). If you read the blog regularly, especially with reference to fake hate reports, you can see how many real victims can potentially be created by false reports, and how gullible some people are in unquestionably believing anyone who claims to be a victim. It can't be much fun to be Banana Girl's housemates just now, for instance.

I doubt many cases reach court without a victim even undergoing questioning - anyone who has been a victim of crime does not mind being questioned - they may be frustrated if they are also doubted and analysed, but they will also be confident that the truth will withstand examination.

You maybe have not read here for long - if you read more, you will see how some cases are complex, such as when someone has been a victim of a crime, yet not necessarily of a crime currently alleged; it would be a sorry state of affairs if someone who had once been a victim should automatically be assumed to be incapable of making a false report.

Hey Jude said...

'their being' - 'there being' - (though one should avoid writing 'being' like that, I don't remember why, lazy use of English, probably).

John Mc Gowan said...

Anne Arundel County Sheriff Ronald Bateman, charged Sunday with second-degree assault in a domestic incident, makes a statement in front of the Circuit Courthouse Tuesday morning.


"Hi folks, i'm Sheriff Ron Bateman. I want to start of by saying. That i love my wife very much and she loves me very much. Anyone that knows us. And especially if you follow Elsie on Facebook. She posts everything on Facebook, you'll know this. But let me say this. I Never ever ever assaulted Elsie. Things were said to the Police caused high emotions high stress, i anger that this was blown out of proportion. And...not true And soon you will read that she has recanted everything. We are embarrassed by this. But i can tell you..that were're going to get through this with councelling. And..i wonna ask you this.....If you could please give my family Elsie and I ..The respect of our privacy and especially our children. So we can work through our own a family and as a husband and wife. Thank you all very much.

His wife's statement is in the link below.

John Mc Gowan said...

Just one more thing to highlight. Note he begins with his full title "Sheriff Ron Bateman". He demands respect. Where a person begins a statement is important, often revealing priority. His priority is to remind people of his status. Im a Sheriff, i wouldn't do such a thing. His denial is so far in the closet it is in Narnia. Lol

Hey Jude said...

Fake hate is at least 'out there' - everyone knows who is claiming what about whom, whether the alleged perpetrator is identifiable, or not.
What though of the hurt and harm which can be caused by rumours, innuendo, half-truths, gossip - slander, and defamation of character, where the origin may be unknown, where something is not said face to face, where there is maybe only an idea of where it came from and no way to deal with it as nothing is said directly to the subject of innuendo? Beyond SA, maybe as there may not even be anything to analyse. As forms of untruth go, that has to be up there with the most insidious.

Paul Flanagan said...


Hi Peter!

I have followed your blog off and on for the last few years. I am very interested in human behavior, body language, statement analysis, and deception detection.

I have read all of Mark McClish's books and have taken his online course. I thought his books and his course were very accessible and informative.

While at this point, I'm not sure the extent of how much more I want to learn, I do want to learn more. Maybe not a graduate degree, but more than a 101 class. Would your home course be the next step?

Thank you!

-- Paul

Statement Analysis Blog said...


the Statement Analysis Course is quite a bit deeper than what you have been through, and what you have read here. It is a complete course, and it has homework, and a final test. A number of students have been through Mark's course which really caught their interest and wanted to learn depth.

Some found the inevitable errors showing up but still believe in the science and seek formal training, while others were just so thrilled with Mark's course that they desired to get into detail. Both do very well, with the former having their confidence in the science restored.

Generally, after a month of study, I ask those who posted on the blog to try to review their comments and conclusions. Some are embarrassed but most are excited to learn the progress they make due to the discipline of formal training. You are not on your own.

In fact, the deeper one goes, the more they 'dread lightly' and rely upon others for assistance.

Successful completion of the course does allow for entrance into monthly peer training. There they meet, only once per month, which is about all they can take! It is friendly, supportive, thrilling, and...

they must agree to confidentiality as they will work on live cases.

It is an awesome responsibility but the learning is on an entirely new level. Here, experts from law enforcement, business, psychology, medicine, security, human resources, and others all gather in support of each other and we learn.

We learn.

You can see details at


Statement Analysis Blog said...


Fake hate...

the only tricky element is the one who is only motivated by money.

It is rare, with most agenda driven with money and fame by-products. The money driven are not so passionate about the cause and sometimes will 'spread the hate around' by actually showing their contempt for those IN THEIR OWN GROUP, because they want to separate them from their bank books.

These are money driven and eventually bring the topic back.


rjb said...

I am a chronic over-explainer, and about even the most mundane, innocuous parts of life. "I have to go to the store because we are out of milk and bread." "I'm going to take a hot shower because my back hurts." "I'm running the dishwasher so we will have enough clean silverware at supper." I realised that I do this years ago and that it stems from my childhood, where every autonomous choice or action was scrutinised, questioned, and required justification. I hate that I still do it, but it is a difficult habit to break, particularly if I feel even slightly anxious or if there is a possibility that what I am doing may inconvenience someone else.

Anonymous said...

Quoting another random Anonymous:

...and it's horrifying that real victims are analyzed and doubted and questioned.

Maybe I've gone relentlessly bananas, but isn't the entire purpose of SA, and this blog, to ferret out truth, and to help teach us to discern real victims from fake hate and other dishonest agendas?

And Peter allows anonymous posting so participants can post sensitive situations without fear of personal accusations, but you are strongly encouraged to pick an impersonal screen name so we can tell which of the myriad anonymous posts belong to the same alias/writer.

As a rookie SA, the gut-punch of being wrong (I had deception indicated on yesterday's 3 Men/Lads And A Facebook from the inconsistencies) is quickly followed by relief I learned in a safe environment, not while sitting on a jury, or otherwise in a position to affect lives.

Although I'd still like to know how to handle when proven, habitual liars are actual victims - particularly, listening for expected/vs unexpected.

I guess I would be on guard, listening for that person to exaggerate and exploit his or her own victimization for optimum mileage -- talk about tripped up by cynicism!

Anonymous said...

rjb, I dealt with that growing up also, and tend to explain even the obvious details.
I think part is whay you wrote, the sense we'll still be questioned, even as well-respected adults.

But I think it also ingrains that instinct many adult survivors of child abuse have, to smooth over conflicts before the violence starts up, assure everyone that all is OK.

John Mc Gowan said...



Me too!

Anonymous said...

rjb again, what is winning overly-cynical me about SA is that the many elements are sensitivity indicators, guiding us where to go next - even those with a high percentage of accuracy, such as the liar's number of 3, aren't absolutes as we learned with yesterday's case.

Your history, and how it affects your thought process, will come out and be considered with your statement.

"Of course" is a blue flag as it indicates a need to persuade, but I frequently use it as, "this part is rhetorical; I'm not insulting your intelligence!"

"We're having soup for dinner; of course we need clean bowls and spoons, so I had to run the dishwasher before we could eat."

rjb said...

foodiefoodnerd --

Since becoming a reader at this blog, I have noticed that I use a lot of "need to persuade" language as well. I'm sure it comes from a subconscious need to make sure that the person I'm speaking to is on my side, that the situation is safe, and, as you said, the need to smooth over conflicts before everything goes sideways.

Anonymous said...

Hi, John McG: You're one of several I don't thank for your insight nearly often enough, because... :^D (can we use blue html in here?) it would reach the level of spam if I point out every one.

My Sew Imperfect Life said...

I too froze once during what I suppose was sexual assault. I was so shocked ( I had known this boy & had a crush on him since 5th grade, we were then sophomore s in a Catholic HS.) I felt it was my fault BC I 1) I kissed him at school even though I had a boyfriend in college which was awful & crappy of me 2) Let him in my house at night when he showed up out of the blue. By kissing him & letting him in I saw myself as responsible for giving him the wrong idea. He had some excuse that sounded reasonable at the time for waking me up. I was so freaking excited my long term crush actually wanted to hang out. He was a star football player & cool & i was not. I'm not sure how long it went on for before i snapped out of it. It was not from trauma as there is so much I can't remember from my youth not just this. I think I have Alzheimer's at 37. :-) It couldn't have been more than a few minutes, but it felt like forever. I was able to get him to stop by saying "Oh no, I hear my mom coming!" He ran. Even as an adult looking back & trying to have grace for myself I still see it as my fault. If it was my daughter I would call it assault & I would roast certain parts in a fire if anyone did anything to her w/out her consent. It just seems very grey in this situation. I remember my strongest feeling after was anger & shame, not sadness. To my knowledge I was not sexually abused as a child, but I was emotionally which also leads to problems w/healthy boundaries.

BTW abt the 3 attackers & cluster of blues. I have found myself stopping & not finishing my statements when I'm saying so or because. I regularly do it to justify things that don't need justification. For example, "I went grocery shopping because I needed to buy milk." I mentally flag my own because & so's and I have been trying to reduce them. Do people who have had abusive childhoods regularly show sensitivity without deception Peter?

My Sew Imperfect Life said...

Hmmmn, one more q peter. Is it only ongoing sexual abuse or can 1 incident change your response? I forgot about the 1st 2. One occurred at school in 1st grade & the other my freshmen yr w/the aforementioned boyfriend. That time I had an out of body experience & were both prior to the one my soph yr. All *three* times (seriously) I froze. Is that normal?

Hey Jude said...

Rjb - I also tend to over explain (sometimes to the point people must either think I think they are idiots, or that I am being patronising). I think, as Peter says, more or less, 'if I don't say this, he/she might think that' - it's an attempt to pre-empt misconceptions (or what I would consider as such) and maybe also, a need to be in control of my own narrative (it's never going to happen but I like to persist in the futile attempt,mwhilst knowing none of us can stop other people saying and thinking whatever they like). I am a bit paranoid at times. I think in my case, it is likely to stem in part from childhood fear of not being believed. There were a couple of incidents when I was accused of behaving dishonestly when I had not; in primary school, I was accused of not paying in all my lunch money - either my mother had not put enough in the envelope, or my sibling had raided and resealed it; or the secretary who collected it could not count. In high school, I was accused of copying homework, when it was my friend who had copied mine. I was not believed - by a headmaster, and years later, by a teacher; it leaves one feeling shocked, helpless and degraded, especially when it is someone you have looked up to and respected - something breaks when you try to defend yourself, but you are not allowed to 'answer back'. If I was in the wrong, which was not unheard of, I would own it (only if I was found out) and take the consequences, knowing justice was not at issue. It is quite something else to have an irate adult insist you have done something, when you have not. Schools should have someone trained in statement analysis, too - it might save some kids unnecessary trauma. With the homework incident, I think he knew it was the friend who copied from me, as I was brighter than her - it would not have taken more than a glance at each of our books to know who had copied whom - still it was a hard lesson. I probably over-explained all that. :)

Hey Jude said...

It was the headmaster who accused me, more or less, of stealing the lunch money - the teacher of copying my friend's homework. The way I wrote it might make it read like I was accused of copying twice. Just to over-explain a bit further. :)

Hey Jude said...

A couple of days ago I got 'I Know You Are Lying' by Mark McClish - I have only read a few pages so far, as I am busy painting the pictures I hoped to be able to get round to this year - so far, sixteen on canvas (small canvases) plus a few on paper. I already read Peter's book, 'Wise as a Serpent, Gentle s a Dove'. I wonder, when will be available the others you are writing, Peter?

If Andrew is around, I have also, finally, read the Francis Paget essay on Accide, but not the rest of the book - I was too consumed by accide to continue. ;) Not really, sometime I will like to read the rest. No Kindle edition, it was a quite a novelty to have to wait for a real book to arrive. - it took ages, so it missed Lent, but it still arrive weeks earlier than they predicted - good old Amazon. (Excepting the zero hour contracts and stuff, if they still have those.)

John Mc Gowan said...


Thank you for your kind words.

Anonymous said...


Per Peter:
"When an inanimate object is reported to by "lying, standing, sitting" etc, the passive language suggests that the subject placed it there."

Can this "laying/lying" principle be applied to a dead/unconscious victim?

Example 1:

Darlie Routier 911 call (convicted for murder of son):
00:51:15 Darlie Routier ...(unintelligible) are they still laying there (unintelligible)...

Example 2:

Davey Blackburn 4/14/2016 blog description of finding Amanda on November 10, 2015 (possible staging of body):
"My home had been broken into and Amanda was lying on the floor unconscious with 3 gunshot wounds – one to the head."

snap said...

Davey, I am in Israel, Blackburn

Matt Whan said...


An "update" about new information that could potentially get Steven Avery released. It is based upon technology in being able to triangulate Theresa's whereabouts by using the closest cell towers.

“We have to have new evidence that could not have been obtained before that would result in no juror believing that Steven Avery committed the crime,” Zellner told Newsweek during an in-depth interview. “So that’s the standard. It’s kind of a high hurdle to jump, but we can jump it with the new technology. With someone who’s innocent, you can definitely jump that hurdle.”

At no point did she state that he client did not do it. At no point did she say, especially in the opening sentence where it would have been appropriate "Steven Avery did not kill Theresa".

I figured I would post this here for you to view, Peter.

Vicki said...

Just because they can triangulate her phone does not mean she is with her phone. So that "new evidence" means absolutely nothing.

Lisa21222 said...

OFF TOPIC: Peter, please address this...

I live in Baltimore, where we had a series of protests and riots a year ago in the wake of the death of a man named Freddie Gray. This has resulted in a very heated Mayoral race, as people from all demographics vie for an opportunity to show that they can fix the problems.
In the midst of all of this is a candidate who previously served as mayor. She was ousted several years ago when it came to light that (among other things) she had taken a large number of gift cards intended to help the needy at Christmastime, and kept them for herself. She now refers to this as a "mistake" and a "lapse in judgement."

Do you believe that someone who would steal from needy constituents is going to be a reliable mayor if given another chance? Or is someone who stoops to this aggregious behavior simply not to be trusted? I have a hard time believing that she had an impeccable moral character with a single (very public) "exception".

What are your thoughts?

"Sheila Ann Dixon (born December 27, 1953) served as the forty-eighth mayor of Baltimore, Maryland. When the former mayor, Martin O'Malley, was sworn in as governor on January 17, 2007, Dixon, the president of the Baltimore City Council, served out the remaining year of his term. In November 2007, she was elected mayor. She was the first African-American female to serve as president of the City council, Baltimore's first female mayor, and Baltimore's third black mayor.

On January 9, 2009, Dixon was indicted on twelve felony and misdemeanor counts, including perjury, theft, and misconduct. The charges stem partly from incidents in which she allegedly misappropriated gift cards intended for the poor. On December 1, 2009, the jury returned a "guilty" verdict on one misdemeanor count of fraudulent misappropriation and Dixon received probation provided she resign as mayor as part of a plea agreement, effective February 4, 2010.

By December 2012, Dixon had completed all of the terms of her probation. The case closed by the end of 2012.[2] In March 2013, Dixon was said to be considering a return to Baltimore politics. On July 1, 2015, she announced a plan to run again for mayor of Baltimore City."

Anonymous said...

If he did not consider her "inanimate" (he said she was unconscious, not dead) she could lie on the ground and it would be accurate, I think. I can not think of a more appropriate term. I have tried to substitute other things and only a description of her position would be a suitable alternative (she was "curled up on the floor" or "she was spread eagle on the floor").

Bobcat said...

Anon @ 10:34

An alternative could be:
... Amanda was on the floor, injured and bleeding from her head ...

DB's inclusion of "laying" could be useful for SA.
Your examples of "spread eagle" and "curled up" could also be useful for SA.

I would love to hear Peter's thoughts on this.

rjb said...

@ Sew --

It is understood that the fight or flight instinct actually has three components: fight, flight, or freeze. Everyone has a natural tendency towards one of those in high stress situations, whatever that situation may be. Our tendencies towards one over the others is a function of neutral pathways and brain chemistry.

rjb said...