Tuesday, August 23, 2016

Quiz: "In My Heart, I Know I Didn't Shoot Him"

                                 
                                     Here is a short quiz. 

Murder for Hire. 
Suspects:  Wife of victim, 2 male friends. 

Statement by one of the male friends: 

"In my heart, I know I didn't shoot him." 

We have covered the qualifying "in my heart" repeatedly due to its popularity in deception, but here is an additional lesson regarding such. 

"In my heart, I know I didn't shoot him"  

Question:  Did the subject shoot him?

The Answer will be below, after the lesson.  

I posed this question to a number of people, ranging from  blog readers to well trained analysts.  

Readers, including some who have had introductory courses said, "Yes" saying "it is only in his heart that he knows this, but what about his head?"

The "heart versus head" is a relevant issue for analysis today, in a neo-gnosticism where the "inner person", "inner child", "true self" and other such statements often indicate deception.  With the acute declination of American education today, the elevation of emotion over logic, as well as science and truth, is an expected outcome.  This couples with the cultural acceptance of deception for  wide usage.   

Several cited the Ryan Braun statement as the basis.  Braun tested positive for exogenous testosterone.  This statement is not only useful for training but it gives us insight that some may have missed.  Here, Ryan Braun "Denied PED Use" according to headlines. It is easy to spot the deception, but is there more information that can be gleaned?

Our words reveal us. 

Specifically, our words reveal our priority, or priorities, our background, our experiences, and even our personalty, which includes personality types and mental health issues.   With personality type, we may not only strategize our interview, but look for linguistic patterns reflecting the type.  


If I had done this intentionally or unintentionally, I’d be the first one to step up and say I did it. I truly believe in my heart and I would bet my life, that this substance never entered my body at any point."

Let's analyze Braun's statement and then answer our question, "Did he shoot the victim?"



Ryan Braun:

1.  "If I had done this

allows for the possibility that he did, in fact, inject himself with testosterone.  Testosterone is an oily substance that requires a large needle with most athletes injecting in their hind quarters, with some degree of pain, and sometimes the after-effect of swelling and infection.  It is, in fact, a 'memorable' event.  By simply allowing for it, the reader is already on alert for deception.  

1a. If I had done this intentionally or unintentionally

Yet, he not only allowed for it as possible, he even gave details on this possibility, taking it one step further:  "intentionally or unintentionally", with "intentional" coming first in order, which speaks to priority.  

1b.  "this" is a word that indicates closeness or proximity.  The word "that" would distance himself from the large injection.  The reader/analyst should now be considering if the subject has a psychological 'closeness' to testosterone; that is, more than just physical closeness which the word "this" indicates.  This is now something the reader/analyst is 'on alert' for, as he seeks to understand content of the statement.  

2.  "I’d be the first one to step up and say I did it"

He portrays his character as one who would (future conditional appropriate) take responsibility.  

What's wrong with this?

It is unnecessary in a denial, therefore, it is important.  
It is a portrayal of his character in a positive light.  

Consider the following examples in open statements where no question was asked:  

a.  "I am a great mother" 
b.  "I told my kids 'I love you' and went to bed..."
c.  "I said, 'Ok, Dear, have a good night'..."

a.  This statement is statistically related to child abuse or neglect. This may be via the state, in a formal investigation, in court, or something heard by the subject from close relatives or friends. 

b.  This statement is indicative of a problematic relationship with the children, often related to bonding or distancing issues.  
c.  This statement is indicative of a negative relationship the subject has with his wife, often found in domestic violence and in domestic homicide cases. 

              What do all three have in common?

They all have a "Need to Persuade" rather than report, that the subject (self) should be viewed in a positive light.  This need (NTP) itself, should cause the investigator to follow this line both in the statement and in the interview process.  

3.  I truly believe in my heart and I would bet my life,

Here is the clearest portion of the statement to conclude "deception indicated."  What does he do?

He qualifies his denial (there is no actual denial here) four (4) times.  

Remember the humorous "I am happily married" statement?

a.  "I am happily married" is strong and likely reliable. 

b.  "I am very happily married" is still strong and reliable, but sensitive.  It means there is more information to this.  It likely speaks to a reference point that the subject has not revealed.  For example, the subject is more happily married than he expected to be, or that he was previously unhappy.  A simple follow up question would likely reveal why the need for the word "very" was brought in.  

c.  "I am very very happily married" now shows an additional level of sensitivity and will begin a "50/50" split of sorts, with some wondering if he really is all that happy, while others think that his reference point must be extreme.  It could go either way depending upon context. If this was found in a denial, it would be "very weak."  

d.  "I am very very very very happily married" is the extreme need to persuade of someone headed for a divorce.  This is akin to what Ryan Braun says, but actually his is even weaker because: 

Context.

With a large sharp needle, and a thick oily substance that must be injected both deeply and slowly, even the word "believe", itself, is not credible within the context.  To "believe" allows for him or others to "believe" differently.  

His "belief" is "truly" and it is only "truly" when it is in his "heart" (not his head, or intellect) and to give further persuasion of this true belief that is limited to his heart, he does not "bet" his life, but he "would" bet his life.  The future conditional tense is appropriate because he is deceptive:  it is consistently used.  

4.  "That this substance never entered my body at any point."

The use of the word "point" brings more than a few chuckles in seminars but the point should not be missed:  it is consistent with the word "this" and indicates that Ryan Braun is not simply deceptive, but he is, at the making of this statement actively engaging experiential memory while he is lying. 

This is critical for us.  

In a seminar years ago with state investigators,  Heather, who rarely speaks out,  could not resist here.  As I was teaching this on an overhead projector she said,

"It sounds like a romance novel."

The class erupted in laughter and she turned red with embarrassment.  

The point (sorry) should not be missed.  

I have repeated, purposely, the general description of a testosterone injection purposely to give a visible imagery to the reader to grasp: not only is this something memorable (even if you relate it to a tetanus shot or something you experienced), consider the words that this injection produced with Braun's language:

"my heart"
"truly"
"believe" 
"my life"

and the word "this" in the light of not only proximity, but psychological closeness.  

The reader/analyst, moving towards profiling, not only sees the narcissistic tendency of self promotion of one who 'has the courage to take personal responsibility ' that he portrayed falsely (indication of narcissism in elevation of self) but his 'romantic' or simply "strongly positive" language should suggest to you, with the word "this", that Ryan Braun has a strong opinion about the efficacy of testosterone.  

He may be revealing here that he has been well pleased with the results of exogenous testosterone injections in his life and career.  

If you read the statements of professional athletes, including those who post at Derek Jeter's website, with the lens of statement analysis you may not only see the deception within their denials, but you may see that they have used many times more than even accused. 

It is very difficult to lie.  

II.  The Shooting  Quiz

scroll down for the answer to today's quiz:







































"In my heart, I know I didn't shoot him" has two points of weakness in which the analyst must use caution:

1.  "In my heart"
2.  "I know

The analyst's conclusion for this denial must be:

"Unreliable Denial."

From this statement, this is the only conclusion one can make.  To conclude "deception indicated" is beyond the scope of the statement and in this case, it would be incorrect.  This is why formal training that moves beyond the introductory phase is crucial to investigators and analysts.  Complete training is necessary.  

What does this mean?

It means that his denial is not statistically reliable for us.  

If you did not shoot someone, you are not going to say "I know I did not shoot him" because "I know" now sets up an imbalance of debate:  you are allowing someone to "know" differently and are taking a challenge on that should be unnecessary.  

Unreliable means just this:  it is not reliable for us.  

It does not mean he shot the victim.  

When you take "I know" as a weakness and combine it with a second weakness ("in my heart") you have an important formula to follow:

Weakness plus weakness is made even more sensitive by the element of "unnecessary" words.  

It is not just two qualifiers, but we must consider that as unnecessary to say, it took more effort to make this statement. 

Think:  Law of Economy.  

The brain told the tongue what words to use in less than a micro second in time. Instead of saying

"I didn't shoot him", the subject's brain signaled that in reality that must be expressed there is more to the story than just the subject not shooting the victim.

There is also some 'emotional' connection, however, with "in my heart."  This must be explored and may be the sexual link with the victim's wife.  

There is more reality, therefore, the requirement is that more words are needed to give a verbal perception of reality; not reality itself.  

This is vital. 

This is why we must stay to principle.  

We must never "see more" than is in the statement.  This will have hit or miss success, which for us, is no success at all. 

The subject's sensitivity must be discerned.

The subject was not the shooter. 

The subject, however, had guilty knowledge of the murder for hire and knows exactly who the shooter is.  

A bit off topic, but for advanced analysis is to:

Consider the 'romantic' sounding language similar to Ryan Braun and wonder if this suspect has romantic feelings about the victim's wife...think:  "emotional connection" to the denial!  

Back to tethering ourselves to principle and not equating "unreliable" with absolute "deception indicated":

This is why we conclude "unreliable" and not necessarily "deception:  he is the shooter" as is done in oversimplification and although it may be correct in some statements, it would be incorrect here and is why the over-simplified presentation of Statement Analysis will let you down.  

Yet in diligent work, the reliable detecting of deception yields great reward.  


55 comments:

Castlescrumbling said...

In my heart I know these band-aids won't fix my thumbs. Goodnight.

John mcgowan said...

Hi, Peter

this is an OT from a previous thread Posted courtesy of, Rhonda. Iv'e done a partial transcript.

Videos: Anatomy Of A Bad Confession

In 2008, two Worcester detectives spent two hours interrogating 16-year-old Nga Truong, whose baby son had just died, until they forced from her what was later judged a coerced confession of murder. We’ve obtained exclusive video of the confession.

Here are five excerpts from the interrogation:

She didn't have a Lawyer present with her.

In excerpt three @ 1:10 she says "i didn't kill (her voice peters out) but it does sound like she says "him. Possible RD

Then @ 1:19 the detective says "what"?

She replys (raises her voice) "i didn't kill..the detective doesn't let her finish what she is saying and talks over her. She may have issued another "RD" if it wasn't for the detective talking over her.

In excerpt 4 @ 1:45 she says "What do i have to say"?

The detective answers but it is inaudible.

There is then 26 seconds of silence and she says what sounds like "do i just admit it"?... the rest is in audible.

The detective then says "you don't have to go into great detail but what did you do"?

After 45 seconds of silence and sobbing she says "'I killed my son"..."i smothered..(inaudible)

The detective says "you smothered Khyle"?

There is 18 seconds of silence and more sobbing. The detective then says "can i ask you one more question......Do you know why you would do that"?

8 seconds later she reply's "no"

The detective then asks "briefly just tell me after your mother asked you to change..(inaudible).

Her reply is inaudible.

Detective: "What did you smother him with?"

Her reply "one of the bears"

Detective: "one of the bears. Do you remember what colour"?

Her reply: Inaudible.

.......

There is then a sit down interview with a journalist, albeit edited.

Snipped:

@ 36 seconds she says " feel like the only way to leave was to tell them what they wanted to hear. So i just told them that i did it. I will never ever in a million years hurt my own child" I thought they was going to let me go. I didn't know they gunna put handcuffs on me or put me in jail".

there are also two interviews with David Boeri about the "interrogation Techniques" used by the Police.

In clip 2 David Boeri says "the first technique they use on her is to make false statements. So they tell her the medical evidence and the medical examiner has told them, that she smothered the baby, the baby was smothered. There is no such evidence at that time. The medical examiner has ruled that the cause of death is undetermined. Nobody had told the Police that that baby had suffocated or been smothered. So they start with a false statement".

Her more below:

http://legacy.wbur.org/2011/12/07/coerced-confession-videos

Rhonda said...

John, Thank you, you did a great job!

Shannon Duane said...

Peter, there's another "racist" letter out there. Amazing how it says it was written by a man "my wife and I..." But it's beyond clear that a woman wrote it.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/08/biracial-kansas-family-hit-with-racist-letter-this-neighborhood-does-not-need-any-blacks/

What do you think?



John mcgowan said...

13 times, approx, within the (whole) interrogation she says "I didn't do it, please please believe me" but they cut her off, cut her off " according to David Boeri. They continued to reject her denials.

I strongly recommend watching his interview. The second one.

http://legacy.wbur.org/2011/12/07/coerced-confession-videos

afv said...

Peter or others, has anyone ever used, "I know in my heart and mind," with you as a phrase? Is this considered extremely unreliable? I had someone say this to me in response to my allegations that they had mistreated me (which they had). It seemed extremely suspect to me at the time even though I had not read anything about statement analysis and very little about deception.

Also, what are your thoughts when people say, "my truth." As in, well, that's "my truth" and you can have "your truth." I find this so frustrating when people try to apply this to situations with hard facts.

Shannon Duane said...

I'm not talking analysis here, but I think it's a ridiculous phrase. In your heart you know? Ummmm....you should just KNOW. What do you have? Memory loss? Were you sleep walking? Come on. You should know whether you stabbed someone, or robbed a bank, or shook the baby, or whatever. The only time your heart would know something is if you were mentally incapacitated (like sleep walking).

Rhonda said...

I have deemed her language reliable. Her frustration that she is not being believed is palpable also...it appears genuine. The WPD got what they deserved, a huge lawsuit...karma!...as they exploited her poverty and neglect she and her siblings were experiencing. Well, she's not poor anymore! They lied to her, bullied her, and cut her denials off because they would accept nothing less than her confessing. The WPD then tried to bully her LAWYER with a lawsuit which was promptly thrown out by a judge.
It is nauseating watching these 2 detectives lie about medical evidence also. In addition, Her baby was NOT perfectly healthy either--he was suffering from a respiratory illness at the time, and there are respiratory illnesses that can turn dangerous and kill a baby very quickly...of course the WPD had no problem feigning medical expertise while lying to this young girl. The WPD is now 2 million dollars poorer and that is EXACTLY what they deserve!

Rhonda said...

afv, Is it possible you can be more specific at all about the nature of the mistreatment bc it is difficult to interpret a response when one has no context of any kind
Im not sure what to make of the response "in my heart and in my mind"....I have used the phrase once "in my heart I feel blah blah blah", but looking back, I feel it is a phrase meant to indicate conviction when in reality it indicates confusion. "In my heart and mind"....I need SOME context to understand this.
"My truth" is a New Age expression of which I am not fond. It can be used for manipulation, such as when someone is actually lying about the truth. Or, it could be used by a very flaky person who is telling the truth, however, I would wonder if they are generally a truthful person. The truth just IS...it is not dependant on who is claiming it at the time ie. "my truth", but again, knowing some context of what you are talking about would be helpful.

tania cadogan said...

Hi Afz,
There is MY truth, YOUR truth and, somewhere in the middle is THE truth

Curiouser N Curiouser said...

OT -- anyone else suspect of leslie jones' claims of racial discrimination/harassment? There is a pattern of complaints and attention seeking. I am a total novice to s/a but i have been a human being for 40 years and something feels off!

afv said...

@Rhonda

Thanks for your response.

There were a number of issues I had with this person, but the main issues were her persistent, willful lies and her talking badly about me behind my back, while telling me to my face that everything was great between us (I didn't find out about the backbiting for a long time). When I confronted her on these issues, she said, "I know in my heart and mind that I have treated you well" (I can't remember the exact wording for "treated well", but that was the meaning).

An example of the "my truth" thing was when a woman flat out denied saying something she had said to me. I mentioned it to a third party (who was involved in the situation) and she said, well she can have "her truth" and you can have "your truth."

Rhonda said...

atv, you wrote "(I can't remember the exact wording for "treated well", but that was the meaning).
According to SA, this sentence of yours is sensitive...it seems you dont want to share what the person was lying about/in what way they did not "treat you well".
It is also odd that you say the individual was "telling you to your face everything was great between us". Normally in a relationship, people do not say to the other "everything is great between us". With all due respect, it sounds like it was a very flawed relationship, and you must have been aware of that. You say the person was talking badly behind your back but you dont say that whatever the person was saying about you was false. It is difficult to do SA through this foggy lense you are presenting, but it doesnt seem you are being straightforward in your rendition of what occurred. Im sorry but you would need to be honest yourself if you wish to have someoe's words weighed for honesty.

afv said...

@Rhonda

I don't want to share the specifics of the situation, because I don't want to be identifiable. I was trying to keep things as vague as possible in order to anonymize myself and the parties involved.

In terms of the "everything is great" bit, that was her response to my asking if everything was okay in the relationship (I had sensed something was off).

afv said...

@anonymous

I'm not a man and this wasn't a romantic relationship.

I don't feel comfortable giving specifics of the conversations that might identify me and other parties on an open blog. In trying to keep things anonymous, I have made my statements sensitive. Initially, I posted because I was curious about the phrase "I know in my heart and mind" and then tried to give more context when Rhonda asked for it while still keeping things anonymized.

Anonymous said...

At 9:52

Would appear = uncertainty.
Very limited= certainty
Quite vaucuos = certainty
Very nature = certainty

Imagrandma said...

If we want to explore things psychoanalyticallly, we should ask why you want a woman who can injure a watermelon I am learning a lot about reality testing from this quiz I need to finish I am also feeling better after the shock treatment thoughts ar3e clearerr regarding self and others and in gener al

Jean d'Arc

Anonymous said...

Be back later quiz is hard but fun

Jean

Anonymous said...

No golf party for Pence. Indiana hit hard by tornados. Pence in town.

Anonymous said...

Them All-uh Awk-bra stabbings are sickening. Everyday now some demented Mslm male attacks someone.

Anonymous said...

Why would anyone watch tv?

Anonymous said...

I dont know, maybe they like it. I cant watch TV--it gives me anxiety attacks within 10-15 minutes regardless of content of the show--I never watch TV bc of this.. I also cant go on facebook anymore for long--average of 60 seconds before anxiety attack will happen--I can scroll down like 4 or 5 "sharings" and then I will get off bc of anxiety attack. I googled these symptoms for more information on why this is happening but there's no information about it.

Anonymous said...

Try painting. Who needs tv or fb?

Anonymous said...

Yeah I should try painting. Around Christmas it would help if I went to the craft/fabric store and I would buy material and things and make all kinds of decorations (larger projects like door dressings with ribbons, material, ornaments all woven together) between 10pm-1 am. You're right I need to be making things, or writing. That helps! Off to bed, have a pleasant and truth-filled evening!

Anonymous said...

What was the decision making criteria for france burkini ban? Seems to have no security purpose.

Peter Hyatt said...

nonymous said...
What was the decision making criteria for france burkini ban? Seems to have no security purpose.
August 25, 2016 at 11:01 AM

The hygiene issue was severe, but this was in pools. Mohammad's writings show the linguistic connection to sexual issues, including toiletry.

This is a barbaric ideology and I think the ban is more of a show than anything else. AK 47s are not hidden in this costume. They are right to fear Islam, as any rational person does, but this does not stop the violence. It may, however, help tourism, and it may awaken those who think Islam is just another 'religion.'

Trigger said...

I won't be taking a vacation in France, Germany, or anywhere that terrorists have targeted public places recently for the mass killing of peaceful citizens until I know that I am safe from these attacks.

Anonymous said...

It makes the European male authorities look weak. Actually pitiful. They're focus is a beach ban. Probablyly for tourism as you said. The assaults are occuring by men in public spaces during the day. Thats brave however despicable. Has there yet been any strong action by the European authorities? No. Beach ban only makes them look more petty and weak. Where are the French men in authority? The Corsican men warned publicly that they will respond forcefully to attack. Frauke
Petry & Marine are more of a strength to germany & france than some europoean male leaders. Viktor Orban stands and clearly states his determination to prevent entry.

foodiefoodnerd said...

Does anyone actually still think the pathetic a-hole posting as unlinked Imagrandma is the real, linked ima.grandma??

Please tell me that at least the SA guru veterans (tania, John McG, etc.) can discern the entirely different writing styles and personalities of an especially lame troll and a known, thoughtfully contributing, regular poster?!

Come on -- "thumbz" broken; pills spilled in toilet; sudden, total loss of lucidity after one missed dose of supposed lithium; rush to ER; women who crush watermelons?

At least please stop feeding the pathetic coward TROLL picking on a sick old woman, if you aren't going to delete the sorry a-hole loser!

Anonymous said...

Foodie, I think it was the real imagrandma who posted last night; it appeared she was summoning all her remaining strength to help the male poster who stated he loves hulkishly muscular women who can crush watermelons with their bare hands. Imagrandma took time out from her own difficulties to help this male poster look into his very own psyche in regards to the muscle women. Id say that showed a lot of caring and strength from imagrandma.

foodiefoodnerd said...

Yeah, electroshock therapy is routinely used for outpatient treatment of single missed medication doses; it just doesn't cure broken "thumbz" this quickly, and people aren't usually walking around freely that evening.

Nice try, though.

Julie said...

Anon, I agree. It is impressive how Imagrandma was able to help such a troubled man during this bout she is going through. Im no psychiatrist but Imagrandma showed just how sharp she is while she is struggling in such a noble way.

Julie said...

Foodie, I dont think you read imagrandma's posts carefully enough or you would understand what exactly happened with imagrandma during her sudden downward spiral. Some of the information was written in French during some identity issues she was having, so if you cant read French you would have difficulty following along with the difficult medical and psychiatric journey imagrandma has been on this past week.

Anonymous said...

Foodie, no that's not the real imagrandma. I know who it is, though. I bet I'm not the only one :)

Anonymous said...

Vicious. Immature. Petty. Leaking language?

A Whole
Pathetic
Coward
Sick

Very revealing perhaps....very

Steph said...

Dear anon @ 1:53 pm,
I don't usually speak up but I really can't stand silently by as your smear the herculean (I hope using that word doesnt help "enable" the troubled lover of muscular woman) effort it must have taken imagrandma to rise above the labyrinth of her dissaciative fugue state (how confusing!) to shine her flashflight of pure wisdom into the dark troubled psyche of the troubled poster.

ima.grandma said...

I post on this site via google blogger. All others are false. Thank you for recognizing the imposter trolll, foodie.

Deb said...

Now Im not sure who the "real" imagrandma is but I was amazed at the way in which "imagrandma" ministered to the troubled poster the other night using gentle yet effective messages to help soothe him when he was leaking language all over the place! I wonder if imagrandma realizes her own potential in the field of psychiatry.

Anonymous said...

Gold magnet.

Bored bickering women.

Anonymous said...

Some commenter here has made this really nice blog his/her "play ground" which is a shame. I love being able to post here anonymously, and now I'm afraid that will be changed. I joined here a year or two ago, and I appreciate this free forum (not many left anymore) where I can post anonymously, so I try to always do so honestly and responsibly. I am confident Peter or his admin staff actually KNOW who is posting (have our URL or whatever). If you think/believe you are posting truly anonymously, I really doubt it; they KNOW who you are! Especially given that this is a website that looks at crime-related statements and anyone can post. You're a fool if you post here irresponsibly, thinking the website's admin don't know who you are!! Ha ha!

Anonymous said...

Bored, angry and irritable. Another tirade of accusation, name calling and fear. 'Confident they know'! Please retreat to your safe space. Maybe the others will put their chalk away before you get too irritated and angry.

Anonymous said...

Mean bitter old ladies railing and lambasting commenters about commas and capital letters. In a crime analysis blog.

Anonymous said...

Published on Aug 25, 2016

Germany told, Czechs told " Stock pile" by their govt

https://youtu.be/DWZX_WRztOI

https://undergroundworldnews.com

The German government has on Wednesday for the first time since the Cold War to approve the concept of civil defense. Under it apparently prompts residents to create a home inventory of food and water in case of attack or other disaster. According to the concept should be able to withstand residents of Germany with their own food supplies to ten days with water at least five days. German opposition criticized the proposal. The government is not wrong to create an atmosphere of fear. Cabinet should approve the concept of civil defense in the middle.

Czech Republic last supplies of food a little over a day

The problem of food supply is struggling and Czech. State Material Reserves Administration in its concept seeks to increase the self-sufficiency of the country for at least two days. Emergency stocks however there lasted only a little over a day. Warehouses are increasingly unable to meet. The aim is for example have three thousand tons of milk powder. To milk the last tender was signed only two candidates in the second part of the tender for skimmed milk nobody came forward.

Anonymous said...

Attack response and chosen words.

In response to terrorist attacks the word 'cowardly' has been used. The mis use of this word mis characterizes the danger that exists among citizens. The proper words are 'evil', 'despicable', but not 'cowardly'. Citizens must realize the attackers are a determined, fearless and brave enemy. It isnt cowardice. Saying it is cowardice is very misleading. Minimizing the danger and threat. No one is worried about a coward therefore not vigilant. The mis use of one word mis characterizes the entire narrative.

Nic said...

Peter said:
The subject, however, had guilty knowledge of the murder for hire and knows exactly who the shooter is.


I really enjoyed reading your analysis, Peter. A lot of your posts are about lie detection, there haven't been many "grey" cases presented, so in my opinion, this is a gem.

Segue: The Kingston Penitentiary (Kingston, Ontario, Canada) was closed in 2013; but Kingston opened it for tours this summer. We visited it last week and I have to say it was an *amazing* learning experience. We informed the kids as we parked the car that this would be the only time we would be visiting a prison. (Big laugh, but serious shot over the bow.) Being a parent, I hope to God my kids don't get involved in any activity that requires SA and I hope to God if they do, the analyst reading their statements works from presumption of innocence and a lot of grey.

""In my heart, I know I didn't shoot him."

If [they] had said this to me, the first question I would have asked them would have been "Then who do you think shot him?" because it sounds like [they] are placing themselves in the moment. i.e., if [they're] not there, then "of course" they did not shoot him.

Nic said...

Rhonda said:
"My truth" is a New Age expression of which I am not fond. It can be used for manipulation, such as when someone is actually lying about the truth. Or, it could be used by a very flaky person who is telling the truth, however, I would wonder if they are generally a truthful person. The truth just IS...it is not dependant on who is claiming it at the time ie. "my truth", but again, knowing some context of what you are talking about would be helpful.
_______________

I agree!

Nic said...

afv said:
An example of the "my truth" thing was when a woman flat out denied saying something she had said to me. I mentioned it to a third party (who was involved in the situation) and she said, well she can have "her truth" and you can have "your truth."


My impression: The third party doesn't want to get involved.

If it were me, I wouldn't confide in the third party. If there is a definitive right/wrong and she chooses to sit on the fence, then there are one of three things in play: 1) she has a loyalty to the first person, 2) she is weak and needy (any kind of friendship will do), or 3) she is an opportunist who will not burn a bridge if [it] has some sort of payoff.

Regardless, tread lightly and keep things impersonal.

jmo

Anonymous said...

Nic, What wonderful insights in regards to afv's question

An example of the "my truth" thing was when a woman flat out denied saying something she had said to me. I mentioned it to a third party (who was involved in the situation) and she said, well she can have "her truth" and you can have "your truth."

Gosh, I wonder what it was the woman said to afv that she later denied to a 3rd party having said.

The whole thing sounds like a load of bull.
Geez, what could she have said that she later denied having said?

The whole thing just sounds so intriguing. Afv would you care to share more context?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Or as Davey Blackburn so righteously says, as he takes s few minutes out of his ongoing post-Amanda party life to reflect on the blessing ....

"Everything God gives us is everything we would have asked for if we knew everything he knows. "


Anonymous said...

I just happened to read Nic's post in reference to Afv's question:


afv said:
An example of the "my truth" thing was when a woman flat out denied saying something she had said to me. I mentioned it to a third party(who was involved in the situation) and she said, well she can have "her truth" and you can have "your truth."

My impression: The third party doesn't want to get involved.

If it were me, I wouldn't confide in the third party. If there is a definitive right/wrong and she chooses to sit on the fence, then there are one of three things in play: 1) she has a loyalty to the first person, 2) she is weak and needy (any kind of friendship will do), or 3) she is an opportunist who will not burn a bridge if [it] has some sort of payoff.

Regardless, tread lightly and keep things impersonal.

jmo


In looking at the first section--Atf's dilemna itself, I notice sensitivity surrounding who "the woman" in question actually made the denial too. Afv does not say the woman made the denial to Afv regarding what she allegedly told Afv. In fact SA of AFV's statement suggests the woman allegedly made the denial to the "third party" who Afv says in parantheses was "involved in the situation", which is also an area of sensitivity. SA of this question would suggest that the woman allegedly made this denial to the 3 rd party who actually, according to SA, was NOT involved in the situation. Which leads me to wonder, particularly when one factors in the sensitivity surrounding the word "truth" as used by the 3rd party who said "she can have her truth and you can have your truth", whether the 3rd party flat-out lied to afv about what the woman allegedly denied having said to Afv.

Anonymous said...

This is interesting to me re: Afv's question bc it is so vague. Yet, it is clear Afv must have some kind of investment in what the 3rd party says or thinks about her interactions with a woman. Afv almost seems to be troubled over the 3rd party's opinion about truth. Theres a lot of sensitivity. Atv, Im wondering why you would be consulting this 3rd party about what a different person "said to you and then flat-out denied having said to you". ..Im wondering why the 3rd party would have any knowledge or insight into the matter? Is it possible the 3rd party could be deceptive?

Anonymous said...

Anyway, to summarize, if YOU know what the woman said to you and YOU know she then flat-out denied saying it (whatever it was) then YOU know the truth. It seems unhealthy and somewhat odd that you're looking to a 3rd party to tell you what the truth is. Of course, the question is vague, but it just seems odd that if you yourself know the truth, why would you need a 3rd party to confirm it. Now, there was some sensitivity in the question about whether the distressing information was actually coming from the 3rd party (in regards to the woman allegedly denying whatever she had said to you), in which case, I would be very wary of whether the 3rd party herself is being honest. Again, the question was vague, but I hope Ive helped. I know I dont generally rely on a 3rd party to tell me what the truth is in regards to what another person did or said to me. In fact, I dont, ever.

Nic said...



IMO, it depends. If two people are having a disagreement and a third party is "party" to first-hand knowledge of events/discussion and they refuse to state "the truth" to appease the both of them, then it can be frustrating for one side and a "coup" for the "liar". Note quotations (weakness b/c I do not know the details).

Looking at it from a liar's perspective, they have not lied. They have reported what they "believe" to be the "truth".

Personally, I would disassociate myself from the both of them. There is not value in "managing" that sort of drama and/or negative fallout. Plug my MP3 player into my ears and go for a walk at lunch is what I would do.

jmo

ima.grandma said...

Foodie, no that's not the real imagrandma.

It's okay. I've been wondering who the real ima grandma is too. I know she's a survivor. I'm still working on the rest. My stroke on top of a break in reality, well, it's been tough but I've found myself to be a bit tougher. Everything's going to be okay. Thanks for the understanding and compassionate words.