Statement Analysis is a powerful means of detecting deception within a statement.
It is also done in a way that if in error, the error itself can be traced and remedied.
Becoming an expert in detecting deception is hard work, but like math or science skills, dedication to learning can produce expert status in it with formal instruction, proofing, correction, encouragement, and lots of practice. It is not magic, nor some astronomically odds "gift" claimed. It is a systematic system that with proper concerted training, can reach a level of proficiency in 2 years. The exciting element, however, is that early success, in the first month, is often realized.
It is about getting to the truth, but in the process, should an error produce an erroneous result, like math, it is to be corrected.
18 x 4 - 12 + 9 x 2 =
When the answer is incorrect, one can recheck the work and learn where the error existed.
If the numbers were poorly written and one learned that "18" was really "16", it would not be an error in the math, but the "statement" or sample, would be "contaminated."
This happens in analysis.
"I went to the hallway to look for the body..." was a statement that indicated contamination. There was no basis for the person to tell us why he went into the hallway unless he had been previously asked why. Even though an investigator stated that the subject was not interviewed (asked) before the written statement, there was nothing in the overall context that matched this extreme sensitivity and I refused the statement, insisting it was contaminated by a prior interview. The subject's guilty knowledge of the location of the murder victim was incongruent with the analysis. In other words, it did not fit.
My second assertion of contamination was then affirmed. The innocent subject was questioned heavily, at the site, rather than properly instructed to write out a statement first. In Advanced Analysis, we do study signals of possible contamination, and it remains something that can completely change a conclusion.
In some schools of thought, 70% and above accuracy is considered acceptable. In fact, with 50% accuracy equals guess work, the increase to 70% is a good result, dependent, of course, upon the need. Since statement analysis or any form of deception detection cannot convict anyone of anything, having a tool with 70% accuracy, when coupled with the overall facts of a case, will be a significant assistance in solving a case.
But there is so much more to be gained from the significant increase in accuracy.
With deception detection specifically using statement analysis, or even another step, using statement analysis but then comparing the results to hand writing analysis, the strength continues. Practically, this means great time savings on the part of the investigator is realized.
But what if the deception detection technique runs consistently at or near 100% accuracy? When combined with other skills and taken with the overall evidence gathered, the investigation is powerfully accurate. With this, an investigator can go into an investigation knowing who did it, when he did it, how he did it, and why he did it, before the work even begins.
But what of criticism?
What of those who disagree?
Our science demands healthy scrutiny and challenging.
Is this what we get on cases?
On recent analysis of the Madeleine McCann case, one on social media wrote of her concern that the passage of time had impacted the words of the McCanns, increasing their defensive posture of the McCanns, which could make them appear guilty.
This was a valid criticism or question that warranted a reply.
It was not only a valid and appropriate criticism, it was something that we do take into account and should have been explained. It was the type of questioning that is honest, forthright and helpful.
Amanda Knox' statements show guilty knowledge of the sexual homicide of Meredith, her roommate. That she or a ghost writer years later, in her book, give a reliable denial is of no consequence to analysis. It is, in effect, to "add" years to the front end of the denial, making it unreliable.
Critics who refuse to ask questions.
American Thinker has an article of interest to statement analysis fans. Why do people call Donald Trump "racist"? The explanation given by the author shows how some are more vulnerable to deception than others.
This is something of interest not only to investigator/analysts, but to those who may consider training.
Pyramids are natural in a world of inequality. At the bottom of the pyramid, there are 10 million 7 to 12 year old boys playing Little League baseball. At the top of the pyramid, there are only 400 males left, making a million dollars playing the boys' game.
This is true in all of life. The "egalitarianism" of politicians refuses to apply its mandate upon sports or entertainment professionals, while demanding the reconstruction of the pyramid, even under coercion, with regard to success in life of the middle class.
Yet, no matter how many hours I practiced playing guitar, I will never be paid to play at Madison Square Garden.
No matter how emotionally connected I am to the New York Mets, I will never play shortstop for them. When I was a 10 year old boy, there was nothing I wanted more out of life than playing shortstop at Shea Stadium. The emotional connection was so powerful that I frequently day-dreamed, via disassociation, while being lectured by teachers in school.
As our world has increased in sophistication of technology at the top of the school pyramid, there is a trend of an ever-increasing base, or bottom of the pyramid, where most students are, that just a generation ago, was not nearly as broad. It is not only the removal phonics that have been destroying the base of learning for children, but the elevation of narcissistic emotions, supplanting critical thinking, that has betrayed our children. "Race based" educational tools are not only inherently racist (and insulting), but they have produced multigenerational ignorance, while establishing a very powerful voter base. They destroy the children's education while enriching the few, including the text book writers. Every two years or so, they change due to failure, running up costs. Those who dare question this inherent waste of money are silenced by being called "racist." Saying that phonics does not work due to pigment or culture is an insult, just as lowering linguistic standards is an insult.
Insult and deception are cousins. Remember: liars hold the world in contempt as they consider themselves smarter than others.
Deception detection is critical in our country today.
Or to put it in the words of one of our country's best lie detectors, there is a crisis of critical thinking today.
In fact, it is even worse than that.
Not only do we have a dearth of critical thinking, but it has been replaced by distinctly "emotional" response.
Its end is absurdity as emotions are often fleeting, unpredictable, rapidly changing, and easiest to manipulate.
I had a powerful emotional connection to playing baseball. It consumed me. In today's language, it was so powerful that I "identified" myself as a baseball player.
It did not pass away with childhood; naturally outgrown by time.
Even as a young adult, I often felt "cheated" by circumstance for not playing college baseball, though my ability to play at this level was in question.
Does this powerful emotion change truth?
Does this acute identification bring me skills I do not actually possess?
In fact, had I, at age 25, gone out of my way to find a MLB Spring Training camp of which to have a try out for a team, I would have been faced with experienced coaches telling me, "Young man, you are not a professional baseball player and never will be."
Had I persistently refused to accept this as "my reality", eventually loved ones may have thought to have some form of professional intervention for me.
Yet, there were strong forensic evidence to support my "identity" as a baseball player:
In my defense, I could catch a ball, throw a ball and hit a ball. I had some actual association with baseball. These are all "necessary elements" in being a baseball player. In addition to my reality, I had a baseball pedigree; my dad was a semi professional pitcher in Brooklyn, NY, in the post war era. I collected base ball cards and knew baseball statistics as well as most. I knew, loved, and played the game.
In fact, my reality of being a baseball player was buttressed by some real and tangible facts.
Yet, I was not a professional baseball player and talent wise, was not even close. You can see where I am going on the trip to absurdity:
A man "feels" like he is not a man.
He "feels", or has an emotional opinion that he is, actually, a woman.
Yet, he does not possess female anatomy. He does not even know what a woman feels like, having never been one. He has no "connection", whatsoever, to being a female. I had more connection to baseball than he had to being a female.
The "real and tangible facts" are not only absent, they are exhaustively absent.
If you point out to this man that he is in dire need of professional intervention, you will now be accused of bigotry, hatred, and one who violates another's "civil rights."
In short, you, on the side of truth, are an outcast who may find himself or herself in quite a bit of trouble.
What kind of trouble depends upon your profession.
Only the cleverest and most deviant of politicians could take a mental health disorder of a tiny percentage of the population and cause it to be embraced by millions of voters as a "civil right."
When critical thinking is in decline, nature abhors a vacuum and something is going to fill it. When emotions replace it, emotions are volatile and easily changed and manipulated.
One who is in service to his emotions is a slave to chaos and absurdity.
How does this show itself?
First, politicians use it to exploit the popular vote. The number one appeal is to moral narcissists. Agreeing with a politician tells the moral narcissist that he or she is superior to others in the realm of morals.
Secondly, this supremacy has its own consequences; principally, contempt.
The moral narcissist feels contempt for those "beneath" him or her. The moral narcissist is a part of a "special club" for those of us who "love" and "want good" for others. They support laws that make them "feel good", even while bringing destruction not only to the intended audience, but to themselves. The name calling moves to actual labeling and it is embraced quickly by those who, in order to agree, must disengage with critical thinking.
The need to belong and the need to feel morally acceptable are both powerful elements in all human beings.
Suicide is illogical. Everything within us is designed to survive. Suicide is to overcome all reason and yield to one's own demise.
When these two elements are combined, the enemy becomes truth.
Truth, or reality, must then be attacked.
Consider the cleverness of politicians in exploiting this in the general public. A good example is this:
Islam calls for the execution of homosexuals.
Islam practices, in obedience, this call.
Homosexuals will defend Islamists who intend to execute them as Sharia Law is embraced.
Why would homosexual organizations defend the ideology that calls for their death?
Because it "feels good" to be "superior" and show off one's "tolerance" publicly. They are part of a "team" who defend and elect the politician who imported the very means of their destruction. It is "politically correct" to say that the ideology that prescribes and practices this doesn't "really" prescribe or practice it and only the "special" ones can "feel" this to be true.
Remember, when one feels "superior", like the dependent word, there must be one "inferior" to be compared to. This is the illogical behind the "no nations, no walls, no border" mentality. If we no longer have nations, or tribes, but are all "one", we will not fight wars.
Yet, the "no borders" attacks, condemns, and ridicules not only human nature itself, but those who disagree. They are "haters, nationalists, populists, xenophobes..." and so on.
It is "us versus them" while pretense of "there is no us versus them when there are no borders" is presented.
As the rape and crime epidemic sweep over Europe, history's prediction of the coming civil war is quietly working its way into reality, while the politicians continue to say:
"Don't believe your eyes. Believe me." or "don't believe the blood you see, spilt on the street; believe me, instead."
Disagreement Incites Emotion
Those who are led by their emotions are enslaved to their emotions and are easy prey to political deception. Even those with high level education and intellect, once they deny critical thinking, are enslaved.
Emotions are volatile by nature; this is why we view "hot blooded murder" versus "cold blooded murder." At any moment, an emotion can come and go, and without trained impulse control, much damage can be done to society.
Do you feel an unpleasant emotion at this moment?
This emotion can change if...
you put on music, or eat something with sugar, or see the smile of a child, or...a thousand and one variables.
Emotions are predictably unpredictable and easily changed.
Now, consider those who have been manipulated by a politician of whom they have never met, will never meet, and only serve to make politician richer and more powerful. The deceived "serves" at the pleasure and defense of another, without any benefit to self. The "slave" is enslaved by his or her emotions, particularly this feeling of superiority over others.
How powerful is this?
Consider what happens when a moral narcissist disagrees with an opinion.
What should be expected, particularly in analysis, is what I described above: a genuine question seeking a genuine answer on how the passing of time and processing of information impacts analysis. The explanation satisfied the inquiry because it answered the concern.
Question: What comes from the moral narcissist?
Answer: First absurdity enters, but then the emotion is unleashed. Because there is no logic, the element of self destruction is always dangerous to society. When we add in the moral narcissist's contempt of the "deplorables" who do not agree with him or her, we have:
Reckless abandon of self preservation in earnest to silence or harm another.
Consider how dangerous this can be.
What keeps your neighbor from, in anger, coming over to your yard and shooting you dead over playing your music too loud?
The answer, at least in part, has to do with self preservation. He does not want his own life ruined.
But what of an attacker who is ruled, not by reason of self preservation, but is given to illogic to the point where he or she cares not for any self preservation, but lives to attack another?
Consider the emotion behind incessant and compulsive posting of "stop hate" or "you racist", as if someone will read this, over and over and say, "Gee, I must wake up and realize that my thinking that this person did it makes me a racist hateful person and I now change!" The absurdity of the post, itself, is compounded by compulsively posting over and over.
The same is true with deleted comments. Think of what goes behind the thinking of one who knows hateful comments are going to be deleted but does not exercise self control. Where might this lead?
We see this in small dosages all the time, but when it finally comes to fruition, the media scratches its collective head and wonders, "weren't there any warning signs?"
The lack of critical thinking is replaced with emotion. Emotion, when challenged, can quickly increase. Without logic (self preservation) absurdity can and does prevail.
The "superior" one's contempt towards the "inferior" grows.
Violence in language can be a strong indicator of violence in action. We screen for it in employment analysis.
The small steps towards violence, linguistically, can be discerned:
Instead of, for example, disagreeing with an analysis point, and making this known, the moral narcissist, "feeling" himself or herself "superior", attacks the messenger. "You have hate" rather than "I disagree with..." but this grows.
It grows because it cannot be satisfied. Like supremacist ideology, violence is the only logical outcome.
Voids Seek Filling
Whether we admit this or not, there are people who have dedicated their entire lives to this.
I wrote recently to an investigator as a caution.
He has a good intellect, but more so, a lively personality and is perfect for TV or radio commentary as an analyst. In the email, I used my own history to warn him of the consequences of the illogical and obsessed moral narcissists.
I told him to expect attacks on social media; not attacks on his opinion, but on his person. These will include things his children will read.
Expect web pages to arise dedicated to humiliating or insulting him.
Expect emails to flood him and expect anonymous threats against him, his wife and children and his home to grow.
If he talks about the Amanda Knox case, he can expect the love lorn male attacker who was about 19 when the case first broke, to attack, and if it is the McCann case, it may be more likely a female who has dedicated her life to people she will never meet, utterly exposing the void within herself.
These are people who are incapable of expressing disagreement with an opinion (lack of critical thinking) who have framed their perception of reality in emotion. Reading over and over that Amanda Knox was "framed" while seeing the pretty face, over and over, has its impact. People literally dedicate their lives to a person (or cause) of which they will never meet nor benefit from.
It fills an acute void in life, often the sense of inconsequentiality; that is, of being of no value to others. It is something we cannot abide. We see this even with those who go door to door asking to join a cause such as "justice for..." and some of these causes are in main stream media while others are obscure and miniscule.
This morning, a comment was deleted about the case of the waitress who received, a the tip line, the words "none nigger" written on a check that was analyzed several years ago. The comment was of personal insult and without logic or reason, and the sentences were long (emotional), void of opinion on the case, while showing a deep emotional need to inflict hurt upon another.
The steps to physical violence begin with the emotion that is unregulated by reason, and unsatisfied by another's lack of submission.
Where are the most violent lands in our world? Where the "religion of peace" is the state religion. As it claims "peace through submission", due to both supremacy and the inequities of creation, there is incessant violence.
What else did I caution the investigator about?
He must expect vile things said about his son or daughter and photoshopped pictures, all designed to bring shame, humiliation and emotional pain; not designed to express a difference of opinion.
Expect calls to his employer.
This is an effective tool to silence his opinion. Those who cannot (nor care not) to logically disagree with him, will seek to harm him, personally, by using the internet to obtain information readily.
Remember: this is done over the cause of someone they have never met, will never meet, and who will never benefit them in any way other than giving them a purpose in an otherwise empty life. They feel so inadequate that they can only feel worth by decrying your worth.
How illogical will an agenda driven moral narcissist go?
This is evidenced where a McCann supporter will say the words the McCanns, themselves, refused to in years.
Training in analysis leads to a sense of disassociation, or "lack of care" about the outcome; the analyst just wants the truth. "Rooting" for outcome is usually eradicated the first month of training. Why? Because statement after statement after statement becomes like math. 2 + 3 needs to equal 5, regardless of the religion, skin color or baseball team that "2" roots for. The need is to get to 5. It must. It must equal 5. This is truth. This is sense. This is logic.
It is only the politician who says 2 - 3 = 5, as he spends your money recklessly on areas he has no business being in. The net negative may be paid by our children but to hear him speak is to hear:
"Don't believe your eyes; believe me.
Don't believe reason; believe me. If you think that 2 - 3 equals a negative one, you are worthless, you are mentally ill, and no one wants to hear you. You should lose your job and move to another country because you are dividing and destroying because you are deplorable."
Otherwise intelligent people, scared to be 'left out' or labeled, quickly fall in line, with their emotions overruling their intellects.
It shows in the language.
Once the psychological pressure has had success, it does, as in nature, breed its own success.
The one who sacrificed reason for emotion, successfully, and who felt the "reward" of being "part of us" and moral superiority, will do again and again. Soon enough, he or she will attack, like the idol, those who disagree, further enhancing their self esteem as morally superior.
To those who take 3 from 2 and come up with a negative 1, it is thus easy to classify them into being morally unfit to be heard:
"You don't care about the poor!"
This absurdity will lead to further struggles.
Expect the calls to his employer to increase in both volume and in accusations. Because of the habit of embracing the absurdity, his superiors will soon recognize the psychologically damaged caller's message, as it increases in absurdity, but that is not the purpose; the purpose is to annoy the superior to the point of saying, "Hey, please think about not commenting on cases anymore. I am sick of these nut jobs calling here and..."
The silencing they see their fascist idols do in politics is what they use for themselves, just as they embrace the deceptive techniques used.
As this base of the pyramid widens, so does the risk to the next generation, especially if you compare "the greatest generation" who stormed the beaches of Normandy with the caricature of men in dresses and high heels taking up arms against Islam or huddling in college "safe spaces", petting stuffed animals and receiving assurance that "it will be okay."
It is not only absurdity; it is empowering to enemies of freedom, but what does it mean to the next generation?
As we continue to embrace "feelings" over logic, our politicians will feel free to legislate what they believe is "hate speech" in Orwellian fashion, further silencing and stagnating society.
With main stream media complicit with the deceptive practices of politicians, we, the people, will be the ones who suffer from it. The politicians who live behind protective walls demand you do not. The politician who sends his children to private school, with high academic standards, demand you send yours to government run school with its incessant decline in math and science, while emphasizing degrees in "gender studies", while their kids get degrees in finance. The politician protected by arms, demands you surrender yours. The politician demands you live with Islamic immigration, with its death and rape ideology, while having the money to never live in such a neighborhood.
Yet, you defend them with all the emotion you can muster, no matter how self destructive their policies are.
Those who hold that emotion overrules reason do not want truth.
They shout down, threaten, protest and, as emotion being what it is, turn violent. They do not want freedom.
Suffice to say those who seek truth, reason and logic, are going to be labeled. Those who want to see inner city black culture turn to education and independence from government welfare are "racists."
Those who want to protect women from "tarrusch" rape are misogynists.
Those who say a child, produced from a man and woman, is best when raised by a man and woman, are "hateful" and "discriminators."
The commercials with Down's Syndrome children are banned in France lest they "hurt the feelings" of those who aborted their children. Islam is imposing the Sharia blasphemy laws in Europe de facto by the new realm of "hate speech."
Truth is become the new "hate speech" of the West.
Those who's daughters will never be subjected to mental sexual disturbance of a man, in a girl's bathroom, will become abusive towards those who disagree.
Do not expect logical response from the illogical.
Do not expect health from the unhealthy, including mentally or psychologically.
Do, however, expect that those who are enslaved to emotions to be as unstable and unpredictable as human emotions are. In employment analysis, it is to the protection of a company that those who will attack, verbally or physically, those who disagree with them, on any topic, can be excluded using Statement Analysis. When a millennial writes, "I am looking for a company to meet my emotional needs", versus "I am looking for a company to grow with..." we may wonder just how one's "emotional needs" are met when a supervisor has to correct them.
Here is a recent example. Which would work better for your company?
"Tell us about yourself..."
A. "I am hard working, intelligent and love to learn new things"
B. "I have a healthy relationship with my gf." with "smiley face" added.
What happens to the emotions of "B" when he is told to be on time?
Statement Analysis is a form of deception detection that runs at a success rate of at or near 100% accuracy, with "contamination" being the main cause of error.
It is without respect to agenda.
Emotion is so powerful that we have a need to keep case files out of our initial analysis lest our emotions get the best of us and influence our work.
Once a statement is processed, it is then reanalyzed, with a new presupposition (guilt or innocence) and case file details (external) are now inputed. This is where our advanced work takes over.
When a statement is obtained before any interview, we may confidently discern.