Saturday, August 27, 2016

Leanna Walker Homicide: Sky McDonaugh

April 18th, 17 year old Leanna Walker disappeared when she went with Sky Walker.  Several weeks later, her remains were found.  

The article is here.  

You'll notice that we do not have a quote of "I didn't hurt her" as reported in the headlines.  If he said this, off video, we must note that "I didn't hurt her" is minimization;  she was found dead.  This is a form of minimization frequently found in death by child abuse, or close relationship homicide.  

The article has some quotes; none offer a Reliable Denial:

PALMYRA TOWNSHIP, PIKE COUNTY (WBRE/WYOU) - A man who is considered a "person of interest" in the disappearance of a Pike County teenager says he had nothing to do with her death.
Sky McDonough of Milford made his first court appearance Tuesday since the death of his girlfriend earlier this year.
State police say 17-year-old Leanna Walker left her home in Dingman Township with McDonough on April 18th.
She was found dead several weeks later.

While McDonough has not been charged with her death at this time, court documents indicate investigators are suspicious of him.
As he was led into a magistrate's office near Hawley Tuesday, Sky McDonough admitted he was with Leanna Walker when she disappeared in April but he says he never hurt her.

Within the article, I have added analysis and commentary in bold type.  

"She ran away with me," McDonough said.

Please note that he did not say that "we" ran away, but that "she ran away with me", as he was walking by, making it a freely offered statement.  
Please note:
1.  He does not use Leanna's name
2.  The word "with" between "she" and "me" indicates distancing language.  This is Statement Analysis 101, and we look at the distancing language to determine the cause of distancing.  Sometimes it is geographical, while other times it is emotional (missing/longing).  The context of the statement is critical.  

Here, we see the distance between them while he recounts what happened that led to her death.  Regardless of guilt or innocence, this is the context for the statement.  

Distancing language within innocence in death is not expected.  It is only after significant time has passed that distancing language will enter in.  

Here, we have the subject giving us the context of the distancing language, in the short statement itself.  The context is the running away. 

The use of distancing language is also affirmed with the pronoun "she" rather than Leanna's name.  

This, along with the word "with" between people,  suggests that Leanna, 17, had to be talked into running off with him.  

"She" and "me" could not be further apart in the sentence than this.  

Pronouns are instinctive and require no pause in the editing process.  

Next, we see the pronoun "we" enter his statement:  

When asked what happened after that, McDonough said, "We went to the llama farm and then afterwards I went to get a check and I got caught by police. I don't know what happened to her."

This is an important sentence.

1.  Going to the llama farm produced the pronoun "we" in his language.  This may have been something agreeable to Leanna.  

2.  "and then afterwards" uses three words which jump over time, making the 'temporal lacunae', that is, the 'black empty space' highly sensitive.  A single skip (TL) is something we focus our analysis and interview on, but here the subject must use more effort to give additional wording. 

3.  The additional wording (increase of effort = importance) also has another element to be viewed:  it is unnecessary.  

"and then" or "afterwards" would have sufficed.  In the extremely short period of time (less than a millisecond) in which the brain processes which of his 20,000 strong vocabulary to use, effort produced an "unnecessary" word.

In Statement Analysis, an unnecessary word is one in which the sentence still 'works' should it be removed.  Its inclusion is to give us additional information.  Where the 'black hole' or 'empty' space is, the additional information is missing.  

Yet, its need for emphasis tells us that there is a strong emotional need for him to skip over this period of time, which may take "withholding information" to a level of "suppressing information" which, by itself, is indicative of what strategy should be used in the interview process. 

In other words, it will take an effort for him to not reveal that which is concealed here.  

The interviewer must not interrupt him and let him "hold court" as one of "high regard and importance" and let him "regale the subordinate investigators" with his knowledge. 

It should produce an admission (not confession) and this admission is very likely to contain elements of minimization, some deception, as well as shifting blame (very subtly) to the victim, herself.  

The skipping over time, is in a real sense, repeated and it is repeated unnecessarily, making this time period to indicate:

The suppression of critical information is at this point in time.  

4.  "to get a check" does not tell us what he did, but what he went to do.  This is more important than meets the eye.

The subject feels the need to explain why he separated from Leanna, in a context where no one asked him why.  No one asked him, 

"Why did you go to the...?"

nor even

"Why didn't you two go together?

The subject, himself, has a need to not only be 'away' and separate from Leanna, but more importantly for us, he has a need to explain to us, the audience, his need to be physically separate from Leanna.  

This, too, is 'unnecessary' information, making it very important to us.  

When asked if he hurt Leanna Walker, McDonough simply replied, "no."

I do not fault the journalist for asking a 'yes or no' question, which is reduced internal conflict to lie to, as the opportunity was brief.

As he left court, McDonough was as talkative as he was going in, speculating on who may be responsible.

"She was hanging out with bad boys, heroin," McDonough said.

This is tangent, and given the hint that it was likely McDonough himself who talked Leanna into running away with him, tells us that "bad boys"  is not something he would abide or allow to happen.  

Note the inclusion of "heroin" is indication of not only drugs, but of his personality.  

He may actually blame the victim for the murder. 

"She had some other guys she was with," McDonough told Eyewitness News.
Note the avoidance of her name is continual.  This is a psychological distancing from her, rather than the mournful, sad, introspective closeness and almost romanticized viewpoint most all of us take of lost loved ones.  We 'deify' our lost loved ones, almost immediately, recalling all the good.  

Here, his tangent not only shows the need to move the attention away from himself, but he blames her for whom she may have been with.  

This is a red flag for possible guilty knowledge of what happened to her. 

The interview should be lengthy, comfortable, and one in which the subject (Sky McDonough) does 80% of the talking.  

The interrogation, after a well conducted analytical interview, reverses these numbers and sometimes is not even necessary due to admission.  

Confession and admission are judicially the same.  By focusing on confessions (moral acceptance of responsibility) the interviewer/investigator often projects his own disgust and belief system into the interview and can hinder the admission.  

An admission is simply acknowledging what he did to her.   It may be that he did not "hurt" her; he killed her.  

When asked if those guys could be responsible for Walker's death, McDonough said, "I believe so."

This weak assertion of only "believing" so is also a very small, but significant insight into his personality.  

"I believe so" instead of "maybe", "could have been" and so on, includes the pronoun "I", making it a 'strong' weak assertion; that is, one in which the subject is not afraid to offer himself, psychologically, behind his 'opinion', while avoiding a direct lie.  

This is, again, to put himself 'front and center' as one who likely convinced Leanna to run away with him initially, and who may pride himself at such control over others. 

It is something important to consider for the interview. 

For training in Statement Analysis, go to Hyatt Analysis Services.  

We offer seminars, correspondence training, live, on going interactive training of confidential cases, as well as certification.  

Supremacist Ideology: Adoptive Versus Cultural

In a supremacy based ideology, violence is the only likely outcome in a world of inequality.  It is the only resolution for one having 'more' than another, which is why "fraud" complaints (including suits) are readily evidenced.  
When supremacist ideology combines with a lack of human empathy, and is within the example of domestic violence against the child's mother, it is difficult to imagine any non-criminally violent outcome from the male child.   
Supremacist ideology should be viewed, within criminal investigations, in two basic parts:
Cultural and Adoptive
The Adoptive is seen in prison conversion, with the powerful 'victim status' resolve that violent prisoners naturally gravitate to.  These new 'converts' to supremacist ideology may have a "need to prove" element in which one already prone to violence may seek to prove his worth to others, hence, the danger. 
Yet, this danger does not reach the broader level (horizontal) that Cultural Supremacist ideology brings.  For one born into this culture, the elements of cultural influence are stronger. 
This is where the criminal analyst makes his error:  he fails to grasp the cultural impact because he or she projects his own cultural background into the equation. 
The Adoptive Supremacist, or "wanna be" is dangerous enough, but in statements made, we do not find the same reaction to insult within the Adoptive as we do with the Cultural supremacist.  The Adoptive can and will often laugh off verbal taunts and will make threats that may or may not be carried out; this is because the threats are often pragmatic (seeking for impact) and often include qualifiers in the language. When the Adoptive supremacist is insulted, there is often a return insult, including dismissive laughter.  The pragmatist seeks an end, carrying little for the means.  
The threats of the Cultural Supremacist are different.  For the Cultural Supremacist any failure to follow through with a threat is a perceived "dishonor" even within hyperbolic language.  But the increase in violence from threats and the need to carry out, pales in comparison to the violence found within insult. 
Any insult made to the Cultural Supremacist must be answered less cultural dishonor damage or destroy the reputation (private self view) and even 'religious' internal belief system of the criminal.  
The Cultural Supremacist will contemplate unanswered insult and will brew.  Western thinking is that the stronger walks away from childish insult or taunt; but this is not the cultural distinctive of Supremacist ideology in which one was raised within since birth.  The Cultural Supremacist, even with a name tagging, must, even if alone, 'balance the scale' with a violent reaction.  
When this is not studied or understood, or if analysts have limitations placed upon them politically,  death tolls rise.  

Eventually, the impact of Domestic Violence upon an infant may be measured (MRI) as the hormonal rush exists, without the reasoning factors to causes its immediate recession, and how PTSD's hyper vigilance and perception of threat is acted upon. 
Criminal psychologist Nicolai Sennels worked in youth prisons in Europe with violent teen offenders. He showed how low intelligence related to poor impulse control (found in all cultures)  combined  specifically with supremacist ideology, the need to avenge oneself was both external (reputation) and internal (religious, and far more powerful).  Recently he posted the following translated to English.  Note the correlation with emotional frustration and violence from inability to express is cited:  
“A five-year child of non-Western (Danish media term for Islamic ) parents have in average less developed empathy, are less able to cooperate and find it harder to express his feelings than a three-year child of Danish parents.
It is one of the conclusions in the report on Children’s early development and learning, which is published by a research team from the University of Aarhus, University of Southern Denmark and Ramböll. The newspaper Information has spoken with three of the researchers behind the report, which agree that the results are ‘extremely worrying’:
… On average, the non-Western children are at a level of development that is lower than the a two years younger child of Danish parents. The difference between the two groups remains significantly up to the age of five and a half years, which is the oldest group of children included in the study. There is, according to the report, no evidence to suggest that children of non-Western parents reach the Danish children’s level of competence when getting older.
The children’s social competences have been measured by means of a detailed questionnaire, where the child’s teacher must answer a number of questions. It is questions like: ‘How do the child handle a conflict?’ ‘Does it seek adults’ help or does it give it up?’ ‘Does the child show empathy or care for other children if they cry or loses a toy?’ ‘Is the child able to express his feelings? ‘…
Another explanation may be cultural differences, explains Hanne Nielsen: ‘It may be different perceptions of child rearing; for what is good and less good social behavior towards other children. … ‘”

Friday, August 26, 2016

Jonathan Harris Doesn't Remember Murdering Nichole White

Statement Analysis is not guess work, nor should it ever be relegated to such. 

Jonathan Harris beat a mother of two, Nichole White, to death and pled guilty to second degree murder.  He had met her on a dating site.  

He now faces sentencing at the end of September and is wants to change his plea.  The following is an interview by a member of the press.  It is an insult to the family of Nichole White that only increases their pain.  

Analysis Question:  Is he telling the truth?
Although this may appear obvious, we do not simply use 'smell test' mentality because if we are correct 9 times of 10, the one error is not acceptable.  This is a scientific process which means repeated implementation should result in similar findings.  

Analysis Question:  If he is lying, will he reveal his motive?

 IR:  “Did you kill Nicole White?” 

Harris: “I don’t know.”

Paul Ekman said he believed "I don't know" was a close second to "I don't remember" as the most common deceptive answer in court.  "I don't know" is obviously a deception and can only be appropriately viewed in a  case where one did not know if one's actions were the finality of death; such as in a multiple assailant case, or even in the case where  a man gave a Sheriff's daughter the drugs that led to her overdose.  

*If you were to claim, "deception indicated" based upon the statistics of "I don't know", you would likely be correct.  But this is not Statement Analysis.  Your conclusion must have a basis of which can be applied to case after case.  While claiming "deception indicated" each time without proving the assertion, eventually, error would ensue.  

Statement Analysis is not passing the straight face test or any other intuition.  It must be based upon principle and the analyst must enslave himself to the sample provided.  

White disappeared while she and Harris were on a date in June of 2015. Harris met the 29-year-old mother of two through an online dating website. She was last seen with Harris at a Spanaway bar. Her body was found days later wrapped in a tarp in a wooded area near Kapowsin Lake. 
She had been stomped and beaten to death.
In the jailhouse interview, Harris repeated his claim that he didn’t know whether or not he killed White.

IR:  “How can you say that?”  “How do you not know?”

Avoid compound questions.   His answer, to explain 'why', is what gives us information.  

Does he believe his own words that he is not certain if he did this?  He does not make us wait for the answer:  

Harris:   Well, because it’s still a case that’s going on. There’s no determinings  or anything."

Here is his explanation: court case and legal determination.   This is his explanation as to why he now says he does not know:  legal ramification. 

This shows that the subject knows what he is doing.  
IR:  “Do you believe you may have killed Nicole White?” 

Harris:   “I don’t know,”

Whether he "may" have killed her is within his response:  
Harris:  “That’s not for me to determine.  It’s for the judge and prosecutors to say allegedly if I did or did not.”

It is interesting to see the hypothesis begins with guilt, "...if I did it" before "did not."   
IR:  “But you can’t say that you didn’t?” 

It is important to note that the IR asked this question in the negative (double).  In parroting language, we expect him to respond to this, also in the negative, of "didn't", using the IR's own language.  This is a poorly worded question but the answer still gives us information:  
“I can’t say that I did and I can’t say that I did not,”

The same order exists here but it is even more important because it overruled the easier parroting or repeating back of the question.  This means 'more effort' was made by the subject and in the same Solomonic fashion of the custody case, order is paramount.  

Order speaks to priority. 

  When one says they "can't" answer a question, it is an indication of limitation.  Here, the context tells us the limitation:  rather than saying whether he did it or not, he willfully limits himself to letting the court say so.  This is likely the advice of counsel.

In the motion Harris filed to change his plea, he claimed his public defender forced him to plead guilty against his will. He wrote, my attorney, Mark Quigley, came up to the jail and yes, he threatened my life."

Note the full social introduction of Mark Quigley, written with the possessive pronoun "my" shows a good relationship.  This is incongruent with his claim.  We now see his claim has further weakness:  

He threatened, pretty much he threatened my life, says if I didn’t sign this I’d pretty much spend my whole life in jail, and that’s, you can’t say that to somebody,” Harris said.

We now know the 'threat' and how it was against his 'life'; his attorney told him the legal consequences of being found guilty. 

Analysis Conclusion:

Jonathan Harris is not only lying about not remembering killing his victim, he reveals his motive for his lie and is willing to lie about his attorney. 

Thursday, August 25, 2016

Error In Analysis: The Post Mortem

In Statement Analysis, when we are wrong, we are able to learn exactly where we went wrong.  This is only possible within the scientific setting. 

It is critical to stay within principle, even when the temptation is to declare someone deceptive.  This is particularly a temptation for two types of analysts/analysts in training:

1.  The Beginner

2.  The Successful

1.  The Beginner sees "I know in my heart that I did not shoot him" as something that fits the bill, in one manner or the other:

a.  He said "I did not shoot him" which means, he did not shoot him!

b.  He said that he "knows" this, which is weak, but then he only "knows" this in his "heart" but not in his head, so he did shoot him!

Both are wrong.  

How can both be wrong?

Introductory seminars are exciting and they serve a great purpose:  lighting a fire for a new world of understanding in investigations.  

We stay to principle and enslave ourselves to the statement because we know that this is the 'safest' place to be, and that whatever we "see" within a statement, must not only be buttressed in our presentation (why we saw it) but as a scientific process, it  means it must be applied in the same way to other statements. 

The downside of the introductory ("Statement Analysis 101") is that sooner than later, failure will present itself leaving the analyst-in-training discouraged, full of doubt, and perhaps even willing to abandon study.  

2.  The Successful often have seen statements like this, and have built a solid reputation of success and due to the statistical likeliness, jumps to a conclusion and is...


We do not always know why a denial is unreliable.  This is why the Analytical Interview is crucial.   

We know what to ask, where to aim our laser and even what exact words to use, because of our training.  

"I know in my heart  that I did not shoot him"  

I was much encouraged from the responses from many trained analysts who universally said

"This is an Unreliable Denial" but it is also very sensitive to the subject.  He is likely to be telling the truth here but knows who did it.  

Many went even a step further, recognizing the element of femininity (in various descriptions) or 
romantic' link in the language, "in my heart."

Better to classify it as:

a.  Sensitive
b.  Emotional 

What might have prompted an Emotional Connection to the Denial?

"Unreliable" does not mean he did it.  It may be such, but when we are limited to the statement, given what we had to work with, we cannot go beyond our science:

It is unreliable.  

Technically, we do not know if he did it or not, so it may often be reliant upon whom we are writing to.  In responding to me, the analysts concluded that it was, indeed, an "Unreliable" denial, but they were comfortable suggesting, not declaring, that the subject likely has guilty knowledge of the shooting (he knew who did it) and this knowledge has a distinctly emotional connection.  (this is better language than 'romantic', but that it was a triangle shooting influenced their thinking, and in this case, the influence produced a likely correct surmising of the subject having romantic/sexual thoughts towards the victim's wife.  

In this sense, the quiz was quite useful. 

Being open to training, especially for those with much experience in formal training and professional application, is to allow oneself to be 'opened up' and diagnosed for strengths, weaknesses and challenges for improvement. 

It is a marvelous opportunity and growth aspect that is uniquely tied to humility.  

Many new to training come to "team analysis" quite nervous.  They have expressed this, usually after a few sessions:

"I went in thinking that everyone was so much more advanced than me.  I couldn't believe how good they were, but then I started to participate and found everyone so helpful and encouraging. "

Of those who expressed such thought, most all went on to say, one way or another:

"I am better than I thought, in some areas!  I found some of the basic trainings come back to me.  I see that different analysts are all good in some aspects, and that I end up helping others just as they help me!"

We are a team.  

Trainings are set up on various days during the week, and some are more advanced than others, but uniformly, they are for growth and encouraging words are the norm.  This is especially helpful when we do make mistakes, and find others not only willing to help correct them, but to do so in the spirit of humility.  

The learning is tremendous.  

The "post mortem" of a lost chess game is the single most valuable tool for advancement: Learning from mistakes.  

When this is done in an atmosphere of professional respect, warmth and intelligence, it is to facilitate the potential within.  

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: 


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"
"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.