Statement Analysis: Wes Welker

should have remained silent 

NFL football player Wes Welker has been suspended for four games for violating the leagues ban on Perforamnce Enhancing Drugs. Welker tested positive for Adderall.

We look for a reliable denial in which the subject uses the pronoun, "I" and the past tense verb, "didn't" and addresses the accusation directly.

A reliable denial is simple, and has 3 components.  If there are two, or four, it is no longer reliable.  The word "never" is not accepted for the word "didn't."

If you had been falsely accused of using performance enhancing substances, of any kind, you would say, "I didn't take banned substances" in some form, using the three components:

1.  The Pronoun "I"
2.  The past tense verb
3.  The specific allegation addressed.

A short denial is best.  The encompassing denial is often unreliable.

What will football player Wes Welker say? Will he simply say "I didn't do it"?

Here is his denial in an email to the Denver Post.

"I'm as shocked as everyone at todays news. I want to make one thing abundantly clear: I would NEVER knowingly take a substance to gain a competitive advantage in any way. Anyone who has ever played a down with me, lifted a weight with me, even eaten a meal with me, knows that I focus purely on what I put in my body and on the hard work I put in year round to perform at the highest levels year-in and year-out.

"I want any youth football players and all sports fans to know, there are NO shortcuts to success, and nothing but hard work and studying, leads to success.

"I have never been concerned with the leagues performance enhancing or drug abuse policies because under no scenario would they ever apply to me, but I now know, that (drug-policy procedures) are clearly flawed, and I will do everything in my power to ensure they are corrected, so other individuals and teams aren't negatively affected so rashly like this.

"I have worked my whole life to be the best that I can be, and I have encountered many obstacles over my career, and THIS WILL BE NO DIFFERENT!

"Thank you for the outpouring of support, and I want Bronco nation to know, that no one and no thing will get in the way of our goal as a team, to bring Mr. Bowlen the trophy he and this great region deserve."

Now let's look at his denial to see if he has made a Reliable Denial:

"I'm as shocked as everyone at todays news. 

Where one begins a statement is important.  Here, he expresses shock at the news, but does not tell us if it is the news of a failed drug test, or the news of suspension.  Perhaps he is shocked at himself, that he broke down and used Adderol.  

I want to make one thing abundantly clear: I would NEVER knowingly take a substance to gain a competitive advantage in any way. 

Note that he would not take a substance knowingly, and this knowledge would have to be to gain a competitive advantage. 

He might take banned substances, but it would not be to gain a competitive advantage.  This should lead investigators to see if he is using other substances.

Anyone who has ever played a down with me, lifted a weight with me, even eaten a meal with me, knows that I focus purely on what I put in my body and on the hard work I put in year round to perform at the highest levels year-in and year-out.

This is to not only avoid saying "I didn't do it" but to say that whatever went into his body, he was well aware of it, researched it, and would not do it unless he knew it was "pure" and would help him perform at the highest level.  

He comes very close to an admission. 

"I want any youth football players and all sports fans to know, there are NO shortcuts to success, and nothing but hard work and studying, leads to success.

Which is also to avoid saying "I didn't take banned substances."

"I have never been concerned with the leagues performance enhancing or drug abuse policies because under no scenario would they ever apply to me, but I now know, that (drug-policy procedures) are clearly flawed, and I will do everything in my power to ensure they are corrected, so other individuals and teams aren't negatively affected so rashly like this.

The more circumspect a denial is, the more likely it is to be unreliable.  This is extreme in its "unreliability" as he boasts so much as to attempt to convince the reader that it is the testing that is flawed, even while he still avoids a reliable denial. 

We do know something about him:  he has confidence (the lack of concern) in his ability to avoid testing positive. 

"I have worked my whole life to be the best that I can be, and I have encountered many obstacles over my career, and THIS WILL BE NO DIFFERENT!

He does not specify what the obstacle is.  Again, officials should see if he needs professional intervention for substance abuse. 

"Thank you for the outpouring of support, and I want Bronco nation to know, that no one and no thing will get in the way of our goal as a team, to bring Mr. Bowlen the trophy he and this great region deserve."

He wants Bronco nation to know "that I did not use..."  No.  He is unable to say those simple words.

Statement Analysis Principle:  If the subject is unwilling or unable to say that he did not do it, we are not permitted to say it for him.

Wes Welker's suspension is deserved.  He is a liar, without actually lying, but withholding information instead. 

Direct lying is stressful as no one wants to be called a "liar"; therefore, 90% or more will be deceptive in what they leave out, rather than what they say.  

We Welker is deceptive.  

Change In Language: Change in Reality.

by Peter Hyatt

Principle:  A change in language should represent a change in reality.  This is sought in the statement itself, and if verified, is often an indication that the subject is speaking from memory. If there is no seemingly justification for the change of language, the analyst should be on alert that the subject is not speaking from memory.

I am currently posting some articles with exceptions and some tangents, as we move towards a bit of more advanced Statement Analysis, and hope to post another audio lesson.  I appreciate the feedback, specifically, on the audio lessons and what you'd like to hear in upcoming lessons.

Last night, I was considering the principle of change of language, as I listened to  Sean working on  his writing assignment on Jack London's "To Build A Fire."

He was writing a book report and sought to avoid redundancy in his wording, therefore was 'googling' certain words to get synonyms. .  Talented writer Lois Duncan raised this same theme once:  if you do not change language, it can be quite a boring (and untalented) production.


Agreed. (Hey, would you disagree with Lois on writing?)

Principle:  There are no synonyms in Statement Analysis. 

Without the use of synonyms, we'd struggle to get through a single chapter of even the best written novel.  (I'm currently reading Pat Brown's novel and will do a book review when completed)

Yet, it is not so "on the fly" in language, therefore, in Statement Analysis.  We go back again to context. There are no synonyms in Statement Analysis and it is that emotion has the greatest impact upon language change.  For a subject speaking freely, a change in language is triggered by something, and it is a change in reality, and not a pocket Thesauruses.  (I can neither pronounce it, nor spell it)

Context



"Tell me what happened..." means that the subject is either answering verbally, or writing, because there is something on the line, something that matters.  It could be a police investigation (which will send nerves rising), or a human resources interview of something that took place in work.  The stakes can be high, as one might even be interested in keeping his own job (or freedom) over a situation.

During these times, the subject is not thinking that a "chair" should become a "recliner" (remember that statement?) and is choosing words (verbally) quite quickly.

Even a "chair" can change in some one's language, as within the mind, the processing has an influence:

emotion, or an object upon the chair.

A "chair" may become a "recliner" in the subject's language, because a person pulled the faux wood handle and reclined back.  Something took place, and this is the point.  (see "hoodie" theft for further analysis of the "chair" versus the "recliner" in language).

"My car began to sputter and finally died.  I left the vehicle on the side of the road" is the commonly used sample to show that a "car" became a "vehicle" when it no longer ran.  You can bet when it is picked up upon repair, it will return to being a "car" again.

"I pulled out my service revolver and fired my weapon 4 times.  I then re holstered and called for back up..."

Do not simply note that the change of language indicated a change in reality.  Yes, it is an important point, but also consider why a subject chose the words he did.  Why "service revolver" and not simply "gun"?

Obviously, it was a "service revolver" while it was not being fired, but became a "weapon" when in use.  This is a change justified by the context and is an indication of veracity.  But there is more for you to consider!

What was he thinking?  What, specifically, was he thinking when he said this, and why did he chose these specific words?

Analytical Interviewing uses the words one chooses and explores it.  Does the above statement sound like a very nervous officer to you?  Does "service revolver" sound 'official" and 'lawful' and 'appropriate', especially when one considers how not only personally dreadful it is to fire a lethal weapon at a human being, but what legal and career consequences the officer might face?

When you consider the climate today, if you were a police officer, you would likely be terrified to fire your weapon, even when justified, and this fear would show itself in your language.  It is not that one should not use his weapon in an appropriate situation where deadly force is necessary, it is the natural backlash's impact towards extremes.  (for another article).

There is always a reason why a subject chooses a specific word and the brain processes this so quickly that we teach seminar attendees to trust the subject to guide you to the truth, even if he is attempting to deceive you.  The words the deceiver uses will give you information.

Lies have their genesis somewhere; they do not come from a void.

Statement by low level manager to Mrs. Smith, Executive Director:  "I was told that you wanted to fire me because I do not have a backbone."

This was untrue.

Note the words "I do not have a backbone" is not an admission.  In the context, she tells us that she is entering the language of someone else.

First, "I was told" is passive.  This indicates a lack of revealing of who said it.  It may be appropriate (the person does not know who said it) or it may be deliberate (and appropriate deception) as the subject does not want to reveal the person who said it.


Mrs. Smith  had wanted to promote her, and met the objection that she did not have a strong enough "backbone"  to enforce policy upon resistant employees.  The objector, herself, used the phrase "backbone" in her objection to the promotion. Mrs. Smith said, "With a little support from us, she would be fine." 

Mrs. Smith eventually took a position with a rival company and sought to offer the low level manager, a mid level position, with a raise, in the new company.  The original liar feared this, so she went to the subject, deceptively, to derail the possibility of her leaving the company.

When the subject lied to the potential mid level manager, she imported her own words, and ascribed them to Mrs. Smith.  She had a reason to lie:  she did not want to lose the worker.

What if she had said, "...Mrs. Smith said you don't have a spine..."?

What would you have made from "spine"?  The theme is similar, but it might have made the deception easier to spot.

Proceed with caution.

It is an interesting principle to follow, but becomes even more revelatory when it comes to gender in language change.

When one is speaking about a person, listen carefully to the word chosen:

Person and Woman make a difference.

Question for discussion:

When might a wife be  a "person" rather than a "woman"?

This is of particular interest when you are looking at the statements of those accused of sexual misconduct in one form or another, giving you an impression (in the male subject) that he may have been a victim of sexual assault.

remember the principle:  "A man does not sexually molest his own daughter" in Statement Analysis.  In order to sexually molest her, he must 'change' her in his mind, in order to do so.

Another point of interest in male subjects is what words they choose when they are considering or going through a divorce.

Post divorce, the principle of Social Introductions in Statement Analysis is telling.

1.  "The ex"
2.  "My ex"
3.  "My ex wife..."

The third, taking more effort (law of economy) reveals a much better relationship than the first.

Next, listen to what one calls "the ex":

Is she a "person" or a "woman"?

Would you be surprised to learn that she is more likely a "woman" in point number three, and a "person" (or something unprintable) in point number one?

In general, a change in language represents a change in reality, which might be verified within the context, but if not, we must be cognizant that the subject might not be working from memory.

Next, if a subject is not working from memory, are we speaking of:

Experiential memory?
Memory of what someone else told him?
Memory of something he saw on television?

The words used in lying have a genesis.  They do not come from a void.

If you do not believe me, try telling a lie to someone and then carefully consider the words you chose, and write out in the comments section, not only where the words you chose came from, but why, perhaps (should you be able to grasp this) you chose these particular words?

The key to finding out why is to ask yourself what you were thinking about while telling your lie.

It is virtually impossible to tell a lie using words from a void.  All words have connections in the brain somewhere, with some thing.

The SCAN method, in particular, is the greatest system used to find "content" within a statement, whether or not deception exists.  It is, therefore, superior to Reid, or other brand labels, within the world of Statement Analysis.

Language change should reflect a change in reality.

Advanced Statement Analysis:  not only should you seek to identify the change of reality, but attempt to learn why the subject chose the specific word in the change of language.

******************************************************************************


If you would like to help:

 

Sensitivity and Weakness

weak·ness

ˈwēknis/

noun

1. the state or condition of lacking strength.

   "the country's weakness in international dealings"

   synonyms:

   frailty, feebleness, enfeeblement, fragility, delicacy; More

   • a quality or feature regarded as a disadvantage or fault.

     plural noun: weaknesses

     "you must recognize your product's strengths and weaknesses"

     synonyms:

     fault, flaw, defect, deficiency, weak point, failing, shortcoming, weak link,imperfection, Achilles heel, foible "he has worked on his weaknesses"

   • a person or thing that one is unable to resist or likes excessively.

     "you're his one weakness—he should never have met you"

As principles are learned, it is easy to jump ahead to a conclusion.  Staying out of the "oops" category is not difficult if:

1.  You never draw a conclusion or...

2.  You are careful in your conclusion.

Some will simply avoid saying, "this person is deceptive" when it is the very reason they've been called upon to analyze.  There are lots of times when there is not enough sample to work from, but at some point, especially in an interview, a conclusion should be made from the transcripts.

As one is careful in consideration, we are able to say such things as "we do not conclude deception on a single indicator" as well as build up a theme within a statement.

A caveat is what to do with a sensitivity indicators.

"Listen to me, I have to tell you something important..." and on comes the information sought.

Looking strictly at the two sensitivity indicators that precede the relevant information (missing from this statement for the purpose of the lesson), one might say "the subject is deceptive" and be right, but also may be wrong.

Sometimes sensitivity indicators are not indicators of deception, and sometimes they are not even indicators of weakness.

1.  "Listen to me"
2. "something important"

It may be that the information that follows is sensitive because it is untrue, or because it is deliberately misleading.

But what if the subject is the "boy who cried wolf"?  What if the subject is finally telling the truth after bluffing previously?

Or, better still:

What if the subject does not think he is going to be believed?

And on to the next step going upwards:

What if the subject knows the critical information is critical and must not be missed?  What if the persuasion is necessary because the recipient is dull of understanding?

This leads us to the bigger picture.  Step back, perhaps several steps, and ask:

What is the context of this statement?

What if it is in a board meeting in which the subject has been struggling to get the board of directors to take seriously a threat to their business and has consistently focused upon tangents and have wasted time?

Or...

What if it is the statement of a liar, who is obviously struggling to get his deceptive point across?

It is one sentence and there may be good reason for the sensitivity indicators and it may not necessarily be deception.

There are times when the analyst must say, "I have concerns, but I do not have enough for a conclusion" and not jump.

This is not a license to avoid the conclusion of the matter when the conclusion suggests itself, but it is a "stop sign" from which, "stop, yield, and proceed with caution" is best advised.

That's different from a red light.

The Shortest Sentence is Best

         

                                     "The Shortest Sentence is Best"



You've heard this many times, and it is because when someone is "under the gun", that is, facing an accusation, short sentences are more likely to be truthful than sentences with additional wording.  Each verbose individuals who seem to talk incessantly, but are truthful, will use short sentences, with very short breaths.

It doesn't take someone very long, once accused, to say "I didn't do it!" though you might think that Ryan Braun didn't make friends when he said something along the lines of

"I don't really think that at any time, perhaps, and I would bet my life on this, that perhaps maybe something might have entered my body...' and blah, blah blah.

Shortest sentences are best.  The brain thinks quickly when it is speaking the truth because it processes the memory, rather than invent an excuse.  This is why "pace" can be an important aspect of lie detection and why I sometimes 'spring the trap' on a subject who I suspect is lying.

This week, I called someone, introduced myself by name, and did not utter another word for 16 minutes.

The subject had very low emotional intelligence (we commonly say "no self awareness") and rambled  until I excused myself to get in a sentence.  She interrupted and spoke incessantly, to the point, as is my habit, that I put the phone down to do what I needed to do:  get lunch.

I had called the subject to relay information and the subject was not going to allow this, therefore, making a sandwich seemed like the best use of my time.

I don't know if she was truthful or not, it was too much work for me to listen, and my blood sugar level was low and that roast beast sandwich was whispering, "Petey? Petey? Are you there?  I am here for you, Petey!"

When you were young in school, you used "mnemonics", that is, brain development through the use of memorization.

You were "proven" that 2 plus 2 equals four, by saying,

"Johnny had two apples, and Sally had two apples, and when they put them together, they had four apples!"

Thus, you committed to memory, 2 plus 2 is 4.

But when the next step was taken, teachers felt no need to explain 9 + 6 = 15, since the "proof" had been given early on.

Today, you might think it is "Mohammad had two uzis and Barak had two uzis and when they put them together, they had 4 uzis, ready to take on the Jews!" but it isn't so.

Today, in "common core" mathematics, watch how long it takes to teach 9 + 6 = 15:



What do you make of the amount of time and words it takes to explain this? Mnemonics is an important part of brain development, and lengthy poems, verse recitals, and so on, were used to increase the brain development of children. Even Latin was taught, not so much as the basis of English, but even the purpose of brain development was recognized as important. As video games seize the minds of our youngsters, is the current debasement of mnemonics going to leave us with a generation incapable of higher reasoning?

Statements Out of Vogue

From time to time, readers have asked about expressions that go in and out of vogue.

Imagine, 1,000 years from now, people studying our culture and wondering if:

"This guy was so cool..." meant that some people, due to atmospheric conditions, say sociologists, had lower body temperatures.

We've had a few chuckles with, "wicked good" in New England.

There are statements, that is, ideas expressed by words, which in some generations were considered to be wise when applied to life.  Some have been considered wise (the theme, at least) for hundreds and hundreds of years, but suddenly (or so it seems) an idea, belief (expressed as statement) is not only discarded, but the very opposite is considered 'best', particularly for children.

What do you make of the following quote?

What has time done to it?

Why is the antitheses so popular today?

"Humility is not thinking less of ourselves; it is thinking of ourselves less."- C.S. Lewis

"Good Dad" Indicted in Murder of Son

from ABC News:

'Hot Car Dad' Justin Harris Indicted for Son's Murder

Premeditation Considered in Georgia Infant's Hot Car Death

NEXT VIDEOThe Georgia dad who left his son to die in a scorching SUV this summer was indicted today and charged with the boy's murder.

Justin Harris, 33, will be tried for malice murder among other charges, the court said. He could face the death penalty, a judge said earlier this year.

Harris faces eight counts: malice murder, two counts of felony murder, cruelty to children in the 1st and 2nd degree, criminal attempt to commit a felony and two counts of dissemination of harmful material to minors.

Harris' 22-month-old son, Cooper, died on June 18 inside a hot car parked outside Home Depot, where Harris worked. The indictment said Harris left his son in the vehicle "with malice aforethought" and caused the boy "cruel and excessive physical pain."

WSB-TV

PHOTO: Cooper Harris is seen in this undated handout photo.

Harris, who pleaded not guilty, has claimed the death was an accident, and that he forgot to drop his son off at daycare, on a day when the temperature reached 90 degrees in Atlanta.

The prosecution argued that because Harris returned to his car once during the day, to drop something off after lunch, he must have known the boy was inside. They suggested Harris was eager to live a childless life.

Police also discovered Harris had been sexting multiple women while his son was in the car. One of the females was under 18, prompting the charge of disseminating harmful material to minors.

Maddox Kilgore, an attorney for Harris, claimed his client is innocent and said prosecution only brought up the sexting claims to "publicly shame" Harris.

Kelly J. Huff/Marietta Daily Journal/AP Photo

PHOTO: Leanna Harris, right, wife of Justin Ross Harris, arrives for her husband's bond hearing in Cobb County Magistrate Court, July 3, 2014, in Marietta, Ga.

Harris' wife Leanna Harris has remained by her husband's side but hired a separate attorney. She has not been charged with a crime but police have questioned her behavior surrounding her son's death.

Her lawyer Lawrence Zimmerman said she is "living every parent's nightmare" and mourning "in her own private way."

Harris' friends and family have described him as a loving dad who would never hurt his son.

"He was a loving father, he loved his son very much," his brother Randy Michael Baygents Jr., a police sergeant in Alabama, said in court in July. "We went on family vacations together. He was a good dad."

"Just Two Beers, Officer!"

                                                                by Peter Hyatt

Mark McClish, retired US Federal Marshal and current Statement Analyst and instructor, did his own research (with the help of students around the country) and learned something quite interesting:

When a deceptive person is going to have to choose a number between 1 and 9, the number 3 appears to come up more than others; so much, in fact, that Mark began calling it "the liar's number."

I agree with him.

Avinoam Sapir said, "This is not SCAN."  That is, this observation is not part of the scientific process of analysis, but it is quite fascinating.  It is not part of SCAN (see www.lsiscan.com) but it is something you might want to listen for.

I have found it repeatedly to be true.  "Fake Hate" Charlie Rogers had "3 masked men break into her home" and even Tiffany Hartley said, "just had 3 boats chasing us..." in her deceptive account of what happened to her husband, David Hartley, murdered on Falcon Lake in Texas (or "the Mexico side" according to Tiffany).

The exception to this is when a police officer pulls over someone who smells of alcohol and is asked,

"How many drinks have you had?"

The number one answer is

"Just two drinks, officer."

You may find that 3 assailants held up a person at 3 o'clock on the 3rd floor on March 3rd, but hey, just be aware of this interesting observation.  Do not conclude deception based upon it, but upon the statement as a whole.  We never conclude deception on a single indicator.

I have covered Mark's research (and recommend him to you) previously but recently was surprised in an interview about alcohol.

This was an investigatory interview (not a friendly chat) and what was on the line was not only someone's job, but safety as well.

A woman had been accused by a co-worker of drinking on the job.  The co worker called her supervisor and said that she could smell alcohol.  Various mouthwashes could smell like alcohol, and it could be one employee falsely accusing another, but I had agreed to conduct the interview, right away, for the company.  They have been trained, but wanted to see a live interview in process.

The interviews often last 2 or 3 hours, depending upon the allegation.  The more resistant types have taken me to 5 and 6 hours.  This was but a few minutes.


Q.  "How many drinks did you have?"

This is what I want to learn.  Yes, I need to know if she drank on the job, but also, due to safety reasons, I want to know how many drinks she has had.  Even if she is terminated, I can't, in good conscience, let someone drinking on the job, drive herself home.

I have confidence in the system to tell me if she drank, and if she has endangered herself or the company's clients.

A.    (you'll soon learn the answer)


Here is how the interview started and how quickly it ended.

Q.  Name

A. ****** ********


Q.  Date of Birth:
A. ***********

Q.  Phone number:
A.  *******

Q.   Does this phone receive texts?
A.   Yes

Q.  Is it okay if I text you if I need to reach you?
A.  Oh, yeah, that's fine.

I knew the allegation that the company had asked me to come in to investigate for them.  She did not know me.  By asking her if it would be okay, in the future, to text her, it takes the idea of immediate termination out of her mind, even if just for a few minutes, so that I can spring the trap.  Remember, Statement Analysis trusts the subject to guide us to the truth.  If she has been falsely accused, I will know it, clear her, and have some strong questions for the employee who accused her.

Q.   How long have you been employed with *********?
A.   Oh, um, it has been 2 months so far.

Q.  What are your job responsibilities, excuse me, I smell alcohol.

A.   (silence)


Q.   (silence)

A.   (head shake 'no')


I used the silent to discomfort the subject, as well as the 'interruption' to her flow of answers.  She was nervous upon my arrival as she did know me, or why I was there to interview her.  But when I began with the 'usual', I noted that she became quickly disarmed, and almost bored.  I had a dozen or so useless questions that I would have used to create a pace but when I saw her look at ease, I sprung my observation.

The silence was lengthy.  Even a few moments can be unsettling.  If she had been drinking and it is not medicine or mouthwash, the silence will discomfort her enough to get her to speak.  Her words will guide me.

Q.  I do smell alcohol.
A.  Okay

Q.   Can you tell me why?
A.  (she lit up cigarette)

Q.   I can still smell it through the smoke.
A.   uh huh.

Q.  Why do I smell alcohol?
A.  I had a few beers yesterday.

It didn't smell like beer to me.  She used the word "beer", so I will now use it.

Q.  How many beers did you have yesterday?

(I was prepared for "3")

A.  Oh, it must have been 11 or 12.

(I made certain that I did not react visibly to her answer...)

Q.  What time was that?
A.  Early in the day.

Q.  What time is it now?
A.  1:30 in the afternoon

Q.  Why would I still smell beer?
A.  I don't know.

Q.  Did you drink beer today?
A.  I don't drink during work days.

Statement Analysis:  No past tense verb means no commitment to the answer.  We believe what one tells us unless one gives us reason not to 

Statement Analysis principle:  She did not answer the question.  This means the question, itself, is sensitive.  Drinking beer today is sensitive to her. 


Q.  Are you okay to drive?

This caught her by surprise.  She thought I was going to pounce and be harsh or stern with her.  I was not.  I was concerned for her safety and after admitting that she had almost 2 six packs of beer yesterday, there was no way I was going to let her drive herself home, endanger herself and others.

A.  (she stared)

Q.  I cannot let you drive.  I would have to alert the police.  This is for your safety and the safety of others.

I don't like to say much in an interview, but principles are strong clay that need to be molded.  This was an intoxicated woman of very few words.

A.  uh huh.

Q.   Do you have someone who could drive you home?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Do you understand why I can't let you drive home?

A.  Yes

This is close to an admission.  I am polite and she recognizes it.

Q.  Thank you for being honest.  I know this is difficult for you.

(Respect, respect, respect.  It gets information.  Being haughty, or high minded, or even judgmental when someone is clearly wrong, does not help the flow of information)

Q.  Tell me how many beers you had today

Questions in the imperative work especially well with polite people.  They sometimes will confess because they do not want to be "rude" to polite interviewers.

Remember:  You get more bees with honey than you do with vinegar.  The more you get one to talk, the more information you gather.  Blustering, yelling, intimidating cops do nothing but show ignorance and violate the rights of others.  See Kevin Fox.


A.  Just Three beers.

Ha!  This caught me off guard.  The "liar's number" (credit to Mark!) was not what I had expected since the number 2 is the most often quoted to police officers in traffic stops.

But there was something else there that I hope you caught:

the word "just."

The word "just" is a word used in comparison.

Do you want to buy this car?  It is $15,000?

Oh, no, we cannot afford it.

Oh that's okay.  I have this one.  It is just  $12,000!

The word "just" before the dollar amount means that I have compared it to the higher number.  Instead of saying "three beers", she was deceptive, but while being deceptive and going right to the number three, for the purpose of being deceptive, she 'leaked' out the word "just", indicating that in her mind, the number three was being compared with the number that she actually drank this day.

According to the empties that she hid, and the unopened ones, the number actually drank was 7.

So if your brain knew that you had 7 beers, and you did not want to admit this, but wanted to own something quite a bit more acceptable, like, 3 beers, the brain, doing the math, in less than a micro second, chose the word "just" to add in to the reply.


"Just three."


Statement Analysis principle:  Always seek to highlight the word "just" so that you might learn what the subject is comparing his topic to.

Human Resources: Trained Versus Untrained

by Peter Hyatt


Human Resources has its hands full today, perhaps more than ever, due to the law profession.

Everyone sues everyone for everything and every reason.  Lawyers represent them and make money, and judges are lawyers who make the judgements.

Political correctness makes the situation far more dangerous to navigate for the Human Resources professional who:

Wants to hire the best and brightest, or

Wants to hire the right person for the specific position and...

does not want to be falsely accused of discrimination.

General:  The human resource professional who hires sound workers gets to enjoy the reputation of good hiring.

The human resource professional who has hired more than a few workers who have either been poor workers, or have sought to "game the system", will give the human resources professional a bad reputation.

No one wants to hire trouble.

It is, therefore, critical, to be well trained and weed out those who lie in the job interview process.  Those who are deceptive in the employment interview process (which often consists of 2 or 3 interviews and a written statement) are going to bring trouble to your company, if hired.

The deceptive applicant is more likely to:

steal
cause disruption among workers
file fake claims in order to obtain money which his hands did not earn.

Simply put:  The deceptive applicant is more times likely to fall than the honest applicant.  There it is.

Some applicants are problem solvers, and some, the deceptive ones, are problem bringers.  I am at a loss as to list the problems that deceptive employees bring to a company.  Other than attorneys, Procter and Gamble stand to profit, from the aspirins ingested by the HR pro, alone, due to the headaches liars bring.

Here is a such a case worthy of analysis.

When companies fear a particular group, the question is:

What do companies fear about this or that particular group?

If the answer is:  The company is afraid of being sued by someone from this group, the focus now becomes fear driven, rather than driven by hiring the best and brightest, or, the best fit for the position.

(For those of you who are wondering the difference:  picture McDonald's hiring.  Yes, they would like "the best and brightest" but it is not realistic, for example, to expect a med student to take a position as a janitor, as the student is only looking for temporary work and would not be satisfied as a janitor.  The "best fit" would be someone who is honest, likes the satisfaction of clean up work, but does not have ambition to become a medical doctor.).

The company is now set to interview someone from a politically correct hot potato group and fears:

"If I hire this person, and it does not work out, I will have a hard time terminating because he is going to claim discrimination. "

This will factor into the reasoning process.

Next, there is a new twist:  law suits over not being hired:

"If I do not hire this candidate, I will be falsely accused of not hiring him because he is going to falsely claim discrimination" and this is a negative factor but a natural outworking of governmental intrusion (via political correctness) attempting to remedy a social wrong via legislation or pressure.

It does not work.

On the local level, excellent candidates who just happen to fall into a politically correct hot potato group may be avoided out of fear of law suit.

Larger companies will hire only  a certain percentage, just enough to satisfy "watch dogs", and to limit damage.

The interview process should be about the gaining of information and insight into a person's work performance, nothing else.

Would this person be a good worker?
Would this person be reliable?
Would this person be honest?
Would this person keep the company's best interest at heart?

Or...

Would this person look to find a way to not work, but selfishly profit from us?
Would this person cause others to want to leave due to a selfish and difficult personality?
Would this person seek to sue us, wrongfully, when we attempt to rid ourselves of the poison in our midst?

This is difficult to do.

Statement Analysis training is crucial to the interview process.  Legally sound, non-intrusive, it listens, quite carefully, and reflects questions back to the individual to gain information to answer the above questions.

I.   One HR person conducted an interview with an applicant and was ready to offer him a job.  Protocol, however, slowed him down, as a 2nd interview was required by the company.  (They now require written statements and do a third, "panel" interview, as they have received Statement Analysis training).

When asked about the reasons for hiring, the HR person was unable to identify solid reasons.

He was asked, "What was his last job?"

HR:  "He was the head of security! This guy is so qualified!"

Q:   But that wasn't on his resume or application.

HR:  Yes, but it was his main duty for the company.  He held a lot of duties and did them all well.

Q.   What did his references say?

HR:  His references were glowing.  One, in particular, went on and on about him, saying how great a worker he was.

II.  The 2nd interview (follow up) was conducted by someone trained in Statement Analysis. Would he find the same "head of security" all round great guy?

Oh, and by the way, he said:  "you better have a reason to not hire him!"

The applicant was a member of the political correctness world in which law suits are a'plenty.

The result of the Analytical Interview (Interview in which the principles of statement analysis are applied, including "no interpretation" and "reflective questions" allowing the subject to freely explain.  This interview is 80% (and up) words from the subject, with less than 20% words from the Interviewer.

The "head of security" position?

 A bouncer at a bar.  Major steroid user who used his fists, got himself arrested, but without prosecution, it would not show up on his record.  The Statement Analysis trained HR person was NOT allowed to ask, "have you ever been arrested?" so instead, he got the huge "security" person to talk about himself.  Eventually, he offered it, in an almost bragging manner, like "no one messes with me!"

The applicant even boasted about how he so hated people that ate junk food or smoked cigarettes, that he used his size to intimidate them into eating healthy and quitting cigarette smoking.  (they were afraid to eat a cheeseburger or smoke in front of him due to his violent demeanor.  They all had complained to their bosses and the company was afraid to terminate due to...his 'protected' class.)

Do you really need "Tobaccophobic" in your work place?

The job would have been one in which a gentle, trusting soul is best suited.  The "Analytical Interview" revealed a man with anger management issues, an ego a mile wide, and

The glowing reference?

It was from a  direct competitor.  The competitor was not only "glowing" about having successfully gotten rid of him, but was sticking it to his competition by sending him someone that would hurt the business. The competitor had long wanted him out but was afraid to hire him due to a discrimination law suit even though no discrimination (in legal terms; they were able to discern that he was not only lazy, but a violent bully) had taken place.

Had there been Statement Analysis training, they might have caught on to this, by itself, and then ask, "Why the need to persuade?"

Next up:   Statements for analysis on a human resources disaster...

Baby Delano Wilson: Search Warrant Executed At Home

We saw deception from the father Willie Wilson, and some issues with the mother's short message.  Now we learn that a search warrant has been executed on the home:

by Megan Trent

INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. (September 1, 2014) – Police served a search warrant at the home of missing 6-week-old infant Delano Wilson Monday evening.

Rafael Diaz with the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department says this is standard procedure when a child is missing and does not necessarily indicate a new development in the case.

Police could be seen walking around the property with flashlights in the 500 block of Chase Street. More than a dozen officers were on the scene and a mobile crime lab was set up outside the home. As officers went in and out of the house, neighbors gathered outside to see what was happening.

Delano Wilson’s parents, Willie Wilson and Taniasha Perkins, could be seen on the front porch of the home along with other family members. Police took Perkins around to the side of the home, where she was questioned individually. Afterwards, Perkins was taken away in a police car, but she was not handcuffed.

Police continue to ask people with information about the disappearance of 6-week-old Delano Wilson to step forward.

The baby has been missing since just after noon Wednesday. The little boy’s father, Willie Wilson, says he was walking in an alley in the 1400 block of Henry Street when a man and woman attempted to rob him, then hit him and took his son out of his arms. He says they took off in a blue Taurus.

An Amber Alert was issued Wednesday and cancelled Friday evening after days of widespread searching.

“Our main focus right now is to find this child,” says Diaz. “Unfortunately, the reason for the cancellation of the Amber Alert is because tips just weren’t coming in as much as we had hoped.”

This indicates another focus which is not "main."

Diaz says there have been a lot of resources dedicated to the case from the beginning.

“Obviously we want to make sure that we bring this child home, so we allocated a lot of resources to do that for a few days. I believe right now we’ve had about 200 plus manpower hours, boots on the ground, searching the area for that child.”

He says IMPD missing persons detectives are still searching the area and talking with people who live nearby. The FBI is continuing to offer their assistance when needed.

“Our focus right now is to still search the area in smaller patterns; not the full-out scale that we did last week, but detectives continue to be hopeful that tips will still continue to come in.”

While police are not giving up on their goal of bringing Delano home safely, Diaz says they need people to come forward with information.

“If there was ever a time when we need the public’s help, it’s in a case just like this,” says Diaz.

Anyone with information about Delano Wilson’s disappearance is asked to call Crime Stoppers at 262-STOP or IMPD’s missing persons hotline at 317-327-6915.

Robbery Statement Analyzed

analysis by Peter Hyatt

Previously, we used this statement in a discussion on emotions found within a statement.  Many of you already recognized the problems with the statement.

Here is is in its entirety, followed by emphasis and analysis:

"I was walking to the store to buy cigarettes when a man approached me and asked me if I knew what time it was.  I thought this odd because he had a cell phone and everyone has some form of time on them, even if they don't wear watches.  I told him it was 3 o'clock and he said to me to give him all of the money. I was so scared so I gave the cash in my wallet to him.  He left and I called 911."


"I was walking to the store to buy cigarettes when a man approached me and asked me if I knew what time it was.  

1.  Here, instead of telling us plainly what happened, the subject tells us why he went to the stores.  "I was walking to the stores when a man asked me..." would have been best.  When one tells us the reason "why" he did something, and has not been asked, it is a signal of sensitivity:

He anticipates being asked, "Why did you go to the stores?" as if it would matter.  That he considers this important indicates to us the high level of sensitivity, as covered in the color coding blue.  

2.  "asked" is appropriately soft, or polite language.  He is not being robbed at this point, but being asked about the time.  


I thought this odd because he had a cell phone and everyone has some form of time on them, even if they don't wear watches.  

3.  Here he had an "odd" feeling, that is, to place his emotions in the perfect or logical part of the story.  If this is a fresh telling of the account, it may be placed there artificially.  


I told him it was 3 o'clock and 

4.  Note that he didn't say it was 3 o'clock, but "told" him, which is more in line with a harsher conversation. 

5.  Note "3"



he said to me 


6.  "said" should be "told"; this is a robbery, not a polite request. 


to give him all of the money. 

7.  Why is it "the" money when it has not been identified previously?  Why is it not "my" money?  "The" money is money discussed.  It has already been identified by the subject. 

I was so scared 


8.  If you thought the above was more "thought" than "emotion", you now find the emotion in the heart of the story...artificial placement. 

so I gave the cash in my wallet to him.  He left and I called 911."

9.  "so" gives us the reason he gave the "cash".  Why the need to tell this?

10.  "the money" has become "the cash", which is something spent. 

11.  "left" is missing information at the time of departure.  

There are lots of signals here to conclude deception:  that the subject was either not robbed, or knows the other subject.  

Second Journalist Reportedly Beheaded

The second journalist has been reportedly beheaded by Islamic State (ISIS), according to various news report.

No statement released thus far.

This is why negotiating with terrorists was something leaders  refused to do as it only leads to more deaths.

President Obama traded prisoners for an American turncoat Islamists, who went AWOL to join Islam's war on America.

Advanced Statement Analysis: Emotions in a Statement

                                                                by Peter Hyatt

Emotions within a statement are always important.  We note the words chosen, and compare the emotions with the event, seeking to measure if the emotional reaction equates the event.  In those who suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), a seemingly 'over reaction' can be the expected.

We carefully note the placement of the emotions.

PTSD, in a basic snap shot, means that a person experienced a traumatic event where hormone levels sky-rocketed, but did not recede immediately, leaving behind an imprint on the brain that is like an almost non-processed thought, that is, one that lingers and causes a reaction.

Sexual abuse victims who were sexually abused very early in life suffer from a myriad of issues in life, PTSD being, perhaps, the least of them.  Those who were sexually abused in the developing years of their lives, even when no physical pain was experienced, are, statistically, many times more likely to:

a.  become promiscuous or frigid (extremes), either following an early brain pattern which did not develop boundaries, or that which utterly shuts down from contact.

b.   depression and non-situational anxiety
c.   commit suicide
d.   abuse alcohol or drugs  (in short, engage in dangerous behaviors which not only fulfill a desire to punish oneself, but also sparks the rapid increase in adrenaline)

e.  become hyper-vigilant
f.  experience body perception issues

and even to have diminished immune systems, which leads to higher rates of all types of illnesses, including cancers.  There are more serious issues than I can list here.

All of which is to say:

These things can emerge in language.  The analyst must be open-minded, and remember the principle taught by Avinoam Sapir:

we do not conclude deception on a single indicator.

When I speak of "unprocessed thought", I do not know if this is literal, because it may be better to say "successfully processed" thought, one in which the brain has brought to resolution.  For some, it is unprocessed (especially victims who were sexually molested before speech development) as without language, the brain "remembers" but resolution remains at bay, since there are no words to formulate.

I spoke to a man who described his children.

The first born graduated from seminary and became a brilliant Presbyterian minister.

The second became an educator, also with an advanced degree.

The third became a 'never-do'will', often addicted to various drugs, chronically unemployed, and sometimes even homeless.

The children were all raised in the same manner, in the same environment and with the same level of devotion.

The difference?

The third was adopted as a baby, having experienced sexual abuse as an infant.

...as an infant.

Disciplined children are less likely to end up in prison and as our nation reacted to physical child abuse, a la Dr. Spock, spanking became anathema, as 'reasoning' with a 2 year old, and a myriad of disciplinary techniques were embraced (and often enforced by the State via CPS), one of our nation's most lucrative growth industry was incarceration.

Being struck in anger, rather than loving correction, is child abuse, and one extreme is often replaced by another.

For years, the sound of a belt being unbuckled would cause me to pause with momentary fright.  I spoke of it, several times, to Heather, and eventually noticed, years ago, that the brain connection of that sound, with fright, disappeared.

It appears to have been 'processed' through my brain.

Therefore, if I were to write out a statement about a belt, what might you think when you read words that are emotionally descriptive?

Another example of minor PTSD (for the purpose of understanding, and not a diagnosis) to help you understand is this:

Picture yourself driving your car when suddenly someone cuts you off.

You squeeze the steering wheel and slam on the brakes.  You feel a flush of emotions, recognizing that it  is a hormonal rush.

You then 'reason with yourself', that is, the brain 'sees' and recognizes that you are safe, and immediately you exhale and can often literally feel the quick recession of the hormones. If the hormones did not recede (the same healthy 'fight or flight' hormones that can save your life, prepare you for physical trauma, increase your vision, increase your sense of smell, increase your hearing, cause better nighttime vision, control the flow of blood to protect the body from excessive bleeding, and so on!), the healthy hormones would now begin to damage your brain, and even your organs.  (for another article).

The hormones went down quickly because your brain signaled that you were safe.

Hormones that stay elevated, perhaps for just a second or two longer, will leave an impact on the brain.  (This is why I beg parents to keep pornography away from their children)

The longer the hormones stay elevated, the greater the impact, and the greater potential for trauma related issues.

This research has shown ("Ghosts in the Nursery") that when an infant sees, hears (senses) domestic violence between parents, the infant does not posses the faculties to process the fear and the hormones do not recede quickly, hence...

damage that we do not know how to measure.

All this is coming back to Statement Analysis, so please hang in there.

Emotions in Statement Analysis can give us much information.  There is one particular focus that we note in open statements that can help discern between truth and deception:

The location of the emotion in a statement.

Think of a traumatic event that has happened to you.  If this event just took place, the truthful recollection will follow the brain pattern:

1.  Introduction
II.  Main Event
III. Post Event


For example:

"I was walking to the store to buy cigarettes when a man approached me and asked me if I knew what time it was.  I thought this odd because he had a cell phone and everyone has some form of time on them, even if they don't wear watches.  I told him it was 3 o'clock and he said to me to give him all of the money. I was so scared so I gave the cash in my wallet to him.  He left and I called 911."

Experienced readers will recognize that there are some real problems with the above statement, but let's first break it down to the three components:

I.  Introduction.   The introduction is the portion before the main event.  The main event is robbery.

"I was walking to the store to buy cigarettes" is the section that comes before the main event.

II.  The robbery is the main event, "he said to me to give him all of the money"

III.  The post event is "He left and I called 911"


Lets concentrate on the location of emotions.

Principle:  When emotions are placed in the 'perfect' or logical part of the story, it may be an indication that they have been placed there artificially.

Why is this?

Think of this story:

"It was a dark and rainy night, and as I walked down the alley way, the hair on the back of my neck stood up..."

The piloerection, a hormonal reaction, reads like a great story.  It is used by gifted story tellers.  It is not, however, something that we will hear from a subject shortly after the event took place.

Why not?

Because it takes time for the brain to process.

"I was walking to the store when a man told me to give him my money.  I gave it to him and called 911.  I was scared."

On its structure, there are no indicators of deception in the above.  The emotions came afterwards, as it takes time for humans to process.

There are some great examples of artificial placement of emotions in the statements that were made by Tiffany Hartley, who reported that her husband, David Hartley, was shot dead by Mexican pirates while jet skiing on Falcon Lake in Texas.

Her husband, David, was indeed shot dead.  Her deception may be related to what she and her husband were doing there, perhaps on a drug purchase.  Or, perhaps, she was more directly involved, but in any case, she was deceptive and refused to take a polygraph.  Beginning with her 911 call, and each appearance on television, she was deceptive, and could not keep her story straight.

She placed her emotions in the part of the story where the fight or flight hormone takes over, and the subject is just reacting.

Tiffany Hartley's public appearances are now used to teach law enforcement on deception.

Her pretty face and soft appearance duped (at least, at first) Nancy Grace.

See Tiffany and Nancy Grace as well as the following Statement Analysis exercise here.  (The search feature will give you many studies on the case).

Principle:  Emotions within a statement placed in the "perfect" or the "logical" part of the story, that is, in the main event, are often placed there artificially for the purpose of story telling, or persuasion and the analyst should be aware of deception present, using other indicators with this principle, in the conclusion.

Here comes the twist:

Statement Analysis is not made up of cement blocks, placing one upon the other.  Human language and communication is complex.  Picture the blocks made of strong clay, that is strong enough for a foundation, yet pliable enough to make adjustments.

Always note how close, in time, the statement is to the event.

This is critical.

As time passes, you may find, even as PTSD is dealt with, that the statement, if rehearsed over and over, and significant time has passed, that there may be an 'emotional disconnect' in play.  If the brain no longer has the emotional connection, the emotions, like one detached, now are placed in the logical part of the account.

It is as if it no longer bothers the subject.

The subject has repeated the story for years now, and the principle of Artificial Placement of Emotions may not be used, any longer, for analysis.  It is, almost as if the subject has 'forgotten' the event and is no longer working from memory but is working from memory of the words of the story.

This is a self-reference type, such as, "Like I said..."

"Like I said..." indicates that the subject is working from memory of what he said, and not memory of the event.

This can be the case when even a true story has been repeated over and over, for months or years, and the subject is disconnected from the account, just as I am, decades later, disconnected from the sound of a loosening belt.  Talking about it 'removed the sting', and when I speak of it, I find myself remembering the words of the account (it is true) rather than the event itself.

This is something that takes a long time to happen, and the closer the subject is, in time, to the event, the more reliable the the statement is.

Listening to a criminal recall his crime, 30 years later, is not something that is anywhere near as reliable as listening to him recall his crime, while still sweating from having committed it.

In Advanced Statement Analysis, we must be open to varying factors, including PTSD in language (see other articles on sexual abuse) .

The event has been synthesized, over years, because they have processed the account many times, and it is now a 'complete' picture.  The recall is without emotional commitment or connection, due to the passage of time.

This is why I urge law enforcement to say as little as possible to a subject, but hand him a pen and paper and say, "Write what happened" and not influence the language.

Next:  Actual analysis of the robbery statement.