The Disappearance of David Hartley Part One by Peter Hyatt

The Disappearance of David Hartley  Part One

                                                              by Peter Hyatt

On September 30th, 2010, David Hartley and his wife, Tiffany, went to Falcon Lake, Texas, to, according to Tiffany, take a few pictures of the ruins of a sunken church.  This is Part One, where Tiffany appeared on the Nancy Grace Show.

Tiffany said that she and David discussed the risks beforehand, knowing it was a high drug area, with Tiffany going as far to tell us that David even warned her that she could be kidnapped, or held hostage by the Mexican cartels and even killed when they went to get the photo.

All this danger for a photo?

Tiffany continued to tell us what happened.

In her quest to portray him as a good husband, she actually painted him as a cold, uncaring, illogical selfish man, willing to risk his own wife's life for a photo.  His family was strangely quiet over this insult.  It is an insult that, as you will see, came from reliable language:

In analyzing her statement:  David did discuss the risks they faced in their endeavor.

When Tiffany emerged from Falcon Lake, she went to a phone to call 911 and report that her husband had been shot and killed.

She began her call with, "Hello?"

She then went on a media frenzy, stopping off at all the major networks.  Pretty, petite, and now a new widow, she was a ratings bonanza and her story of her last moments with her husband were riveting, though, as some pointed out, somewhat...

familiar.

Since language cannot come from a vacuum, it must come from somewhere.  Truthful accounts come from experiential memory but deceptive accounts must come from somewhere too; a book, perhaps, or a story from someone else, but in this case, might it have come from...

 a hit Hollywood movie?

Tiffany Hartley's words are now used across the country to teach law enforcement deception detection.

Here are some transcripts from her televised appearances:

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Just released a frantic 911 call from that bizarre shooting.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Officials say gunmen approached on boats and opened fire on the couple. Tiffany managed to dodge the bullets. But David was hit in the back of the head.

UNIDENTIFIED 911 DISPATCHER: What`s your husband`s name?

TIFFANY HARTLEY David. Hartley.

UNIDENTIFIED 911 DISPATCHER: OK. Ma`am, were you shot at?
HARTLEY: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED 911 DISPATCHER: Did you see anybody?
HARTLEY: There were three boats.

This is the initial indication that something is wrong. The question is: Did you (singular) see anybody? In Statement Analysis, when someone does not answer the question, it is flagged as a sensitive question. The expected response would include a singular pronoun, providing ownership, such as "I saw three boats".

Mark McClish has identified "3" as the "liar's number" in his research. There very well may have been 3 boats, but we simply make a notation about the number "3" and continue. This has been discussed previously in analysis; however, we must not miss that Tiffany did not answer the direct question, and when she did, she dropped the pronoun.
1. The question: Did you see anybody? is a sensitive question. "Anybody" refers to humans, not boats.  This suggests "scripting" as an answer. 

2. The missing pronoun means that Tiffany does not take ownership of her answer, which means that we cannot either.

3. That there were 3 boats is now in doubt. She did not say that she saw "anybody", nor did she say that she herself saw 3 boats. We, therefore, cannot say that there were 3 boats. We can only say what we are told. This is why it is vital to listen to what the subject says, and not interpret. She didn't say "I saw 3 boats". We do not say that she saw 3 boats. This is an indication of fabrication. This is only the initial 911 call. Tiffany has yet, to date, gone on various talk shows. We are working from this 911 call. Therefore:

We conclude that identity in this story is a highly sensitive topic to Tiffany Hartley.


UNIDENTIFIED 911 DISPATCHER: Three boats?

It sounded odd to the 911 operator, too.

HARTLEY: Three boats. And they came back looking at me.

Note that initially we have repetition (reflective language) which is not to be considered reliable. "three boats". Next she said that something began: "and they came back looking at me".

"they", grammatically, would refer to "three boats". Note that boats cannot "look".

Note also that they were "looking at me". "Me" is the speaker, Tiffany. 3 boats were looking at Tiffany. Since boats do not look, this is flagged for deception, along with the missing pronoun and the liar's number and the avoidance of the answer. This means that we have 4 indicators of deception already, even as the call had just begun.

Next is a clip from Anderson Cooper show that was played on the Nancy Grace show:

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: The Good Samaritan who helped Tiffany Hartley out on the water.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She was frantic, crying, sobbing. I mean, she looked very, very jittery.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: The Mexican authorities questioning whether or not it happened the way the victim says it happened here.

Mexican authorities knew it was not truthful and wanted to polygraph her.  The Texas sheriff said, "no polygraph!" This did, however, give Tiffany a chance to say,

"I told the truth."  She knows that they do not believe that David and Tiffany Hartley risked life and limb for a picture of a ruined church building.

HARTLEY: They know the pirates are out there. We knew that. We knew that they -- you know, there`s a possibility of them being there.

Tiffany Hartley responds to the challenge that Mexican officials question whether or not it happened the way she says it happened. Note her answer does not include an affirmation that it happened the way she said it did, rather, she avoids the question (in the form of a challenge) and changes the topic to what Mexican officials know about the area (pirates there) and that she and David knew that pirates were there. Note the order of her knowledge:

They knew.
We knew.
We knew (repetition means further sensitivity)
"possibility".

This shows that Tiffany Hartley first affirmed the knowledge of drug activity, but then quickly sought to remove herself from such knowledge. The repetition and self-weakening show that drug activity is sensitive to Tiffany Hartley.

I believe in my heart that they went back and took him. And they`re hiding our jet ski. They`re hiding him. And we just pray that we get him back. And when you`re looking at the end of a barrel of a gun, and wondering if they`re just going to shoot you, too, and wonder if your families are just going to never know where you are.

When someone is a victim of a crime, the hormonal response is significant.  It is a most frightening thing to have a gun pointed at you.  It is up close and it is personal.  The expected truthful response is first person pronouns.  Second person pronoun usage, "you" is distancing language.  Since being on a jet ski and being shot at is a unique experience that triggers acute fear and is up close and personal, the appropriate response is, "I was looking at the end of a barrel of a gun" and not "you", nor "your families..." and so on.  She does not connect herself to the description as experiential memory would have shown. 

GRACE: That was Tiffany Hartley this morning, just a few hours ago on the NBC "Today" show.

To Will Ripley, reporter with CNN affiliate KRGV, this couple were real adventurers. And to my understanding they set out on jet skis at the reservoir there on the Texas shore to look at a partially submerged, centuries-old church.

And now I understand authorities are questioning her story. I don`t -- I don`t agree. I watched her on the "Today" show, and I believe her.

Nancy Grace believes Tiffany Hartley because she saw Tiffany on the Today Show. Please see analysis of Tiffany Hartley's appearance on The Today Show for details.  


GRACE: You know, and it`s quite a lure. I mean I traveled, I don`t know how far, to try to go dive to see an underwater statue of Christ. So this is a big, big attraction for water lovers and adventure seekers.
And the story she tells is so scary. But I was watching her I really believe she`s telling the truth. And I resent authorities questioning her story. I know his body has not been found. I know there`s no sign of the jet ski.

That does not disturb me. Looking at her, I believe this woman. We`re going to replay that sound of her speaking earlier today.

Notice that Nancy Grace emphasizes the visual of Tiffany Hartley as the basis for her belief. This is vital to understanding the case.

This is what Susan Murphy Milano had been saying: Had Tiffany Hartley been a man, who emerged from Falcon Lake claiming his wife had been shot and killed, he would have been polygraphed immediately.  

His  story would have been questioned and a full scale investigation would have been done.

Susan did not mince words and for the years up to her death, she publicly called upon Tiffany to polygraph.  

To Alexis Weed, tell me her story in a nutshell, Alexis. Don`t embellish. I want to hear what she said.

Nancy did not show much faith in Alexis Weed telling the truth here.  This is something based upon experience and is said on camera.  It is quite an insult.  
ALEXIS WEED, NANCY GRACE PRODUCER: Nancy, she said that her -- she and her husband David were traveling on their jet skis. It was ambushed by several boats with gunmen. She said that the gunmen opened fire on both of them, that one of the gunshots from these men struck her husband in the head.

She then went over to her husband, jumped off her jet ski, went to check him, flipped him over. He was -- had this gunshot in the back of the head. She decided she better flee because she had a gun pointed at her head, she said. She fled and then went to the shore and went back to the U.S. side.

It would stand to reason to question the story about the cruelty of Mexican Pirates who:

fired without warning
killed for no reason
did not demand money
pointed a gun directly at her...
have a reputation for cruelty that included beheading and delivering the remains...

Since they are known to kill men, women, and children:

                                               Why was Tiffany Hartley spared?

To a former prosecutor's mind: why wouldn't Nancy Grace even question this? Why would she have "resentment" towards anyone who did question the story? Nancy Grace, herself, uses the word "story".  Why is this?

GRACE: And this is what else I heard. I heard her say three boats of pirates, drug runners, approach her. That, first of all, she hears bullets. And they`re hitting in the water around her. She turns to see three boats approaching.
Her husband goes down. She goes back, risking her own life to save her husband. She pulls him up. She sees that he`s shot. She pointed right here. And tries to lift him. And the pirates come up to her.

They look down at her, pointed the gun right at her, and they`re talking, she doesn`t know what they`re saying, and they leave. She leaves in a hail of bullets. She said she felt God telling her, you`ve got to go now, you`ve got to go now, you`ve got to go now, and she did.

"a hail of bullets"

but not a single hit on her or her jet ski. Yet, the former prosecutor does not raise a doubt.  They scored a perfect head shot of David, while speeding on a jet ski, but in a spray or hail of bullets, not a single one even grazed the heroine of the story's jet ski.  This description is also from Susan.  


Take a listen to Tiffany Hartley who survived an alleged pirate attack. Her husband shot in the head. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HARTLEY: When I looked back -- after I had seen some bullets hit the water next to me, I looked back to check on David, and I saw him fly over the jet ski. He had been hit.

Note: chronological order is always viewed in Statement Analysis. A person recalling from memory does so in order. If something is out of chronological order, it is flagged for deception.

1. I looked back First person singular, past tense. Reliable.

2. "after I had seen some bullets hit the water next to me"

3. He had been hit

4. He flew off the jet ski

she is out of chronological order.

I quickly turned around

The story now has editorializing rather than a simple account. She didn't just turn around, she did so "quickly", which is not necessary.  No one thought she stopped to have a cigarette first, pausing, and then looking back.  It is in these small additional and unnecessary words that we find the need to persuade that is evidenced here. 


and went to him and jumped off my jet ski.

"and went to him" is added by Tiffany. Where else might she have gone? This is unnecessary and makes her account sound more like a dramatized story. 

She went to him first, and jumped off her jet ski second.  Order of language that comes from experiential memory is chronological. 

When Casey Anthony's car reeked with the rotting corpse of her daughter, she said,

"Dead squirrels climbed up into the engine."
And I had to turn him over because he was face down in the water. And turned him over and he was shot in the head.

We note that whenever an account has "so, since, therefore, because" it is to be noted as sensitive since the subject is no longer simply telling us what happened, but "why" something happened. This indicates sensitivity as the subject feels the need to explain actions.

Note that "turn him over" is repeated, which is sensitive. Why it is sensitive, at this point, we do not know, but when a subject repeats a word like this, a skillful interviewer will hear the repetition and focus questions upon it.


And that`s when a boat came up, one of the boats came up to me, and had a gun pointed at me, trying to decide what to do with me. And then they left. And that`s when I tried saving David and getting him onto my jet ski.

Note that "a boat" came up, one of "the" boats (previously identified). This is unnecessary. We would not expect that "a" boat was not one of the 3 she mentioned. It is unlikely that there were 3 boats; only one. But here we have a strong indicator of deception:
"trying to decide what to do with me"

When a subject tells us what another was thinking, it is deception.

NOTE: trying to decide what to do" is found within her sentence and it is likely truthful. This is an indication that the subject(s) on the boat and Tiffany Hartley did communicate. This is why she is expressing the other subject(s) thoughts.

The word "left" here puts the author's brain at the point of their departure.  This is what she is thinking of.  It is an indication of withheld information.  Specifically, right here, she is withholding information.  
But I just -- I couldn`t get him up. And I just kept hearing God tell me, you have to go, you have to go. So I had to leave him. So I could get to safety.

Note Divinity in Statement Analysis.  

This raises the likelihood of deception, as well as introduces “justification” or the easing of a conscience.

Statistically, the need to call upon Divinity in a statement indicates deception.  This also later led to people of faith being in strong empathy with Tiffany. 

“When me and my sister say ‘swear to God’ we cannot lie to each other!”

Here, she stated that she "just kept hearing" (note tense) "God" "tell her" that she had to go. Note that she does not say why God did not warn them not to go jet ski in a place where she knew drug cartel pirates were, nor does she say why God didn't tell her a few minutes earlier so that David could be spared. She has now claimed Divine intervention for herself; but not for her husband.

Next she has the need to defend David.  This is where liars lose track of their stories and with each appearance on a different network, the inevitable clash took place:  

He would never, ever put me in a position of danger. And we hadn`t heard anything of -- anything going on over there. We had heard about the pirates, but we didn`t know -- you know, we just hadn`t heard anything recently.

When a subject tells us what didn't happen, what wasn't said, what wasn't seen, or what wasn't thought, it is called a 'negation' and it is an offering of critical information that is highly sensitive to the subject. Here Tiffany, although not challenged, anticipates that she has said that they "knew" this was a drug area, and that people would naturally ask why David would expose her to such danger. Note now the sensitivity above and why she went from "they knew", "we knew" to the reduced "possibility" of being in harm's way.

1. He would never, ever put me in a position of danger

The word "never" is not to be accepted as a substitute for the word "no" and is, in fact, a weak denial. According to Tiffany, David Hartley did, in deed, put her in a position of danger, just to get a snap shot of a church. Tiffany knows that her story, as told, accuses David of this, therefore, she addresses it in the form of the highly sensitive negation.

This statement may suggest that drug involvement was part of September 30th.

Why?

Pat Brown's theory is that they went to buy drugs, likely a wholesale purchase, in order to sell them on the street at a tremendous mark up. She believes that they were shot at on land, not on a jet ski, and that David, hit, told her to run. She ran, got on her jet ski and took off, leaving him behind to die. That Tiffany Hartley offers to us that David would "never ever" put her in harm's way tells us that David either put her in harm's way, or had done something in the past to make her feel frightened; in some kind of "danger". This may be an indication of drug involvement, or it may be an indication of domestic violence. (Recall that she spoke of his size; meaning that his large size next to her small size is in her mind as she told her story. This may be in her mind if she felt intimidated by him. Research into his background, especially close friends or ex girlfriends, could confirm or deny this possibility.)

Tiffany later, in attempting to make David's image improve, told news broadcasters that David had discussed with her the dangers, including of being kidnapped.  This is a truthful statement.  They did discuss the risk, but it was not over a photo.  
Tiffany told us, via negation, that David put her in danger. (we also know this from her story: she reported that they even spoke of the possibility of being kidnapped before they went.

How many husbands do you know would go into an area of such immense danger as to show the need for kidnap preparedness, with their wives?

And we hadn`t heard anything of -- anything going on over there. We had heard about the pirates, but we didn`t know -- you know, we just hadn`t heard anything recently

First: we hadn't heard anything;
Next: "anything" is repeated; sensitivity
Then: hadn't heard anything "recently" qualifying her answer.

This is what deception looks like and this is "Deception Detection 101"

GRACE: Hearing that woman, there is no doubt in my mind that this is what went down. You were just seeing her speaking a few hours ago on the NBC "Today" show.

This speaks for itself.

Out to the lines, Latoya, South Carolina, hello, Latoya.
LATOYA, CALLER FROM SOUTH CAROLINA: Hey, Nancy. I just want to let you know, I love your show, I watch it every night.

GRACE: Thank you, dear.

LATOYA: My -- my question is, just to clear this all up, because I believe her, too. But has she taken a polygraph test?

GRACE: I don`t know. Let`s go to Lieutenant (INAUDIBLE) Garza with the Zapata County Sheriff`s Office.

Lieutenant, thank you for being with us. I doubt she`s in any frame of mind right now to take a polygraph.


This is a statement of prejudice. It would be of interest to ask Nancy Grace how many males who had just "lost" their wives or girlfriends, were not "in any frame of mind" to take a polygraph.

In a murder investigation, what frame of mind should exist to take a polygraph?

Nancy Grace: Was Marc Klass in any frame of mind to take a polygraph when his daughter went missing?  John Walsh?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, ma`am. One hasn`t been provided to her, or offered at this time.

"provided" to her is soft language.  Would this be the language if a man had been suspected?


GRACE: Well, I`ve got to tell you something, Lt. Garza, I really believe her. And the fact that the body has not been discovered yet, and that the jet ski has not been discovered, that doesn`t concern me at all.

Can`t you look at this lady and tell she`s telling the truth?

What do you make of this sentence?


This is what Susan Murphy Milano had been saying on broadcasts repeatedly:

The media would not treat Tiffany Hartley this way had she been a man and the victim a woman.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I was here actually when Miss Hartley came into the office. And we also had a witness out there corroborating Mrs. Hartley`s event of a boat chasing her into the U.S. side of the lake.
GRACE: Let me go to Dr. Leslie Austin, psychotherapist joining us out of New York.

Leslie -- Dr. Leslie, you can size somebody up in a heartbeat. What do you think?

A trained psychotherapist will know that what Nancy Grace claims is not only impossible but irresponsible. Sociopaths, addicts, and so many others are able to fool professionals with impunity. Dr. Leslie is faced with a dilemma: does she speak truthfully and cause Nancy Grace to become angry, dismissive, and possibly insulting? (this could lead to no further invitations back to the show). Or, does she agree with Nancy, in the face of both science and common sense?

DR. LESLIE AUSTIN, PSYCHOTHERAPIST: I find her totally credible. I absolutely believe her. I just wonder why they started shooting first rather than trying to capture them and rob them. But I find her completely credible.

Note the weakness in the assertion by the additional words she calls upon:

"totally" credible"absolutely" believe her
This weakness in assertion is seen with two additional words and then the weakness leaks out with the following statement in which she "wonders" why they would shoot first and not rob. This belies her agreement with Nancy Grace as she shows the incredulous nature of the story. 

It may be a good way to get another invitation back on the show, but it does not speak to her ability to discern or even listen.  She showed the illogical sense of not robbing her, but stopped there in order to agree with Nancy. 


GRACE: Well, they`re drug runners. Why ask why? Why do they act like animals? I don`t know. Why do they kill people? I don`t know. Do I need an excuse? Maybe they only wanted the jet ski.

AUSTIN: No. But there was a history of people being robbed there. I mean it`s just something that I wondered about.

GRACE: So what are you --

AUSTIN: But she is absolutely credible.
GRACE: -- trying to say, because she`s not robbed, she`s lying?

AUSTIN: No, no, no. I find her completely credible. I just don`t understand the scenario yet. But she is totally believable. There is no way this woman is lying.

Nancy Grace attempts to humiliate those who disagree with her. Note the sacrifice of dignity by many who repeatedly go on her show for the publicity.



GRACE: Unleash the lawyers, Ken Hodges, Raymond Giudice, Richard Herman.

Weigh in, Herman.

RICHARD HERMAN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Nancy, her story sounds ridiculous to me. Why would they aim a gun at her and not shoot her and not take her jet ski? Pirates just don`t come up to people and shoot them for fun of shooting people. I don`t know what went on here. It`s tragic. This man apparently is dead. But the story sounds absolutely ridiculous.

Note that the first description by Richard Herman is that her story sounds "ridiculous". This is how far apart two views are:

Herman says her "story" sounds "ridiculous" but Grace says "she" is credible.

The difference?

Richard Herman is addressing the story;
Nancy Grace is addressing the woman.

Refer to Susan Murphy Milano. What is ridiculous to one is "absolutely" credible to another because the other "looked" at Tiffany Harltely.

Is this because Hartley is a woman?

Tiffany presented petite and pretty, with a soft voice.  
GRACE: No, no. Because I have prosecuted cases where victims were murdered, were gunned down just for the hell of it.

What about it, Giudice?

HERMAN: Why didn`t they shoot her?

GRACE: I don`t know.

RAY GIUDICE, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Let me tell you.

GRACE: I don`t know. I don`t know why they didn`t shoot her. I only thank God in Heaven. They didn`t.

What about it, Raymond?

GIUDICE: My two concerns are. Every picture I see in him --

GRACE: Your concerns?

GIUDICE: He`s wearing a floatation device, a life jacket. Secondly, those jet skis are designed to float. There is no reason that that body and that jet ski in a lake, not out in the ocean, have not been found yet.

Ray Giudice is not focused upon Hartley, the woman, but upon the forensics of her story. This, along with Richard Herman's view, are in stark contrast to Nancy Grace's view of looking at the person of the story, rather than the story and its details.


GRACE: Ken Hodges, what do you make of it?
KEN HODGES, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I think the most compelling thing to support what you say is that an independent witness observed it and corroborated what she said. It needs to have a full investigation and hopefully it will reveal what you`ve said that she was a victim of a horrible crime.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED 911 DISPATCHER: OK. So you more or less know where he is?HARTLEY: Yes, but he`s -- he`s --

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED 911 DISPATCHER: OK. What`s your name?
HARTLEY: Tiffany Hartley.


UNIDENTIFIED 911 DISPATCHER: Are you sure that your husband got shot?HARTLEY: Yes, in his head.

Note that the 911 Dispatcher appears to have questioned the veracity of the caller.



(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: We are taking your calls, out to Cheryl in Georgia, hi, Cheryl.

CHERYL, CALLER FROM GEORGIA: Hey, Nancy. How are you?

GRACE: I`m good, dear. What`s your question?

CHERYL: I have a couple of questions. If I was going to go on a jet ski vacation I wouldn`t like go near borders of, you know, where they were, where it was dangerous. And also, if boats were coming towards them, why didn`t they shoot at her? Is there a life insurance policy on her husband?

GRACE: To Will Ripley, reporter with KRGV. Will, it`s my understanding from what she says it all happened so fast they just came up and started shooting, which that`s the way drug runners do. What about the rest of the questions?

Nancy Grace appears to know the MO of drug runners; how they shoot and operate. 

RIPLEY: Well, one thing you need to remember about this couple is that they lived in Reynosa, Mexico for two and a half years before moving back to the Texas side of the border and they`ve only lived here in McAllen for the past five months.

So these are people who are familiar with Mexico and also Falcon Lake is not very clearly marked. I mean, because there is no, you know, physical basically boundary line you can cross into Mexico and if you happen to miss the buoy you may not even know you`re in Mexico.

And this lake is -- this reservoir is a drug runner`s paradise. We have smuggling going on so much because there`s really not enough law enforcement out there.

GRACE: Well, you know, Will Ripley, something you said is absolutely correct. The only way you can tell you`re going over the water border are there are some buoys and they are very far apart. You don`t know that you`re crossing the border.

Note that the question of the life insurance policy was not answered by the respondent, nor was it addressed by Nancy Grace.

Update:  Investigators said that they could not find any connection between David and Tiffany Hartley and the Mexican drug cartels and she did not take a polygraph.  A year later, she was re-interviewed by the news (who claimed that they were contacted by Tiffany) and she spoke about her apartment in Mexico and said that she had rented her apartment from someone in the drug cartel.  Oops. 

Understanding Analysis Conclusions

"Dabbling in Lie Detection" did not prove to be a popular article if page views is any indication.

It did, however, confirm itself, in the short sample statement quiz where readers found deception where none was present and not only misapplied principle, but even 'invented' some new ones. 

Formal Training

I should have described Formal Training as more than just  introductory to include a breadth of principles, with strong challenges, and the requisite follow up that is  necessary.  

Recently, I referenced the television show, "Lie To Me" which caused a few negative responses.  In spite of its success, and with regard to the books sales from Dr. Ekman:  

There is no micro-expression training that has proven useful in detecting deception. 

Ekman, himself reveals this with his own words and actions.  He will not declare "truth or deception" on any statement, transcript, or even a video of an interview that he does not conduct, which is ironic given his research on micro expressions through the use of video, pause and slow motion.  

It is the very essence of his system so having the video and transcript of an interview, with  pause, slow motion,  and ability to zoom in on the face, should fulfill all that he has written and trained others for yet it is not so.   

I have mentioned what it means to have your company or your department judging analysis based upon your work, and in both business and in criminal investigation, that which is "on the line" can include:

A subject being arrested. 
A subject losing his or her job. 
False accusation and subsequent law suit. 
Hiring of thieves.  

The list of potential consequences is lengthy.  It is one thing to have an opinion expressed anonymously on line, and quite another when your conclusion is going to impact lives, departments and companies, as well as your own reputation which is on the line.  

For Ekman, it is actually his own claim is that his training is fruitless. 

The claim of Statement Analysis is that through study and application, the same basic results should be obtained from an analyst in California, the same as in New York, and everywhere in between.  The difference in analysis should not be in "truth or deception" but in the ability to glean content, profile, and build an interview strategy.  Depth increases with time and experience, but the initial element of coming to a conclusions of "truth or deception" should  be made. 


Let's look at the sample statement and touch upon principle.  We do not need to go deeply into the sample.  There are things you must know:  

1.  Most deception (more than 90%)  is via withheld information meaning that a deceptive statement can be 100% truthful sentence by sentence so that even if "he did it", the subject may still guide us to the truth as to how he did it, and the facts of the case (content).

2.  With this in mind, to catch a liar, the liar must force us to conclude deception.

Our presupposition is always the same:

The subject didn't do it, and is 100% truthful.

This is not a moral or ethical stance, but one in which we set up a place for the subject to convince us that his is lying.  We must be so prepared for him to be truthful, that we must find ourselves confronted by that which is either missing and should have been there, or by words used that are so very unexpected, that we are 'forced' to think differently than what we started with. 

The subject must talk you into changing your opinion.  The subject must prove to you he is deceptive.  

3.  Regarding consequence:  You cannot be wrong.  Being wrong is dangerous and can result in a cascade of trouble.  If you do not know, "inconclusive" is better than being wrong.  You cannot (if you are good at this) bear the thought that your work caused someone to lose his job, or be falsely arrested.  This must tear you up inside.  

** If you need a powerful microscope to pick up the tiniest of all points within a statement to conclude deception, you are not looking at deception. 



"...well it was like this.  We went to his parents' house for dinner and he had a six pack by himself so I drove instead.  While we were on our way to the mall, he told me to stop at the Bloom to buy more beer but I told him no he had enough but this only got him angry more.  He punched me on the side of my head.  I tried to steer the car but I almost lost control.  I told him that he was mental and unless he gets help I was done.  He put his gun to my head and told me if I did not stop talking he would shoot me.  I said we are driving so you die too.  He said try me and he didn't care.  I said we could talk it through and he told me he hated me and that he wasn't fooling around and to shut up..."

1.  He punched me on the side of my head.   This is an example of a reliable sentence.  Use, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" as your reminder.  This sentence, alone, can be a constant guide. 

With in it we have a standard for truth and lots of lessons:

1.  The Pronoun "I"

"I" It began with the pronoun "I", which is a good beginning, as the subject is wiling to put himself, psychologically, into the sentence.  By itself, it is not enough, but it is a good start. 

2.  The Past Tense Verb

"did not" or "didn't" is a good, past tense reference.  Reid suggests that "didn't" is stronger, since it is casual, but this is not supported by the research:  both work just as well.  "Didn't" may have an element of relaxation, and "did not" may have more emphasis to it (the subject may feel he or she is not being believed) but statistically, they are identical.  Both are reliable and no differentiation should be made. 

3.  Sex

"Sexual relations" includes the topic of sex which for the analyst means:

a.  You must, each and every time, get the subject's own definition of any and every reference to sex.  The subjective dictionary of the topic of sex is very wide.  If you interpret what any term means you risk being wrong.  You may be certain in some term or another, but experience will teach you that no topic has wider variance 

b.  Sex has a language all its own, and sexual abuse victims can experience such severe post trauma that the language can change.  Disassociation, itself, can mirror passivity in language so much so, that without instruction, deception could be falsely indicated. 

c.  Perseveration can be heard not only in the language of mentally retarded victims, or adults with autism, but also of those who may not have developmental disability, but may struggle to separate what took place in childhood, with what took place as claimed.  This means that the analyst must not only decide if the sexual activity was consensual or an assault, but decide:  did it happen here and now, as claimed, or did it happen years ago?  William Kennedy Smith case is a good example of this.  

In our seminars and studies, an entire chapter, alone, is dedicated to the language of women who were sexually abused in childhood.  

d.  Child abuse victims.  Grooming perpetrators will regularly change language to confuse investigators and keep a special "code" between himself and his victims.  "Ice cream cones" and "popsicles" and other seemingly innocuous terms may be a child's way of describing sex because this is what she was taught by the perp.  

In this case, we know that President Clinton had coached Monica Lewinsky telling her that "sexual relations" is only "intercourse" (in his subjective dictionary) and if true, he would have passed his polygraph. 

Every polygrapher should memorize this sentence. 

4.  "with" is found between people, indicating distance.  The subject, Clinton, was distancing himself from Monica Lewinsky.  Whenever "we" is found between people, look for distance.  

5.  "that" is another word of distancing, and in this sentence, it is the second signal that Clinton wanted to gain psychological distance from Lewinsky. 

6.  "woman" is a gender specific term.  He did not use "person" or "lady" but "woman."  It is interesting to note how many times he used the word "person" when speaking of Hillary, his wife, instead of "woman."  This word can be used to establish pattern from subjects who speak a lot.  

7.  "Ms. Lewinsky":  the pronoun "I" and "Ms. Lewinsky" could not be further apart and this actual distance represents the powerful psychological distance between them, according to Clinton.  We also note that "Ms. Lewinsky" is not "my intern, Monica Lewinsky", or anything similar, which relates to our teaching on social introductions. 

As you can see, this one sentence is very useful for instruction and should be memorized (which cannot be terribly challenging) and used as a sample for "reliability."

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" 

Pronouns:  good
Verb tense:  past tense.  Good.
Additional language:  none
Qualifiers:   none 
Reliability noted. 

There is nothing in this sentence to suggest deception.  We must, therefore, be convinced that deception is present and there is nothing here to convince us. 


 He punched me on the side of my head. 

Pronouns: good.
Verb tense:  past tense. 
Additional language:   none
Qualifiers:   none 
Reliability noted. 

It is short and passes the reliability test.  

There is nothing within this sentence that suggests deception.  We must be "talked into" deception and "talked out of" reliability.  


"...well it was like this.  We went to his parents' house for dinner and he had a six pack by himself so I drove instead.  While we were on our way to the mall, he told me to stop at the Bloom to buy more beer but I told him no he had enough but this only got him angry more.  He punched me on the side of my head.  I tried to steer the car but I almost lost control.  

"tried" attempted and failed.  This failure almost led to almost a loss of control.  

Next, think of the communicative language. 

"Said" is conversational or mildly informative while "Told" can be stronger, argumentative, authoritative, etc.  During tension or commands, "told" should be used. 

The communicative language should be past tense.  


I told him that he was mental and unless he gets help I was done.  

This is a threat to break up unless he gets help.  "Told", therefore, is appropriately used. Deception means that the person has a need to convince us and may not be working from experiential memory which sometimes shows itself in inappropriate communicative language.  

He put his gun to my head 

"He puts" would be present tense.  "He put" is past tense.  That no gun is introduced suggests that having a gun is probably common, culturally, perhaps a hunting family.  Is there anything here that talks out out of belief?


and told me if I did not stop talking he would shoot me. 

"Told" here is appropriate for the tension of the exchange.  

I saw some flag "talking" as not fitting, but I thought, "Hmm, one of them may be verbose, or "quite a chatty cathy" --this also suggested something else to me:  this may not be the first time he has done this, and she is not really afraid of him.  Make certain to consider this as we progress: 


 I said we are driving so you die too. 

"we" has entered the language after the assault.  This tells me that she does not want to break up in spite of what has happened.  There is still unity in her language. I will see if this continues.  

Also, she talked about death.  As an investigator or a mental health professional (including social worker) we need to explore her history, including possibly growing up with domestic violence,  acutely low self esteem (the real thing, not the nonsense you hear of today, but actually one who sees herself in such a terribly low view, that she is willing to accept brutal treatment).  She may have depression issues and if so, I need to explore for possible reaction to SSRI and possible substance abuse, self medication, etc.  Remember:  lots of alcohol and she had to drive here.  They've done this before. 

(I just wrote that you do not need to go deeply but...)

 He said try me and he didn't care.  I said we could talk it through 

Here we have a change from "told" to "said", and the signal is softer language.  
"Try me" tells us that she did not believe the threat. That he "said" it, and not "told" her it, matches "not caring" which could be despair, depression, resignation, rather than rage and one out of control.  

"I said", confirms the softer tone of this, which is what produced:

"we" here, as being appropriately placed. 

She still sees them as "we", that is, possible for staying together. She did not fear him which is confirmed by the need to say "try me."  This portion is not so much argumentative but things have quieted down at this point.  The language is consistent. 

"try me" might have even been in a whisper or lowered voice.  

She "said" (softer) that "we" (unity) could "talk it through" but this is about to be met with dramatic change:


and he told me

Now "told" returns and this means something harsher should be here if this is true (consistent).  So since they had a moment of quieter talk, what came out of his mouth that caused the change from "said" to "told"?


 he hated me 

That'll do it.  That'll change language.  "hate" is harsh with ugly finality to it.  

He is not kidding, and he is resolved.  By needing to reminder her that he was not kidding tells us that he sensed that she was not afraid and not taking him seriously enough for him;

and that he wasn't fooling around and to shut up..."

It gets ugly....stop talking has been met with hatred with the elevated "shut up" as things got worse.  

There is nothing within the statement to even suggest deception.  

Rape is a unique topic. 

When the word "we" enters after the rape, it is a signal that no rape took place. 

Rape is a unique form of criminal assault, with life long consequences to the victim, who does not see herself "unified" with the rapist.  We do not apply this principle of the pronoun "we" to any other topic.  

Rape is both violent and sexual.  It targets a woman where her womanhood exists, in her most vulnerable, tender portion of her body, with unwanted intrusion and violence.  There is no getting "closer" than this.  There is no more "up close and personal" than this:  it is to, quite literally "enter" the woman's body and to enter her being in the most intrusive, unwanted and violent way.  Little wonder that victims often report never feeling completely safe again. 

I have written much about sexual abuse and its impact on language, but cover it in depth in training; far more than short blog entries. 

In short, the "we" that entered this statement after the assault and gun show us that the subject did not want the relationship to end and did not fear for her life, in such case where the "fight or flight" hormone surges, impacting her language.  An argument might be made that she was suicidal, and this would be possible (part of the language) but we know she was not afraid, hinted by her wording, but confirmed in his wording. 

There was nothing here to indicate  deception.  

Formal training followed by specific application, with work being checked, question and answer, and  a strong commitment to practice is prescribed for learning lie detection.  


The system of analysis employed here developed over many decades of research in the United States, Germany, Israel as well as other nations.  Polygraph results have been compared to written statements, just as I was able to compare my written interview with psychological evaluations, in the hundreds, which allowed for verification, just as polygraphs can as well.

For information on formal training please go to HYATT ANALYSIS
discounts for hosting departments and tuition payment plans for individuals.