Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Understanding The "Why" in a Statement

Question for Readership:  Can you explain the statement in bold type below?

When someone is asked to write out a statement answering the question, "What happened?", we flag anything that tells us "why" something happened as the most sensitive.

If someone is asked, "why did you do that?" and the subject answers, "because I..." we do not flag "because" as sensitive.  It is appropriate to answer the question "why?" with "Because..."

Note regarding "never" in analysis:

If you ask a subject, "Have you ever...?" it is appropriate for them to use "never" in a response.  It is in a denial, such as "I never doped" that the deceptive person cannot bring himself to say "I did not dope" but was able to say "never" instead.


Regarding "because, since, therefore, hence, so, to..." and so on:

When someone is asked to tell us what happened, and they "did it", please note the following for discussion:

The person goes into the "why" of something happening because he thinks to himself,

"I better say why I did this because they are going to ask me about it."

Can you explain the above sentence?


Tania Cadogan said...

off topic

HARRISBURG, Pa. – Former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky is serving his child molestation prison sentence at an institution in far southwestern Pennsylvania that includes most of the state's death row inmates.

The Corrections Department announced Wednesday that Sandusky was transferred to Greene State Prison after being evaluated at a facility outside Harrisburg.

Prison officials say he'll be placed in protective custody because of the nature of his crimes and his high profile.

The 68-year-old Sandusky was convicted this summer of 45 criminal counts for the sexual abuse of 10 boys over 15 years. He maintains his innocence and is pursuing appeals.

He's serving a 30- to 60-year sentence that means he's likely to die in prison

Read more:

Tania Cadogan said...

"I better say why I did this because they are going to ask me about it."

He is preempting the questions and thus taking control of the interview.

What happened is sensitive to him as it will be a result of the why.

IE. I killed ... because they wouldn't stop nagging.
The nagging is the cause, the killing is the effect.

The guilty subject has to think ahead not only to guess what questions may be asked, they also do so to vet what they are going to say to prevent anything incriminating.
By answering an unasked question, in the subjects mind the area of sensitivity has been avoided.
They gave an answer therefore they will not be asked for more detail.

This is perhaps why liars go into extra detail so as to convince and convey and divert questions from the area of sensitivity.

I have answered in detail, you don't have to ask further questions on this area, move along, nothing to see.

The analyst however will note these red flags and rather than skipping onto the next area as anything that could be asked has already been answered,will ask more probing questions on the sensitive area, the exact opposite of what the subject wants.

The ball is now in the analysts court, the subject is not the one in control. The subject will experience stress, sweating, become fidgety as they have to rethink their plan of action, their answers. The fear of letting slip something especially incriminating will be at the forefront of their minds so answers instead of being fluent and logical end up as mumbled, disjointed, illogical (ie no logical time line)
The more the analyst presses the point, the more the subject 'panics' eventually either shutting up completely/demanding a lawyer/confessing/insulting the analyst and stomping off in a hissy fit ("stupid ass" ring a bell?)

Am i close?

Jo said...

He wants to make sure the listener comes to the desired conclusion on why he did what he did rather than chance he come to another conclusion or ask any additional questions on the subject.

Jazzie said...

Because the person making the statement actually did it?

Jazzie said...

Sorry I get confused with SA. I totally suck at this stuff. When asked "what happened?" Why would anyone who wanted to deflect guilt say why they did it? Is this a twisted attempt to "claim innocence" or "build alibi"?

I responded with the previous post of "because the person is guilty" because it is the only thing that struck me as important. I sometimes struggle with "why bother analyzing it." LOL.
I'm one of those people who suck at SA because I'm too impatient.

Apple said...

They give extra information in attempt to defend and persuade.

You are funny.

BostonLady said...

I think it is because the person is story telling i.e. lying and is afraid they might forget this piece. If they get it all out in one sentence, they don't have to keep thinking about where to fit that specific reasoning.

Lemon said...

"I better say why I did this because they are going to ask me about it."

It is an attempt to control internal stress. The focus on what may be asked shows concern that the subject will not be believed.

Those who tell the truth expect to be believed.

bella said...

Who said that? What an idiot. Ha.

Deejay said...

The liar has to remember any proven facts, plus on top of that remember his/her fabricated story that mostly weaves between those facts.
The 'whys' are useful to the speaker because they:
Fill time, so that bits of illogic in their created story is missed by the listener.
Create a plausible logical path between problematic facts (in truth, something else happened that the liar wants to hide).

Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla

The why's might be an attempt to understand a truthful statement.

Jane said...

The wording "did this" implies to me that the act is ongoing or just happened, and it is at this early point that the speaker is already interested in announcing "why" to possible witnesses. If a crime has been committed, it's not a crime of passion -- it's well planned.

Saying that they're going to "ask me about it" is a soft wording that indicates that the speaker thinks he/she will be questioned in a relatively friendly manner -- asking someone about something is far different from being "questioned" or "interrogated" by police or lawyers.

Jen said...

To me it's indicates a few things...they want to limit the questions & depth of discussion on the topic making it sensitive to them, they obviously recognize that their behavior is NOT normal or they wouldn't feel that it needs to be explained, and they are trying to set up a self referencing in, 'like I said', which they think lends reliability to their statement.

I think of it kind of like a criminal who tells the cops, 'Sure you can search my car, I got nothing to hide', knowing that they DO have drugs or a gun in the car...they hope that by boldly telling the cop to go ahead, he will take them at their word & not dig any deeper. It also shows tension as an innocent person wouldn't be anxiously anticipating each question with a ready explanation, rather they would just report what happened..not what they were thinking or their reasons behind what happened.

Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla

What if: 'Sure you can search my car, I got nothing to hide', was thinking about a horrible passenger.