The following is a great example to teach about reliable denials.
"I didn't do it" is a highly reliable denial when "it" specifies the accusation. We note its presence just as we note its absence
'We not in the business of reporting rumors, but here we go,' says local tv news station when it came to one of their own.
Is the TV station using this for self promotion? Note the exaggerated language in the report. Will they seek to create publicity for their own program through this? I have not found a single article, anywhere, that is "talking" about Joe Cupo. Note the attempt to create buzz on the video.
This is about the Maine "All Star List" of men who visited a prostitute. It has had an impact upon careers and lives.
Here is the video and transcript of the local weatherman's denial.
If it were to be rumored that you, yourself, were on the list, what would you say?
"I am not on the list" would be important, but would you say, "I am not on the list because I didn't go to a prostitute" and give the reason why you are not on the list? Or, would giving the reason, itself, be considered sensitive? Since it is 'cause and effect', I think it would not be sensitive to say why I am not on the list.
The accusation, here, technically, is "the list", but the accusation is, moreover, going to a prostitute.
The local weatherman is Joe Cupo.
"I am not on the list" is present tense.
If he is only thinking of the list, could this be only about the portion of the list that has been published? Is he referring to the entire list? Is he referring to the latest list? Since the police are releasing only a few names every few weeks, there are many lists.
What is the expected?
Statement Analysis anticipates and presupposes truth and innocency, therefore, when not found, we are 'surprised' by its absence. This is a critical took in detecting deception.
"I didn't go to a prostitute. I am not on the list." This would be strong, as it would link him to the past tense ("didn't) along with the "I"(first person singular). "I am not on the list since I did not go to a prostitute" would be very strong and reliable. "I am not on the list because I can't be on the list because I didn't go to a prostitute, or to Zumba, or to the woman who ran it."
The word "never" should not be taken as "did not"; unless the question is, "Have you ever?" Please see how "never" in Statement Analysis, is not to be substituted for "did not" in cases of Marion Jones and Lance Armstrong. A liar might say "I never doped" but will avoid saying "I did not dope." "Never" is more general, and causes less internal stress than "did not."
http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2012/09/marion-jones-statement-analysis.html (Note her attorney: Lin Wood, from John Ramsey fame. ) She filed a 25 million dollar lawsuit, yet Statement Analysis showed her deception. She later confessed and went to jail.
Learn what a reliable denial looks like. It has three components. If one is missing, it is unreliable, or if there are four components, it is unreliable.
"I did not take the money" is very strong.
"I did not go to the prostitute" is very strong.
Here are some unreliable denials:
"I would never take the money." This is not a denial, because the verb, "would" is future/conditional tense.
"I never went to a prostitute." (Note that if the question is asked with the word, "ever", the response with "never" is appropriate.) Someone might have not taken the money and said, "never" but we would need "never" to accompany "did not" in order to be reliable.
Newspapers are notorious for reporting, "Celebrity Denies Scandal" or "Politician Denies...." when, in fact, the subject often did not deny the allegation.
If the subject speaks enough, and still avoids a reliable denial, we may conclude our analysis with deception, however, it may be that the subject needs to be brought to the denial. In this case, he only denies the "list" but not prostitution itself. Given enough time, an innocent person will tell us he didn't do it, yet what if he thinks he should only address the "list" and not prostitution itself?
What do you think? What would you have said, in his shoes? This is called "the expected." Analysis deals with the "unexpected."
If video does not play, click here Beneath the video is the transcript with the analysis in bold type.
"All the male anchors' names have been coming up so when I first heard it I figured I would let it play out.
Here we have the first sensitivity indicator. He tells us why he did something: he "let it play out."
We do not know the reason why he felt the need to let something play out.
Why would it even concern him?
This is very sensitive.
Please note that the use of the pronoun, "I" in "I would let it play out" suggests an element of control over the situation. How is it that he has an element of control to "let" it play out? This indicates prior knowledge of the rumor. If the names of male reporters was coming out, and he is not on it, he would have not need to "let" anything play out, unless there was a motive for the "playing out" of names. Due to the fact that this is on television, and the news channel is playing it up, one might wonder if the "playing out" is a publicity stunt of sorts.
But, two things: number one, the fact that it is going to take so long for these names all to come out and this rumor is going to be going on and on.
Always note that when something is numbered, the subject is speaking from logic, more than from emotion.
"This" rumor: the word "this" indicates closeness, while the word "that" indicates distance. The rumor is what he is talking about and it is "close" to him.
Note "going on and on" suggests time pressuring. The length of time of the rumors is important to the subject.
And, secondly, the rumor has just grown.
Note he does address what is "second" in his list. This suggests pre-thought.
Note the word "just" seeks to reduce or minimize something. If I wanted to sell you a $15,000 car, I might first show you a $20,000 car. When you say, "I cannot afford that!", I would then roll out the $15,000 car and say, "Yes, but this one is just $15,000." The word "just" is used to compare downward.
It's gotten to the point now where everyone is talking about it and
I had not heard of the rumor. I haven't read about it anywhere.
"everyone" suggests self importance from a local celebrity (I had not heard of him until I was sent this video).
The news station reported that they were not in the business of reporting rumors, yet had their own address the camera. Was this an attempt to up the numbers of viewership? "Everyone" is talking about it is an exaggeration.
I'm really concerned about how its affecting my wife.
Note that his concern is sensitive as it is highlighted by the word "really"
Note "my wife" is an incomplete social introduction. He does not use her name. This may be due to trouble in the marriage, or it may be due to not wanting to use her name on television; yet his own name is something he markets for advantage.
This raises the question: Why would you be concerned about your wife, if you did not visit a prostitute? He then tells us why he is concerned:
She has a business up in Freeport and she's got people coming into that store asking her about this.
Note that people are coming "into" that store, indicating that customers are not staying away due to the rumor.
Note that the store is "that" store; showing distancing language from the store.
You know, some of them want to help out thinking that I'm guilty and that upsets me and it upsets her and more than me, I think, so I just thought it might be a good time to try to clear the air.
"You know" is a habit of speech. We note when any habit arises, or when it does not. "You know" shows an acute awareness of the interviewer's presence (either the interviewer, or the question used).
Note the words "I'm guilty" are framed by Joe Cupo. We do not know if he is entering the language of another person, such as in the store. Did someone say to his wife, "Is your husband guilty?"
This may be an embedded confession, or it may be that he is quoting another.
Note that he is only "trying" to clear the air: why not "clear the air?"
This is the perfect opportunity for him to say "I didn't go to a prostitute. I cannot be on the list, or any list."
He then addressed the rumors and said that if a TV station were to do "that", they'd lose all their "credibility."
"I feel that the only thing I can do at this point is is to go in front of everyone and say 'hey look, I'm not on the list. I've never been down there. I never, I never even met this woman.' So, there you go. And that's the best I can do. "
Note "I never" is repeated indicating sensitivity. When someone says that they "can only" do something, it means that they are limited. They may be limited by consequence, or limited by knowledge.
"At this point" tells us that he "can" do other things, at other points of time.
Please note: he does not say "I am not on the list." This is a critical point.
Had he said, "I am not on the list" it would have been stronger, even in the present tense. Had he said, "I did not go to a prostitute. I am not on the list" it would have been reliable.
He does not say "I am not on the list" however, he only says that this is something he will "say": he is speaking about what he "can say", rather than making a statement. This is also weak.
He can only "try" to clear the air, indicating weakness. He
"can say", 'hey look, I'm not on the list...', reporting what he can say, instead of saying it.
"And that's the best I can do" begins with "And" indicating missing information. Also note "that's the best I can do" is truthful, as he may have limitations on doing better than this. Easily, I can think of something "better": "I am not on the list because I did not go to a prostitute."
This is not a reliable denial.
Let's say the accusation is that you took the missing money from your company. What might you say?
1. "I didn't take the money." Very strong denial. If, on follow up, we ask, "Tell us why we should believe you when you said you didn't take the money" and you said, "Because I told the truth", it would be 99% likely that you did not take the money, since you issued a reliable denial AND used the confirmation "I told the truth", with "I", "told" (past tense) and the word "truth."
2. "I can say that I didn't take the money" only reports what you can say. It is not the same as saying it, as you are only reporting what you "can" say. This brings distance between you and the reliable denial, begging the question, "Why the need for distance?"
He does not say that he is not on the list, only that he "can" say it, along with "hey, look" used for emphasis.
Interviewer: (Addressed rumor spreading and consequences.)
"You're so right. And that that that's you, couldn't, you hit the nail right on the head with that. You know you start spreading things like this, you affect peoples' lives. You know, in a detrimental way."
Always note stuttering from a non-stutterer. As a television weather reporter, it is not likely that he is a stutterer. This indicates an increase in tension.
Note that "you" affect "peoples' lives" which is not to say that "you" have affected "my life" from the subject.
Joe Cupo does not issue a reliable denial.
If Joe Cupo cannot bring himself to issue a reliable denial, we are not permitted to say it for him.
Why not simply say "I am not on the list because I did not go to a prostitute"? The truly innocent (not just judicially innocent) say so, without sensitivity indicators, nor qualifiers. They often do not wait to be even asked.
It could be because he went to a prostitute, or it could be that the news station is enjoying the buzz of dragging it out. It is, however, the simplest of responses. There is not reason to worry, nor to cause his wife emotional distress. In fact, it can even be used to gain sympathy and increase business and name recognition.
There is more to this than the short video. I have yet to find the "rumors" on the internet. If "everyone" is talking about it, where is "everyone" located? Using search engines has, thus far, only produced news stories of his 'denial' but not of where the rumors are being circulated.
Objection: What if Joe Cupo wasn't given enough opportunity to say "I didn't go to a prostitute" by the Interviewer?
Response: Objection sustained.
We must be careful to note if someone is given opportunity to issue a reliable denial.
Objection: What if Joe Cupo did issue a reliable denial and the network edited it out?
Response: Sustained. If the network edited it out, deception is indicated by the network.
Objection: What if Joe Cupo comes on again and says that he didn't go to a prostitute and then says that he told the truth?
Response: Sustained. It would be fair to conclude that he did not go to a prostitute and he told the truth. It would be more than 99% likely.
Objection: Joe Cupo could read this analysis and say he didn't do it and parrot "I told the truth" and you'd call it reliable.
Response: Overruled. We presuppose the "Free Editing Process" in which one is speaking for himself. He can parrot back "I did not go to a prostitute and I told the truth" but it is the need to parrot that we note. As soon as he begins to answer a question for himself, he moves into the Free Editing Process.
We are not robots. Our words give us away. If he speaks on his own accord, we are listening. An innocent person will say so. Look at the analysis of Kevin Fox, father of Riley Fox, who was falsely accused of murdering his daughter. The ignorant and untrained interrogators refused to listen to his words and kept him for many hours in a horrific violation of not only his rights, but of human dignity. "I did not kill my daughter", he said, over and over, but the interrogators either lacked the training, or lacked the intelligence to apply the training, and he spent months in jail instead of being able to grieve the loss of his daughter.
Our words give us away. There is more to the story of Joe Cupo.