Friday, February 8, 2013

Confidence in Statement Analysis?

How confident are you in Statement Analysis, specifically, when an accusation is made against someone, who receives a considerable amount of news coverage, and makes a denial?

This is a specific question. 

When you hear about a missing child, for example, and the parents are on television speaking:

Do you have the expectation that coming to this blog will tell you whether or not the parent (s) did it?

If you hear of an athlete accused of performance enhancing drug use, do you come here expecting that you will know the truth?

When you hear about a politician in a scandal, or a celebrity accused of something and you know that statements have been made:

Do you come to this blog expecting to "know" if the accusation is true or not?

Please leave your responses in the comments section.  Please be as detailed as you can.  

Thank you!


Anonymous said...

I have confidence in Statement Analysis.
I read the articles, look for quotes and do my best to analyze it, then I come here to see if what I've come up with matches or not.

I'm not as good at analysis at others, but I have been right about the liars so far.

I love coming to this blog, I learn something new every day. Thank you for taking the time to do this Peter. (and Heather!)


Anonymous said...

I do the same. I suspect what may have been said is not truthful and seek confirmation here.

There are too many liars out there. That means people have come to accept all the lies as being truthful. Once you listen to a truthful person speak you realize how easy it is to detect deception. (Let me take ownership here...Once I listened to a truthful statement, I realized how simple the statement was and instantly knew lies can be easily detected)

I too am grateful for this site.

Tania Cadogan said...

I have complete trust in statement analysis.
I come here to see if my own analysis concurs with what has been reported here, i look to see if there is anything i have missed that i should have seen or if i have info which has been overlooked by the commentators here that is relevant, between us very little is missed or unexplained. A great deal of thought goes into the various topics and responses, questions can be asked without being made to feel stupid, simplified explanations are given when a concept is hard to understand with no one begrudging the time spent explaining one concept multiple times to various questioning visitors. No one ignores genuine questions, we don't buy into the drama certain topics can cause, we accept newbies as we were all newbies ourselves at one point. We look only at the words spoken not the emotions, the evasiveness, the celebrity. The subject is dead, the statement is alive :)

Anonymous said...

Same here Kathead. I even use it on myself when i've told a It works everytime. Thank you Peter!!

R.L Haley said...

I come to this blog when a news story does not sit right with me. I check to see if your team has covered it.I often agree with your posts.I have thanked Peter for how much I have learned on Statement Analysis.I have much confidence in statement analysis,and I know now this is a safe place for opinions. I wont be as nervous henceforth when giving a comment
(less defensive I mean)

Anonymous said...

As you've said before statement analysis can show deception, not necessarily proof of criminality. This is one of many tools that should be utilized. Finding out why they/he/she is deceptive is the problem.

ME said...

I watch columbo and am certain HE'S correct.

Vita said...

The principle. I had to look it up, as I could not remember it verbatim. Written by PH on a entry in 2012.

Principle: "Trust the statement. The subject is dead; the statement is alive."

Interesting question asked of readers. Last night on TV was the show " What would you do?", hosted by John Quinones. This follows through with your question asked Peter.

When reading on news pressers (seems) there is a qualifier, as it has happened, the event is past. When in real life if a person approaches you and speaks to you it's live. It's happening with you and he/she in the present.

The set ups by the WWYD producers is they want to capture nonparticipating unsuspecting persons to react. The reactions of people to be the premise of the show. Reaction to words overheard and or actions of another unto another.

The show last night was on two teen girls approached in an open cafe, by a photographer (actor) ahem talent scout. The teens (actors), the cafe patrons to be the unsuspecting. Even though it was said "this is the set up, outright explained", as a mother I felt my blood pressure go up. It riled me. Yes, watching, listening to the interaction between the actors.

What was the cause of my reaction? his statements said to the two teen girls. Deception. Is it is easier to detect as an observer? Had it been a different set up that was not for an adult's BS meter to go off, would the deception be detected?

If it was you being the approached, and not someone else, a different scenario how would one (you) react? This ran through my mind as I watched the show.

The posed situations that his show creates, does stir emotions, especially if children, puppies, elderly are victimized. Yet this is if one chooses to react, some people do not react. Do they not react because their BS meter is running? or is it simply their felt to keep on walking, ignore, not my problem?

Deception in statements in print are they easier to discern? than one speaking to us? to our face isn't as easy? Salespersons do it all day long, encourage people to believe everything they say is gospel of a product. It's where you buy into it or not, how and what they say to you is a definer.
They tweak, hone their skills of speak " selling tactics" as it benefits them, profits them. Is it deception? or it is simply them doing their job?

I am learning yet, going on 3 yrs next month, that I have been participating here. Have learned, feel as I am still on the curve, continue to learn.

Wondering if anyone else here has applied SA to real life moments, conversations with others? has it aided you? I have done this and depending on who is it,,outcomes may vary. Need to learn to take the emotions out of it, and simply stick to the " Words stated, said"
"Trust the statement" it's a curve to learn, yes it is.

The show that aired last night

Lulu said...

I have complete faith in SA - but not in my interpretation of it. I come here to learn, and I have learned so much already.

Anonymous said...

I am confident about Statement Analysis. As to specifics, I will state a time where SA was not done on a case on this blog, but I was able to discern deception. I heard a statement made by Adam Kaufman on tv after he was found not guilty in the death of his wife, which he claimed was an accidental death. His statement was "I can't be happier to be able to go home to my two children and know that this tragedy first with my wife's passing compounded by my arrest for a "crime" that I should never have been arrested for". This word alone revealed his guilt. "Crime", I thought their entire defense was that this was an accident. (By the way, he referred to his kids as children, poor kids). I was shocked when I heard him say this. Shocked because a killer was set free. I love statement analysis and I come here to learn.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

When there is a new hot case that hits the media with a specific allegation, I always "know" that we will "know" if the person speaks enough or addresses the specific allegation.

It is only when reporters refuse to ask direct questions, or the allegation is avoided that I cannot say with certainty.

In the case of Dylan Redwine, I have only been able to say

"Unreliable Denial" because reporters have been avoiding asking direct questions.

Either ignorance or fear of being shut out, but they are not asking questions.

Some of the cases have been quite easy.

Baby Ayla died in the home of her father, who is deceptive about it. No mystery there.

Hailey Dunn died in the home of her mother and boyfriend. No mystery there.

Drugs, violence, and lies = bad news for children.

The Ramseys spoke enough for us to know.

Has Dylan Redwine's father done an interview yet that someone can post transcripts?

Sus said...

I am confident in statement analysis as a tool to find deception.

I come to this site several times per day and find it useful for most crime reports.

Your choice of news source makes most of the political articles biased from the beginning, and difficult to fairly use statement analysis on. Once you have an item here, I find other articles from varied sources to analyze. I want quotes...not the article author's analysis.

Anonymous said...

I have confidence that SA can expose when someone is not telling the 'truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth.'

I'm mostly interested in unsolved crimes - I like to stick up for the innocent and defenseless and really detest when people take advantage of them.

I'm less interested in athletes & politicians, etc. I kinda feel like we partially deserve their duplicity for putting them on a pedestal in the first place (I do like it when they're busted tho, I'm just not that interested). "Lie to me once and you're a schmuck, lie to me twice and I'm a schmuck." They're all liars because they're human, like me & you. It's forgivable.

But harming a little person that you're responsible for - that's harder to forgive.

rob said...

I always try to make my own analysis, before looking elsewhere. But I love when I come here, and the statement in under review. I like to match up what I thought, and what is said here.
Alot of times, oh, I missed the vital parts.

Vita said...

This link was on the local News feed of Dylan's case last night, twitter

The news caster who has followed his case, tweeted the link

Dylan's Father uncut interview. Have not watched it.

I see, she has another, interview of his mother, uncut, linked to her, Channel 9. Have not watched this one either.

KUSA Channel 9
Melissa Blasius

Sus said...

I have been looking at Mark Redwine's statements, also. While I am certainly no expert, red flags are flying all over for me.

His repeated use of "look at me" in some form seems revealing.

Mark Redwine states he wants them to "look at EVERYBODY" , but he "does not want to blame ANYONE." That seems to spread it around and move the focus away from ONE = him.

Mark Redwine also says when "...when we find Dylan IT will answer the questions WE DONT HAVE." Notice the IT. Dylan won't answer the questions...Mark Redwine knows Dylan is not alive. And notice the order of answers and questions...he has no questions.

Lemon said...

"How confident are you in Statement Analysis, specifically, when an accusation is made against someone, who receives a considerable amount of news coverage, and makes a denial?" - PH

I am very confident.

"The subject is dead, the statement is alive" has been a very helpful reminder for me. SA has also led to one of my new pet peeves - compound questions. Who teaches reporters this, why must they always do it, and why do they think its helpful to just keep going on and on til they drop a phrase the subject will glom onto or answer finally? :)

Jen said...

I believe SA is a reliable tool for detecting deception/ sensitivity, and if a subject talks enough, SA will reveal the underlying truth.

I read the analysis posted by Peter and depending on my level of interest (Im usually more interested in missing kids/adults, than athletes or celebrities) I print out a copy of the statement and use highlighters to mark the pronouns, articles, verb tenses, and sensitivity indicators like 'because, so, etc." It helps me 'see' where the language indicates deception, (this was particularly helpful while analyzing the Ramsey ransom note, and noting when the pronouns change from singular to plural, in relation to the notes content).

Tania Cadogan said...

rob said...
I always try to make my own analysis, before looking elsewhere. But I love when I come here, and the statement in under review. I like to match up what I thought, and what is said here.
Alot of times, oh, I missed the vital parts.

Hi Rob, You are not the only one who can miss a vital part, what i call the bleedin' obvious.
I often do it, i do a quick run through and note what catches my eye immediately, often a single word, then i read again this time paying a little more attention and so on for several more reads.
I find it is easy to miss a whacking big red flag because i head off down a path of a red flag pin. I pursue the minutia and lose track of the blatant. Then when i read what others have commented on i realise what i have missed and have a DOH! moment.
This is why i love this blog so much, we all read and understand a statement differently, our gender, our education, our life experiences and even our nationality can and does affect what we see and understand. A single word can mean different things to different people especially if the sttement is from someone of a different nationality. we all speak the same language yet we don't, words like fanny or suspenders have different meanings in the UK compared to the States, so what wouldn't be so notable to you would get my attention becaus of the difference in meaning. I have an advantage over many brits in that i usually typo in american ( the joys of working with Americans for 11 years)
I have also found, as Peter and Heather have often said, that reading a statement after an analysis has been done will reveal up to 40% more information, reading what other commentaters is similar, the result is between all of us we usually get all the red flags and come to a strong conclusion as to truth or deception.
It is also good to be able to review old posts and see what i missed, having learned new skills, it is also good reviewing old posts after the case has been solved or more details have come out and seeing if my analysis still matches the new facts.
I love reading what others post and delight in seeing their skills and expertise grow as time progresses, from hesitant posts to confident analysis.
With statement analysis it is a constant learning curve, beginning from seeing the blatant deception to seeing the huge amount of info that can be gotten with a single word which brings the whole statement and the deception into sharp focus. The subject is being deceptive, here is where the deception is and why there is deception ( it may not be guilty knowledge of the crime rath guilt about something else such as affairs, money etc.
Hopefully, with enough patient teaching from Peter, Heather and Kaaryn i will one day be as good as them, in the mean time i will bug them mercilessly for examples and explanations.

Tania Cadogan said...

Lemon said...

"The subject is dead, the statement is alive" has been a very helpful reminder for me. SA has also led to one of my new pet peeves - compound questions. Who teaches reporters this, why must they always do it, and why do they think its helpful to just keep going on and on til they drop a phrase the subject will glom onto or answer finally? :)

I am the same Lemons.
Do you find yourself muttering at the screen telling the reporter to shut up or ask one question at a time or why didn't you probe the answer more or listen to what the subject said.
I hear myself saying let me at the subject i could do a way better job LOL

Tania Cadogan said...

off topic

Mindy McCready’s father has had her committed to a treatment facility, and she is being ordered to stay there for at least three weeks, according to documents obtained by E! News.

The singer’s two children were taken out of her care Wednesday by the Department of Human Services, E! reported.

In a petition filed by her father, Tim McCready, and approved by a judge, the singer is accused of not caring for her children and substance abuse.

"Since boyfriend (David Wilson) shot himself she has been in bed for 3 wks," wrote her father. "Sleeps all day. Drinks all night and is taking Rx drugs. Not bathing or even helping take care of her 2 children."

Tim McCready goes on to say his daughter tried to hit him and "screams about everything"

“[She] is not making any sense of [any] conversations with anyone. Very verbally abusive to Zander (6) son."

In the approval of her father’s petition, the judge wrote the country singer may be suicidal.

"There is cause to find there is clear and convincing evidence that Respondent is in imminent danger of harm to herself or others, suicidal or gravely disabled."

According to E!, one week earlier Billy McKnight, who was previously married to McCready, filed similar court documents expressing concerns over McCready’s ability to care for her children. McKnight requested full-custody of their son, Zander.

McKnight also requested that a social worker monitor McCready’s care of her children.

Now, her mental-health and possible substance-abuse will be evaluated at an unnamed facility.

The filings note McCready previously received treatment at Middle Tennessee Mental Health Institute in Nashville.

In January, McCready’s boyfriend, Wilson, died. Wilson is the father of McCready’s 9-month-old son, Zayne.

McCready, 37, found fame in the mid-1990s when she moved to Nashville at the age of 18, armed with only her karaoke tapes. Her first album, "Ten Thousand Angels," sold two million copies.

Her next four albums weren't as successful. Her personal troubles began encroaching on her professional success. According to her website, she suffers from severe depression.

Read more:

I wonder if we are seeing the laying out of the foundation for her defence?

S + K Mum said...

I enjoy coming to this blog aswell. I suppose I do expect to find out if people are being honest or avoiding the truth. I find it fascinating and always find myself in awe of Peter and everyone else who contributes so well. Unfortunately, like a poster above mentioned it doesn't prove criminality on it's own which is so frustrating! I find myself watching news and really listening to what people say and slowly but surely I am recognising all the signs. I wish interviewers were trained in SA, then they would know what questions to ask to let the person speak in their own words and from their own memory, that is frustrating too!

Lemon said...

Excellent question. I wonder as well.

drdebo said...

Yes! Because SA is a scientific rational method of interpretation AND the person utilizing those techniques is YOU- I would not necessarily believe someone else's interpretation. I do personality assessments and any test data I use can be interpreted in different ways- thats where the human factor comes in- I only trust my assessments and I only trust your SA assessments.

John Mc Gowan said...

Great post Peter.

Since i started learning SA and getting to grips with the basics,i found myself looking for the negative and the deception in anything,Tv,News Papers,radio,you mention it i was was looking for deception.
I dont think i was naieve not to look beyond what was said or written,i think i got wrapped up in finding deception.

So why is that the majority of people myself included want to uncover deception and not the truth.

Do we look at a statement as readers looking always for the negative and deception,or do we honestly look for the truth.

Personally i would like to see more truth analysis statements so not only to reccognise deception but also the truth.

Trigger said...

Whenever I come to this blog, I expect that statement analysis will get to the truth right away.

Anonymous said...

I expect to know if they are being deceptive, but don't necessarily expect to know the whole story. Like we may know the parents did it through SA but we might not know all the ins and outs. We may know that what they are telling us is not the truth, but I don't know if we can know what they are not telling us. Can we? Like with the Ramseys, we know they are guilty, but we don't know for sure it was the bedwetting that set them off or the bathtub where her head was injured. Unless I am missing something. I know when I come here that most politicians are being deceptive, I know it by that sick feeling I get in my stomach, but I love to see it spelled out when you dissect their statements. I know Obama and Hillary and Menendez have been deceptive, but I still don't know what they are not telling me.

Anonymous said...

Me again, I guess a better way to put it is, with SA I know they are lying but don't know everything are hiding.

BostonLady said...

I am very confident in statement analysis. I've been coming to this blog for just over 2 years and I have learned an amazing amount of information! I visit this blog almost every day. Sometimes I don't have the time to comment on every article but I do read them.

I find myself reading differently now. In fact, even when listening to people talk, I am listening with a different perception. I like to come to the blog to not only read the articles and Peter's analysis, but also to compare what I have picked up in the article and see if I've hit on some key points. It is exciting to see that I have learned and cant recognize deception, although I never get 100% correct.

I like the variety of articles that are posted here.

Peter, thank you for keeping this blog active and open for comments!

BostonLady said...

lol was this a freudian slip?

It is exciting to see that I have learned and cant recognize deception, although I never get 100% correct.

I really did mean CAN recognize deception !

I also wanted to add to what Lemon said about compound questions. I never appreciated how much the interviewer directs the answers with their compound questions. And, I really hate when they give the person being interviewed "the answer" and then make an excuse for them.

All journalists should learn statement analysis so they can help to get to the truth instead of trying to make themselves a star.

sidewalk super said...

It's not that your blog will tell me, but that your blog has opened my ears and I now hear why my gut feeling is quilt.
And, it is a nice feeling to come to your website and get confirmation from your other bloggers.
You, and your blog are a HUGE HELP to me as I now listen much differently. And have far more confidence in my perceptions.
And the constant repetition helps.
Oh, yes, and now I talk back to the TV.
Thank you, thank you

Anonymous said...

Do WE LOOK AT A STATEMENT AS READERS looking always for the negative and deception,or do WE HONESTLY LOOK FOR THE TRUTH.

Personally I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE TRUTH ANALYSIS STATEMENTS so not only to reccognise deception but also the truth.
February 8, 2013 at 4:36 PM

Anonymous said...

Um. Yes.

Anonymous said...

"I monitor what he does, where he's at. Its just me and him. There's not people coming and going in my life because everything I focus on is him and us being together and spending that time."

Here he was taking another jab at Dylan's mom, i.e.: "She has people coming and going in her life, but I don't, so I am a better parent, and I moniter who is around but she doesn't." He is competitive with his wife and angry she is perceived by the courts as a better parent.

Women should be more careful who they reproduce with!

Anonymous said...

anon @ 2:20 here - Oops,I am sorry, I commented on the wrong post!

LC said...

SA gives me a glaring and blatantly obvious reminder that true journalistic skills and proper methods and tactics for conducting interviews are sorely lacking among the most highly rated media outlets. Law Enforcement investigators are also ineffective and poorly trained ---
let me just toss in counsellors for schools, employment, marriage & health, along with socio-............Wait!...what the hell~
we ALL need to brush up on this and really Listen to the Words we Speak (even our own).
If you are unsure how you are feeling, just say a few words and remove all doubt? hmmm.....

Anonymous said...

I'm confident in SA, I wonder why in the middle of CNN's coverage of the Sandyhook tragedy suddenly their top headlining story was a comparitive opinion piece comparing the moments horrors with the world suffering, specifically Islamic children effected by war.It was unexpectedly odd.

Anonymous said...

Oops. I meant to type, unexpectedly off. The Sandyhook coverage was off to the sidebar, and there was a large picture of a beautiful middle eastern girl. It seemed implausable that this opinion piece would be their top-rated story within hours of the tragedy.

Katprint said...

As a licensed, practicing attorney, I have been extensively trained in investigation (gathering facts/evidence, interviewing witnesses, etc.) and cross-examination. I view Statement Analysis as a useful additional tool in my arsenal for finding out what REALLY happened.

The MOST useful tool is the basic rule that when you hear hoofbeats, think horses not zebras. "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun." Ecclesiastes 1:9 The vast majority of criminal defendants are willing to 'fess up to what they did and therefore their cases aren't interesting and they don't make the news. A small number of brazen liars make up some ridiculous falsehood (or more intelligently, like poor Kyron Horman's stepmother Desiree Young, say nothing.) Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, even if limited to linguistic indicators, even if limited to group profiling, and even though such profiling isn't admissible in court, because the scope of "discovery" (investigation) is much broader than the scope of admissible evidence.

The primary drawback to Statement Analysis is, it seems like every analyzed statement is "deceptive." I realize that normal human beings utilize a certain level of not-truthfulness in their social interactions ("How are you?" "I'm fine [unspoken: except for my biopsy results which indicate I may have cancer]".) But if everything is sensitive for deception then really nothing is.

I get much more mileage out of face-to-face microexpressions and body language. One of my favorite anecdotes is the fellow who I was taking a deposition of, who kept squirming and fondling a piece of paper. Eventually I asked to see the paper and it turned out to be his rap sheet printout (he had previously sworn under penalty of perjury that he had no criminal convictions, but his rap sheet showed multiple convictions including felony welfare fraud.)

IMO Statement Analysis is a useful tool like an experienced police investigator's prior experience/hunches, or a sniffer g's signal, or a scientifically calculated search algorithm. Useful, but not definitive.

Katprint said...

"sniffer g's signal" = "sniffer dog's signal"

I really don't know what happened there.

Tania Cadogan said...

A small number of brazen liars make up some ridiculous falsehood (or more intelligently, like poor Kyron Horman's stepmother Desiree Young, say nothing.)

Hi Katprint.
Kyron's stepmother is terri horman, Desiree Young is his bio mom.
Terri has said sod all since she murdered Kyron and will continue to say nothing. I don't think she will ever say anything in relation to him going missing, she has too much to lose.
Feelings of guilt cause people to breakdown and confess to their crime, i don't sense she has any feelings of guilt.
She may end up being one of those who confess on their deathbeds or who confesses due to a religious belief.
She has nothing to gain and everything to lose if she says anything.

Katprint said...

@ Hobnob - You're right, I got the name of Kyron's stepmother wrong. If our posts could be edited, I would fix mine. I feel great sympathy for Kyron's bio mom and I did not mean to disrespect her.

Katprint said...

Also, to clarify, I meant my post to describe the stepmother of "poor Kyron" who she most likely murdered, not the "poor stepmother" of Kyron. My grammar was ambiguous; it sounded better in my head when I was writing it.

Mainah said...

I am not confident, nor have the expectation this is where I would come to find out the 100% truth about any matter.

Like others have said, I do come to see if others found red flags where I found red flags. Validation is good for ones self esteem but does not equate with being right. A hundred people can agree and still be wrong.

I believe there is compelling evidence to suggest SA is a useful tool for my discerning toolbox. I come here regularly to learn the techniques and the more I apply them, or consider them, the more understanding I gain and the more proof I see. Sometimes I come to comment just to vent my frustrations (shrinks are so expensive).

I used to think (altruistically) I was contributing to the solution to a specific problem (people/parents getting away with murder, etc.). I'm a bit delusional in that respect. I took to heart the phrase, "you're either part of the problem or part of the solution" and I aligned here thinking I was contributing to the solution in a small but perhaps important way.

I have no confidence in my ability to make a determination of guilt or innocence based on (SA) statements, and I'd say only slightly more confidence in the experts conclusion(s)due to the multiple variables of where the sensitivity may be derived from. My apprehension, or my lack of "confidence" (your specific word)seems to come from my unwillingness to "bear false witness" against another person, as the value of treating others the way I want to be treated (with truth and honesty) was instilled in me and I have seen and experienced, on a subjectively small scale, the destructive results of those who do not value truth above their self interests.

No matter how much SA I learn, I don't think I would ever be able to use the phrase "I'm 100% confident" because of that imprint in me (better a guilty man goes free than an innocent man falsely accused).

Practice makes perfect(?). The recent discussion about Genesis highlighted for me the depths of SA study. That is when I turned SA inward and began a scary yet enlightening journey of self inventory. It was life changing in a positive way.

On: The subject is dead, the statement is alive...
I found it odd (about myself) that watching a video of people, be it the Ramseys, the McCanns, the Celis(sp?)etc., I'm more apt to not see them as deceptive at all. There is a strong urge for me to believe them. I think I identify with commonalities, ie: I'm a mother, so is Patsy Ramsey, therefore since I could not kill and stage a violent scene with the dead body of my baby, she couldn't have either. However, when looking at only her transcribed words during that April interrogation, it was as plain as the nose on my face that that is exactly what she had done.

I know, that is contradictory and yes, I believe in SA enough to say that here (venting/discussing/learning), but if I were on a jury, I could not convict her based solely on the SA, hence, my inconsistent, wishy-washy, contradicting conclusions.

Mainah said...

cont. (sorry so wordy...just trying to help)

The abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks...
(excluding pronouns, qualifiers, etc. principles) I've also come to believe the younger a subject is, and the more limited their life experiences, the easier it is to narrow down deception. The subjects life experiences are where the multiple variables come into play in discerning ones "internal dictionary". This area is a fascinating study to me currently. I've worked a seasonal job a few weeks at a time over the last year and during the last year as I've been learning SA it's been interesting and educational to see my coworkers reveal themselves. I learn a little SA, they reveal a little of themselves, then I learn a little more, and a little more...and BAM! It hit me like a ton of bricks a few weeks ago; one guy is a self-loathing sociopath. I made excuses to myself for his behavior, he's quirky, unique, different, eccentric, etc. Nope, he is a liar. He has stolen and I can say that with 100% confidence because I witnessed it two times in one day. I'm very naive and immature for my age in many ways. Without SA I would not have suspected or been looking for anyone to be involved in any wrong-doing.

No two people are identical and it is impossible for humans to know what has not been introduced to them. If we make assumptions based on our own experiences and not the subjects history, we will make mistakes that may ruin peoples lives unfairly and I don't honor or accept human collateral damage the way some people do.

All these new discoveries about myself are leading me to think I would not be a good candidate for a profession in the field as I could not say with complete confidence when someone's life and liberty are on the line. But, there is definitely something important to be gained by learning to discern.

Anonymous said...

I do expect to find rational, clear analysis here and am very fascinated by this blog. I am a police detective and have been since 2009. I went to the Reid Interview school, but this seems to be even more interesting and potentially effective than Reid, or at least could be used in conjunction. Surprisingly, I have not seen or heard of any training that I could attend in statement analysis. I got interested in statement analysis after an article I read about statement analysis being applied to 911 calls. Keep up the good work on the site!

Mouse74 said...

I keep coming back :)
That should speak plenty!

Vault said...

Peter, is this from the full 39 minute UNCUT KUSA interview?

Lis said...

I have confidence in statement analysis. It isn't 100% but nothing is and it is very accurate as far as revealing when deceptiveness is being used. It does not tell us what is not said, however there are times that people drop hints that give some clues ("floating around out there", etc). I like to avoid conjecture on what isn't said and stick to the statement.

I do not have much confidence in my own ability to apply statement analysis yet, which is as it should be. I like to come here and read on cases to sharpen my skills and I am catching more and more things as I read or watch the news.

I still find it easier to get a feel for honesty/deceit by watching a subject, so I often skip the videos and stick to the written statements or I have trouble remaining neutral until I've finished the analysis. People give themselves away in many ways.

Eliza said...

Yes, I have faith in SA. I visit this site with the expectation to find the truth and learn if someone is guilty or not. I have seen enough SA conclusions being confirmed by facts, arrests and convictions, even confessions so I believe in it. Also, I found that SA often confirms my "hunches" about cases. For example, the Jonbenet Ramsey case or the Madeleine McCann case. I always knew something was "off" and now I can see the deception clearly, thanks to SA.