Monday, October 27, 2014

Guilt Leakage by the Non-Guilty in Statements

What to do with a statement that has deception indicators, but the subject "didn't do it."?

This happens more than you might realize in companies that experience shrinkage regularly.  

Sometimes, the indicators will be clear judging in context, such as someone who might be a lazy worker, or one who has "stolen time" away from work, while being paid for it. 

Here is a denial that should be viewed carefully.  Initially, it may sound strong, but it is not reliable. 

In a case of missing money in a small company, the subject quickly offered:

                            "I didn't take  any money"

We note that this is an avoidance of saying he did not take "the money", which is specific. 

We know that it many cases of theft, where one has said, "any money", he later went on to confess.

In a reliable denial:

1.  The pronoun "I"
2.  The past tense verb "didn't" or "did not"
3.  The allegation is specifically addressed or answered. 

In the statement, "I didn't take any money", the subject violates the 3rd component where instead of specifically addressing the missing money, he employs the vague, "any" money. Had he said, "I didn't take the money; I didn't take any money" it would have been 

a.  more reliable
b.  raised suspicion that he knows of, or has been involved in other thefts. This is not certain, but should be explored in the interview.  

Sometimes a subject did not take the missing money, but:

a.  wanted to
b.  knows who did it

We must be careful that 'shared' or "leaked" guilt is not contaminating the statement.  The follow up questions would address this. 

Note that in corporate theft, the Interviewer should avoid morally charged language of "theft" because:

a.  The subject's internal subjective dictionary does not consider this "stealing"
b.  The subject claims the company "owes" him, for a variety of reasons. 

It is not enough to know that there are sensitivity indicators, or even deception present.  We must learn if the subject is being deceptive about the matter in hand.  On several cases, deceptive individuals "didn't do it", but were later implicated in other business theft.  

The statement should help prepare the questions for the interview.  

For more on Statement Analysis, including some high profile cases, see:

Amazon will have a non-kindle version up soon:


John Mc Gowan said...


Updated: 8-year-old autistic boy still missing, police to polygraph family

The FBI and Florida Department of Law Enforcement have joined the sheriff’s office in the investigation of how 8-year-old Peyton Kyler Blodgett disappeared this afternoon.

He hasn’t been seen since about noon.
Sheriff Joey Dobson said a pond near the address he was last seen at, 6863 South SR 121, his grandmother’s residence, will be searched by divers tomorrow. That’s also when authorities will give the grandmother and her boyfriend, seven-time felon Jerry Carter, lie-detector tests, he said.

“They were outside and [Peyton] was inside. He just disappeared,” said Sheriff Dobson, adding that the youth’s parents were in Gainesville today.

Peyton was last seen in blue jeans and a blue shirt with Daytona on the front and black sneakers.
Most of Mr. Carter’s convictions are for non-violent offenses, save an aggravated assault count on a law enforcement officer, the sheriff said.

“I don’t think it will turn out good,” he conceded.

Anyone with information on the youth is urged to call the sheriff’s office at 259-2861.

John Mc Gowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Mc Gowan said...

OT ^^

Peyton Blodgett's mother speaks

Lifted from "Websleuths"

Missing child alert issued for boy with autism
8-year-old Peyton Kyler Blodgett last seen Saturday in Macclenny

The search is on for an 8-year-old boy with autism who was last seen Saturday afternoon. The Baker County Police Department issued a missing child alert for 8-year-old Peyton Kyler Blodgett, who was last seen about noon Saturday on S. State Road 121 in Macclenny. Officials said Peyton was visiting his grandmother and her boyfriend for the weekend. Police said around 12 p.m. Peyton's grandmother and her boyfriend were cleaning up outside the house while Peyton and his 5-year-old sister were in the house. When the couple came back inside Peyton was gone. The sheriff said Peyton is low-functioning autistic. Authorities don't believe he could have gotten far. When News4Jax asked the sheriff if this could be suspicious in any way, he was hesitant to answer and said the family is being questioned.

Tania Cadogan said...

Sheriff Joey Dobson said a pond near the address he was last seen at, 6863 South SR 121, his grandmother’s residence, will be searched by divers tomorrow.

This stands out to me as odd.
An autistic 8 yr old goes missing and there is a pond nearby, surely that would be one of the first places to be checked.
Why delay the search of the pond till tommorow?
Do they have cause to believe he isn't in the pond and may be elsewhere?

The search will be done the same time the the gran and her boyfriend take polys.

This again is unusual, what gives them cause to give the adults a poly the very next day?
What is not being told?

In missing child cases, the police, family and neighbors search the local area first, this means ponds, buildings, parks, woods etc.
The places where a child could fall in or would be attracted to would be first on the search list.

Clearly the Sheriff knows or suspects something isn't right hence his comments.

It would be interesting to know exactly what convictions the boyfriend has and if these convictions are reason for the sheriff to say what he did.

Jem said...


Hey Peter,
I respect your analysis and would love it if you would please cover CBC radio host Jian Ghomeshi's facebook statement in response to his firing.

Statement Analysis Blog said...


You're right to want analysis on that statement.

I may post it, but, yes, your instincts are guiding you.


Statement Analysis Blog said...

Great news about the little boy!

Tania Cadogan said...

It came to light that a woman had begun anonymously reaching out to people that I had dated (via Facebook) to tell them she had been a victim of abusive relations with me. In other words, someone was reframing what had been an ongoing consensual relationship as something nefarious. I learned – through one of my friends who got in contact with this person
changes from woman to she to someone to person.

it is worth noting he refes to her as a jilted ex girlfriend.
Jilted is often used as when a bride is left at the alter.
Jilted means to decieve or drop a lover callously.
I wonder whether there was an expected promise of something more which didn't materialise?
It is also worth noting he refers to it as a mild form of 50 shades of grey (minimising?)
he tells us a woman (not the ex)began reaching out and who then becomes a person ad then a someone.
Is he referring to the same woman?
is this someone else?
Why use persone and someone of it is a woman unless there is a need to conceal gender and identity?

Anonymous said...

Was just going to suggest analysis of

but someone beat me to it, LOL