Dabbling in Lie Detection

Many experts, in spite of selling books, acknowledge  that dabbling in lie detection leads to a specific negative result:

Those without formal training will see deception where it does not exist.  

In various tests, as well as trainings (which have had both new investigators and seasoned veterans of investigations) I have found it to be so with the majority of any given class "seeing" deception where they should have seen the connection of experiential memory. There were two years of seminars held where a minimum of a 4 year college degree was required.  The results were the same.  

What causes this?

Formal training means expansion into the more difficult areas that are not easily explained in a book, or without question and answer present even though many fine books can anticipate questions.  None, however, answer them all, as human nature is simply too diverse.  

Volume --the more exposure to the wide variety found within statements, the broader the understanding. This must be then repeated often.  Even the best formal training will fail without application and rehearsal.  This is where patrol officers and human resource professionals have the advantage:  lots of on the fly interviewing.  

Combatting cynicism and person prejudice. 

 This is where investigators dig in their heels due to an emotional connection. I found that, experientially, female investigators struggled with favorite music or movie stars who lied, while males struggled with sports stars who lied.  Interestingly enough, in trainings, I have not found much prejudice in political statements, as it seemed rarely did anyone so admire a politician that they resisted training. 

 In the general public, however,  it is very high and comments show the underlining anger, even when attempting to stifle or masquerade  it, but I have not found this much in actual seminars.  The few times it showed itself, it was transparent and it led to "compete shutdown" of the attendee.  One was so acute, that she was unable to complete the course and did not receive certification which her company required.  She literally attempted to reverse principle to fit her agenda.  In a meeting with her superiors later, I expressed concerns about any accused who does not agree with her politically is not likely to be given a fair investigation (civil).  I refused to sign off, so they contacted my superior who had been present for a short time in the seminar.  She refused to overrule my refusal.  The attendee was a non practicing attorney and her repeated quotes of a law dictionary led one investigator to finally say, "Hey, we get it. You're an attorney.  Can we move on here?" 
She was very intelligent, but terribly frustrated in her career and this came out in the seminar each time she raised her hand. 

She projected that which was bothering her.   We all do it .  We all give ourselves away.  Yet, we must possess the self awareness that allows us to face it, and counter it. 

An investigator wrote:  

"The subject, recently divorced, was belligerent throughout the interview, while the accused met with me at her home, well maintained on the waterfront, and was willing to answer all questions posed to her..."

What did this tell you about the investigator?  Yes, she was going through a divorce and fumed at the destruction of her finances and hated the house she was stuck in.  

Extremely intelligent, she lacked self awareness and could not be trusted in an investigation.  She would find lies in low economic subjects and veracity in high economic subjects.  Training made her worse. 

Unless we have enough self awareness that can be verified through other professionals, we may do more damage than good, and we only discredit the science by our own sloppy handling. 

What's on the line?

When you are deciding if something is truthful or deceptive, what are the consequences of your opinion? 

Did you like leaving your name on your analysis?  

It is much easier to do so anonymously.  When even considering lie detection, we ask, What does the person "have on the line", so to speak?

This is often said about the polygraph practice: the liar is not nervous, as he or she is just practicing, therefore will not have the reaction. 

How would it impact your work if you had something on the line?

What if your opinion meant:

an arrest?

your reputation?

your company's reputation?

your department's reputation?

a legal decision?

What if you so believed in analysis, but your co workers did not?  This is something that is common.  One person in a department or company becomes absolutely hooked on analysis, utterly fascinated at its accuracy, only to be met by skepticism of others. 

For us, healthy scientific skepticism is our best friend.  

It helps us sharpen our work, avoid foolish guess work, and since our work impacts lives, it should withstand high scrutiny.  

In one training years ago, I went through a series of sentences, rather quickly, asking the class of about 25 attendees, "deceptive or reliable"? to rather mixed results...at first. 

A pattern emerged. 

I switched over to only reliable sentences.  

An investigator, seated in the front row, raised her hand, and instead of allowing herself to be counted silently, as was what had been happening for a few minutes, she said, "deceptive!"

I pulled out another reliable sentence. 

"Deceptive!"

Another.

"Deceptive!"

It reached a point where the class laughed as she was the only one 'voting' that the sentence showed deception, and did so emphatically.

She clearly enjoyed her status as contrarian. 

I thought, "I feel sorry for the wrongfully accused that meets her."

Some in the class had all the requisite books you might expect and more than a few were familiar with my blog and were constantly seeing "deception" where no deception existed.  This is what some experts say:  

read a few books and you'll see liars everywhere even though less than 10% of deception is from outright lying.  

These are those who often find statistics where people "lie" 27 times every hour. 

When we have a written statement, we believe what one tells us unless they give us reason not to.

When a statement tests "unreliable" in its form, it is likely to contain truth. 

*Many deceptive statements are 100% truthful, word by word, and sentence by sentence. 

The reality is this:  even when a subject "did it", it is very likely that his statement has an abundance of reliable material, and that it is only that he has withheld the fact that he 'did it' in his statement or interview.  

  

SPECIAL REPORT: Justice for Hailey (10-29-15)

Statement Analysis lessons available at Amazon.com 

SPECIAL REPORT: Justice for Hailey (10-29-15)

The new book is in the final editing stage.  This volume is only about the Hailey Dunn case and how Hailey's mother and boyfriend revealed, through their own words, what happened to Hailey.

Test: Truthful or Deceptive?

Readers frequently say that they love short tests or quizzes  especially those which require a single answer:  truth or deception. 

Did this happen as reported?

Pronouns are not subjective.  They are intuitive, and as English speaking people, we use pronouns millions of times giving them 100% accuracy, with 100% being "complete" for analysis.  There is no "101%" in analysis.  Those who use figures of speech greater than 100% will reveal their own subjective understanding of "100%" such as OJ Simpson and Joey Buttafuoco.  

Question for analysis:

Did this happen?   

Specifically:  Was the subject (writer) truthful about the gun?   


"...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..."

For formal training, please go to HYATT ANALYSIS

For your business or civil investigation, we tailor training on how to do a legally sound non intrusive interview to weed out those who will bring trouble to your company.

For Law Enforcement, we have Police Seminars, individual training, as well as specific training for Sexual Abuse cases, as the language of sexual abuse victims can be not only complex, but may be seen as deceptive when, in fact, it is truthful.  There is no substitute for formal training, and professionals who have had "101" or introductory training, must have in depth, challenging training.

Lie Detection is hard work.  If it was easy, we'd see the results, instead of the epidemic of successful deception today.

Detectives, patrol officers with hope of advancement, attorneys with litigation responsibilities, Human Resources, medical professionals, therapists, counselors, and others have had successful training as well as 12 months of ongoing support as they move towards excellence.  Those who complete our two year program are not only proficient in Statement Analysis, but apt to teach and lead others.

Missing Persons and Social Introductions

The unknown frightens parents. They always express this.  

When our child takes his first steps, we squat behind, ready to pounce, to catch the inevitable fall.  As child abuse doctors say, "if he can cruise, he will bruise."

When our goes off to school on the bus for the first time, we cannot see what it is like on the bus, and we fret. 

When she is at her first sleep over, we wonder, we worry, and we fret. 

The moment we open our mouths, we express this, even when we inevitably squelch it, as a gentle form of self protecting denial. 

"How's things today?"

"Oh, everything is fine.  Johnny is at a sleep over tonight, and I have errands..."

It comes out, one way or another, because it is on the mind.  

Guilty Knowledge

When someone goes missing, there is nothing worse than the unknown.  The imagination of the loved one will torment with abandon, and this will come out in the language.  This is especially true of children, or adults with developmental disabilities where self protection is not indicated.  

Does she have her "ba ba"?
Does he have his blankie?
Does he have his meds?
He has his snack every day at 1 o'clock sharp.

When the parent claims the child is kidnapped, it is only natural that we hear, "Are they given her her dolly?  Is she warm?  Are they yelling at her? Is she crying? " and on and on. 

When a parent calls 911 to report the missing child, the unknown is so powerful, that it will break through even the robotic-like questions, even in the smallest of ways. 

In an interview?

It is all about the child.

There are more than a few cases here at the Statement Analysis blog where the reader will be confronted by that which is missing, the concern for the missing. 

This is because the guilty parent or loved one knows the victim does not need anything. 

A single slip into past tense will confirm it.  

I cite a CNN analyst who once claimed a parent "believed the child is alive" because the parent spoke in present tense language.  This is likely the result of a superficial reading of analysis about past tense, and creating a new reality.  It is not so. 

The guilty parent will attempt to keep concentration high, and the speed of processing words slow, using pauses such as "um" and "well" in order to avoid this leakage, which is why the interviewer must sense this and 'pick up the pace' of open ended questions, including, "Okay, what next?" rapidly, to cause the person to move into experiential memory. 

There is a lengthy list of guilty parents who either did not show any empathy for what the "missing" child was going through, or may have only mustered it by using the interviewer's language.  Review some of these cases. 

 Did Patsy Ramsey, while claiming Jonbent was kidnapped, express concern over what Jonbenet was going through?  
                               How about Justin DiPietro? 

Casey?  
Billie Jean Dunn?


Did DeOrr's parents go off on lengthy concerns over what he was going through, or was dad busy praising law enforcement and "ooh and ahhing" over the search and rescue technology?

Social Introductions:

In unintentional deaths, this can become an important strategy for the investigator.  

"My daughter, Sally..." is a complete introduction and can, at the point in the statement, indicate closeness.  

More than a few of these deaths were not intended, though arguments can be made that even shaken baby syndrome is no less criminal simply because it was not premeditated, but I refer to cases where the parent's negligence, or temper, caused an unintended death, and the guilty parent feigned kidnapping, such as Baby Lisa and Deborah Bradley. 

In a case where a good relationship likely existed (rather than chronic neglect which disqualifies Bradley from this strategy), the investigator should spend a lengthy portion of the interview allowing the parent to extoll her own virtues as a parent, and allow him or her to speak of all the examples of love and care, including provision, being there for the first steps, putting band aids on the first boo-boos, and so on. 

Let the parent establish himself or herself in the role of loving, empathetic parent.

Then present the statement and 911 call in which no evidence of such love is ever heard.

This now creates a pressure of imbalance that will require rectification. 

"How can a loving, caring parent be utterly void of concern over what the missing child is experiencing?" is the problem with a solution that is hanging in the air. 

The answer is right there, in the room, and the uncomfortableness of the incomplete problem gives a psychological pressure to be solved.  

It is like walking into a room and without any introduction, say to someone:

"Two plus Two equals?" and you are likely to find a puzzled expression with the answer, "uh, four?"

An incomplete sentence begs for a finish and since it was a technique used in schooling for at least 12 years, it is habitual. 

This is to help facilitate the admission and hopefully will come from the subject, but if not, the investigator, at this point, will say so.

"I know that you would have said much more about worrying about him, but you showed us that you knew he had already died.  You're too good a parent to not worry.  We will now put this together, and give _____ the proper burial he deserves."

When a person goes missing it is expected that the loved one will express concern about what the missing person may be experiencing, as the unknown frightens us all. 

Statement Analysis deals with the unexpected in language, not only what one says, but what one does not say. 

To host a one or two day training seminar, or to take an individual and challenging Statement Analysis course, see 

HYATT ANALYSIS

for training for Law Enforcement, Human Resources, Attorneys, Therapists, and other professionals.

Soft Language and Violent Crime

Do you remember the pizza owner, Rick Jones attacked for being homosexual, knocked unconscious and made to drink bleach?

His response to the attackers was so polite, that I urged investigators on this alone (I had no statement) to re-interview him as his language did not match such a vicious hateful attack.  They did, and the got a confession.  The "hate crime" had already raised $23,000 and stirred up lots of support for him.  In fact, the police quotes showed more emotional language than did Jones, who even went as far as concuss himself. 

"I think someone is using this as psychological warfare against my family," said Jones, who was hospitalized with a concussion following the assault.

Would you call it "psychological warfare" if you had been concussed with a brutal hit over the head, knocked unconscious, had your arms cut into with a knife, and had bleach poured down your throat and then robbed?  

Originally, this led police to something that one officer aptly said:

"It is like chasing a ghost."

That is, until they listened to the language of "the ghost" and he materialized.  

Recall the NY family told to move out of their neighborhood: 

"Attention:  African Americans"

This was soft language and not the language of racists who would have used much harsher language.  I wrote that this was the most polite racist I had ever imagined. 

The home owner wrote it herself.  

"The 3 gentlemen that did this..."

"Gentlemen" is not a word that we should hear when describing assailants.  

Deceptive people do use soft language in fake hate crimes.  You have several examples of this in the past year.  

When it comes to violence, however, it becomes even more noticeable. 

It was just a sentence or two that showed pizza guy was not assaulted, nor made to drink bleach.  

The anger that victims of violence, including those who witness violence (if they feared for their lives, or the lives others--something that signaled increase in hormonal response) causes them to choose words that could condemn them later.  In anger, people use racial slang, and other "my filter is off" language and it is actually expected in truthful statements. 

                     Victims do not like perpetrators.  

Generally, people will connect themselves to the event, as experienced, while deceptive people do not have an experiential memory bank to draw from.  Trauma, even secondary, will show itself in language, consistently, though sexual abuse victims from childhood being the possible exception (which is why separate training is used). 

Ever hear parents of a missing child praise law enforcement for failing to find their child, early in the investigation?  

Ever hear a suspect attempt to align himself with law enforcement describing his cooperation?  When someone goes missing, it is an insult to even ask if a loved one is cooperating, and technically, it is "unnecessary" information, making it very important to us. 

We ask suspects, "How would you conduct this investigation?" for good reason as we listen, not simply for 'sensory description' within language, but an actual connection (often fueled with emotion, which could include overt detachment).

There is no substitute for formal training, and the requisite post study, application and practice needed for authentic lie detection.  

But what of the opposite?  What might this suggest to you, as you consider "fake hate" or "fake crime" reports?  

When soft or passive language is used, it is often an indication that the deceptive person is more concerned with his or her own image than the crime.

Powerful Quote

"Extraordinary accustations must be followed by extraordinary proof."

To which the accuser said, 

"Why not be followed by just proof?"

Does anyone recognize who made this statement?

911 Call and Lawyer Statement DJ Creato

From:  Inquirer 

The father of a 3-year-old boy whose body was found in the woods in Haddon Township last week is not a suspect, and spoke to investigators without a lawyer present, the attorney for D.J. Creato said in an interview Wednesday.

"The police have told me unequivocally that there are no suspects, that my client is not a suspect, and that they're trying to piece together what happened here," said Richard J. Fuschino Jr., a Philadelphia attorney. "And in truth my client and his family are trying to do the exact same thing."

It is interesting to note that the lawyer felt the need to add the unnecessary word, "unequivocally" to his sentence. 

Also note the order of his sentences.  

"The police told me that my client is not a suspect" would be a very strong statement. 

Yet, it is not what he said. 

"The police have told me..." instead of "the police told me", which, even in this small change in the verb status, tells us of a 'lengthening of time', which suggests that it took some time to get this information. 

What does that mean?

It may be that it took quite a bit of time to get a police officer to say this. 

Or, it may have taken time and more than one police officer to say this.  

In any case, it is a subtle weakness which is then further weakened by that which is not necessary: 

"unequivocally" means, clear, having only one meaning.  

Was this part of a much more elaborate conversation?

I am now wondering:  during a lengthy conversation or even multiple conversations, did, at some point, police say that his client was not a suspect in a specific allegation within the investigation?

Since, "police said my client is not a suspect" is "clear, and having only one meaning", the importing of the word "unequivocally" means that there must have been a complexity of information within the communication to which the lawyer wishes to 'boil down to a simple conclusion.'

It is not a strong statement as would have been this:

"Police said my client is not a suspect." He has indicated to us that there is more to this than his simple conclusion. 

Creato, 22, reported his son, Brendan, missing in a 911 call around 6 a.m. on Oct. 13, causing residents to scour their Westmont neighborhood after police sent out an automated call to the community about the disappearance.

Three hours later, Brendan's body was discovered in the woods near South Park Drive and Cooper Street, about half a mile from his father's apartment.

An autopsy last week was unable to determine a cause of death, and authorities have stayed mostly silent about their investigation. The Camden County Prosecutor's Office said earlier this week that the state medical examiner's office has assisted.

A Creato family friend advised D.J. to hire an attorney to help him navigate through the unfamiliar legal process, not because he has anything to hide, Fuschino said.

"In any situation where you have something this complicated and involved, it is smart and good advice to have a lawyer," Fuschino said.

It sounds pretty simple.  A toddler got out while his father was sleeping and was found dead, hence, "my client is not a suspect."  

It is not simple, but it is complex and it is involved.  

How did the boy die?

How did the boy get out?

Why did the father need to communicate, first, that he just woke up?

What is the father's history?

Has child protective services been involved?

Was the father drug tested?

Did the father polygraph?

What does the house look like?

Was the door locked as claimed?   

Toddler don't "leave."

Upon discovering Brendan was missing, Creato called his mother, who lives a block away, and then 911, Fuschino said. The calls happened within minutes, he said.

In the background of the 911 call, Creato's mother, Lisa, can be heard yelling Brendan's name.

"I just woke up and he wasn't in my apartment. I don't know if he wandered out or what happened. I don't know where he is. The door was locked, I guess he unlocked it and left."

The analysis of a 911 call has no special "rules" nor any different set of applications.  It simply has the same "expected versus unexpected" setting, with the reference point of the larger context:  

The initial report to police about a missing child.  

The is the larger, or external context, and is our reference point.  We speak that which is most important to us. 

For the subject, the first thing he wanted police to know is not that his child is missing, but that he just woke up, which establishes his 'innocence.'

What caused this?

It could be many different things, including a shady background where he felt that this report was clearly going to be looked at as his fault. 

One thing it does not show, however, is the priority of his missing child.  

Ask yourself, what would you say first?

I asked several new parents recently, from this case, without referencing it. 

"Hey, role play with me, for a minute.  It is 6 o'clock in the morning, you just woke up, got out of bed, and found ***** (toddler) gone.  Here we go:

911, what is your emergency?"

Each parent used similar wording and each parent reported the child first.  It was natural. 

Granted, it is not real, therefore, there is an absence of hormonal rush, but there are lots of 911 calls as a reference point for analysis. 

Recall when Haleigh Cummings, 5, went missing. 

Misty Croslin, baby-sitter soon to be step mother called 911:

911: “911, what’s your emergency”

Misty Croslin: “Hi…umm…I just woke up…and our backdoor was wide open and I think…and I can’t find our daughter”

1.  It is not expected that an emergency statement would begin with a greeting.  See several 911 calls here, including the one made by the Falcon Lake, Texas case of David Hartley by his wife, Tiffany, who re-told the story from the re-make of the re-make of the Hollywood movie, Titanic, to describe her husband's death.  

2.  Order speaks to priority:

a.  I just woke up

b.  our backdoor was wide open 

c.  I can't find our daughter 

3.  "our" daughter shows need to share, signaling that this is either not the biological mother (it wasn't) and/or the need to share is evidenced.  This need to share is not necessarily limited to biology, but is especially noteworthy when a biological parent uses it and has a profound need to share guilt and responsibility.  See Deborah Bradley for example.  

Would you have said, "...and he wasn't in my apartment"?

This is very unusual language. 

Even if he started with "I just woke up", what would be expected?

"My son is missing!" is the number answer. 

"I can't find my son!"

That he said he just woke up first, speaks to priority but to then say "he wasn't in my apartment" sounds very much like the avoidance of internal stress that comes from a direct lie:

"he wasn't in my apartment", by itself, (its form) it is very likely to prove reliable. 

In fact, we learned that it was a reliable sentence. 

He was not in the apartment, he was about a half mile away.  

This avoids saying what circumstances caused him to not be in the apartment and it brings the focus on to at what location the child is. 

It is supposed to be that the innocent caller does not know where he is. 

He knows where he is not, which thus hints to us with the natural, "Well, do you know where he is?" question. 

This is the language he chose to use in the call and it is not expected language.  

We consider what might sound reasonable, even in a panic. 

What if you had been heavily drinking and slept through his normal wake up, and felt guilty about it. What might that sound like?

"911, what is your emergency?"

"My son is missing!"

911:  What happened?  Where is your son?

Caller:  "I don't know!  I just woke up and can't find him.  I looked everywhere but I can't find him."

911:  Did you check outside the house?

Caller:  "hell yes!  I looked everywhere here.  Please hurry.  He is only 3 years old!  It is cold outside!  Last night I was drinking and overslept.  Oh please hurry and find him!"

This is just speculation, but it is what most would say.  

Addressing concerns that Creato sounded too calm in the call, Fuschino said the father believed Brendan was somewhere near the apartment.

By the time one calls 911, panic has set in and you, the caller know, he isn't near by.  

This happened to me, in 1991. 

I had 4 children, with my third, a monkey of a boy.  I could not find him and ran through the house searching, and calling his name.  I searched the front yard and backyard, next door, and finally, down the block in some local stores.  

I came to the shocking conclusion:  I must call 911. 

By then, we used cordless phones and I could not find it, but looked in my young daughter's room where her crib and changing table were. 

On top of her changing table, was my little boy, fast asleep.  

To climb up on top of the changing table was a feat of no small measure, but he was a superb athlete and had wanted his diaper changed.  He was always in a hurry, as to never miss out on playing with his brothers, so he went into the room, climbed up on the changing table (high enough for adults to comfortably change babies) but fell asleep waiting!  

The panic I felt, to this day, can come back to me in a flash.  By the time I knew to call 911, it was because he was gone.  

That this young man called 911 confident that his son was right around the area will likely cause people to roll their eyes.  It is quite a stretch. 

Yet, it is his need to justify his client's voice inflection that is of concern.  If he didn't cause, by negligence, for example, his son's disappearance, and police have simply said, "He is not a suspect", why the need to even explain away the criticism of his calm demeanor?

If I knew my client didn't do it, I would say "I don't know."  

Truth is like this.  It is strong, confident and often cares not for a need to explain.  

Voice inflection.

We do not use voice inflection in our analysis. I recognize that some people are good at such things, but in terms of "knowing" truth from deception, it is not something that can be scientifically applied, case by case.  

I prefer the extreme high percentages of Statement Analysis results, instead.

 We use the "speed of transmission" where the brain tells the tongue which words to use in a rapid fashion, and the interruption of such, through awkward or additional wording, to signal to us that more attention is needed, to guide us.  This is why "unnecessary" words are so valuable:  the subject could have said the sentence without, therefore, what was it that caused the brain to signal to the tongue to add in this unnecessary word?

We know that emotion is the number one impact upon change of language.

We know that the law of economy means that shorter sentences are best, and truth is often stated with brevity since it does not require layers of proof, while one is speaking. 

Sometimes employees that call out sick and are lying will not only make their voice sound sick, but give an overabundance of detail, thinking their words may be more convincing this way.  

Ignoring voice inflection is important for accuracy in analysis, however, after analysis is complete, this is something that can be looked at.  

For example, 7 year old Isabel Celis was reported "kidnapped" by her father, Sergio, who giggled in the 911 call and had no indication of nervousness.  

Lawyer statements are always fascinating.  They often reveal whether or not the lawyer believes in his client's innocence, or if he knows his client is guilty.  Lawyers will even issue reliable denials when they believe their client did not commit the crime accused of.  

"No one thinks at first the worst has happened," Fuschino said. "So I think it's certainly a level of concern you hear in his voice, but he's not hysterical.

"It would be rather astonishing to me," Fuschino added, "if he had any level of terror in his voice that suggested he knew more than he did."

When I was resigned to call 911, I thought that my son was missing.  Missing.  

Even as I type this, all these years later, with time passage and processing richly done, it still bothers me.  I was about to call police because I could not find him. 

D.J.'s parents, Lisa and David Creato, also have retained legal counsel to assist them during the investigative process, Philadelphia attorney William J. Brennan said.

"My clients are devastated," Brennan said in an interview. "They're in the process of attempting to bury their grandchild, and they are cooperating with law enforcement. We hope to have some answers as to how this tragedy occurred."

Funeral services for Brendan, which the family has said will be private, are scheduled Thursday at Blake-Doyle Funeral Home in Collingswood.

Study of Psychopathic Language Patterns

The following is a study from Cornell.  Take careful note of the need to explain why something is done. 

In analysis, we flag, "so, since, therefore, because, to..." and so on, if someone has a need to explain why they did something without being asked. 

This indicates a high level of sensitivity and anticipates being asked, "but, why did you.." and seek to answer it without having to be asked.  It shows a high need to explain, making the action, itself, very sensitive. 

Many crimes are solved by this highlighting, alone. 

Also note that they claim the word "match their personalities", which is profiling in reverse.  We note the personality trait (or type) from the words.  

Here is the article:  

The language of psychopathic murderers provides a window to their souls, new research shows.

The words they use "match their personalities, which reflect selfishness, detachment from their crimes and emotional flatness," says Jeff Hancock, a professor of computing and information science at New York State's Cornell University. He conducted the study with colleagues at the University of British Columbia.

Their findings appear in the journal Legal and Criminological Psychology.

The team says it analyzed stories told by 14 psychopathic male murderers held in Canadian prisons and compared them with 38 convicted murderers who were not diagnosed as psychopathic. Each subject was asked to describe his crime in detail and their stories were taped, transcribed and subjected to computer analysis.

"Psychopaths used more conjunctions like "because," "since" or "so that," implying that the crime "had to be done" to obtain a particular goal. They used twice as many words relating to physical needs, such as food, sex or money, while non-psychopaths used more words about social needs, including family, religion and spirituality," the paper says. "Unveiling their predatory nature in their own description, the psychopaths often included details of what they had to eat on the day of their crime."

Psychopaths were more likely to use the past tense, suggesting a detachment from their crimes, say the researchers. They tended to be less fluent in their speech, using more "ums" and "uhs."

These are more likely to be pauses with the need to think.  

The exact reason for this is not clear, but the researchers speculate that the psychopath is trying harder to make a positive impression, needing to use more mental effort to frame the story.

"Previous work has looked at how psychopaths use language," Hancock said. "Our paper is the first to show that you can use automated tools to detect the distinct speech patterns of psychopaths."

The study's authors say their research could lead to new tools for diagnosis and treatment, and have implications on law enforcement and social media.

FBI: 51 Police Officers Killed in Felonies 2014

From the Washington Post:

FBI says 51 police officers murdered in the line of duty during 2014

Of 96 American police officers who were killed in the line-of-duty in 2014, 51 of them were killed as a result of felonious acts, according to new statistics released by the FBI on Monday.

While the number of officers killed feloniously was up significantly year-over-year — there were just 27 officers killed feloniously in 2013, according to the FBI, the lowest number of officers murdered in the line of duty in at least a decade — it remains fewer than the 56 officers murdered in 2010 and 55 officers murdered in 2005.

Despite the year-over-year increase, the number of officers that the FBI says were murdered in the line of duty in 2014 was in line with the 10-year average. On average, 50.5 police officers per year have been murdered in the line of duty during the last decade. The FBI’s release last year gave no reason for 2013’s uncharacteristically low number of officers feloniously killed.

(Provided by the FBI)

Only one of the officers feloniously killed in 2014 was by an unarmed person.

Of the other 50 officers, 46 were killed using firearms (33 were killed with handguns, 10 with rifles, and three with shotguns). Four officers were killed when they were struck or run over by a vehicle.

The FBI says that all of the officers killed were male, while 47 of them were white, two were black, and two were Asian.

In 29 of these cases, the suspect was charged with murder; in 19 cases, the killer is dead; and in three cases, the homicide is being investigated as capital murder of a law enforcement officer

Crystal Rogers Case: Houck Named Suspect

Analysis of Brooks Houck, fiance of 35 year old Crystal Rogers, when he appeared on The Nancy Grace Show, indicated:

1.  That Crystal Rogers was deceased;

2.  The Brooks Houck was deceptive, and deliberately withholding information about her what happened to Crystal. 

We then learned that Brooks Houck brother was suspended, and his vehicle impounded.  The following information has been released by the town. 

If a lengthy interview transcript of Brooks Houck interview exists, it is possible that the location of Crystal Rogers' remains may be within the wording.  

It is very difficult for anyone to suppress guilty knowledge of a crime during an interview.  This is because the subject goes into memory to answer questions, while carefully seeking to pick and choose his words and struggles to concentrate on what happened in one moment, while choosing words to avoid disclosure.  

• The Mayor of Bardstown, along with the Bardstown Police Department inform that Nick Houck was terminated on the grounds that he interfered with the Rogers investigation. Houck reportedly called his brother Brooks with knowledge that he was being interviewed as part of the case.
• Nelson Co. Sheriff tells media that "Rogers is presumed dead" and that Brooks Houck has officially been named a suspect in her disappearance.