Wednesday, January 6, 2016

Missing Pronouns, Distance, and Deception

When a pronoun goes missing, we must first note:

A pronoun cannot go missing unless it first existed!

This sounds simple, but consider:

CEO's and senior management in general, do not use the pronoun "I" very often, unless they are delivering good news.  I like "The Secret Life of Pronouns" research, but question some of the conclusions, including "leaders don't use the pronoun "I", as if it were related to leadership qualities.  Quite the contrary, they use "we" or no pronoun when delivering bad news, but use "I" when a success email is being distributed.  

As with all emails, we look for patterns and disruptions in the patterns.  

Shift work:

In critical care situations, statements are sometimes submitted that cover 48 hours in length, as nurses, social workers, and even entry level attendants work at Nursing Homes, Facilities, Residential settings, and so on, and must be either on shift, or in some cases, "Awake Overnight" to care for their clients or patients. 

This can make for some interesting analysis.  

When someone covers, for example, an entire weekend where she had to stay in the In-care residential facility (or home) where:

a.  Money Goes Missing
b.  Prescription Medication Goes Missing
c.  An Assault Has Taken Place

Investigators, both criminal and civil will require a written statement which is often met with moans of "how can I write out everything I did for 48 straight hours?" types of complaints. 

I generally answer, "With several sheets of paper."  There is no exemption for shift work, nor for the lazy.  If, for example, narcotics has gone missing and a large number of individuals had access to them during the weekend shift, I will find out who did it. 

Unrelated Deception 

This is different than co-occuring deception because it is without a strong connection to the allegation (spoken or unspoken, but understood) that floats above the statement.  Co-occuring deception may be where a wife goes missing, and the husband is deceptively withholding information about him having an affair.  It has a connection, linguistically, to the status of missing because it is specifically relationship orientated.  If he had cheated on his taxes, for example, it will be examined, but it may not have impacted his relationship with the missing wife.  This would push it to 'unrelated' deception.  

Q.  What is common in an investigation like this?

A.  Deception unrelated to the allegation 

Employment statements are frequently submitted with deception that is unrelated to the actual allegation.  This is because employees who:

a.  did not do their work
b.  who took lengthy lunch breaks
c.  who broke rules or regulations
d.  etc

feel guilt (or show concern over being caught) which comes out in the language.  

It poses a serious challenge to the analyst to discern the source of the deception. 

If, for example, the statement found within shift work has no pronouns, the overall lack of commitment is, in the least, seen as consistent. Should a pronoun appear, this particular sentence is deemed important.  

It is bizarre, but you will gain it quickly and begin to look at patterns. 

I had a report of stolen narcotics from a company that was very concerned about staff; in particular, a registered nurse who subordinates had frequently complained about.  They reported that she was egotistical, tyrannical, and felt that staff were 'beneath her' due to her 'superior education.'  Indeed, she wore her education on her sleeve and did not make an attempt to conceal her contempt for those 'beneath' her.  This is something we see in pathological liars who have had a life time of success in deception, leading them to the lofty perch, easily tipped, who will, in anger, make admission of what was done, but never confessing moral or ethical failure:  it is always someone else's fault. 

In this case, the company was upset and felt certain that her outbursts were drug related.  (My interview showed the language of bipolar). 

She did not steal the missing narcotics. 

I reported that in her statement and in the interview:  She did not steal the meds but the agency's own internal investigator wanted to know how I could possibly conclude this since her  her statement was wrought with deception.  

I wrote out a lengthy analysis of each area where deception appeared, in context, only, and gave specific time frames in which the deception took place, while noting her reliable denial of the meds. 

The internal investigator and the management team felt strongly that I had put too much emphasis upon the denial.  I showed them that it was produced by her, not of my prompt, nor of my language. It was the basis, in her mind, of me wasting her valuable time.  Her arrogance and annoyance with me affirmed her denial.  Not only did she say, "I didn't steal the meds", she used the even more reliable, "I did not take the missing meds", since "take" has no moral element to it, and many people who do steal have an internal justification (I was owed!) and can say, "I did not steal the money" but cannot say, "I did not take the money" (polygraph examiners, please take note) in the free editing process of language.  

The report I wrote was lengthy and detailed and they wanted to put it to the test to make sure.  

I showed each hour on duty, where she was reliable and where she was not reliable.  

This proved to be a fascinating test.  

They took the analysis and broke it down to a single page of hours where I noted "reliable" or "unreliable"  and reviewed almost 8 hours (cumulative) of video tape and found it to be a perfect match!

At 1PM she dropped her pronoun, distancing herself from her work.  As a home care nurse, she had the duty of doing the dishes, which she resented and put dirty dishes away.  

This went on consistently as 

2PM: "I gave rx to patients" was verified by the video

3PM:  "Spoke to patients offering comfort" in her, she was outside smoking a cigarette and waved 'hi' as she walked by. 

Where she used the pronoun "I", she did what she said she did, and did it completely. 
Where she dropped the pronoun "I", she either did not do what she said she did, or she did a shoddy, careless task.  

The analysis confirmed the obvious, as well, in her treatment of subordinates.  

The staff who did take the meds, did so for her boyfriend, who had just gotten out of rehab.  She claimed that she was not in a D/V relationship but her language told me otherwise.  

Analysts who review statements from employees, must use great care to wade through the many little points of sensitivity that are related to deception, even though the subject may not have done it.  

Psychologically, the subject may distance herself for a variety of reasons and it is best to note the distance, and seek the answers in the interview process.  

Distances noted in dropped pronouns can cover a wide scope of reason, including anything from geography to deception, and lots in-between.  

Lie detection is hard work, and not for the lazy minded. 

If you wish to take our course, please contact us through Hyatt Analysis.  

If you wish to host a seminar, discounts offered from hosting departments and companies.  

The home course tuition is reasonable, often with departments and company reimbursement, and CEUs from University of Maine can be used for professional licensing.  

The course is not an introduction to Statement Analysis, but accompanies 12 months of continued support, necessary for learning and application.  


klv said...

What a perfect example, Peter. I hope management there spread the word about the efficacy of statement analysis.

Slightly OT, as a nurse myself I'm appalled that she put away dirty dishes! I hope she was counselled.

Trigger said...

Interesting that the employee who took the meds did it for a boyfriend who just got out of rehab.

She claimed that she was not in a D/V relationship but committed crimes for "his" needs, not hers, while risking her job and her freedom.

Whoa! He needed to score some drugs so he sent the woman out to her workplace to make it happen for him.

Let me guess, she was prosecuted, not him.

Horse chestnut said...

Interesting video of TSAR pat down in terms of captions and nouns/ pronouns used. Drama queen daddy but something else?

Anonymous said...

OT - victim blaming

"Mayor Henriette Reker enraged people by focusing on women’s actions instead of the men who carried out the assault. "
"The Mayor of Cologne said today that women should adopt a “code of conduct” to prevent future assault at a crisis meeting following the sexual attack of women by 1000 men on New Year’s eve."
“We need to prevent confusion about what constitutes happy behaviour and what is utterly separate from openness, especially in sexual behaviour," she said.

Anonymous said...

here are just a few items that the producers of “Making a Murderer” decided to leave out that make the case less riveting and Avery more sympathetic:

— Not only was the bullet found in the garage linked to Halbach’s DNA, but it was forensically tied to Avery’s gun as well. Seems like a pertinent thing for viewers to know. To believe Avery was innocent, you now have to believe that forensics specialists were in on the frame-up and lied about both the DNA and gun, or messed up both tests.

— The criminal complaint claimed that authorities had found restraints — handcuffs and leg irons — at Avery’s residence. In 2006, Avery admitted to buying them so he could use them on his then-girlfriend. This alone doesn’t mean Avery is the killer of course, but it does lend credence to the description offered by Dassey and the police. We heard nothing about this during the show.

— The infamous car key that was found in Avery’s residence had DNA of his sweat on it. So not only are we asked to believe the Manitowoc police department planted the keys in his trailer (and that the neighboring police force was either incompetent or complicit in the deception), but also that somehow the cops had extracted Avery’s perspiration and put it on the key. Another explanation might be that Avery handled the keys when dealing with Halbach, although he denies having ever seen them.

Which bring up additional question: If Avery’s defenders are convinced that DNA from one pubic hair completely exonerates him in the rape case, why does DNA evidence in this case not prove his guilt?

— Avery not only called Auto Trader and specifically requested Halbach to take pictures the day she was killed, but he also gave a false name when he did so. Why? And why would he, and the documentarians, fail to mention it? Avery then called Halbach’s cell phone three times the day she died, twice using *67 to obscure his identity. None of this proves his guilt, but all of these actions undermine the defense’s contention that Halbach was just someone that happened to come by that day for a job. It sounds like he wanted her to come by. None of this is mentioned in the documentary.

— Not only was Avery’s blood — which we’re supposed to believe was planted by the police after being extracted from an evidence room — found in six places on Halbach’s vehicle, but DNA from his sweat was also found on a hood latch. How did it get there? Did the police have a vial of perspiration ready to go the day of the murder?

— You’d also have to be gullible to believe that Avery was merely a flawed, but good-hearted victim of unfortunate circumstance once you learn more about his history. According to an Appleton Post Crescent article from 2006, Avery planned the fantasy torture and killing of a young woman while in prison. According to Ken Kratz at least, Avery also drew up plans for torture chambers while in prison. True? We don’t know. The documentary never mentions (or disproves) any of these accusations.

The young Avery didn’t unintentionally set fire to a cat, as “Making a Murderer” suggests, but poured gasoline on the animal and then threw it into a bonfire, according the Associated Press. And Avery didn’t only threaten a female cousin at gunpoint, an incident the documentary portrays as the unfortunate actions of an immature teen, but is also alleged to have raped a young girl and threatened to kill her family if they spoke out, according another story in Post Crescent (paywalled). If we’re to believe Dassey’s conversations with police, Avery had also molested his cousins. “I even told them about Steven touching me,” Dassey explains to his mother after one of the interviews with police.

Anonymous said...

Nurse Ratched.

Trigger said...

Here we have a chicken coop Mayor of Cologne blaming the victims because he failed to make the streets safe for them.

Doesn't he see the problem with that type of thinking?

Gang rape is Ok unless the women have a "code of conduct" in place while venturing outside their homes to prevent sexual assaults of that type.

Hmmm...........what is this "code of conduct" that he refers to?

maudes harold said...

Trigger said Hmmm...........what is this "code of conduct" that he refers to?

The progression to Sharia, imo. The mayor is a woman, Henriette Reker. When asked about what women can do to protect themselves better she answered:

"There is always the possibility of keeping a certain distance, more than an arm's length from strangers."

Trigger said...

Thanks Anon for the additional data on Steven Avery.

Trigger said...

Thanks Maudes Harold for the clarity.

How does a woman keep a certain distance...etc. from a gang of strange men when surrounded by them?

Men have been known to move quickly towards a woman when she is not expecting it. It's called a surprise attack.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

maudes and trigger: well said. New article on creeping sharia.

It is a contagian.

Lemon said...

"(My interview showed the language of bipolar)." - PH

Could you speak more to this? Thanks.

Hey Jude said...

That's the wretched Nurse Ratched from 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest'.

Anon "I" said...

Nurse Ratched was probably irritable because she hadn't eaten or peed in 12 hours. LOL

As a nurse, I don't think I've written the word except, before, or after with full and normal letters since college. The abbreviations have seeped over into my life at home. I do know when people start talking computers to me, my eyes glaze over. I am not fluent in computer geek speak, although my sons can discuss model F53781 with x terabytes and what processor is better with what RAM and which updates to expect by September. I just have my son/s point and I go check-out. :) I imagine LE, lawyers, financial advisors, and contractors each have their own short-hand. Do you find lots of abbreviations carry over to a normally written narrative in people from varying professions? How hard does that get to follow?

Anonymous said...

I haven't been an ophthalmology tech in 15 years, and still often list my own meds as BID, QID, etc. from ingrained habit.