Friday, February 9, 2018
Domestic Shooting Statement
This was posted to our Facebook and is redacted. I do not know the origins.
Let's take a look...
In Statement Analysis, we recognize that even with deceptive statements, most deception is via withheld information, not from direct fabrication when a subject is in the Free Editing Process of choosing his own words. This is why we teach to have confidence in the words.
The speed of transmission.
Some analysts use the phrase "in less than a microsecond" and others use "less than a millisecond" and it is not simply for effect.
If a subject has an internal personal dictionary of 25,000 words and is asked, "What did you do today?", he cannot tell us everything he did. It is not only impossible, but it would never end. Therefore, to answer the question, he must go into his internal dictionary and choose:
a. what information to give; what information not to give
b. what order to present the info in
c. what words to use
d. where to place each word next to another
e. what verb tenses to use
f. what pronouns to use
This incredible speed of transmission gives us our accuracy in analysis.
"Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks" is this truth recognized from antiquity. It is not simply the speed of transmission from the brain to the tongue of, for example, 25,000 words.
This does not accurately reflect what is happening.
Other than wikipedia quoting, there is no tangible measurement to accurately define how quick the brain scans through not only thousands and thousands of words, but the details, experiences, attendant thoughts and hormonal responses associated, that accompany each and every word, as well as the rapid processing of potential consequence for using each word. This goes well beyond the speeds of transmission cited.
"Abundance" does not define simply 25,000 to 35,000 words. That is just the beginning. For us, there is no accurate measurement of this speed, and when or if an accurate measurement is found in science, it will amaze us.
Where did our subject choose to begin his statement? Would he say, "I shot my wife Susan by accident""?
"I was messing around with the laster and I pointed it at my wife."
This is where the subject began the statement about what happened. He begins with the pronoun "I" which means he is "psychologically in" the statement. For analysis, this is an indicator that even if lying, we are very likely to obtain reliable information from the statement.
We believe him.
This is not only where he began (priority) but is also a Hina clause; an explanation as to "why" something happened, while explaining "what" happened.
Instead of "I shot my wife accidentally" the subject began with an explanation of why, very likely to pre empt being asked why the firearm was aimed at her.
"Messing around" is to use language associated with carelessness, or lack of intent, contextually. But we do not interpret. Those who interpret do not maintain 100% accuracy in detecting deception but fall prey to those who are clever enough to rely upon the expectation of interpretation by recipients in order to deceive.
"I pointed it at my wife" is, on its structure, reliably stated. If it is not true, it is a most rare of lies.
She is, at this point, "my wife" which is incomplete, though we do not know if he used her name just prior to this, but within his recall: it is an incomplete social introduction.
"She looked down."
This is a very important statement. This, too, is reliable, and we should believe him.
What is missing?
What is missing is what happened from the time he pointed "it" (the laser) at his wife.
Here we find the possibility of why her name is not in the statement. He takes ownership of her, but without a name.
What did he say that caused her to look down?
Stark in absence is all communication, yet we are given hints towards what may have been said.
"She looked down" is to indicate what he, the subject, saw. What did he see?
He saw her eyes.
This is an indication of verbal communication withheld from the investigator at this point in the statement.
We communicate much with our eyes. Husbands and wives can engage in entire conversations without a word, simply by "the look."
A look from a wife can indicate:
k. and so much more.
That he included following her eyes (down) should strongly suggest to the investigator that his words may have caused this action.
What he says next shines more light into this:
"She looked down and I was a (expletive) idiot"
It is likely that expletives were used towards his wife.
"and I pulled the trigger."
There is nothing in the structure of the sentence to doubt his word.
"I was just being an idiot."
We now know more about him from this sentence.
The word "just" is a dependent word, meaning that it needs another thought (or more thoughts) to be complete.
He is comparing himself as being an idiot to other things he has been. It is difficult for us to enter his personal subjective meaning but we can spot his reference point for "just" being an idiot.
He has very done bad things, since his reference point of "idiot" is one who points a laser guided weapon and pulls the trigger upon his wife. This is reduced, via the comparative reduction of the word "just" from other things he has done and likely said.
Collateral interviews would likely reveal the things he has done that caused him to classify himself as "idiot" here.
It is very likely that he had threatened this before, perhaps many times.
It is also an interesting paradoxal insight into his personality. If this is idiotic behavior, we are likely seeing one who does not take personal responsibility for his own actions in spite of "I pulled the trigger."
Context and Persuasion: In Jest?
Recall the setting: "messing around" is often foolish, inadvertent, without intent, etc. It is a minimizing word in the context of what happened. He does not say he "accidentally" pulled the trigger.
This paradox is within human nature and he will highlight it further for us, as we listen to him and believe him.
"I never wanted to harm her."
I believe him.
To "harm" (minimizing word we often find in child murders, especially by sexual predators) her would mean she would live with the consequences of what was done to her. In other words, she would survive harm.
This is intent.
This is why "I was just being an idiot" and he was "messing around" were employed.
It is why we believe the subject's choice of words, rather than interpret them.
"I love my wife to death."
Exactly the point.
It is why he aimed it at her, why he caused her to look down, and why he pulled the trigger.
It is why he did not lie outright about "accident" in any form.
Intent and motive are evidenced by his words, and it is in the words that were spoken to her, that caused her to look down, that would bring the case into focus.
It is interesting that he does not use her name but takes ownership, via the possessive pronoun, "my" in two places:
1. While pointing the weapon at her
2. While she is no longer alive.
For training in lie detection, in Law Enforcement Seminar, or in home study, visit Hyatt Analysis Services
Trainings held in house, and online.