Thursday, September 18, 2014

He Said; She Said; But He Should Have Shut Up

who do you believe in this "he said; she said" dilemma?

I won't even bother to put up a poll.  Statement Analysis added in bold type.


Hedge-funder’s defense in ‘grope’ case: I never grabbed her

NY POST

He says he’s a connoisseur of the “ass grab” — but this waitress just wasn’t on his menu.
A wealthy hedge-fund titan made a bungled attempt to defend himself against a claim that he fondled a waitress at a trendy Soho restaurant, by bizarrely bragging that he gropes other women all the time.
I’ve grabbed plenty of girls’ asses in my life,” Brian H. Lederman boasted to The Post. “But I’ve never grabbed hers.”
In Statement Analysis, we recognize that "never" is not a legitimate substitute for "did not" unless asked, "Did you ever...?"  Here, the groping happened once, on a specific night, to a specific person, and is not a vague, "ever" situation.  This is to be deemed:  Unreliable. 
The married moneyman went on the defensive Tuesday after server Laura Ramadei made a tell-all Facebook post saying he ogled her like a piece of meat as he fondled her derriere at Lucky Strike on Grand Street.
When I asked you and your companion if you’d be eating, or needing anything else from me, you put your hand — ever so gently — ON MY ASS and asked if you could take me ‘to go,’ ” the 29-year-old wrote, adding that he left only a $2 tip.
Note the past tense language, as well as the inclusion of the pronouns.  This is strong.  
Lederman, a 57-year-old managing director at Swiss Performance Management & Fiduciary, angrily denied any physical contact — and threatened to sue Ramadei for defamation.
Modal Trigger
Laura Ramadei
But he didn’t help his case much by admitting he made a boorish comment toward her.
I clearly remember making a joke when the girl said, ‘What would you like,’ ” he said. “I kiddingly said, ‘I would like you to go with nothing on it.’ 
Note that a truthful person can only tell us what they do remember.  Here he "clearly" remembers. 
He said he was furious that she claimed he did more than spew sleaze.
“That f–king c–t, for her to do something like that is pretty ridiculous,” he told The Post.
There are two indicators that should be noted here:
1.  The need to ridicule the alleged victim
2.  The unreliable denial of "never"
Please also note the use of the word "that", which is distancing language.  
The obvious character flaws, as seen in his language and admission, will cause many to believe the female, however, Statement Analysis gives us other reasons:
He is unreliable in language while she is reliable.  
He then threatened to make sure she doesn’t serve lunch in this town again.
I will make sure she doesn’t get another job in New York City. I know everybody,” he raged. “The bar owners, the club owners — that’s a terrible thing to write about somebody.”

He admitted grabbing many others, yet it is a terrible thing to write about "somebody" and not "me."
People do not like to lie outright.  Here we see the same pattern continuing.  
Ramadei, an aspiring actress who helps run an independent theater company, stood by her Facebook post.
He placed what felt like three fingers on my left butt cheek,” she told The Post. “It was very subtle, but it was definite contact.”
This is consistent with what she reported above. 
She posted a picture of the money manager’s $15.24 bar tab on the social network.
Ramadei said she deals with customer harassment all the time working at the noisy bar and posted her story to “raise awareness about how common it is.
Her rant has been shared almost 2,000 times since she posted it on Monday. “It was a small thing, but probably commonplace for women and servers,” she said.

Vehicle Theft: Change in Language



                                             Vehicle Theft:  Change in Language
by Peter Hyatt


I received the following statement about theft of items within a car.

"I used to always lock my car when I was in the other part of town and when I moved to this neighborhood, the neighbor told me that it wasn't necessary and now look what has happened!
I came out to my vehicle this morning and found that the glove box was open and things were strewn around on the seat.  Someone had gone into my vehicle and stole some important papers out of it. 
I would like something done.  This is ridiculous.  
No one thinks that someone is going to go into their car and steal stuff.  Someone did.  Someone went into my vehicle and took really important papers. I asked my lawyer why someone would have stolen these papers and he said that the thief probably thought they were checks or something. "

Note within the statement not simply pronouns, but change in language.

Change in language indicates a change in reality.  This change in reality should be supported within the statement, itself, that is, within the context.

If the change in language is justified within the context of the statement, it is a very strong indication that memory, that is, experiential memory, is in play.

Where there is no contextual change, the analyst should consider that the subject is not working from memory, as language does not change on its own, but that the subject has 'lost track' of the fabrication, since it is not embedded within memory.

What do you find in this statement?



"I used to always lock my car when I was in the other part of town and when I moved to this neighborhood, the neighbor told me that it wasn't necessary and now look what has happened!
I came out to my vehicle this morning and found that the glove box was open and things were strewn around on the seat.  Someone had gone into my vehicle and stole some important papers out of it. 
I would like something done.  This is ridiculous.  
No one thinks that someone is going to go into their car and steal stuff.  Someone did.  Someone went into my vehicle and took really important papers. I asked my lawyer why someone would have stolen these papers and he said that the thief probably thought they were checks or something. "

The common term is "car", and not "vehicle."

"Vehicle" is something more used by law enforcement (this subject is not law enforcement), insurance adjusters, and mechanics.

It was a "car" prior to the theft.

While speaking of it, associated to the theft, it is a "vehicle", which is distancing language.  She did not want it to be her "car" while knowing or believing that someone violated it by entering it.

Even when speaking of others, it is a "car" (note "their cars...") but when she returned to her own car, in the topic of theft, it went back to "my vehicle."

This word change is made by the brain in less than a microsecond.  Some estimate that word choice has a 1 in 1000 chance of being incorrect, but in any case, we know that word choice is highly accurate, and that word change is influenced, first and foremost, by emotion.

Here, the emotion elicited by the thought of someone actually going into her car, and her glove box, so disgusted her, that it caused her brain to 'change' the car into a 'vehicle.'



Sunday, September 14, 2014

Politician Lies Versus Failures

Is it a lie if a politician promises something, but does not deliver?

Or, is there something discernible about the language within the promise that indicates deception?

Remember, the words of President Bush when he said, "Read my lips, no new taxes."

He did not say "I will not raise taxes", using the strong pronoun, "I", rather than the weaker "we" in the statement.

He did, however, weaken the assertion "no new taxes" via the use of emphasis: "read my lips", first, and then secondly, "no new taxes" is passive language, avoiding ownership.

Here is an article from the NY Post on a book exert on the top lies of President Obama.  Some sensitivity will be seen in deliberate repetition of a statement.

A promise, or campaign pledge, is deceptive if the subject does not intend to fulfill it.  Sometimes, this is due to political gridlock or other unforeseen circumstances.

We are looking for that which is propounded without purpose of fulfillment.  We also look for deception via tangent, or "red herring" to be followed away from the issue.

Note these tactics as well as passivity in order to discern.

5 lies that have shaped the Obama presidency

If past presidents are remembered for their signature achievements, Obama will be remembered for his signature lie: “If you like your health care plan blah, blah, blah.” The reader knows the rest. Although the most consequential of Obama’s lies — it got him reelected — it’s far from his only prevarication.
I’ve counted 75 significant lies since his campaign for president began, but that doesn’t begin to tally the casual fibs and hyperbole he spouts seemingly every day. Here are five that illustrate just how much Obama’s presidency is built on falsehoods.

5. “My father left my family when I was 2 years old.”

Modal Trigger
Photo: EPA

Obama made this claim in September 2009, when addressing the nation’s schoolkids. By then, the blogosphere knew that baby Obama had never spent a night under the same roof as his father, let alone two years.
For years, Obama and his advisors invested enormous political capital in what biographer David Remnick called Obama’s “signature appeal: the use of the details of his own life as a reflection of a kind of multicultural ideal.”
Remnick called Obama’s autobiography, “A mixture of verifiable fact, recollection, recreation, invention and artful shaping.” In other words, the truth is never good enough.

4. “The Fast and Furious program was a field-initiated program begun under the previous administration.”

Modal Trigger
Photo: WireImage

Obama spun this fiction at a September 2012 Univision forum knowing it was false. In fact, the bizarre, deadly idea to let American guns “walk” into Mexico, where they were used by drug cartels to kill dozens, began in October 2009.
Three months earlier, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney had made the same bogus claim virtually word for word at a press conference and got shot down on national TV. “It began in fall 2009,” corrected White House correspondent Jake Tapper, then with ABC.
Carney refused to acknowledge he lied, and the president continued to lie weeks later. It’s all part of Obama’s ducking of responsibility — it’s always someone else’s fault.

3. “Not even a smidgen of corruption.”

Modal Trigger
Photo: Getty Images

Obama said this in response to Bill O’Reilly’s question about the IRS scandal: “You’re saying no corruption?”
If there were not even a “smidgen of corruption,” as Obama insisted, it is hard to understand what outraged him, or at least seemed to, when news of the IRS scandal first broke. “It’s inexcusable, and Americans are right to be angry about it, and I am angry about it,” Obama said in May 2013. Obama routinely expressed anger when some new scandal erupted on his watch — IRS, the failed ObamaCare website, the VA scandal, Fast and Furious — but never before had he shoved a scandal down the memory hole so quickly.
And how could Obama know there wasn’t a smidgen of corruption before the investigation was even over? Perhaps because the administration knew that any proof of that was gone with deleted e-mails and destroyed hard drives?

2. “We revealed to the American people exactly what we understood at the time.”

Modal Trigger
Photo: AP

During that same Super Bowl Sunday interview, Obama made this claim in response to O’Reilly’s inquiry about the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi. Obama continued to dissemble: “The notion that we would hide the ball for political purposes when a week later we all said, in fact, there was a terrorist attack taking place and the day after I said it was an act of terror, that wouldn’t be a very good coverup.”
In fact, it was exactly a week after the attack, on Sept. 18, that Obama took his first questions about Benghazi. Bizarrely, he did so to David Letterman. “Here’s what happened,” Obama said.
“You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character who — who made an extremely offensive video directed at — at Mohammed and Islam.”
We know now that the administration knew this wasn’t true. Not a week later; not even the very night of the attacks.
On many levels, this was Obama’s most telling lie. He only deals with the world as he sees it, not as it is.

1. “Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.”

Modal Trigger
Photo: AP

Obama told this whopper to his assembled staff on his first day in office. He promised it to the press. Instead, his administration refuses to hand over documents and Obama refuses to answer questions. As liberal constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley assessed the presidency, “Barack Obama is really the president Richard Nixon always wanted to be.”
What do these lies, just a sample of many, tell us? Obama never stopped “artfully shaping” his life.
The scary thing is he might actually believe these lies. He believes that posting a shot from his personal photographer online is “transparent.” That targeting conservative groups for audits isn’t corrupt. That everything that has gone wrong with his presidency is Bush’s fault.
Knowing that, how can we believe anything that he says?
Jack Cashill is the author of “You Lie! The Evasions, Omissions, Fabrications, Frauds and Outright Falsehoods of Barack Obama” (Broadside Books), out this week
.

Saturday, September 13, 2014

October: Domestic Violence Awareness Month


I hate political correctness, the freedoms it seeks to corral,  and the "months" designated for this or that.  Yet, even a broken watch is right, twice a day, and designating a month to raise awareness of Domestic Violence (D/V) sits well with me.

Susan Murphy Milano became a mentor, of sorts, for my work in helping (more than just advocating) for victims of D/V.

Susan was amphetamines on steroids rolled up into a super pit bull of energy all at once.  Her bite was worse than her bark.  People loved her or hated her, and those that hated her, respected her.  If a "spoon full of sugar helps the medicine go down", Susan had no time to stop off at the grocery store.  She moved at the speed of sound, and then some.  How cancer ever defeated her can only be explained by faith, as cancer, itself, should have feared Susan, as God knows, I did.  Yet it must have been that Christ, Himself, said, 'I will be without Susan no longer' and summoned His dedicated messengers to yield her to Himself.

Susan fought the good fight.

Her last phone call  haunts me still.

Working two jobs, raising a family, and donating time to D/V victims and Missing Persons cases, I knew that Susan wrongfully thought that everyone else had her ability to jump through hoops without hesitation, sleep, or thought.  She needed me to:

a.  Keep my full time investigatory job;
b.  Keep my Statement Analysis jobs, including trainings
c.  Fly to Chicago to help film a pilot episode for A&E
d.  Go over "20/20" scripts
e.  Edit her new book.  (I did so, bawling my eyes out at each chapter)
f.  and, oh, by the way, discern if so and so is lying to her.  She knows he is, but she wants to make sure.  (Susan was intuitively good at lie detection but could not sit still long enough for formal training.  She should have taught it, instead).
g.  Be on the Dr. Roth Show, another show, and still another...

She needed all of this done, one hour ago, yesterday.

Then, there was this woman she knows, who's boyfriend had blackened her eyes, and I needed to...

This was her dedication to victims of 'intimate partner violence', as she called it.  The entire world was to stop to help a single victim plot her course of safety, and nothing was more important to Susan than the practical preparation for the victim. "Peter, she needs help now!"

Susan did not "protest" Domestic Violence, as if walking around in circles, carrying a sign saying, "We are against Domestic Violence" while people across the street walked in circles, carried signs that said, "We are for Domestic Violence" benefited anyone but a politician.  She knew too much.

She was too sophisticated to buy into any political clap-trap that sounded like protection, but really only profited the politician who sought some nice publicity before women.  "There oughta be a law!" somehow would benefit lawyers, and not women in need.

Nope.

Susan was too busy getting the victim to find her birth certificate, medical records, toiletries, and other practicalities, to busy herself with self-seeking nonsense.

Victims of Domestic Violence generally do not live in day to day violence.

It isn't necessary.

Once violence occurs, the vicim soon learns how to avoid violence by walking on eggshells, and keeping the controlling abuser satisfied.

She learns to read his face and his body language, as necessity compels her instincts into overdrive.

Susan could spot that look on a woman's face and know.  She knew.

I learned more from her than I wish I had, for, as Solomon said, 'with much knowledge comes much sadness.'  As a husband and father of two daughters, the thought of a man putting his hands on either could drive me to violence.  I was raised with 7 sisters, all successful professionals, and was taught how unmanly it was to ever use my strength against them.  I know this is not taught in schools today, as we are all "equal protoplasmic explosions", but the honoring of women and the use of strength to protect, not harm, is so sorely missed today.  My son in ice hockey will not hit a female, no matter the consequence.  It was wrong in my grandfather's day, my father's day, my day, and in my son's day.  It is the sacrifice of strength that character is seen, not its expenditure upon one who trusts will be loved and cherished.

The betrayal that a victim feels, experiencing violence, in the very place where safety is supposed to dwell, and by the very man of whom her heart has trusted in, is physically and psychologically traumatic, with consequences ranging from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, down to suppressed immune systems and wonderful women succumbing to diseases that perhaps, just perhaps, they might have been able to fight off had their immune systems not been taxed by sexual abuse or violence.

Only God knows. Maybe He will allow science to discover what these "ghosts from the nursery" do to our loved ones, even in childhood.

"I woke up, got dressed, brushed my teeth, and went to work..."

This was from a theft investigation, years ago.  I noted from the brilliant teaching of Avinoam Sapir that when personal hygiene enters a statement, it is a signal of concealed information, often of a personal nature, which may be related to Domestic Violence.

Why is this?

It is this way because few people (less than 10%) feel it necessary to tell us, in a written statement, that she brushed her teeth.  We all brush our teeth.  (I like to believe this when I stand close to someone at work).  Few of us feel the need to add it to our statements, even verbally when discussing our day's progress.

For the victim of Domestic Violence, life is out of control, living hour by hour on eggshells, carefully navigating the temper tantrums of the abuser, who does not need to be violent to control her.

Her life is not her own.  It is his.

The feeling of losing control sets off a panic button in all of us, which is often seen in the surrendered shoulders of someone in handcuffs, especially shortly after a struggle.  He is defeated. He cannot raise his arms to his face to protect his face, to cover his shame, or to even cover his tears.  He is utterly without control of his arms (which is why some then use their feet to fight).

For the victim of Domestic Violence, her life is so out of control, that when she enters the bathroom and locks that door even for a few minutes, she feels control.  It is a significant part of her day, therefore, it enters her language.  In the above case, the victim did not steal, but had knowledge of theft:  her boyfriend who interrupted the interview, shirtless, to give me the overcompensating handshake of a cowardly bully who fears his loss of control.

Even just the raising of awareness in the month of October helps.

Susan is no longer with us.

Some may feel that this is something that does not need to be said, but I think otherwise.  I feel her presence, through her words and work, and must remind myself that while I am at my desk, feeling overwhelmed with too much work, the phone is not going to ring and I am not going to be ripped into by her for not calling her back immediately.

God, how I miss that.

What Susan stood for, and did so in a loud, boisterous way, was planning.  Detailed planning goes far beyond holding a woman's hand and saying, "it will be alright."

No, it is not going to be alright unless we make it so.  The moment that she eludes the control of the abuser, the clock ticks.  The next 24 to 48 hours is when the domestic homicide is at its peak.

"See ya, Babe!" wrote one man who killed his girlfriend, in an email to her, after her death, thinking that it would be helpful as an alibi.

Nope.

In fact, as he recalled their "fun" day together, the phrase, "See ya', Babe!" pinpointed her time of death.  I told the reporter that it would match the coroner's report and it was highly likely that these are the last words the victim heard before he pulled the trigger.

We raise awareness and, true enough, it is lessening the fake "shame" some women feel, especially those who, as expected, walked in denial, attempted to "win" him back, blamed that "b****" of an ex wife, and made 101 excuses for him.

Yet, overcoming the instinct to nurture, heal and love, she can, and must, get free.

Careful planning is the key.

Awareness is helping, but advocacy must not stop with the Restraining Order.

It continues with careful planning, confidentiality, financial support, and, when necessary, protection in the dangerous days and weeks after.

Susan gave up on no one.  No victim's denial could wear her down.

She, being dead, speaks to us today, as we seek to continue to carry the torch.

No need to search for heroes in our world, nor among the departed.  They are living among us, infirmities and failures abounding, yet overcoming, and helping others regain the dignity they were born with.


http://www.documenttheabuse.com

"Going to Bed" In Statement Analysis


by Peter Hyatt

When an event has taken place during the day, subjects are often asked to write out their day, from the time they woke up, until the time they went to sleep.  We have covered the early hour, noting not only where one begins, but the details, including personal hygiene, and what it reveals about the subject.

This article deals with the close of the statement.

Think of the various ways in which one tells us about going to sleep at night.

Some go to sleep, but others go to bed.

Q.  What is the difference?

A.   To be explored

Note the various ways people say these things:

I went to bed.
I went to sleep.
I got undressed and went to bed.
I got undressed and went to sleep.
I turned off the light and went to sleep.
I pulled up the blanket and went to sleep.


Sexual activity.
Television watching
Book reading...and now:
Internet surfing

what do you make of the differences in the statements?

Every word is important.

The differences represent differences in reality.


I went to bed.

Straight forward and simple.  Yet, the subject did not tell us he went to sleep.  We have seen this in murder investigations where the subject wants us to believe he (or she!) went to sleep but avoided a direct lie.  Few people lie directly; the overwhelming majority lie via withholding information to divert from the truth, suppressing information.

Sample:  Review Patsy Ramsey statement.  Patsy Ramsey did not say she went to sleep, and the next morning, she was seen still wearing the clothes she wore to the Christmas party, and had lied about the pineapple found in her murdered daughter's stomach.

Some guilty subjects will skip time.  See Billie Jean Dunn who said she got home from work and was "getting ready for bed", jumping well over a number of hours, seeking to close out the statement.  She did not say she went to bed, nor went to sleep, but was "going to..."

It is likely on that fateful night of Hailey Dunn's murder, she did not go to sleep.


I went to sleep.

This is also straight forward and it addresses sleep.  We find this in truthful accounts.



I got undressed and went to bed.

Few people sleep in their clothing.  The necessity  of using extra effort (information) is this:  The subject wants you to know that they did not go to bed in their clothing.

Why??


I got undressed and went to sleep.

The same as above, but this time, there is also missing information, but the subject should be believed that he/she went to sleep.

Why, however, is clothing a topic?


I turned off the light and went to sleep.

Lights are often related to sexual activity, but with lights going "off", it is often associated with failed sexual activity.


I pulled up the blanket and went to sleep.

The necessity of coverings is often associated with:

PTSD
Sexual abuse in childhood.

Psychologically, why might this be?

Explore in comments section.

Lesson:  When having a statement made "from the time you woke up, until you went to sleep" reveals far more information than the public knows.




Wednesday, September 10, 2014

Body Posture Within a Statement

                                                                                 by Peter Hyatt

             Body Posture  found within an Interview or written statement.

When we measure a statement for time (subject, objective, and missing time) we are gathering information that will be critical to our interview.  An informed interview will help the subject bright forth truth, as the subject becomes aware that you, the Investigator, may already know the answer to questions being asked.  This puts the subject on alert and helps us get information.
When we analyze a statement prior to the interview, we take careful note of many different indicators of sensitivity.  As discussed earlier, we note body posture.

A statement is not reality.  A statement is the subject’s perception of reality.  In our analysis, we are seeking to enter into the subject’s perception of reality.  In this way, we take careful note of wording that describes body posture, and the inclusion of emotions.
Body posture in a statement is often unnecessary, and we know that any unnecessary information is to be deemed ‘doubly’ important for us.

“My supervisor said I should be at work by 9AM” is a simple statement.  The shortest sentence is always best, and any sentence that has aIDitional words should be considered important. Earlier, you learned to flag communicative language in a statement.  Let’s look at this simple statement to see what it tells us, and how it differs from one that appears similar:
Statement A:  My supervisor said I should be at work by 9AM
Statement B:   My supervisor told me I should be at work by 9AM”
Statement C:  My supervisor stood and told me I should be at work at 9AM”

In Statement A, you should have highlighted the communicative word “said” (yellow). 

If you did so, you then noticed that in Statement B, “said” is now “told.”  What is the difference between “said” and “told”?

Said” is softer, while “told” is firmer and more authoritative.

I went to the bank ATM at night and a person came up behind me and said that he had a gun and I should give him my money.  This statement indicates deception.  How do we know?

Let’s look the statement with emphasis:

“I went to the bank ATM at night and a person came up behind me and said that he had a gun and I
should give him my money.”

Did you notice that he reported that a “person” had a gun?  “Person” is gender neutral which suggests that the subject is attempting to conceal the identity; yet still said “he had a gun”; which is the masculine pronoun.  Next, notice that someone with a gun “said” he should give money?  What is the expected? “He told me to give…” or “demanded” would be the norm.  Robbery is not a gentle request.  Back to our original statement:
    1. The supervisor (who is not introduced by name) “said” to be at work.
    2. The supervisor “told” me to be at work, which is stronger, more authoritative.  But what of Statement C?  What does the inclusion of body posture tell us?
Whenever body posture (sit, sat, stood, standing, and so on) enters a statement, flag it for follow up questions, as it is an indication of tension.  It is not important that the subject tell us what body posture the supervisor is in that we know he should be on time; that is, it is not important to us.  But because the subject recalls the body posture, it shows that the event was memorable, likely an increase in tension, and even more authoritative.

I studied my science book” is simple and straight forward.  It has the first person singular, and the past tense verb. 


I sat down and studied my science book” shows an increase in emotional tension and a follow up question would likely show why:  the subject studied diligently, the subject worried about failure, the subject skipped basketball in order to study; that is, something that increased the tension enough that the subject not only reported the action, but the body posture as well. This is especially useful in determining “he said; she said” disputes as it causes us to ask questions about emotions during the event.

This may sound like a minor point, and, agreed, it is.  But every word that comes from a subject is important. 

In listening to the master of Statement Analysis, Avinoam Sapir, his words resonate with me:

"Every word, every letter, even, matters, and can contain valuable information."

Mr. Sapir is rare genius in his powers of observation, cohesion, and conclusion.  

I have learned over the years just how precise his work has been.  

In one investigation, I began with a short "statement"; that is, written words.  It was not so much a "statement" but a data entry.

In it, the alleged victim's name was used. 

In some spots it was:  "Mr. Smith" and it other places it was "Mr. smith" and the difference, in context, showed a difference in attitude towards the victim, confirming the victim's account. 

One letter changed. 

Before the encounter, he was "Mr. Smith" but after the encounter, which the victim said was an assault, the lower case "s" was used. 

Subsequent entries showed the same theme.

Even something this small can matter.  

When body posture is added to a statement, always note it. 

"He was seated in the car" instead of "he was in the car."

Note it. 

Ask questions. 

Tuesday, September 9, 2014

"I Don't Remember" in An Open Statement



by Peter Hyatt

"I don't remember" in a court case is, according to Lie To me's author, Dr. Paul Ekman,   the number one lie told under oath.

However, in an open statement, it is something else:

In the free editing process, the subject is speaking freely, choosing his own words outside the influence of the interviewer.  In this open statement, the words "I don't remember" are a signal that information is being suppressed by the subject.

Q.  Why?

A.   Because in an open statement, the subject can only tell us what he remembers.  When he uses "I don't remember" or "I forgot", he is concealing information from us.  The interview process means:

taking note of where, in the story, this entered, and asking appropriate questions, focusing upon that time period of suppressed information.

If he says, in the open statement, that he was drunk and does not know something, he again is saying "I don't remember" while he should only be telling us what he does remember, therefore, it is a signal that he is surpressing information.

"I don't remember" or "I don't recall" is appropriately used when a specific question is asked.  There are lots of things we do not remember, including what we had for lunch a week ago last Tuesday.

It is when the subject is speaking freely and brings up the issue on his own.  This is what one does not remember, stating openly.

How can we know what we do not remember?

Let's go back to our lunch issue.

In the open statement, the subject should tell us what he remembers.  What if someone is freely speaking about his day last week and says that he does not remember what he had for lunch, even though he was not asked?

You might be able to picture this.

You might be able to say "I did such and such, but I don't remember what I did for lunch...and then..."

In the interview, I would pounce on the lunch period because the subject brought it up, indicating that it was on his mind, but then, in an open statement, declared not remembering.

I did not ask, "What did you have for lunch?" therefore, why is it important to the subject?

It is important and my interview will find out the reason why...I would focus my interview, not so much on lunch, but upon the time frame that the subject is referencing, to learn what information is 'leaking' from his brain.