Sunday, April 20, 2014

Dep. Jeremy Banks 911 Call

Recently, this case was revisited on television; and I will analyze the interview should transcripts become available.

The Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN) system was developed by Avinoam Sapir, and it is the basis for all Statement Analysis today.  Mr. Sapir's website is LSI  and his work is applied to 911 calls in the same manner as it is applied to all statements.  Work on 911 calls is to the credit of Mr. Sapir.

 Any claim to the contrary is fraudulent and is intellectual theft, whether or not the one taking credit is a trained analyst or not.

He taught us to begin with "the expected" and to then analyze the "unexpected."  This is the same everywhere there is communication, including emails, texts, interviews, and 911 calls.

It is common sense to apply the "expected" to 911 calls.  911 calls are emergency calls.  This means there is no time (nor expectation) for chit-chat, as it should be similar to "excited utterance", that is, a broad display of the free-editing process where the subject is choosing his own words quickly and freely.

This is a domestic homicide call where the victim  Michelle O’Connell died.  The NY Times article has mocked the investigation into the 2010 death.  I would like to analyze the transcripts of Jeremy Banks' interview.  It will reveal the truth of whether he murdered her, or if she committed suicide.  Statement Analysis always gets to the truth. 

                                    What do we expect from a 911 call?

We expect urgency, therefore, in a domestic homicide, we do not expect a greeting.  (See Sergio Celis, Tiffany Hartley 911 calls for examples of deceptive callers possessing guilty knowledge of the crime while making the call).

We do expect someone to be upset and not giggling when his 7 year old child is missing as was the father,  Sergio Celis in his call.

We do expect the caller to ask for help for the victim.  This is what Avinoam Sapir called, quite simply, the "expected."  If someone does not, who does the caller ask for help for?  Does a guilty caller slip or leak out that he, himself, needs help?  If so, it makes sense as it is true:  the guilty party is the one in need of help.

We listen, in every statement, for an apology of any kind, to show up, as the words "I'm sorry", for example, are on the mind of the guilty.

We don't "hang our hat" on any single indicator, as some of these might show up on an innocent caller, but when we have enough indicators that something is amiss, it comes down to the judgement and skill of the analyst who makes the call:  deception indicated.

We listen for truth, and not qualifiers.  We use the same principles of analysis applied everywhere in statements.  We set up what we expect ("I didn't do it") versus what we hear ("Dead squirrels crawled up my engine...") and we are faced with the unexpected for analysis.

Deputy Jeremy Banks made this 911 call.  First is the transcript, then it is repeated, with emphasis added, with Statement Analysis in bold type.

Question for Analyst:  Does Jeremy Banks make this call as a caller with guilty knowledge of the death of Michelle O'Connell?

PS:  More to come on this case.  See http://www.sjso.org/releases/O'Connell%20Case%20Review.pdf




911 Call.

DISPATCHER: 911.

JEREMY BANKS: HEY! Please get someone to my house! It’s 4700 Sherlock Place. Please!

DISPATCHER: What’s going on?

JEREMY BANKS: Please! Send─ my girlfriend, I THINK she just shot herself! There’s blood everywhere!

DISPATCHER: She what?

JEREMY BANKS: She shot herself! Please! [unintelligible] Get someone here please.

DISPATCHER: Ma’am? Ma’am, I need you to calm down.

JEREMY BANKS: It’s mister! It’s SIR!

DISPATCHER: Ma’am, listen to me─

JEREMY BANKS: It’s SIR! It’s SIR. Listen─ hang on, LET ME TELL YOU THE TRUTH. I’m Deputy Banks with the St. Johns County Sheriff’s Office. I work with y’all. Get someone here now!

DISPATCHER: Ok i need you to calm down you know how it goes. Whats the address ? I don't..

JEREMY BANKS: 4700 Sherlock Place.

DISPATCHER: Ok what's going on there?

JEREMY BANKS: My girlfriend has just shot herself with my duty weapon. Please get someone here now please.

DISPATCHER: Sir were doing that while in talking to you. is she still breathing ?

JEREMY BANKS: No,there is blood coming out of everywhere.-please.

DISPATCHER: Ok, she's not breathing.

JEREMY BANKS: Call dispatch on Tac 2, get them here now.

DISPATCHER: Sir their on the phone i need you to calm down.

JEREMY BANKS: Please please please-

DISPATCHER: Jeremy were coming as fast as we can ok? Calm down for me ok.

JEREMY BANKS: Please, you don't understand she just shot herself, pleases get someone here.

Here is now the same transcript (thanks John!) with analysis and emphasis added.

911 Call.

DISPATCHER: 911.

JEREMY BANKS: HEY! Please get someone to my house! It’s 4700 Sherlock Place. Please!

I'm not sure if everyone will consider that "Hey" is a greeting of sorts, but I believe it is.  
Note that the caller does not here ask for help for the victim, only to get "someone" to his house.  




DISPATCHER: What’s going on?

JEREMY BANKS: Please! Send─ my girlfriend, I THINK she just shot herself! There’s blood everywhere!

I'm not a big fan of capitalizing things spoken, but these are the transcripts I have to work with. 

Please notice the weak commitment.  He only "thinks" she has "just" shot herself.  He does not know this?  He is unable to bring himself to say "she shot herself" at first.  He allows for someone to "think" that someone else may have shot her, or even for himself to think contrary.  

He does not specifically ask for help for the victim....yet.  

DISPATCHER: She what?

JEREMY BANKS: She shot herself! Please! [unintelligible] Get someone here please.

He now drops the word "think" from his initial statement.  

DISPATCHER: Ma’am? Ma’am, I need you to calm down.

oops.  

JEREMY BANKS: It’s mister! It’s SIR!

Not only does he want to clarify his gender, but he wants to be respected:  call him "Sir"

This is likely more important than many realize.  When a man holds a gun, he holds power and authority.  Those unarmed are at a significant disadvantage.  Insecure law officers are  a danger and menace to society.  There is little nobility in hiding behind a bush and pulling over a driver for going 10mph faster than others, just to make money, so when someone with insecurity is given authority, much patience is needed when said cop approaches a car.  

Yet, this is also significant because we are all wondering if there was domestic violence in this relationship and the more insecure he is, the more I am going to wonder if his girlfriend did not show him the "respect" he feels he needs.  This one word, "Sir!" would have sent Domestic Violence expert Susan Murphy Milano into writing an entire article about insecure and demanding law enforcement:  her own father was one, who killed her mother. 
DISPATCHER: Ma’am, listen to me─

His voice did sound high at this point.  Let's now see if the insecurity of not being addressed as "Sir!" matters:

JEREMY BANKS: It’s SIR! It’s SIR. Listen─ hang on, Let me tell you the truth. I’m Deputy Banks with the St. Johns County Sheriff’s Office. I work with y’all. Get someone here now!

"Sir" is repeated, making the title of respect sensitive to the subject.  If you know anything about domestic violence, you're choking on this one now. 

But next he signals that he is deceptive:  he prefaces his words with "Let me tell you the truth."  This is a strong indication that what he is about to say is true, but other things may not be.  

"I'm Deputy Banks"; note that he uses title, rather than first and last name.  He sounds like one who is desperate for respect.  This does not bode well for the girlfriend.  

Note that he now demands that they get someone out there, but fails to ask for help for the victim.  He does not beg, he orders.  This is part of who he is. 

DISPATCHER: Ok i need you to calm down you know how it goes. Whats the address ? I don't..

JEREMY BANKS: 4700 Sherlock Place.

DISPATCHER: Ok what's going on there?

This is the best question.  It allows him to begin his statement where he chooses, as well as choose his own words:  
JEREMY BANKS: My girlfriend has just shot herself with my duty weapon. Please get someone here now please.

Note that he no longer "thinks" she shot herself, but goes into extra detail.  Not only did she shoot herself, but did so with his weapon; his "duty" weapon.  He is no longer just "Sir" calling who thinks his girlfriend might have shot herself, he has changed:  he is now "Deputy Banks", sounding self important, and demanding, acknowledging that the weapon was his "duty" weapon and it belonged to him.   He returns to "please" (repeated) rather than order, but he still has not asked for help for the victim. 
DISPATCHER: Sir were doing that while in talking to you. is she still breathing ?

JEREMY BANKS: No,there is blood coming out of everywhere.-please.

Specifically, where is blood coming out of?
DISPATCHER: Ok, she's not breathing.

JEREMY BANKS: Call dispatch on Tac 2, get them here now.

Deputy Banks is now telling Dispatch how to do its job.  He still, however, hasn't asked for help for the victim.  
DISPATCHER: Sir their on the phone i need you to calm down.

JEREMY BANKS: Please please please-

DISPATCHER: Jeremy were coming as fast as we can ok? Calm down for me ok.

JEREMY BANKS: Please, you don't understand she just shot herself, pleases get someone here.


Here is leakage.  He has first reported that she may have shot herself, but then changed to the affirmative, without question.  Yet, he feels the need to persuade with "you don't understand."

What does Dispatch not understand?  This is something that readers may wish to question. 

It may be that he has failed to sound convincing to the Dispatcher, that in spite of repeating that she shot herself, he has failed to cause Dispatch to "understand" this?

He did not ask for help for his victim and there are signals in his call that he may not be telling the truth.  What it is that is to be understood is that he needed to persuade Dispatch that she shot herself.  Why would he need them to understand this?  Would it matter, to the bleeding victim, who pulled the trigger?

It matters very much to the caller.  

I would be very surprised if the victim's family did not hear of at least some reports of domestic violence or threatening by this caller.  

It is a short call, but there are signals that Deputy Jeremy Banks was not truthful in this call.  

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Balloon Boy: Was It a Publicity Stunt?

October 15, 2009, and the nation was captivated by the dreadful thought of a little boy hundreds of feet in the air, in a homemade travel balloon of sorts.  It was a hoax, as we quickly learned from the mother's initial statement as well as the father.  Desperate to get media attention, this family has resorted to some of the most bizarre family behavior imaginable, including a televised appearance where the boy was unable to perpetuate the parents' lie.

We covered this case when it happened, and it is interesting to note how the CNN announcers covered it, looking back, and how the general public seemed to be more in tune with the deception than those in media.

Its interesting to note that we had indicated the family for deception right away, but as the case unfolded, the networks seemed to want to hold on to the drama.

The family cost taxpayers quite a bit.

Here, Diane Sawyer asked Richard Hennee, the father, if it was a publicity stunt.  She brings forth the assertion that many people believe it was a hoax.  This is the father's reply:

"Well, you know, they weren't there. Um, I went through such a roller coaster of um, emotions yesterday, um, to have people say that I think is extremely pathetic. Um, we were holding on to every second, you know, every second just hoping that, uh, he was going to come out of it ok. And um, I mean, I'm not selling anything. This is what we do all of the time. We made out , uh, the Henne family schedule in advance, a year in advance, what were gunna do, where were gunna do it, and um, I'm not selling anything, you know, I don't have a can of beans I trying to promote. So uh, this is just another day in the life of what we do."

The question is simple:  Was it a publicity stunt?

Even though it is a "yes or no" question, we find that the subject avoided answering the question, meaning that the question, itself, is sensitive to him.  

Recall if he is unwilling or unable to deny it, we are not to deny it for him.  But his answer is useful for teaching. 

In a "yes or no" question, particularly when viewing a presupposed or expected denial, we like to look at every word that comes after the word "no" as additional wording. 

"Well, you know, they weren't there. 

When one begins with a pause, there is a need for a pause.  

The phrase, "you know" is a habit of speech.  Like all habits of speech, we note what topics cause it to arrive, and what topics do not.  "You know" shows an acute awareness of the presence of the interviewer (or audience).  I use it when nervous, in public speaking, particularly when I veer off my carefully prepared notes.  

Note his answer:  he does not deny it was a publicity stunt, but only asserts that those who think it was a publicity stunt (Sawyer said that many people think it was a publicity stunt), were not present.  This is the basis of his argument?

Um, I went through such a roller coaster of um, emotions yesterday, um, to have people say that I think is extremely pathetic. 

He uses the word "I", which is strong and unless the language suggests otherwise, we are to believe him.  He connects it with the past tense verb, "went."
 When he says that he went through a "roller coaster" of emotions, I believe him.  Even if it was a publicity stunt, the roller coaster of emotions were likely present.  

...yet, if it was not a publicity stunt, a "roller coaster" is known for its "ups and downs", which would leave me wondering:  if he thought his son was hundreds of feet in the air, what "ups" did he experience?


Um, we were holding on to every second, you know, every second just hoping that, uh, he was going to come out of it ok. 

While describing his emotion, he changes from "I" to "we" without contextual change.  The roller coaster now became "holding on", and "I" went to "we", another indication that deception may be present. 


And um, I mean, I'm not selling anything. 

That which is reported in the negative is always important.  Here, he, himself, introduces the topic of profit.  Simply listening to him, I would ask myself, "What is he selling?"  We now know that he was trying to sell himself into a 'reality' TV show.


This is what we do all of the time. 

I believe him.  I think that "we" (the family) tries, "all the time" to find ways to get themselves on television and noticed, using appearance, music, and even deception, in attempts to be noticed.  


We made out , uh, the Henne family schedule in advance, a year in advance, what were gunna do, where were gunna do it, and um, I'm not selling anything, you know, I don't have a can of beans I trying to promote. So uh, this is just another day in the life of what we do."

Going from "We" back to "I", we now have the negative and repetition of:

"I'm not selling anything", which, for most people, screams that he is, indeed, selling something. 

He is truthful in that he is not selling a can of beans.  He is selling an idea; the idea that his family should be on television and he should be paid.  

This did not work out for him, as the hoax came to light after the tv interview, though readers here knew immediately.  That this is just another day in the life is also true:  he went on to try to sell other ideas, including foul mouthed children's video.  

Follow the pronouns.  

Note the location of emotions. 

Believe the subject unless he gives you reason not to. 

Avoid reality TV shows.  


Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Det. Steve Thomas and The Ramseys


Below is transcripts from the Larry King Live show in which John and Patsy Ramsey appeared alongside Steve Thomas, former detective who wrote a book alleging Ramsey guilt.

Statement Analysis (and commentary)is in bold type.

P. RAMSEY: You must have conjured something in your head for you to come out and call me a murderer of my child. I want to hear one through 10. When did I write this ransom note? Before or after I killed JonBenet?

Patsy forms the words innocent people avoid: "murderer of my childwhich indicates guilt.  Even when entering the language of another, it is something innocent people feel disdain towards and avoid.  She said that he called her, and not he said...

Note she uses the word "child", associated with child abuse, risk, etc.  

"I killed Jonbenet". This is a principle in Statement Analysis used in investigations frequently. "You think I did it" contains the words "I did itwithin the sentence. This is something the innocent do not normally do.

An early example of this is when Christ was on trial and told the accusers that their own lips had framed the words that He was 
"King of the JewsHe pointed this out to those who accused Him. Their own words, even when framed in the form of a question or accusation, had literally formed the truth.
An innocent person is not likely to frame words projecting guilt in any form; especially not in an open statement. Here, Patsy implicates herself while challenging the detective. She asserts that he has reasons, 1 through 10 that he should tell her. Then, we have repetition. Repetition heightens sensitivity.

Patsy affirms what she had already said by saying "murderer of my child" when she frames the words "I killed Jonbenet" in her statement. She herself confirms to us by the words she has chosen: first the "murderer of my child" and then "I killed Jonbenet". In Statement Analysis, we listen to what someone actually says, rather than what they want us to think via interpretation. Listen, do not interpret.

It is unusual that one would use both these phrases together. 

notice also the words Patsy uses: "conjures up". Is this what she did in fabricating the ransom note, including building a "suspense novel" like length, complete with overtures of terrorists? Interesting choice of words.


J. RAMSEY: Answer the question. What did you find in our background that would demonstrate that we are capable of this crime?

The defense for the Ramsey pair is not "we didn't do it" but that they did not have a history of violence. 

this common profiling technique popular in the 80's and 90's, that one must work their way up to murder, is no longer used today.  We have cases regularly in the news of murders committed by someone with no criminal history.  

See:  Tammy Moorer

When John Ramsey says, "answer the question" it is not clear if he meant the previous question or the one he now asks.

Note the same principle used above is applied here: John Douglas said, "we are capable of this crime" within his sentence. This is not something we see in innocent statements. This same principle is applied in all statements, so when someone says "just because you think I implicated myself" we note that they were able to frame "I implicated myself" within their objection and is an indicator of guilt. In this particular example, you will find, indeed, that once you search the statement, the subject will have implicated himself.

John Ramsey himself, using the plural, says "we are capable of this crime". Take this statement and look at their actions after calling the police, as well as full analysis of the ransom note at www.statementanalysis.com and decide if John Ramsey has told us the truth.


John Ramsey read John Douglas' book on profiling and had the financial resources and pull to bring in the celebrity author to do a profile of him for his "own" investigation. Dougas said that no one just "graduates" to this type of killing, but would have had a history of violence leading up to killing. This emboldened the Ramseys.

Since that time, a number of  cases have come to light where the killer had no history of violence that suggested the killing. Generally, violence escalates and we often can see a pattern; not always, but enough to see a history of violence and be on alarm. But this does not change the fact that some will kill without warning. When a 17 year old girl killed a school mate recently, it was learned by media that the killer had no history of violence; no school reports, nor anything else that suggested she could "graduate" to this level of violence. If someone accused of murder is not guilty by reason of not having a record of violence, Casey Anthony would be acquitted. We do not have a record of violence by her; nor have we heard any witnesses claim that she was violent to Caylee. Does that negate all the evidence?

My own experience in child abuse investigations tells me that the doctor would have likely suspected child abuse when he saw the constant infections that Jonbenet suffered from, and if Patsy reported the constant bed wetting, but due to their afluence, he likely did not.

When a young girl is being sexually abused, we will likely find infections, along with bed wetting. The fact that she was dressed up in a sexualized manner is difficult to ignore. The doctor should have reported this, and had he done so, Jonbenet may be alive to this day, a sophmore in college.
Steve Thomas didn't have evidence of violence on the part of the Ramseys. What he did have, however, was a history of doctor visits that should have triggered suspicions of sexual abuse and a child protective assessment.


It also should be noted that Jonbenet's death location was staged. 


P. RAMSEY: God willing, if you ever have a child one day, you will know the pain perhaps when someone hands you the child in your arms, and says, Mr. Thomas, this is your child, do you tell me that you are going to look at that child, and -- you just had a new baby, Larry. Could you ever conceive of...

Patsy presses an emotional issue which avoids the topic of murder. In her wording she wishes the pain upon Steve Thomas. This is unusual for a victim, but not for a guilty party who has rage capable of a murder; or the cunning capable of not only a cover up, but an ability to take to the airways. She would have likely said later, "that's not what I meant", but in Statement Analysis, people choose their words in less than a micro second and we do not interpret: we listen to what they say. This is what she said: she wished horrific pain upon him, and judging by the anger they showed towards him, including threats of suit, etc, Patsy gave no indication that she didn't mean exactly what she said.

KING: I can't imagine how anyone could harm a child.

This is what most people do: they project their own beliefs and value systems upon others and struggle to believe that someone could actually kill a child.

Had I had a chance to interview King, I would have asked him if he would have dyed his 5 year old daughter's hair, given her false teeth, and dressed her up in provocative show girl outfits for pagents followed by pedophiles. This may have helped him think outside of his own experiences.

I would have asked him that if he had found his child "kidnapped", would he have called in neighbors, friends, and lawyers after being warned not to call the police;or would he have been so scared that he would have waited for instructions from the police?

I would have asked him if he would have made arrangements to disappear from the scene on a plane,leaving behind his daughter?

I would have asked him if he would have had his lawyer stall the investigation.

I would have asked him if he would have rather spoken to the media than investigators.

I would have asked him if he would have shopped around for a polygraph that was passed.

I would have asked him if he would have then made the polygrapher sign a contract limiting what he can release.


He may have understood a bit more
.

P. RAMSEY: ... doing something to this child, let alone the things that this man is...
"this man". . It is unclear who he is referring to. Is it the kidnapper? If so: I thought it was a "group of individuals" or a "small foreign faction? Note that "this" man is close; "that" shows distance.

Or is "this" man (close) Det Steve Thomas, who was physically close and who has alleged that the Ramseys are responsible for the death of Jonbenet.
".


J. RAMSEY: I've lived with her for 20 years. I know that she loved that child more than anything in the world.

Note that "I" and "her" are distant. He could have said "Patsy and I have lived together for 20 years..." but he did not. He chose to use the word "with" which commonly shows distance.

"My wife and I went shopping" is different from
"I went shopping with my wifeThe subsequent interview revealed that the latter statement showed distance as he did not want to go shopping that day.


J. RAMSEY: We speculate. The world's -- one of the world's leading profilers, John Douglas, has said that this killer was angry with me or was very jealous of me. And this was an anger or jealousy that was acted out against me.

The autopsy showed signs of vaginal trauma consistent with sexual abuse. John may have now inadvertently revealed that Patsy was angry with him, and may have coerced him into helping stage the death scene if indeed, this was an accidental killing during discipline where Patsy then went into cover up mode, sat down for a long time (something an intruder would not do) and wrote a practice note and then the real note. .



KING: Instead of taking it out against you, he kills your child.

J. RAMSEY: Sadly yes.




J. RAMSEY: I am not ruling out any possibility. It's a horrible thought to think that somebody would be angry with me enough to kill my daughter, but I'm not ruling out anything.

The issue of "anger" is sensitive which is seen by John's repetition.

Now we have the motive-this killer was angry with me or was very jealous of me. And this was an anger or jealousy that was acted out against me.

KING: Instead of taking it out against you, he kills your child.

J. RAMSEY: Sadly yes.


And finally who wrote the note-
KING: So you agree that whoever authored the ransom note probably killed the child?

Patsy was never ruled out as the author of the note. The linguistics point to her: including the now famous "and hence" phrase she used in her Christmas card to the church (the same unique (and improper) phrase is in the ransom note)

J. RAMSEY: I agree.

P. RAMSEY: I would agree with
that.



Notice the weakening of Patsy's agreement. A simple "I agree" would suffice but she gives us additional words which give us additional information: "I would" is future tense; weakening her commitment, and "with" shows distance, as does "that". "I agree" would be first person singular, present tense (the statement by King was present tense) and would have been strong.


KING: It's a strange, letter, isn't it?

THOMAS: Absolutely. It is an absolutely bizarre letter, that the writer knew so much about this family, using Patsy's tablet, a pen from within the home, and...

P. RAMSEY: They did not use JonBenet's name.

This shows familiarity with the lengthy note. Why the absence of Jonbenet's name? The author would likely had struggled due to emotional attachment and not used Jonbenet's name. We saw this often in the answers given by Ronald Cummings. His use of Haleigh's name was limited, especially in the "Cobra tapes" where the investigator repeatedly used her name.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sunday, April 13, 2014

Statement Analysis: Letting it Go

There are times when sensitivity indicators regarding a difficult topic often mean simply walking away.

I hope this helps explain why some analysis is not pursued vigorously. It is a personal judgement call on my part, as author of the blog, and it varies from case to case.

When a crime has taken place, and the subject has been deceptive, it is important to learn if the subject is being deceptive about the crime itself.  There are times in investigations where a subject has written a statement about the event, and has been indicated for deception, except that the deception was not about the allegation.

On one such case, a few years ago, a company had reported missing money, and the difficult issue was that there was an unknown number of people who had access to the missing money, including sub contractors, and visitors to the building.  This means that even if all the workers write out statements, the thief could still have been someone else who is not known, and who has not written out a statement.

In cases where the missing money had to be one of __ number of workers, the written statement is going to find out who took the money.  This is the norm.

In the above case, I asked for assistance in my analysis, for I had seen deception, but it did not appear to be related to the thief.

I sent the statement to LSI.

SCAN is the place where it all begins, and is the foundation for all Statement Analysis.  I sent the statement seeking a review of my work and received back the answer that I had, indeed, uncovered deception, but that something else had taken place.  I was instructed to inquire if another theft had taken place.

When I spoke to the company, I learned that there had been, recently, a break in and robbery of high tech equipment where there appeared to be no forced entry.

I approached the subject who agreed to take a polygraph but, she said, only if the questions were about "this" theft (the theft of money).

Bingo.

In reviewing statements for companies, I have often found deception within the statements, though unrelated to the allegation.

There are those, for example, who will reveal that they lied about time off, or stole time from their employer, or felt a need to brag up poor work; all points of sensitivity, but all unrelated to the allegation.

This is where the Analytical Interviewing shines:  it allows the subject to choose his own words, define these words, and for the innocent to assert so, even while alerting employers to other problems that need to be addressed.

Recently, a tragedy took place in which two children died.  The mother's language indicated sensitivity about leaving them with her own mother. The mother of the deceased certainly appeared to have questions, within herself, about her choice to leave her toddlers with their grandmother, and she will be haunted for the rest of her life.

She would not need to read analysis of her words here, as it will serve no purpose even in justice for the toddlers.

Yes, there is a story behind the words and it could be anything from a grandmother who fell asleep while being ill, right on up to substance abuse and so on, but there are just times when there is no purpose to pursue analysis.

Years ago, a boy went missing and his mother's words indicated sensitivity about leaving him in the case of his father and step mother.  To analyze her words would have meant nothing but added pain.  It would not help the case.  Even a letter from the mother, open the public, was left unanalyzed.

Terry Elvis' pain is acute and his words about his own daughter showed, from the beginning, veracity.  Yet there are those who continue to have their malicious comments deleted here as the comments are intended to add to the family's pain.

Trista Reynolds is another of whom a small group of DiPietro supporters delight in posting her shortcomings in life for the whole world to see.  Statement Analysis of Trista Reynolds showed that she did not know what happened to Baby Ayla, and she had no guilty knowledge of where Ayla was.  Justin DiPietro showed guilty knowledge of Ayla's death.

"Letting it go" means just that; there is no purpose in further analysis.

Sometimes, this is best.

Recall the "Zumba" scandal in Maine.  The husband of the prostitute suffered many things and the more he spoke...well, you get the picture.

Later on, the words can be taken, long after the case is forgotten, and be useful for instruction, with the names redacted.  This is different.

For now, readers, use discretion and wisdom, even when analyzing comments.

Saturday, April 12, 2014

Crisis In Confidence in Law Enforcement

I've written a number of times just how a crisis of confidence in law enforcement has plagued our generation.

From "affirmative action" programs, where talent is overlooked for political reasons, to the public scandals of FBI "sexting" and Secret Service prostitution parties, right up to failure to prosecute, the public has lost, far and wide, confidence in law enforcement.

Talk to the prosecutor and it is the fault of the investigator.

Talk to the investigator and it is the fault of the prosecutor.

Talk to administration and it is low salaries and ill funding for training.

Talk to teachers and the dumbing down of our schools has given us the Casey Anthony jury.

I'm not sure any cop would say, "When I was a young boy, I couldn't wait to grow up and be a cop, and hide behind a bush, as a grown man, and pull someone over for going 10mph over the limit. Oh the thrill!"

I doubt it was any cop's ambition, yet more and more they are being pushed into the budgetary restraints of 'fund raising' in this manner.

Less and less we are seeing advanced training in interviewing.

Even when Statement Analysis is taught, the seminar is only 2 to 3 days.  This is enough time to "learn the chords" or the basics, but the real issue is to get down into the trenches and week by week, month by month, analyze statements until just playing the "chords" on the "guitar" begin to sound like music.

Then comes advanced interviewing training.

The training is not successful without capable students.  If departments have deliberately ignored those who scored higher on testing in place of those of different pigmentation or gender, or anything else, they have no one but themselves (or the politicians who push this nonsense down their throats) to blame.

Christopher Dillingham reported what is commonly repeated and evidenced:  police score very poorly on deception detection exams as they think everyone is lying.

Once a person is labeled "a liar", there is an emotional shut down, instead of "analytical listening" and content analysis of the words the liar speaks.

It takes lots and lots of practice.

"Discourse Analysis" is nothing more than "Statement Analysis" during, well, discourse, that is while someone is speaking.

It is a learned skill.

Practicing legally sound interviewing, which is non-threatening, and is designed to obtain the most possible information, is key.  This is done after the analysis of the written statement and with enough practice, even during the live interview, analysis is being done as key words, recognized in written statements, come to the ear ("left", "so, since, therefore, because...") and even some of the more minor points (body posture, "said" versus "told") come to the ear, live, and can be immediately used in the interview process.

There's far more to the crisis of confidence than just this, but when lesser talent is employed, bullying tactics, ego maniacs, and the natural consequences of arming the less than best and brightest are within our headlines, far too often, for us to discuss.

Perhaps, like so many other 'fads' of political trends, this too, shall pass and the next generation will excise the folly of today, for the wisdom of yesteryear.




Friday, April 11, 2014

The Verifier Liar

I spend considerable energy convincing company Human Resource interviewers just how dangerous to their company a liar is.

Some are "Grandiose Liars", those who must exaggerate their own self worth and status to others.  We'll target the language of the "Grandiose Liar" in another article.

Today, it is the "Verifier Liar" whom we shall profile.

One who practices lying (deception) is one who will bring your ____________ harm.  Fill in the blank with (relationship, business, company, marriage, etc) most anything.  Others might recognize that the liar has a "personality disorder" in which a diagnosis has been given.  Regardless, the liar will trouble others around her, even if it is just to relieve her own boredom, or gain attention.

The liar will put his or her needs above those of others, including the interests of business, or personal well being.  The liar, if she enjoys gossip, for example, will trouble morale in companies (or any social group) that has interpersonal actions. She may pit one supervisor against another, triangulating fellow employees into disputes.

The liar will steal.

This means that, depending upon your business, the liar may steal product (shrinkage), money, or simply steal time.

Today, here is one type of liar to spot, and being to observe the actions and behaviors. She is the "Verifier Liar."

The "Verifier Liar" reveals herself in her language, as well as her behavior.  The "Verifier Liar" will use sentences such as these:

"I wasn't late this morning, I got in before the store opened up."

"I drove the truck straight to the dock.  I left at 1PM and got there by 2PM.  It always takes an hour."

"I didn't say that to her.  Susie was there, too, so just ask her."

"I brought Bobbie with me in case you wanted to check with him.  I finished everything you asked me to."

In other words, each assertion is made with a presentation of how to verify the truth.

Note to Reader:

Do actually verify.

you will find out something important to you or your company.

The above statements may sound like junior high school, but they are quotes from businesses in which liars are all but admitting, "I am a liar!" by preparing for a challenge, without even being challenged.

You will learn tow things:

1.  Even though the assertions can be verified, the Verifier Liar may not be expecting you to follow through with the verification.

2.  By showing a need for verification, the subject is revealing that not only is she a liar, but she is a habitual liar, and when she is telling the truth, she especially wants to be believed.

"I finished my homework.  You can even ask my mother!"  The student that says this to his teacher may have, truly, finished his homework, but he is showing that he is a liar by his lack of confidence.  The truthful person follows a norm where an economy of words indicates confidence in the assertion (or denial), therefore, no need to emphasize.  He has a quiet confidence that if the matter is looked into further, affirmation will be found.

Borderline Personality Disorder

Those with BPD will go through stages where lying is almost incessant.  Chaos and confusion are often associated with BPD and there is sometimes little remorse.

How Should a Business Deal With Liars?

The best that can be done is in the Interview process where specific questions are designed to tempt the liar to be deceptive and weed out the trouble-maker before he comes on board.

Applications with questions about personality and life are important, with the application giving lots of room for answers.  I do what I can to encourage applicants to fill out as much information as they can.  The more words, the more analysis.

Human Resources that are responsible for internal investigations should use Analytical Interviewing in which the written answers on the application are analyzed, and the interview is conducted armed with this knowledge.

Remember:  people give out far more information than they realize.

We use this information to not only sift out liars, but to hire the most qualified candidate.

Last piece of advice:

When someone says "If I were you, I wound't trust me either..." or something similar.

My advice is based upon statistics.

If someone tells you not to trust them, believe them.

This is my advice. You should take it.


Thursday, April 10, 2014

Tammy Moorer Seeks New Bond Hearing

not starving in jail...is there another explanation?


Tammy Moorer has asked for a reconsideration of her bond denial.  Her attorney claims she has "new and substantial" reasons for relief in the bond that was originally denied.

"The Defendant requests that this Honorable Court hear new and substantial grounds for relief relating to the denial of bond and hear grounds forming a basis of the immediate necessity."

"In compliance with Judge John's March 21, 2014 order prohibiting extrajudicial statements and release of documents, a memoranda of facts and law will be forwarded to the court under seal for the court's consideration.  This memoranda of facts and law has not been furnished to the state."