"Statement Analysis is wrong because:
1. ______________ (fill in name of your favorite killer) is innocent"
2. I use that word when I speak so..."
These are the two top reasons why people deny Statement Analysis. There are a few others:
3. mentally ill people lie without knowing it.
4. lying is part of the disease of substance abuse.
5. people don't really mean what they say.
6. you don't take into account education levels
7. you don't take into account regional dialects
8. confessions can be coerced
From sample to sample we are able to address most points, but not points 1 and 2. In point 1 and point 2, the personal prejudice is afflicted with a strong emotional response, often nullifying reason.
Yet, there is a pressure upon those who read Statement Analysis, see its application of common sense and grammar, yet hold on to a favorite or pet theory about a stranger's guilt or innocence in spite of the sensible conclusion that Statement Analysis highlights. I have learned much through reading comments by posters, with special help found in drawing conclusions and tying in evidence. The premise begins well, with "deception indicated" or "no deception indicated" from the analysis, but then great help comes in the comments section from various avenues of expertise, including medical, legal, psychological, substance abuse, parenting, and so on.
What has emerged is an opinion of commentators as some have a stronger understanding of human nature than others. This is why I sometimes post seemingly unrelated articles, to see what responses come from whom. Some will immediately post, "I don't want the government telling me what color toilet paper is best for me!" which tells me that their understanding of the fraility of human nature is strong, as they realize that "they" or "the state" or "the government" is made up of individuals; individuals who make mistakes, who make decisions based upon self interest, and so on. This while others say "yes, a good idea" without thinking through the consequences of lost freedom. Comments will then be viewed with this lense: those who believe in personal freedom seem to be stronger on personal responsibility (they often have written harshly about criminal behavior excused based upon IQ tests or diagnosis) than are others. This translates over to understanding about crime, drugs, and of late...
neglect.
What have I learned from reading comments?
Much.
But in particular, there is that one post. It is that one post, that one subject, of whom the commentator is emotionally so blindly attached to the notion of innocence, that he or she can no longer reason correctly. This is the pressure upon them and for some, the decision whether or not to continue to read or understand Statement Analysis.
"Statement Analysis can't be right because __________ didn't do it!" yet, they continue to read, and continue to see how much sense is made in the analysis, and how its application works, correctly, over and over. If they insist, eventually I, or one of the other commentators will eventually ask:
"Why do you think ____________ is telling the truth?" and request that analysis be shown why he or she believes their favorite subject is truthful. The direct question goes unanswered, instead, other topics are raised. See the analysis on the Darlie Routier 911 call. It was a strange one in which I was unfamiliar with the case, and having misread the date, I thought it a recent 911 call and I embarrassingly wrote to the police to "look at the caller as the possible killer of the children!" expecting to offer assistance. The embarrassment turned around, however, as the analysis was then given to the district attorney's office responsible for Routier's appeal. Then there is another factor which has provided invaluable understanding to many:
Caylee's mother has provided us with rich sample on how a liar works. The principles are applied to her statements and we see how the lie is uncovered. For some, there is a dismissive attitude here because, as they say, "she never stopped lying", which isn't true. By applying the principles of Statement Analysis, we found a few sentences that were not lies. It is rare, but it is out there and it is useful for teaching. Vile a character as they come, Caylee's mother has provided a great deal of sample for study and we are even able to see her sentences when she was, on rare occasion, tell the truth. Caylee Anthony's mother's lies lead us to a principle:
For some, it is a drugged, pornographic, neglectful mother, who is without morals or respect for life itself. Something in this case may have touched you, the commentator, and all reason and common sense have been thrown out the window. You may become willing to throw out principle in defense of this one person. Is she (or he) really worth it? You see Caylee's mother's lies discerned by using a formula, and you agree. You see the formula applied to disgraced former Representative Anthony Wiener and you know it is correct. You see see how the principle works for Susan Smith, OJ Simpson, Joey Buttafuouco, and you see, plainly, given the known facts, that it works.
Then you see the principle applied to _____________ (fill in the name of your favorite subject) and you feel the struggle and the strain.
This is a good place to pause for a moment.
Think of the investment, mentally and emotionally. You may find yourself caring about the mother more than she cared about her daughter, or, as we saw: many strangers cared more about the child than her own mother. Is this really worth the tossing out of reason and logic?
We have even read of one man so obsessed with the Amanda Knox case that he lost his job over her. He has lost his job, and has gained nothing. Her own words show not only deception, but involvement in a distinctly sexual homicide. Yet, her legion of defenders (mostly male) are willing to do or say anything (posts without proof are deleted) in her defense, including ridicule, bullying, threatening, and even hyperbole and lying; all to defend a young woman they have never met. I can only imagine Knox in jail laughing as she read about this, or showing off the love letters and marriage proposals from all of the young men in the United States who insist that she is innocent, in spite of the lies she told to the police. Caylee Anthony's mother received money and marriage proposals during her 3 year stint in jail. Now, networks are competing for her interview, offering a lifetime of wealth for an hour of her lies.
Don't let a pet theory or pet subject cloud your thinking. This is the principle cause of discord and rejection of Statement Analysis.
2. The other is:
Statement Analysis can't be correct because I use the word "left" all the time!
This is ego-centric thinking and it is something that should be carefully processed. "Statement analysis is nonsense because I call my daughter 'child' and..." or "Statement Analysis is baloney because I say goodnight to my children!" or other such personal misunderstanding or miscommunication.
Statement Analysis is progressive, and as we move through a statement, we are building an answer, to learn if someone is truthful or deceptive. Along this journey are various roadsigns saying "make a slight left here" and "turn right here" at certain junctions in the statement. No one indicator should cause us to say "deception!". In the mouth of two or three witnesses, (hopefully more), we seek to establish a conclusion.
Statement Analysis is not done under a microscope. It is not a single word magnified so many times that it is no longer recognized. A single word may reveal much, but it is part of a bigger statement and larger analysis. Dialect is viewed, and even education as someone says "this ain't no good" is not re-written for them to conclude "this is good" based upon the double negative.
If 80% of the people do such and such, you may be part of the 20%. So what? Does that mean we should throw out the 80%, which is so helpful in guiding us towards a conclusion? Not at all.
Personal Polite Deception.
"Honest to God, don't do it!"
You may have found that one of the deceptive phrases commonly used has fallen from your lips a time or two. Does this mean that Statement Analysis is wrong?
"Statement Analysis must be wrong because I AM A HONEST PERSON!"
Hmm.
Are you? Are you sure you are? Are you honest about everything?
Statement Analysis applied to me uncovered something about me that I didn't like about myself.
I found that as self analysis showed, I have been 'politely' deceptive since childhood.
"Yes, Auntie, I just love when you kiss me!" as I held my breath and prayed for relief.
"Of course, your new purple hair looks good!" with one eye on my mother, seeking approval.
"I love the green bean birthday cake you made!" with my fake smile trying not to yak.
This self analysis helped me understand that even though I am a truthful person, I was raised to be deceptive, as long as it was polite.
This helped me (with Heather's encouragement and pointing out) change, from within, and then to help the kids come up with polite responses without being dishonest: "Do you like my haircut?" "It is interesting, Aunt Polly!" rather than be deceptive. They are beyond the years of "No, I don't. Daddy says you scare little children!" type of bluntness, but can be polite without lying.
I also found myself saying "you" quite a lot, learning from self analysis that it arises in unpleasant topics. "You didn't know what to expect. They booby-trapped buildings and laid out mines for the soldiers..." This is natural.
With all the posting, those who are regular readers here learn principles and apply them, oftentimes highlighting something I missed. They have become excellent in detecting deception and this is something that everyone should recognize: just as if I were to deceive or lie on a posting, so would they see it here, in the entry, just as they would see deception in the comments posted. Sometimes, a comment that is deceptive is left up so that others may see it. Some will call it out (it is under "Anonymous" usually) which is helpful. We had several "declarations of fact" which were anything but, in defense of a subject who's lies were obvious.
But, most deception from the average person is under the category of politeness, so don't be quick to say "Statement analysis is wrong because I say 'honest to God' all the time, and I am not lying!"
Take a careful look at the exact topic when "honest to God" (or whatever phrase) comes up...and when it does not come up.
You will be surprised.
Deceptive people are most often deceptive about polite things in life. "Honestly, your hair cut looks amazing." For some readers, it means, "I won't read statement analysis ever again!" as anger wells up, but there have been far more who have written that they have taken a good, long, difficult look at their own souls and have found that they have not been an honest person, but wishes to be. All the better.
You will find that some issues are very sensitive. One such issue is that of Neglect.
Child neglect cases trigger angry reactions in commentators.
"My child's tooth..." and off they go after reading the suggestion that Celina's family was neglectful. It is entirely possible that, genetically, your child's tooth protruded and you did not neglect her. My answer to you is this: "Okay, but did you let a violent psycho move in to your home?"
"My 3 year old rides her bike to school, goes into stores, and can recite the Latin alphabet backwards!" when they have read "who in their right mind would let a 3 year old ride her bike alone?"
Think about your post. Self analysis is enriching and those who say 'a life not worthy of analysis is not a life worth living' may have stumbled on to something.
"My 3 year old watches David Letterman every night with me and she is not abused!"
It is entirely possible that out of 100 people, 2 or 3 work awkward shifts and have a child who is yet to be put on a normal time clock (normal being the one schools operate on, for example) missing the point about generalizations:
Generalizations are not meant to be exact. Generalizations are meant to give investigations direction.
Because we have become such a selfish entitled people, we are unable to put others first. We wouldn't need handicapped parking signs if we put others first, yet we want the government to force us to be polite, to feed others, to be kind, to not smoke in a car with windows up choking our children...and so on.
Let's say that every terrorist who carries a bomb on an airplane looks like me. Short, chubby, ruddy me.
It would be better, for instance, to make me 2 hours late for a flight, by profiling me, than to "treat everyone equal" and make everyone late just to avoid singling me out. But we do not think that way any more. Now, if the one singled out plays his cards right, he will sue, and get his hands on money he did not earn and instead of calling it "theft" it will become a constitutional right of sorts. After all, it is not like the money was taken from an individual, right? (I've been trying to spill McDonald's coffee on my lap for years but keep chickening out). We think he is "owed" the money. In Philly, Politicians say "cell phones are a right" and not a privilege and will forcibly take money from workers to give the cell phones to others, for free. Somehow, they feel that there is no end to government money and it is impossible to eventually bounce a government check. Free ipads for everyone! Yeah! (I would like one to play chess on).
This week, an older woman tore into a young girl at a restaurant because the young woman used the "handicapped" bathroom. The young woman sheepishly said, "I'm sorry, I really had to go and the other was taken!". The older woman, with no visible handicap was incensed and indignant. Her attitude surprised me, especially since I expected more civility from her, given her age.
No one wants to put others first. We're a generation willing to kill each other over self esteem. If our kids play "tag" at school, there may be a lawsuit because one kid was "singled out" by the others in the game. I watched the London riots on TV where they interviewed one of the looters who was caught with a box of DVD players under his arms, as he blamed "the rich" for the riots. In the late 1980's New York "re-scored" police tests to be more "racially sensitive" dropping those who scored well in English, for example, and "adding points" to others, based upon the color of their skin. The result was that less intelligent, or underachieving now carry guns and hold life and death in their hands, rather than the best and brightest. For my money, I want the kid who was responsible in school, did his homework, and is more intelligent, carrying a gun, and interviewing people, not the dummy who just happened to have a certain pigment to his skin and who has just been rewarded for goofing off during Science class. Due to the color of skin, one is "entitled" to the job over the hard working one, just because his skin is a different color. When people complained about poor police work, shoddy interviews, and ruined investigations (like blaming "Facebook" for failures), I always think back to the lowering of standards that was accepted in New York, first by politicians, and then by people. We don't want to offend anyone so everyone gets a trophy.
We want to enhance the self esteem of everyone, so we reward mediocrity. These little examples are just an example of mentality. Wendel Noyes was found "unfit" to stand trial for domestic violence. "Unfit?" He was, apparently, "fit" enough to do the crime, but not "fit" enough to pay the penalty. Now, because of this mentality, a young girl is dead. Don't fall prey to the trap blaming "the system" because it was human flesh and blood that made a decision to declare him "unfit" and now Celina is dead.
People rush to condemn condemnation! "Don't judge that poor mother!" Are you kidding me? I want to say "don't judge her? Hey, don't judge me for judging her!" in the silly merry-go-round of illogic. She let her 5 year old child watch her 3 year old? She may not have killed the child, but she is responsible for the neglect of not watching Breeann! A better idea is judge her (not condemn) and shout this from the housetops:
Be careful who you expose your children to! or...
Watch your children and don't let 5 year olds supervise! or...
Don't lock a sleeping baby in a car! or...
We cannot legislate intelligence, but it is frustrating to see that it still happens daily. Somewhere, our thinking went awry.
Where did we get the notion that violence isn't violence if the perpetrator is one point lower on an IQ test than the next guy?
Let's say a child is missing.
Let's say the searching goes from California to Maine and we wish to begin somewhere: do we head North, South, East, or West?
Statement Analysis gives, at first, general directions. Granted, sometimes we get enough of a sample to know much more than just a general direction. Susan Smith's short television appearance is a good example.
A little toddler goes for a walk in his house full of 9 people and we are to believe that no one saw what happened to him?
When a 13 year old girl goes missing and Mommy and boyfriend go on television and is caught lying, Statement Analysis has now provided an excellent starting point for the search to begin.
Sometimes the landscape isn't topographical; sometimes it is linguistic.
Look at the 911 Call of Darlie Routier. Think of all the principles you've learned regarding analysis. From the 911 call alone, where would you begin the investigation? This is how it works. We ask questions.
"My children have been stabbed and I need an ambulance" she said.
Hmm.
"My children have been shot and I need an ambulance" some will say: 'yes, she needs an ambulance, you know, for her children.
Hmm.
This she said, as she herself lay bleeding. In 911 call analysis, we find that in guilty callers the caller never asks for specific help for the victim, but for the caller him or herself!
We find that what the brain is thinking comes out in the tongue. Surprise, surprise....this was something said more than 2,000 years ago.
"out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks" is still amazing me, analysis after analysis. Almost a thousand years before that, we have our famous example from Solomon where he taught us that order shows priority, in the case of the two babies of which one died.
Don't let your pet case or favorite subject throw you off the directions provided by Statement Analysis.
Don't let ego cause you to have the world circle around you. It is a big world out there, with lots to learn and plenty to offer.
Don't attempt to make principle a cement block to place upon other; sometimes the edges aren't perfect and as messy as life can be, we must be flexible.
Statement Analysis is amazing. It can help you discern truth from deception which will prove invaluable in this world. Deception can cost you many things.
Did you see the class action suit for refinancing mortgages? Countrywide, in a large scale manner, deceived homeowners about refinancing. Whenever a homeowner caught on (it was after signing), Countrywide immediately sold the loan to a larger bank, leaving the customer now to fight with another company. A class action law suit followed and Countrywide was forced to pay millions.
The average homeowner saw his mortgage go up several hundred dollars (at least) per month and was left with few choices. If they did not make the higher payments, the new bank would foreclose. Since they just refinanced, the chances of getting another, immediate refinancing was dismal.
The settlement checks, however, were sent out to provide relief to those who were deceived by Countrywide.
The lawyers' fees took the lion's share of the multi-million dollar settlement.
The homeowner who now pays hundreds per dollars more each month received their check this past month.
$38.43
Deception hurts.
Police who are not trained in Statement Analysis take a terrible toll, far worse than money. Ask Bill Ferguson, Ryan's father, what an untrained interview or interrogation can do to a life, as he fights to get his son released from prison. For me, evidence argument goes back and forth, but I stand firm on what amounts to a core belief about speech. Ryan did not kill the victim. Perhaps this cop had his test scores raised 15 points because of the size of his ears; after all, people with big ears have just as much right, nay, they have more rights than those of smaller ears. (Don't say "normal" ears, it might insult someone).
Don't lose the value of discernment over a pet case. Don't bet the farm against the words. Have the ability to remain open, always growing, always learning. Move on where needed.
Do the self-analysis exercise. It is fascinating and will show you just how much you reveal of yourself to anyone listening.
For those who don't know what it is:
Pick a Saturday or Sunday (non-work day and not a day you spent traveling) and write down everything you did, from the time you woke up, until the time you went to bed.
You will be amazed.
For those of you who have sent many of these things to me via Facebook or Blog Talk Radio, by now you have seen how sensitive, personal analysis was left out. I appreciate the "thanks" some of you later expressed. You're human. We are all of the same clay; we all make mistakes, and all have issues to wrestle with in life.
A life worthy of analysis is a life worth living. It is why I love biographies and autobiographies; even of ordinary people. Sometimes ordinary people are faced with extraordinary challenges and rise far above any level they ever hoped or expected to in life, because of the tragedy.
Consider reading "Who Killed My Daughter" by Lois Duncan, to discern not only a tragedy that has ruined many lives, but of the courage of the author to press on. You'll want to pull your own loved ones closer.
No comments:
Post a Comment