How can we know if they are real?
Statement Analysis is most generally known for detecting deception within a statement, for police or for corporations in need of discernment. Analysis is also used to identify anonymous threats.
In the past year, I have analyzed two such threats and have been able to successfully identify the author of the threatening letters. I train law enforcement, around the country, as well as businesses, HR professionals, civil investigators, attorneys, and others who need discernment. We are able to know if a claim is real or if it is a fabricated story.
I have shown false claims of rape by lying victims, and covered some of the victims of Bill Cosby to show, indeed, that they were sexually assaulted.
In the Statement Analysis Blog I have Michael Jackson, OJ Simpson, Lance Armstrong, Barak Obama and a long list of those indicated for deception who are well known. Some are sociopathic liars, like Hillary Clinton, while others are celebrities who attempted to deny an allegation, but was incapable of doing so. This includes Roger Clemons,
This is done in advanced analysis by profiling. As we write (or speak) we reveal ourselves. The words we choose will reveal our gender, background, experiences, priorities, and even our personalities. This goes for all of us as 'out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.'
The "heart" is the seat of the intellect and emotions; what we think and how we feel about what we think. From this comes the words we choose.
I work for businesses as the Dept of Justice told us that 40% of thieves had planned theft before the job interview. I show them how to weed out thieves, liars, the violent, and those who seek employment but have an agenda which means that they are likely to file a fraudulent suit against the company in order to gain money that their own hands have not earned. This saves companies a great deal of money, as well as stress and loss of reputation.
Victims of Violence
Those who experience high levels of fear, as evidenced in the spike of cortisol (the "fight or flight" hormone) have an imprint left upon them (brain) which then chooses the words, from a vocabulary of 25,000 or more words, to describe the event in less than a micro second. Lying causes a disruption of this rapid process, which is what gives analysts their very high level of accuracy in lie detection.
Below are their stories.
Victims of violence, either first hand or even witness, who experience hormonal increase. For this example, picture yourself driving down the road, and suddenly slamming on the brakes. Your hormones sky rocketed, as your eye sight increased, your muscles braced for impact, and you squeezed the steering wheel. As you reasoned with yourself, "I am safe, I am fine..." the hormones quickly receded. Those that do not quickly recede experience post traumatic stress disorder like symptoms, including nightmares, perseveration, hyper vigilance, depression and so on.
Victims of this form of trauma will connect themselves to the event with strong pronouns ("I" rather than "you"), past tense verbs, and will often "lose the filter" as they will, under emotional strain, call the violent strong names, often "not politically correct" because they do not care how it appears; the trauma was up close and personal, and the language should reflect this.
I have analyzed a number of "fake hate" reports for police and in my blog. This is where someone alleges to have been horribly beaten up, but write, "I was attacked by three African-American gentlemen."
Victims of violent crimes will not call the perpetrators "gentlemen" but will use angry, non-politically correct language, because the trauma supersedes any need to portray themselves as anything but a victim. The above statement was made by a white person who was fabricating a story to excuse his own behavior.
Victims of violence care not for what you think of them: they are hurt, angry, violated, and it shows in their language.
These prove to be fraudulent claims and the language is what reveals them.
We also measure statements by "form." This is where a reliable account will take on 3 sections, with "what happened" being the "main event." By counting the words, we may analyze the account in 3 parts:
1. The introduction. This is to tell us what happened before the actual event, such as, "I went to a park near my home."
2. The Main Event. This is where the person tells us what happened to them. This might sound like, "At this park, a man pushed me and called me a whore. I got up to ran and he knocked me down."
3. Post Event. This is after the main event and might sound like this: "I ran away and called the police."
Truthful accounts will be, on average:
25% of the words dedicated to the "before" part of the account
50% of the words dedicated to the event
25% of the words used to report what happened after the event, including calling police.
When a statement greatly deviates from this 25/5025 formula, it is "unreliable" on its form.
The overwhelming number of false statements are heavily weighted in the introduction. This makes sense psychologically because the setting is more important than the event, because the event did not happen as reported, and the writer has a need to persuade, rather than report honestly. Therefore, they will often use a lot of words to "build up credibility" which actually belies their weakness and indicates deception.
Let's look at these claims posted at Bare Naked Islam to see if they are reliable:
*Does the writer connect himself or herself with the pronoun "I"?
*Does the writer use past tense verbs?
*Does the language match the reality with appropriate harshness?
*Does the writer show signals of deception?
*Does the writer use sensory language?
*Does it come from experiential memory, or is it a perseveration from past experiences?
*If it does not come from experiential memory, where does it come from? Memory of a movie, or what someone told them?
*Does the writer tell what happened, or does he have a 'need to persuade' instead?
*Does the writer confuse articles, "the" and "a"? If so, deception is likely.
*Does the writer confuse pronouns? If so, deception is likely indicated.
I have added underlining to some of the words to help you answer the questions above.