Statement Analysis? BS?

[Bob Klase]

Years ago I read Fatal Vision- the Joe Joe McGinniss book about Jeffrey MacDonald. I was also in the army when the murders happened and remember some of the news about the case. Not long ago I read a more recent book about the murders titled Fatal Justice. While it didn't fully convince me that MacDonald was innocent, it did raise doubts about whether he might have been railroaded.

So, while looking for more recent information to see if anything had changed since that book was written in 1995 I stumbled onto a site about 'Statement Analysis' run by Mark McClish (a federal law enforcement officer for 25 years) and read his analysis of MacDonald's statement made shortly after the murders.

http://www.statementanalysis.com/macdonald/

Ignoring the MacDonald case specifically, just reading this analysis makes we wonder if I'm being too critical of the analysis or if this really is the b.s. passing for investigation that it appears on first look to be (to me anyway)? I'm sure that there are people who, with experience, can make better than average guesses about when someone is lying. But just from reading the wording of a statement as in this example?

Just a couple examples from the analysis (there are many more. I suppose you really need to read the whole thing because my taking small bits out of context could be misleading).

MacDonald's Statement: “Let’s see. Monday night my wife went to bed, and I was reading.“

McClish's Analysis: “MacDonald does not introduce his wife by name. If you are with a friend and you meet another friend, it would be considered rude if you do not introduce them to each other. The same thing applies when writing. It is impolite not to introduce a character. This is an indication that something is wrong with the relationship.“

My Opinion: It seems very reasonable to me that when you're making a statement for the police about your wife's recent murder that you would assume your dead wife needs no introduction to the people who are supposed to be investigating her murder.


MacDonald's Statement: “my little girl Kristy had gone into bed with my wife. And I went in to go to bed, and the bed was wet. She had wet the bed on my side, so I brought her in her own room.“

McClish's Analysis: “I brought her in her own room." This is an unusual way to say that he carried his child to her room. It sounds as if he is carrying a body.“

My Opinion: This seems to be lose-lose for MacDonald. If he had said "I carried her to her own room" then the analysis would be "carried her- that's what you do with a body". Not sure what other word would even fit.


MacDonald's Statement: “And so, I sat up and at first I thought I was — I just could see three people“

McClish's Analysis: “Three is a liar's number. When deceptive people have to come up with a number, they will often use the number three. If MacDonald did kill his wife and two kids, then we can see that he did struggle with three people.“

My Opinion: And if there really were other 3 people? And didn't the police say that 3 people murdered? Are the police being deceptive about the number of murders that night? Seems like something to keep in mind- if you're ever attacked by 3 people, be sure to tell the police there were only 2, or 4.


MacDonald's Statement: “And this guy started walking down between the coffee table and the couch“

McClish's Analysis: “And this guy started walking..." The word "walking" is a very casual term for someone who is moving throughout your house attacking you and your family. If a struggle took place, we would expect to see language such as "ran" "moved" "came." The word "started" means the guy did not complete the act. (walking) “

My Opinion: 'Ran' might be a good word if the guy ran. If MacDonald used 'moved' or 'came' then would the analysis have said he should have used 'walk'. And "I started (walking/cooking/thinking/etc) seems like a pretty common phrase to me. I hope everyone that ever says they started doing something hasn't been lying to me. Just this afternoon I started to read a book.
And in the analysis McClish says "walking is very casual for someone who is moving". Isn't 'moving' also a very casual term for what he's saying?

There's much more, but the whole thing strikes me as similar to the "analysis" of Puff the Magic Dragon (and Peter Yarrow's counter 'analysis' of the national anthem) from several years ago.

I'd really love to see some of his Analysis's on statements made by people who were widely considered guilty but (after the analysis) were later proved innocent beyond all doubt. Or vice versa.

 

[Doc Daneeka]

Perhaps there's some empirical basis to this. It does raise a lot of red flags though. From Wikipedia, we find:

The Statement Analysis techniques are based on FOUR fundamental concepts:
Everyone has an innate desire to talk. (to give their information).
Everyone is born honest by default.
Everyone has an innate desire to tell the truth.
It is not easy to lie. Lying conflicts with our default programming.

Ok, we have assertions, all four of which are open to argument.

I call shenanigans.

 

[Uncayimmy]

What? Everyone is born honest by default? Have these people never raised kids? The only thing we have an innate desire for is to reproduce. And gettin' some often entails a little bit of lying (no, you don't look fat in those pants...).

Bob - I think your comments are spot on. I'm probably not going to read it based on what you posted already and the above info by Doc.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Years ago I read Fatal Vision- the Joe Joe McGinniss book about Jeffrey MacDonald. I was also in the army when the murders happened and remember some of the news about the case. Not long ago I read a more recent book about the murders titled Fatal Justice. While it didn't fully convince me that MacDonald was innocent, it did raise doubts about whether he might have been railroaded.

So, while looking for more recent information to see if anything had changed since that book was written in 1995 I stumbled onto a site about 'Statement Analysis' run by Mark McClish (a federal law enforcement officer for 25 years) and read his analysis of MacDonald's statement made shortly after the murders.

http://www.statementanalysis.com/macdonald/

Ignoring the MacDonald case specifically, just reading this analysis makes we wonder if I'm being too critical of the analysis or if this really is the b.s. passing for investigation that it appears on first look to be (to me anyway)? I'm sure that there are people who, with experience, can make better than average guesses about when someone is lying. But just from reading the wording of a statement as in this example?

Just a couple examples from the analysis (there are many more. I suppose you really need to read the whole thing because my taking small bits out of context could be misleading).

MacDonald's Statement: “Let’s see. Monday night my wife went to bed, and I was reading.“

McClish's Analysis: “MacDonald does not introduce his wife by name. If you are with a friend and you meet another friend, it would be considered rude if you do not introduce them to each other. The same thing applies when writing. It is impolite not to introduce a character. This is an indication that something is wrong with the relationship.“

My Opinion: It seems very reasonable to me that when you're making a statement for the police about your wife's recent murder that you would assume your dead wife needs no introduction to the people who are supposed to be investigating her murder.


MacDonald's Statement: “my little girl Kristy had gone into bed with my wife. And I went in to go to bed, and the bed was wet. She had wet the bed on my side, so I brought her in her own room.“

McClish's Analysis: “I brought her in her own room." This is an unusual way to say that he carried his child to her room. It sounds as if he is carrying a body.“

My Opinion: This seems to be lose-lose for MacDonald. If he had said "I carried her to her own room" then the analysis would be "carried her- that's what you do with a body". Not sure what other word would even fit.


MacDonald's Statement: “And so, I sat up and at first I thought I was — I just could see three people“

McClish's Analysis: “Three is a liar's number. When deceptive people have to come up with a number, they will often use the number three. If MacDonald did kill his wife and two kids, then we can see that he did struggle with three people.“

My Opinion: And if there really were other 3 people? And didn't the police say that 3 people murdered? Are the police being deceptive about the number of murders that night? Seems like something to keep in mind- if you're ever attacked by 3 people, be sure to tell the police there were only 2, or 4.


MacDonald's Statement: “And this guy started walking down between the coffee table and the couch“

McClish's Analysis: “And this guy started walking..." The word "walking" is a very casual term for someone who is moving throughout your house attacking you and your family. If a struggle took place, we would expect to see language such as "ran" "moved" "came." The word "started" means the guy did not complete the act. (walking) “

My Opinion: 'Ran' might be a good word if the guy ran. If MacDonald used 'moved' or 'came' then would the analysis have said he should have used 'walk'. And "I started (walking/cooking/thinking/etc) seems like a pretty common phrase to me. I hope everyone that ever says they started doing something hasn't been lying to me. Just this afternoon I started to read a book.
And in the analysis McClish says "walking is very casual for someone who is moving". Isn't 'moving' also a very casual term for what he's saying?

There's much more, but the whole thing strikes me as similar to the "analysis" of Puff the Magic Dragon (and Peter Yarrow's counter 'analysis' of the national anthem) from several years ago.

I'd really love to see some of his Analysis's on statements made by people who were widely considered guilty but (after the analysis) were later proved innocent beyond all doubt. Or vice versa.

Well, speaking from personal experience being a former investigator, actually knowing Mark and having done projects, attending the seminars and actually using these in the field- the problem is many of the people commenting dont understand how this technique works or how the system works or how a case is built.

First of all, no LE technique is foolproof, absolute, without risk and is hampered ( a necessary evil) by our Constitutional laws.

Second, techniques like this are only a PART of the whole process and focusing on the INVESTIGATION ( the case building process) and not the trial process ( the lawyers have their own techniques which are similar)

Statement analysis ( in the global view) is designed upon the simple concept that a "memory" is linear but a lie ( which never existed and thus cannot be "remembered" so must have to be "thought of") more often than not flags itself.

See, its not just the statement- thats just a trigger, the rest ( for the skilled interrogator) is to identify the trigger and then zero in on it thus prompting another trigger- this process repeats itself until either you get the truth or you fully identify the falsehood.

It has many weaknesses and is often used out of context especially by those who dont have extensive experience in investigations.

Some of them are

It doesnt work well with WRITTEN statements ( by definition a prepared statement- not a transcript of a verbal dialog) because people often use different words in written documentation than in normal speaking.

It doesnt work well with a spoken speach written by another- just like an actor quoting a script, thats almost useless

It doesnt work well as a stand alone technique without other indicators like body language, inflections etc

It also doesnt work well with premeditated and rehearsed lies

 

[Aepervius]

It doesnt work well with WRITTEN statements ( by definition a prepared statement- not a transcript of a verbal dialog) because people often use different words in written documentation than in normal speaking.

It doesnt work well with a spoken speach written by another- just like an actor quoting a script, thats almost useless

It doesnt work well as a stand alone technique without other indicators like body language, inflections etc

It also doesnt work well with premeditated and rehearsed lies

That is then of very limited use, especially the last sentence.

 

[Uncayimmy]

First of all, no LE technique is foolproof, absolute, without risk and is hampered ( a necessary evil) by our Constitutional laws.

Notice that he added "a necessary evil" parenthetically. He's trying to be temper his position in an attempt to befriend the audience. Somebody with real experience who truly believes what he says would not apologize like this.

Second, techniques like this are only a PART of the whole process and focusing on the INVESTIGATION ( the case building process) and not the trial process ( the lawyers have their own techniques which are similar)

Notice the attempt to create a common enemy (lawyers). A classic tactic.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Notice that he added "a necessary evil" parenthetically. He's trying to be temper his position in an attempt to befriend the audience. Somebody with real experience who truly believes what he says would not apologize like this.


Notice the attempt to create a common enemy (lawyers). A classic tactic.

Both are incorrect

>>>Notice that he added "a necessary evil" parenthetically. He's trying to be temper his position in an attempt to befriend the audience.

No, the "necessary evil" is the part regarding the RIGHTS of the accused. In the US system of judgement- the defendant is given an upper hand in the legal system. ( thats what keeps us a little different than the Taliban, Nazi's etc)

The defendant has the RIGHT to remain silent, lawyer up, not cooperate in any way- the total burden is on the state.

No such device exists such as a "truth serum" or a "lie detector" and we have no time machine to go back and see what actually happens.

I'm not allowed to torture, hose, whip, threaten to kill close ones ( or actually do 1 to make a point), starve, deny medical treatment or any other "creative' coersive method.

All I'm left with various methods that are all flawed and imperfect to build a case with to defend society and administer justice in a system that while in principle is the best ever designed by man is often used,abused and wrongfully tilted.

Then those on the sidelines who dont have a clue comment on things they have no knowledge of with wiki as their only source of information.

So much for 'appealing" to an audience-If they havent been there and done it- I dont give a tinkers damn what they think or say.

>>>Somebody with real experience who truly believes what he says would not apologize like this.

In case you dont realize it- I made no apology then or now. What I said is factually accurate. How many criminals have you put behind bars? How many cases have you built? How many victims have you had to explain things to?

If your answer is zero or less- well, you get the picture

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

That is then of very limited use, especially the last sentence.

True. Its almost impossible to trip up a skilled and intelligent person with a good amount of personal discipline with a rehearsed story that is well thought out.

Fortunately, they are in the rare minority.

 

[Bob Klase]

Well, speaking from personal experience being a former investigator, actually knowing Mark and having done projects, attending the seminars and actually using these in the field- the problem is many of the people commenting dont understand how this technique works or how the system works or how a case is built.

Speaking for myself you're absolutely correct. I'd never heard of statement analysis before I came across the site (although I may have a slightly better understanding of how a case is built than the average non-police person since I have a large number of close family members who have been (some still are) directly involved in police work.

See, its not just the statement- thats just a trigger, the rest ( for the skilled interrogator) is to identify the trigger and then zero in on it thus prompting another trigger- this process repeats itself until either you get the truth or you fully identify the falsehood.

It doesnt work well with WRITTEN statements ( by definition a prepared statement- not a transcript of a verbal dialog) because people often use different words in written documentation than in normal speaking.

It doesnt work well as a stand alone technique without other indicators like body language, inflections etc.

I can see where it might be useful in an interrogation to identify points the interrogator might pursue to look for inconsistencies. I can also see where it might have some use when used in conjunction with other cues such as inflections, body language (although I have many doubts about how useful body language really is- doubts mostly based on seeing a girl that Bill O'Reilly often had (maybe still has) on his show to interpret the body language of people he mostly doesn't like).

It doesn't appear that it would work all that well with transcripts of verbal dialog either unless the interrogator in the transcript also knew the technique and used it to find the trigger points. Otherwise an analysis after the fact would only be useful to point out mistakes the interrogator made.

Since it doesn't work well with written statements, the website seems a little misleading because it does seem to concentrate on written statements used in isolation. In fairness though, the home page does say "This site is intended to serve as a review for those individuals who have attended one of my seminars or read my book I Know You Are Lying".

I can also see where it could easily be misused by investigators who don't fully understand or ignore the weaknesses. I'm sure that's true of many investigative techniques, but for someone (like me) who is looking only at the heavy reliance of written statements used on the web site that weakness of not working well with written statements appears to be a pretty big one.

I think it would still be very interesting to see him do some analysis's on statements made by people who were widely considered guilty but (after the analysis) were later proved innocent beyond all doubt.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Both are incorrect

>>>Notice that he added "a necessary evil" parenthetically. He's trying to be temper his position in an attempt to befriend the audience.

No, the "necessary evil" is the part regarding the RIGHTS of the accused. In the US system of judgement- the defendant is given an upper hand in the legal system. ( thats what keeps us a little different than the Taliban, Nazi's etc)

The defendant has the RIGHT to remain silent, lawyer up, not cooperate in any way- the total burden is on the state.

No such device exists such as a "truth serum" or a "lie detector" and we have no time machine to go back and see what actually happens.

I'm not allowed to torture, hose, whip, threaten to kill close ones ( or actually do 1 to make a point), starve, deny medical treatment or any other "creative' coersive method.

All I'm left with various methods that are all flawed and imperfect to build a case with to defend society and administer justice in a system that while in principle is the best ever designed by man is often used,abused and wrongfully tilted.

Then those on the sidelines who dont have a clue comment on things they have no knowledge of with wiki as their only source of information.

So much for 'appealing" to an audience-If they havent been there and done it- I dont give a tinkers damn what they think or say.

>>>Somebody with real experience who truly believes what he says would not apologize like this.

In case you dont realize it- I made no apology then or now. What I said is factually accurate. How many criminals have you put behind bars? How many cases have you built? How many victims have you had to explain things to?

If your answer is zero or less- well, you get the picture

 

[EHocking]

(I think his was broken...)

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

(I think his was broken...)

 

[Uncayimmy]

I even included a smiley face.

 

[Bob Klase]

Both are incorrect

>>>Notice that he added "a necessary evil" parenthetically. He's trying to be temper his position in an attempt to befriend the audience.

No, the "necessary evil" is the part regarding the RIGHTS of the accused. In the US system of judgement- the defendant is given an upper hand in the legal system. ( thats what keeps us a little different than the Taliban, Nazi's etc)

I won't try to speak for UncaYimmy, but it seemed to me that he intended that in humor. (ETA- it appears that he did).

Then those on the sidelines who dont have a clue comment on things they have no knowledge of with wiki as their only source of information.

That's kind of the point of a thread like this- looking for more information.

ETA: I hadn't looked at wiki before you mentioned it, but you're right. If you want more information then wiki is not the place to go. It appears that the wiki entry could have been written by Mark and echoes his website closely.

So much for 'appealing" to an audience-If they havent been there and done it- I dont give a tinkers damn what they think or say.

In case you dont realize it- I made no apology then or now. What I said is factually accurate. How many criminals have you put behind bars? How many cases have you built? How many victims have you had to explain things to?

Then those on the sidelines who dont have a clue comment on things they have no knowledge of with wiki as their only source of information.

If your answer is zero or less- well, you get the picture

You're acting as though we're attacking police in general and saying "all the police are Gestapo pigs" here. That attitude might be a little understandable, but it's certainly not the case here and I think you're getting way too defensive.

You are right- I've never put a criminal behind bars and never built a case. I've also never planted evidence or put an innocent person in jail (I'll assume that you've never done either of those either). I've never amputated a patient's leg to save their life or stopped a robbery in progress (very possibly you have). That hardly invalidates every opinion either of us has about those things or the individuals who've been there and done it.

The ability and rights of ordinary citizens to question things like police procedures is another thing that keeps us a little different than the Taliban, Nazi's etc.

 

[rockinkt]

I used statement analysis and kinesic interviewing techniques a lot in my career in law enforcement.

They are both excellent tools. However, to pretend that either one is a foolproof method of determining lies is silly.
Unfortunately - those that have never had the opportunity to be properly trained and experienced in the use of them (and therefore do not understand their respective strengths and limitations) often make the mistake of trying to judge what they know little or nothing about.

Everytime you have a face to face conversation with someone (unless you are a social retard) you use your ability to decipher verbal and non-verbal clues.
If you do not understand that basic point of human interaction - there is no point in discussing this further.

People unconciously use body language and verbal clues in their everyday life to make judgements about others.
For example - how many of you can honestly say that you never "got the feeling" that somebody was not being truthful while you engaged them in conversation?
Your "gut feeling" is your inate ability to pick up on those non-verbal and verbal clues and make a decision based on your own life experience.

QUALITY statement analysis and kinesic interviewing instruction gives the experienced LEO the ability to go much further in his/her analysis than just "gut feelings" in a large number of cases.

Longtabber said it one way - I say it another way: Don't pretend to have the ability to ascertain the effectiveness of something you know relatively nothing about.

 

[Bob Klase]

Unfortunately - those that have never had the opportunity to be properly trained and experienced in the use of them (and therefore do not understand their respective strengths and limitations) often make the mistake of trying to judge what they know little or nothing about.

Speaking only for myself, I think it should be clear from the OP that I was trying to find out more about something I know little or nothing about. I even stated very clearly that any judgments I made were based on my first look at the subject.

Longtabber said it one way - I say it another way: Don't pretend to have the ability to ascertain the effectiveness of something you know relatively nothing about.

While replies by LONGTABBER PE and yourself have not been totally uninformative, your insistence that we either shouldn't have opinions on the subject or even question the subject at all (even to form a better opinion) seems very close to "trust us- we're the government".

I realize that most on the law enforcement side don't like their opinions and methods questioned (very often with good reason such as when people are painting questions with a very broad brush), others (Mike Nifong and at least some of his investigators come to mind) provide good reason to question things that we may know little or nothing about.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I used statement analysis and kinesic interviewing techniques a lot in my career in law enforcement.

They are both excellent tools. However, to pretend that either one is a foolproof method of determining lies is silly.
Unfortunately - those that have never had the opportunity to be properly trained and experienced in the use of them (and therefore do not understand their respective strengths and limitations) often make the mistake of trying to judge what they know little or nothing about.

Everytime you have a face to face conversation with someone (unless you are a social retard) you use your ability to decipher verbal and non-verbal clues.
If you do not understand that basic point of human interaction - there is no point in discussing this further.

People unconciously use body language and verbal clues in their everyday life to make judgements about others.
For example - how many of you can honestly say that you never "got the feeling" that somebody was not being truthful while you engaged them in conversation?
Your "gut feeling" is your inate ability to pick up on those non-verbal and verbal clues and make a decision based on your own life experience.

QUALITY statement analysis and kinesic interviewing instruction gives the experienced LEO the ability to go much further in his/her analysis than just "gut feelings" in a large number of cases.

Longtabber said it one way - I say it another way: Don't pretend to have the ability to ascertain the effectiveness of something you know relatively nothing about.

Got any proof that this works? Any double blind experiments?

After reading the analyses on this site:
http://www.statementanalysis.com/cases/, I think I 'll have any statement I ever make to the press screened by at least four grammarians and two professors in English so I don't mix up any tenses, numbers or gender and thereby make such an analysis as amusing is possible.

Given the actual outcome, this analysis is particularly hilarious:
http://www.statementanalysis.com/duke/

Pull my other leg.

 

[rjh01]

Should be easy to do an experiment using this technique. Get tapes of police interviews. Put them though this technique and also ask police officers who are not familiar with the cases are these people guilty or innocent? If the technique is any good then it would perform a lot better than police officers.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Better yet, write something off-the-cuff in an Internet forum and include a smiley face. Then see if an expert in statement analysis can figure out if what you're writing is serious or not. Wait a sec...didn't we already do that?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I'm busy analyzing Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.

So far I've "proved" him guilty of necrophilia.