A reader sent me a critique and asked me to respond. She was upset about body language analysis of the Redwine case, said it was directed at this blog, Statement Analysis, and me, specifically, and it was posted in defense of body language analysis having the opposite conclusion of Statement Analysis in the case of missing 13 year old, Dylan Redwine. This case has caused a strong emotional response among the public. The specific complaint was about the use of "water" in Statement Analysis. It is a good opportunity to highlight principle against error. This is the comment sent to me for response:
"There are a lot of things in that school of statement analysis that I find very hackish and dangerous, like "when someone mentions water in a statement, it usually means sexual abuse". There's no scientific basis for something like that at all that I'm aware of. At best, there may be a statistical link between statements that mention water and sex crimes, but to say that it always applies just isn't rational and could potentially be utterly disastrous to someone whose statement is being analyzed."
First, let me comment on the case, with brief conclusions, and then about "water" in Statement Analysis. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to principle. It is what I respect about Statement Analysis and challenges and inquiries should be responded to.
I. Dylan Redwine
In analyzing the statements of both Elaine Redwine and Dylan Redwine, my conclusions:
Mark Redwine has guilty knowledge in the death of Dylan.
Elaine Redwine has natural denial, struggles to accept the reality, and will, like all innocent parents, go through a long series of "what ifs", exactly as described by Dr. and Mrs. Harrington, parents of murdered Morgan Harrington. I was touched by Dr. Harrington's explanation of just how he dealt with this, and how readily innocent parents will do this to themselves.
KUSA: Did you have anything whatsoever to do with Dylan's disappearance?
ER: You know, I wish I did, because then he'd be home. I mean, I..I wish I could relive that day, and, and, and do things a lot differently. Um, I had absolutely nothing to do with Dylan's disappearance. And, I really feel sorry for the person who did.
Highly sensitive statement.
"I wish I did" is explained with the word "because", with "because" the reason why, making it the highest level of sensitivity. The subject needs to explain, which is noted. Her need is sensitive and she gives her reason: If she had been involved, he would be home. To the subject, this is central.
Note that "absolutely" makes "nothing" sensitive. Why would it be sensitive? It can be sensitive if someone is accused. It can be sensitive due to feelings of guilt. (see Dr and Mrs. Harrington to understand guilt).
This is, by itself, not a reliable denial of involvement. It is, however, the very thing that Elaine said last night on the program and what the Harringtons expressed about their daughter: the "what ifs" in life. If she had not left Mark...If she had not sent him...if she had not...
She can, and will drive herself into despair with such thinking, which is why I reference the Morgan Harrington case.
If Dr. Harrington had not taken a job in a new location, he said, ...his daughter might be alive. This haunted him and he had to survive it among a thousand other what ifs. Anyone who has experienced tragedy does this same thing: wonders what circumstances in life, having been different, would mean that the tragedy was averted. I recall my young son's surgery, and how I thought to myself, "If only I had checked his temperature earlier...If only I had not let him eat...If only I had known..." and had to come to grips with what had actually happened instead of what I might have done differently. Not being responsible or even being unable to alter circumstances, as a parent, I felt guilty over a congenital condition. My language would have shown the sensitivity.
Elaine said last night that had she not left Mark, all those years ago, Dylan might still be alive. This is the same "what if" self-torture parents do to themselves. It is unhealthy, but expected. I responded with what Dr. Harrington had said. Little could he have known that his words spoken then, might help ease, just a bit, of another's pain.
She said that she had felt sorry for the person who did this. This statement of pity is expressed often, especially by people of faith, who believe, even in their anger, that the person responsible will pay eternally. This often is coupled with mercy, yet is mixed with anger, rage, denial, and so forth.
As to believing that Dylan would be okay on his trip, having dealt with hundreds of domestic violence cases, mothers who fear almost always exercise the natural denial of saying "my child will be okay." It is so common that I find it strange that it is not recognized.
Elaine is criticized for going after her ex husband on television. This is something I do not understand: how could anyone not go after the man she believes killed her son? She did so to fight for her son.
As to past tense language, the principle remains the same. It must be qualified by thinking people, as this has been explained repeatedly, yet we still continue to see it condensed, erroneously, including by Bethany Marshal who flipped it around and said that since a mother spoke of her missing child in the present tense, it "proves" the mother believes the child is alive. This is a misreading of the principles and shows the need for training.
When a parent of missing child speaks of the child in the past tense, it is a linguistic indication that the parent believes or knows the child is dead. When we hear it, we ask:
1. How long has the child been missing? If the child has just gone missing, it may be guilty knowledge.
2. Have the police given indication to the parent that the child is dead?
3. Is this a struggle of acceptance versus denial?
4. Does the parent slip its use when there is no tangible reason to lose hope?
Acceptance versus denial can take months, or even years, with a parent going back and forth, changing her mind, struggling. See Desiree Young, mother of missing 7 year old, Kyron Young.
When a parent references the child in the past tense, while police or circumstances have not given indication of death, it is a signal that the parent knows the child is dead.
Examples: Susan Smith, Casey Anthony, Billie Jean Dunn, Justin DiPietro.
Here is the statement about water answered:
"There are a lot of things in that school of statement analysis that I find very hackish and dangerous, like "when someone mentions water in a statement, it usually means sexual abuse". There's no scientific basis for something like that at all that I'm aware of. At best, there may be a statistical link between statements that mention water and sex crimes, but to say that it always applies just isn't rational and could potentially be utterly disastrous to someone whose statement is being analyzed."
"Water" in an open statement is often associated with sexual abuse. This is the principle and is statistically linked. What does it mean, in practice?
What this means to an investigator is that when "water" appears in an open statement, the investigator must be open-minded and ask questions about possible sexual abuse of any type. It does not mean "usually", it means, "explore for it", especially if the references are unnecessary, such as washing one's hands. "I stopped and got gas, went to the bathroom, washed my hands and got back into my truck." The investigator should focus in on this time period: the specific period just before washing the hands. That the subject washed his hands is unnecessary information, making it very important to us, since it was important enough for him to mention. It is "unexpected" that he would mention washing his hands, making it important. If he was on a boat, the reference to water would be the "expected" and not something that would 'surprise' us. I was taught, early on, however, to be better safe than sorry later: there is no harm (no "danger") to exploring, via questioning, possible sexual abuse. Most social workers involved in the child protective world (by "most", I mean that most States in the US teach this) have their workers explore for possible sexual abuse on every case, no matter what the allegation is. If the allegation is, for example, that a child is being left alone, most social workers will explore physical abuse ("What are your house rules? What happens if you break the rule?"), food supply (actually looking in the fridge), and sexual abuse ("Who puts you to bed? What is that like? Who bathes you? Tell me about it...")
I note the person wrote "usually" but then wrote "always" in the statement. Clarity would be helpful.
As to being "hackish" , the principles are not stone-like, but clay like. We remain flexible and it is up to the skill of the analyst to draw a conclusion.
Statement Analysis is an indicator to explore. We do find that in sexual homicides, for example, references to water often crop up in guilty statements. This in the extreme, can be seen in the statements of Amanda Knox.
If water enters an open statement and it is unnecessary, the investigator should explore for possible sexual abuse. This is the principle.
This is no different than an astute school teacher noting that little Johnny, normally a child who likes to get dirty, is suddenly washing his hands several times a day. The teacher is concerned about sexual abuse and will explore for it, either by referring her concerns to her superior, or by other means that schools use. It does not prove anything; it is just a warning sign.
As to the scientific basis for the link: LSI has done its own research. The writer says "there may be a statistical link", which, itself is true which then negates it being "hackish and dangerous."
No one here has ever said it "always applies"; this is a false characterization, nor have I read it anywhere from anyone else.
I have repeatedly written that Statement Analysis is one tool among many in investigations. It is "linguistic indicators" that is added to:
Testimonial evidence;
physical evidence, circumstantial evidence, DNA, forensics, and so on.
I don't write about DNA. If this was a DNA blog, DNA would be central. This blog is dedicated to language, not to the exclusion of other factors, but it is central.
LSI's research.
I studied at LSI, and continue to do so, and hope to for the rest of my life.
Mark McClish studied at LSI and went on to his own research. John Douglas studied at LSI. Dr. Susan Adams studied at LSI, as did Kaaryn Gough. All the instructors and analysts I know have studied at LSI. The list of government investigatory agencies that have studied at LSI includes FBI, CIA, US Marshals, state and county law enforcement, prosecutors, and a list too long to post. The Fortune 500 companies who have studied with LSI is lengthy. Most every author I have read has studied at LSI (perhaps all authors). It is fair to say that, across the world, nations' leaders rely upon Statement Analysis, as taught by LSI, in their work, even as they use polygraphs to protect themselves.
My level of confidence in the principles of Statement Analysis is higher than in anything else. For me, this is not only scientific, but is based upon the eternal echo that "from the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks." As Kaaryn said on the program last night, "the brain knows" and the words we choose, we are good at. With pronouns, we are very good at choosing them, having done so millions of times in life. When someone says "us", it is safe to include that there is a reason to choose the plural pronoun. It is not something a person is new at, if the person is above the age of 7. I believe it is "Solomonic" in its understanding of human nature, and is why it is taught in many languages around the world.
Someone may wish to support the body language analyst's contention that Mark Redwine is truthful and Elaine is not, but misrepresenting Statement Analysis is not the way to do it. The way to do it is this:
Show the specifics. Give details. Tell us why someone is telling the truth and why someone is not.
I have pointed out specifics, in detail, on not only where Mark Redwine is deceptive, but why I have concluded as much. This way, if someone disagrees, they can point to a specific principle. For example, when Mark Redwine is alone, and uses the plural pronoun, I note it. By "noting it", I am identifying it, and identifying when it appears (context) and note that pronouns are instinctive. Enough "mis use" of a pronoun and I have concluded, "Deception Indicated."
As to there being "a lot of things I find hackish and dangerous..." the reader would have to provide more examples to be answered.
My conclusion of the Dylan Redwine case.
Instead of being ambiguous, it is easier to simply state my conclusion about this case.
By analyzing the words of both parents, I have come to conclude the following points:
1. Dylan is deceased and
2. his father is specifically and deliberately withholding information on what happened to Dylan.
3. His mother was not involved in his disappearance or death.
4. Dylan died as a result of domestic homicide, specifically, a dispute that ended in a "struggle."
This is not open to interpretation. If I am wrong, I am completely wrong: The principles applied are wrong and my conclusions are wrong. There is no 'sitting on the fence.' If Dylan is alive, and Mark Redwine not involved, there is no excusing my analysis, nor qualifying it in any way other than to say it is wrong "to the uttermost." There is nothing to tweak or repair.
I not only state this plainly, but have, in the articles, given the specific details as to how I came to this conclusion.
To commentators who attack Elaine for fighting on national television for her son against the man responsible is beyond despicable. As a mother, what would you do in her situation? She knows him. She was married to him for 18 years. She knows his violence. She knows his arrest record. She knows what he has done previously to children and what he is capable of.
I cannot explain how someone can watch the Dr. Phil Show and not see that Mark Redwine is deceptive.
I admire Elaine Redwine's courage to go on national television and call him out. The challenge of the polygraph was presented, but he did not go through with it.
Dr. Phil offered to fly him, in his personal jet, to recover Dylan's body. Dr. Phil offered a polygraph to Mark Redwine. He offered legal assistance to Mark Redwine, if Mark Redwine would give up what happened to Dylan.
Dr. Phil did not offer to fly Elaine in his personal jet to recover Dylan's body.
Dr. Phil did not offer a polygraph to Elaine, nor offer legal assistance in a confession.
The Statement Analysis of Mark Redwine shows deception. The principles applied are the same applied to Casey Anthony, OJ Simpson and every other case. The principles do not change, case to case.
Behavioral Analysis of Mark Redwine shows guilt. His behavior is the same as other parents who wish to hinder an investigation into the disappearance of a child.
If someone believes that Mark Redwine is truthful, it would be easier, for the sake of information, to post why it is believed that he is truthful, citing examples. If someone believes that Elaine Redwine is deceptive, post specific samples to support this, so that a critical eye can discern. When complete, can these principles be applied to other cases?
Can we take the specific details and apply them to the next missing child case?
If someone disagrees with analysis, it is helpful for learning to post specifically why the disagreement exists, so that it can be explored.
I hope my response helps the original poster understand the misconception about "water" in statements. Thanks to the reader who sent it, as it gives opportunity to bring clarity and highlight principle.
Wednesday, 6 March 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment