Training Material
The
F.A.S.T.
Macro
Forensic
Analysis
Software
for TheirWords
The F.A.S.T.
macro, is an excellent tool for both the experienced and the
beginning analyst. This macro assists you in color coding and
marking-up your statements. This macro aids you in that it enables
you to work F.A.S.T.er
while forcing you to look at each word as you analyze your
statements. The F.A.S.T.
macro works in Word 2000 ®. This macro is only available to those
who have experience or training in using the Statement Analysis
technique and technical support.
-
Cost is just $145.00 -
Our TheirWords
Sample
Workbook
This is our sample introductory
workbook. It briefly details an introduction to this technique. With
a sample abduction report, we'll see just how hard it can be to hide
information. Though this example only touches the surface of Statement
Analysis, it can be enough to get you started on your way to the
detection of hidden information and deception.
Introduction to Forensic Statement Analysis
Profiling
Before we begin, it might be important for
us to look at the meanings of what, Forensic Statement Analysis
Profiling means.
Forensic - Relating to the use of
science or technology in an investigation and establishment of facts
or evidence by relating/comparing: as in a forensic
laboratory.
Statement - The act of stating or
declaring
Analysis - The separation of an
intellectual or material whole into its constituent parts for
individual study.
Profile - A formal summary of data,
representing distinctive features or characteristics: a
psychological profile of subject
Simply put, we will be comparing the words
used in a subject’s declaration/statement to other words used in the
same statement, by separating them into individual parts for study,
looking for any information or deception with-in those words. In the
end we will be able to provide a formal summary of data relating to
distinctive features or characteristic of TheirWords.
Statement Analysis, S.C.A.N. (Scientific
Content Analysis), Linguistic Polygraph or Linguistic Profiling,
this technique has become known by many different names over the
years. We originally learned this technique from Mr. Avinoam Sapir
of LSI (The Laboratory of Scientific Interrogation) over the years
we have studied the technique as well as 1000’s of statements. The
technique is a cross between a Linguistic Polygraph and Criminal or
Crime Scene Profiling in that it can be used to detect deception,
but more importantly it can be used to give the investigator insight
or information about the case, the suspect and perhaps the reason
for the crime. This information can be used during any subsequent
interviews/interrogations.
Mr. Avinoam Sapir, a former polygraph
examiner, developed the original technique. His background is with
the Israeli Police Department in
Jerusalem; he holds a Bachelors Degree in both Psychology and
Criminology, and a Masters Degree in Criminology. He developed the
S.C.A.N. technique by conducting extensive research into verbal
communication, looking into the linguistic behavior used by people
during everyday communication.
Our technique involves looking closely at a
subject's words in order to analyze/profile them to see what the
subject is really saying. There are certain words used that,
subconsciously have different meanings… or send off linguistic
signals that will tell you what is truly happening in the subject's
statement. Some of these words come automatic to the writer/speaker
and when it comes time in their editing process to relate a piece of
information to us, they have no choice but to use these words.
Because of this, some statements are
extremely easy to read and analyze, while others are almost a
puzzle. However, with our training, your practice and a little
thought, nearly any statement can be analyzed. If you should ever
have problems with a statement, as our student you are guaranteed
lifetime technical and unlimited access to our online discussion
group.
There are several rules to this
technique. This sample course will give you a few of the basic
rules with examples
The 1st Basic Rule:
Statements should be written in:
First Person Singular, Past Tense.
Why First Person Singular?
We expect a statement to be written in
First Person Singular. Because, It's hard to lie using the pronoun
"I".
There are four ways to avoid using the
"I":
1. First person plural (We/Us/Our)
2. Third Person (He/She/They)
3. Passive Voice (It was done)
4. Omitting the "I" (Woke up, took
shower etc.)
Basically, if the subject doesn't include,
himself, or herself in the statement, we can't do it for them.
Statements without the pronoun “I” should be considered as lacking
commitment.
Why Past Tense?
All reported incidents, are going to be of
something that has, “allegedly” already taken place. Therefore, it
is only natural for statements to be given in past tense. When a
subject runs away from Past Tense, they are running away from
committing to their statement and as a result it should lead us to
believe, they may not be telling us what really happened.
There are two ways to avoid using past
tense.
• Present Tense ( “I can see him
coming toward me and he’s saying give me you money” )
• Future Tense ( “ that would be
when he said, give me your money” )
Any deviation from "First Person Singular",
and "Past Tense" in a statement shows a lack of commitment and
should be taken into consideration when analyzing a statement.
"Commitment", and "Lack of
Commitment"
One of the strongest links a subject has to
his or her statement is their commitment. If the subject doesn't
commit to their statement then there can be no total belief.
As a Rule: A Lack of Commitment = Lack of
Belief
So, how do we get the perfect statement?
We use, “Open Questions”.
The best statements to analyze are
statements that come from open questions. That is not meant to say,
that only statements coming from open questions are eligible for
this technique. It's just that when analyzing a statement we are
looking for two things.
1st We're looking for Information
2nd We're looking for Deception
By asking the subject an, “Open Question”,
we'll get more information from their answer.
Examples of open questions:
“We're investigating the report you filed. Please tell us
everything that happened?”
“We are investigating the report you filed
on MM/DD/YY.”
“It is important that you tell us
everything that happened on that date?” or “To better investigate
your claim, we'll need you to tell us everything that happened?”
Note: For the last question I would
suggest heading the form "Claim Form" otherwise the word, "Claim" in
the question could be interpreted as offensive as in you don’t
believe their claim.
Example:
For a police investigator:
ACME Police Department
Criminal Investigations Division
Claim Form
Name: ______________________
Date: _______________________
To better investigate your claim, we'll
need you to tell us everything that happened?
(Leave the rest of the form blank. Use
unlined paper)
For a hotel investigator:
ACME Inc.
Investigation Division
Claim Form
Name: ______________________
Date: _______________________
To better investigate your claim, we'll
need you to tell us everything that happened?
(Leave the rest of the form blank. Use
unlined paper)
By using an open question, you leave the
answer, up to the subject.
By not labeling the incident, you are
forcing the subject, to label it for you.
The form should be the first thing given to
anyone wishing to make a claim or report.
If possible it should be given to the
subject by someone other than the investigator.
The claim/report form should come before
any questioning.
Avoid allowing the subject to explain the
incident before they have completed the form. Even if the subject
insist on talking about incident, they should be instructed to
complete the form, as investigators will contact them as soon as
possible after it has been completed and submitted to security.
Why it's hard to lie in an open
statement.
While trying to lie a subject has two
things going on in his, or her mind… They have, what they know
happened, and what they have to say… happened.
This inside information causes a conflict.
As taught by LSI, if I want to conceal a
piece of information, we’ll call it - ( X ) - I cannot
conceal only ( X ). I also have to conceal information ( A
), ( B ), ( C ), etc. that are parts of ( X ).
If I do not conceal ( A ), ( B ), ( C ) etc.,
then the reader / listener will conclude, by logic, that ( X
) exist and from other bits of information usually, provided in (
A ), ( B ), ( C ), etc. Then the interviewer would
be able to conclude the substance of ( X ). Therefore, a
subject has to also conceal all parts of ( A ), ( B ),
( C ), for example ( A-1 ), ( B-1 ), ( C-1
), etc. that are connected to ( A ), ( B ), ( C
). Now, the subject is restricted in his or her speech. So, they are
not free to talk about everything, and as you can see… Lying “isn't”
easy.
This is a very important rule in the
detection of deception. Because, the harder a subject tries to hide
something from the analyst, the easier it for us to find.
Let’s take a look at a Sample Statement… to
see some of ways that Deception and Information, can be found in a
Statement.
The following is a report of an abduction.
Without this technique, this case may have gone unsolved.
The subject wrote:
Approximately
6:15-
6:20 I was walking from DOC. Like I have always done in the past.
There wasn't many cars traveling. I don't know where they came from.
Someone put a tow-bag over my head and put me in the car. It all
happened so fast. I didn't see who they were, what they looked like
or what kind of vehicle they were in. They had my hands, I guess so
I wouldn't take the mask off. I wasn't sure what was going to happen
so I was very cooperative. They asked me if I was Phillis Diller's
sister. I told them no. The last thing I remember is them lifting
the mask up to my nose and pinching it so that I would open my
mouth. They made me drink a substance that tasted chalky or powdery.
I couldn't have been out long. I remember waking up behind Queens
Brook Market be-hind the car wash. Who ever it was they were
careful. They probably thought they had the wrong person and let me
go.
Looking at it, we may or may not be
suspicious of it’s validity. But, with Statement Analysis, we
can clearly see the deception, and or hidden information to better
prepare ourselves for a follow-up interview with the subject.
We’ll begin by looking at the
suspects
mentioned in this statement.
Approximately 6:15- 6:20 I was walking from DOC. Like I have
always done in the past. There wasn't many cars traveling. I don't
know where
they
came
from.
Someone
put a tow-bag over my head and put me in the car. It all happened so
fast. I didn't see who
they
were, what
they
looked like or what kind of vehicle
they
were in.
They
had my hands, I guess so I wouldn't take the mask off. I wasn't sure
what was going to happen so I was very cooperative.
They
asked me if I was Phillis Diller's sister. I told
them
no. The last thing I remember is
them
lifting the mask up to my nose and pinching it so that I would open
my mouth.
They
made me drink a substance that tasted chalky or powdery. I couldn't
have been out long. I remember waking up behind Queens Brook Market
be-hind the car wash. Who ever it was
they
were careful.
They
probably thought
they
had the wrong person and let me go.
Notice, the writer carefully hides
the sexual identity, of the suspects. Never does she say, “He” or
“She” this is important, and telling. We’ll cover this more during
our conclusion.
Next we’ll look at “the vehicle”
used by the suspects.
Approximately 6:15- 6:20 I was walking from DOC. Like I have
always done in the past. There wasn't many cars traveling. I don't
know where
they
came
from.
Someone
put a tow-bag over my head and put me in
THE
CAR.
It all happened so fast. I didn't see who
they
were, what
they
looked like or what kind of vehicle
they
were in.
They
had my hands, I guess so I wouldn't take the mask off. I wasn't sure
what was going to happen so I was very cooperative.
They
asked me if I was Phillis Diller's sister. I told
them
no. The last thing I remember is
them
lifting the mask up to my nose and pinching it so that I would open
my mouth.
They
made me drink a substance that tasted chalky or powdery. I couldn't
have been out long. I remember waking up behind Queens Brook Market
be-hind the car wash. Who ever it was
they
were careful.
They
probably thought
they
had the wrong person and let me go.
Notice: The writer chose to use the
words, THE CAR as apposed to A CAR. This
is telling as A CAR is how we would introduce, A
CAR that is unfamiliar to us. However, by say, THE CAR
we are introducing A CAR that is, known to us. Indicating
that the writer of this statement had prior knowledge of THE
CAR
Now, we’ll look at people mentioned
in the statement
Approximately 6:15- 6:20 I was walking from DOC. Like I have
always done in the past. There wasn't many cars traveling. I don't
know where
they
came
from.
Someone
put a tow-bag over my head and put me in
the
car.
It all happened so fast. I didn't see who
they
were, what
they
looked like or what kind of vehicle
they
were in.
They
had my hands, I guess so I wouldn't take the mask off. I wasn't sure
what was going to happen so I was very cooperative.
They
asked me if I was
PHILLIS DILLER'S
sister. I told
them
no. The last thing I remember is
them
lifting the mask up to my nose and pinching it so that I would open
my mouth.
They
made me drink a substance that tasted chalky or powdery. I couldn't
have been out long. I remember waking up behind Queens Brook Market
be-hind the car wash. Who ever it was
they
were careful.
They
probably thought
they
had the wrong person and let me go.
The only name to come up in this statement
is, Phillis Diller. This is important because, Phillis
Diller is now a part of this statement.
Anytime a writer includes someone in their
statement that person, usually plays some role in the incident.
We’ll cover this more in our conclusion.
Now we’ll take a look at Communication
in the statement
Approximately 6:15-
6:20
I was walking from DOC. Like I have always done in the past. There
wasn't many cars traveling. I don't know where
they
came
from.
Someone
put a tow-bag over my head and put me in
the
car.
It all happened so fast. I didn't see who
they
were, what
they
looked like or what kind of vehicle
they
were in.
They
had my hands, I guess so I wouldn't take the mask off. I wasn't sure
what was going to happen so I was very cooperative.
They
asked me if I was
Phillis Diller's
sister. I
TOLD
them
no. The last thing I remember is
them
lifting the mask up to my nose and pinching it so that I would open
my mouth.
They
made me drink a substance that tasted chalky or powdery. I couldn't
have been out long. I remember waking up behind Queens Brook Market
be-hind the car wash. Who ever it was
they
were careful.
They
probably thought
they
had the wrong person and let me go.
While not the most important observation in
this statement it is important to note, that the word, “TOLD”
is used in one of several ways, it can be used as a demand (
Strong Tone Communication ), it can also be used to tell a lie,
as in, “I told a lie” like, “I told them no, but…”.
Think about it, if, “said” is a softer form of communication
and, “Told” a stronger form of communication… Do you think,
the “victim/abductee” would be using the stronger, “Told” as
apposed to using the softer, “said” as in, “I said” or
“I answered no”. This will also be covered more, in the
conclusion.
Now we’ll look for anything that might seem
odd, unimportant or that might help confirm an earlier point.
Approximately 6:15- 6:20 I was walking from DOC. Like I have
always done in the past. There wasn't many cars traveling. I don't
know where
they
came
from.
Someone
put a tow-bag over my head and put me in
the
car.
It all happened so fast. I didn't see who
they
were, what
they
looked like or what kind of vehicle
they
were in.
They
had my hands, I guess so I wouldn't take the mask off. I wasn't sure
what was going to happen so I was very cooperative.
They
asked me if I was
Phillis Diller's
sister. I
told
them
no. The last thing I remember is
them
lifting the mask up to my nose and pinching it so that I would open
my mouth.
They
made me drink a substance that tasted chalky or powdery. I couldn't
have been out long. I remember waking up behind Queens Brook Market
be-hind the car wash. Who ever it was
they
were careful.
They
probably
THOUGHT
they
had the wrong person and let me go.
Let’s look at this line, “They probably
thought they had the wrong person and let me go…”
“Probably” is non committal… “Thought” usually indicates a
wrong guess… So, if they only thought they had the wrong person… the
chances are they had the right person… this would confirm that when
she used the word “told” earlier in her statement it was as
in “I told them No, But… Phillis really is my sister”
Conclusion: As we first noted the
subject is running away from telling us the sexual identity of the
suspects. It’s obvious, that the suspects could have only been male,
or female. Therefore using an imaginary calculator we type in two…
Assuming this statement is false… let’s say she was out with her
boyfriend… if that was the case she would have had no problem
revealing the sex of her capturers, and no reason to hide the sexual
identity. In other words she could have easily said, “He asked if I
was Phillis Diller's sister” So, subtract, the males from our list
and it is obvious that she was out with females.
Add this observation to the fact that we
believe she was in a known car, and we now have something more to
work with as far as where she may have really been during her
absence.
As for her mentioning them asking her about
her sister, Phillis Diller, This is two fold… first, Phillis is her
sister and Phillis, is who she answers to. The fact is Phillis is
the reason she needed to make a report in the first place… She was
supposed to be home at a certain time, when she wasn’t, she needed
an excuse. So, she told Phillis she was abducted… and to make
Phillis feel somewhat responsible for her abduction, she made it
sound like the abductors took her to get even wiith Phillis. This
way feeling somewhat responsible, Phillis might go easy on her.
When confronted the writer admitted she was
out with her girlfriends and made up the abduction for her
sister/guardian (Phillis Diller) to cover her absence
You have reached the end of our Sample
Course; I hope you learned something. If you would like to take our
online course the price is only $195.00. This includes:
All Necessary Training
The Five Day Online Course
FREE membership in our Online TheirWords
Discussion Board
A FREE Licensed Copy of our F.A.S.T. Macro
( a $145.00 value ) This macro will help you quickly mark-up your
statements for analysis.
Lifetime Technical Support
We are totally committed to the discipline of
Statement Analysis and believe once you become acquainted with the
technique you will find it incredibly useful in your life and work.
There are several options for paying:
The easiest way would be to email or fax us
your credit card information. The fax number is
510-528-0184.
NAME ON CARD
CARD NUMBER
EXPIRATION DATE
BILLING ADDRESS
ZIP CODE
Alternatively you can call and give it to me on
the phone or leave it on the voice mail. The voice number is
510-527-5675
I look forward to hearing from you and
discussing the intricacies of statement analysis with you for many
years to come.
If you have any further questions, don't
hesitate to email or call.
Donald
Bender
TheirWords Director of
Training
donald.bender@cal.berkeley.edu
Contact us at:
Looking@TheirWords.com
