|Lied to commit theft via exploitation|
They are often 'caught' in their lies by their use of pronouns.
When someone is expected to use the pronoun "I", the use of another pronoun should simply raise the question, "Why?"
But note how we word our "why?" questions:
Why does the subject use the pronoun "we" here?
Why does the subject avoid using the pronoun "I" here?
Pronouns are intuitive. They are not 'pre thought.'
The brain's result of repetition means near perfection - that is, after using the pronoun "I" millions of times, the human is efficient at its usage meaning:
if the pronoun is 'wrong', there is likely deception.
In fact, the pronoun "I" is so powerfully efficient that when a non-stuttering subject stutters on "I", the psychology of being "in" this statement "personally" begins to tell a story all its own, leading us to ask, again,
"Why would the subject stutter here on the pronoun "I"?"
The pronoun "I" represents the person, himself. He has been addressing others (communication) representing himself, since the earliest days of speech. He protects self, he projects self, he interprets self, and interprets others based on self. He identifies and defines self. In other words,
the importance of the pronoun "I" cannot be overstated.
"Just went to the store with my friends, mom. That's all we did."
Moms of teens recognize:
my son did not say "I" in his response. The analyst also heard the word "just", which is a dependent word, meaning, the subject is thinking of something other than going to the store. Mom likely also heard the pronoun "we" enter the statement, and the analyst added the word "all", as unnecessary, with the suggestion of connecting the word "all" with the word "just" to learn:
What was my son comparing going to the store with? Followed by,
Was it a thought, or did they go elsewhere?
She knows, however, the right question trail to stay on. Mom also recognizes that guilt does not like to be 'alone' with the pronoun "I."
She thinks to herself:
"Why did my son want to first remove himself from the statement, and then why did my son need to include others in his statement?"
Guilt hates to be alone.
Adults trained in childhood to take personal responsibility for their actions often reveal this in their statements. The 'need for a crowd' enters the language of those who may not have been raised to take personal responsibility.
Recovering addicts are very firm: 'my sobriety rests upon me truthfully taking personal responsibility for everything.'
"In Your Entire Life, Did You Ever Tell a Lie to Get Out of Trouble?"
A. "Yes. When I was growing up, I learned..."
This is a good answer. "Yes" is the only truthful answer.
Next note after we have "Yes" (+), we have the pronoun "I" (+) and we have the identification with growing up as the time period (+). This is where the most influential instruction takes place within humans.
B. "I would be lying if I said no, for everyone has lied."
This is a common response.
First, there is no "yes" to the answer.
Note secondly, besides the pronoun "I", we have the inclusion of "others" (-) in the answer. This is an unnecessary invitation to join a crowd.
Lying causes internal stress and it is reduced, most always, by lying by omission. Lying by omission takes less effort.
Yet the internal stress is not always a conscience, but could be the stress of being caught. In an intuitive reaction the person who said, "didn't do it", will later justify the lie by saying, "I never said I did not do it!" because the pronoun "I" was omitted.
Much is used to determine the appropriateness of "I" versus "we", especially context.
Is the person alone?
Is the topic something personal and close to the subject?
Is the topic something so personal and close that it triggers natural instinct, such as survival, or parenting?
Is the topic invasive?
The need for guilt to 'spread around' itself and 'hide in a crowd' is discerned in analysis and often leads to uncovering criminal conspiracy, even if it is only two individuals.
Here is an ancient mandate given to Jews from the book of Exodus. Watch its progression as it perfectly follows human nature.
Exodus first laid out the history changing "Ten Commandments" but then went to a detailed application of such laws. The Ten Commandments established and identified the success Western civilization as it recognized human nature, and put immediate restrictions upon it.
The understanding of human nature is essential for deception detection.
It is, in effect, to seek an answer to the "Why?" question in deception detection.
Note how it begins simply:
Here it is broken down so that the progression may be followed:
The topic (context) is lying.
It quickly moves to the plural. "You" is now enjoined with another single individual:
agreement. The second person in the statement is identified by his 'norm'; he is a "wicked man."
Then note the agreement is regarding perjury, identifying the cause:
often describe as "overtaken me", or "intoxicating, irresistible" and so on.
We went from a singular prohibition, to the individual being influenced by another singular person to a crowd.
The ancient text recognizes the powerful influence of being in a multitude:
Here we often find the inappropriate use of the pronoun "we" when one should be speaking for himself.
Dependent upon context and the analysis, it often points to guilt, or guilty knowledge, which the "one" wishes to reduce impact by being with others.
It is easy to dismiss one due to narcissism, but reference point will often bring clarity.
In the murder of one's wife and pre born child, in a home invasion, we have all of the elements of "up close and personal" in context.
A wife belongs to one husband; not many.
The child, it is presupposed, belongs to the one father, not many.
Yet, continue the elevation of the context in a home invasion.
The location of where we sleep is a place of great importance in the language:
it is where we are most vulnerable and it is essential to survival that we sleep.
A home invasion is intuitively personal.
Liars lie because they have a reason to lie.
A missing child is up close and personal and it is also under the category of human instinct.
|Lied to fulfil hatred of Christians and exploit money|
Liars lie for a reason and their pronouns give themselves away. Even personal hatred is often seen as a lesser priority when stacked against financial exploitation.
"I have been assaulted." is what victims, fresh from the event, say. It is personal. It is up close. It is who the person is: it is "I" in the most basic of ways.
"My wife has been violated.
My wife has been murdered.
My son has been murdered.
My home has been destroyed.
My life has been ruined.
Will these monsters return for me and my son?
You must catch these killers before they get me, my son, or my neighbors, or anyone else..."
Would you expect someone to say,
"you've had your wife murdered" when it was his wife?
Baby Ayla was reported kidnapped by her father, Justin DiPietro, while he and others were staying at his mother's home. The 'kidnapper' got in and out without waking a soul, nor leaving even trace DNA, and sought no contact with the family for ransom, nor did the father or grandmother attempt to negotiate for her return.
What the father did do was fail his polygraph, however and his mother went on to say how "quiet" the house was that night; no partying, in fact, only to be found out: she was not even in the home that night.
"When someone is casing your house..." said Phoebe DiPietro, who could not linguistically claim that someone personally invaded her home and kidnapped her grandchild because she knew it was a lie.
"You're waiting for the sheriff's office to call you."
The use of "we" instead of "I" has an intuitive reason spoken by a person who knows how to use pronouns with 100% efficiency.
The use of "you" instead of "I" or "me" has a reason, too, to employ distancing language.
The internal stress of lying impacts sociopaths, too.
Pronouns solve cases.
Some estimate that as many as 80% of cold case files contain a "Confession By Pronoun" within them.
Analysts are trained, very early on, to follow pronouns and then use them in advanced work just as frequently.
They are reliable and will guide us to truth.
The need to share guilt, or hide in a crowd, is within human nature.
Human nature does not change. That which was identified thousands of years ago remain true today.
Truth is not impacted by time.
Language shifts, and we shift with it in our research. We create new baselines for emails, texts and tweets, but wherever communication is presupposed; that is, the subject expects to be understood, we can detect deception.