McCanns: We'll take lie test, 21 September 2007

McCanns: We'll take lie test Daily Mirror By Martin Fricker 21/09/2007 Kate and Gerry McCann are willing to take a lie detector test to clear their names. The couple are desperate to refocus the hunt for daughter Madeleine, four, as the tide of suspicion against them recedes. A source said: "They're happy to do anything that will clear them. "If they were asked to take a lie test by police, they'd agree. "They've said all along they want to co-operate." Kate and Gerry, both 39, were named suspects two weeks ago. Police believe they may have accidentally overdosed Madeleine and hidden her body. But after cruel and unfounded speculation the inquiry is turning in their favour. Taking a lie test would strengthen their position. Last night the McCanns gained further comfort when Portuguese prosecutor Luis Bilro Verao said he had NOT ruled out other lines of inquiry. Earlier he declared that no new evidence had emerged to justify questioning them again or to change their bail conditions. Meanwhile a prosecution source fuelled belief that the police case was floundering by saying the inquiry had reached an "impasse phase". Together, the signs indicate a softening in the Portuguese position, paving the way for an eventual "exit route" for the McCanns. Their spokesman Clarence Mitchell said yesterday: "We see it as very encouraging. "Kate and Gerry have nothing to hide. They're innocent. But they're still suspects and we need to get that status lifted. "The main thing is Madeleine. She's still out there, possibly alive. Kate and Gerry feel the focus has been removed from the search or for answers to what happened." Madeleine vanished from her holiday villa in Praia da Luz, 141 days ago. Yesterday her parents, of Rothley, Leics, met their London solicitor for six hours. The couple also hired another leading lawyer. Rogerio Alves, president of the Portuguese Bar, will work with Carlos Pinto de Abreu. He said: "I'm delighted to help." A longer version... McCanns: We'll take a lie test Daily Record By Martin Fricker Sep 21 2007 KATE and Gerry McCann are willing to take a lie detector test to clear their names. The couple are desperate to prove they had nothing to do with the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine. A source said last night: "If they were asked to take a lie detector test by police, of course they would agree. "Kate and Gerry are happy to do anything that will help clear their names. "They want to co-operate fully with the Portuguese police." The McCanns believe four-year-old Madeleine is alive and they want to re-focus the investigation on finding her. Lie detectors, or polygraph machines, are not used by British police and they are inadmissible in most European courts. But under Portuguese law, the results can be used by defence lawyers during a criminal trial. Two weeks ago, Kate and Gerry were named as official suspects, or "arguidos" in Madeleine's disappearance. Yesterday, they had a six-hour meeting with lawyers in London. The couple have hired top lawyers in Portugal and the UK to build a strong defence against Portuguese allegations. Portuguese police suspect that Madeleine was killed accidentally and her body disposed of at a later date. This week, the McCanns were told that Portuguese prosecutors had no plans to re-interview them. The couple's spokesman Clarence Mitchell said yesterday: "Kate and Gerry are still arguidos and that needs to be lifted. "That is the legal route - clear their names, get that status lifted. "They'll then be able to talk again when they see fit. "The main thing though is, don't forget Madeleine. She is still out there, quite possibly still alive. They hope she is. "They feel the focus has been removed from the search for her or the search for the answers to what has happened to their daughter. "Kate and Gerry are very keen that this is seen as a co-operative exercise with the Portuguese authorities. "If they need to go back at any stage - and that is still possible - they are happy to do that." Glasgow-born heart surgeon Gerry and GP Kate, both 39, have always been convinced that Madeleine is alive and they are becoming more confident of that as time goes on. It is now 141 days since she disappeared from the family's holiday flat in Praia da Luz. Friends say Kate and Gerry, of Rothley, Leicestershire, believe if their daughter had been killed, her body would have been found. A source close to the family said: "On the face of it, it is an amazing way of thinking about things. But then again, there is some logic to it. "Had Madeleine been killed soon after she disappeared, you would have expected her body to be found by now. Similarly, if her body had been taken further away and dumped at sea, then surely a body would have washed up somewhere by now. "In any case, Gerry and Kate need something to get them through their days and they are holding on to this belief. "As they see it, they are not ready to give up on their daughter. "As well as doing everything they can to find her, that also means that they won't give up on her mentally." Sources say a team of top psychologists have been advising the McCanns and urging them to stay positive. The couple have been told to imagine that Madeleine is alive and will one day return home. As part of this strategy, Kate and Gerry lay an extra place at the dinner table and cook a meal for Madeleine every night. They also display photos of her prominently at home and regularly talk about her to their two-year-old twins Sean and Amelie. Yesterday, Dr Lesley Perman-Kerr, a psychologist specialising in trauma, said: "It is extremely common for people in this situation to believe their children are still alive. "It would be virtually impossible for the McCanns to let go at this stage. That could go on for a long period of time."

McCanns happy to take lie detector test, 21 September 2007

McCanns happy to take lie detector test ITN Last update: Fri Sep 21 2007 12:08:17 Kate and Gerry McCann have said they are prepared to take a lie detector test to prove they had nothing to do with the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine, it has been revealed. The couple's decision is the latest stage in a high-profile fightback led by family and friends against police suspicions they may have been responsible for Madeleine's death. The McCanns, from Rothley, Leicestershire, were declared "arguidos" or official suspects by detectives two weeks ago after DNA traces in their hire car were used to suggest the vehicle had been involved in moving Madeleine's body. The couple have returned to Britain after a four-month stay in Portugal and have been told that police do not have enough evidence to justify interviewing them again. But they remain suspects and say they are determined to clear their names and continue the search for Madeleine who they believe may still be alive. Friends have revealed a series of details in recent days which could form part of their defence if they were ever charged with causing Madeleine's death and disposing of her body. It emerged this week that partial DNA matches found in the car hired by the family almost a month after her disappearance could potentially be explained by contact with Madeleine's clothes which were transported in it when they moved to a rented villa. The car was also used on a daily basis to transport bag-loads of household waste including her younger siblings Sean and Amelie's nappies. A friend said: "If they are asked to take a lie detector test by police they would. "They have said all along that they want to co-operate fully with the Portuguese police, but as of today they have received no such request from the Portuguese authorities. "Kate and Gerry are happy to do anything that will help clear their names."

McCanns: 'Lie Detector Test Will Clear Us', 21 September 2007

McCanns: 'Lie Detector Test Will Clear Us' Sky News Madeleine vanished aged three 3:38pm UK, Friday September 21, 2007 Kate and Gerry McCann are unlikely to face a lie detector test in connection with the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine, the family's spokesman has said. The couple had said they were prepared to take a test to prove they had nothing to do with the child going missing. But spokesman Clarence Mitchell said evidence from any test would not be admissible in a Portuguese court. "Kate and Gerry McCann have absolutely nothing to hide," Mr Mitchell said. "If a request from the Portuguese authorities was made for them to undergo such a lie detector test, they would have no issue with it, provided the test is suitably overseen by an appropriate expert who can ensure the absolutely reliability of the equipment being used." But he said he understood that such machines were not used in Portuguese criminal cases, nor was the information from them admissible in court. "Therefore we think it is extremely unlikely that such a request for a test would come through," he added. The McCanns' declaration that they would be happy to take a lie detector test is just the latest stage of a public fightback to show they had nothing to do with their daughter's disappearance. The couple, from Rothley, Leicestershire, were declared suspects by detectives after DNA traces were found in a car hired after Madeleine's disappearance. The couple have returned to Britain after a four-month stay in Portugal and have been told that police do not have enough evidence to justify interviewing them again.

McCanns offer to take lie test, 21 September 2007

McCanns offer to take lie test Evening Standard 21 Sep 2007 The parents of Madeleine McCann are prepared to take a lie detector test to prove their innocence. Friends say Kate and Gerry McCann want to show they have nothing to hide over the disappearance of the four-year-old who went missing on a family holiday in Portugal in May. The couple's decision is the latest stage in a high-profile fightback led by family and friends against police suspicions they may been responsible for Madeleine's death and staged an elaborate cover-up. Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns' spokesman, said that it was "extremely unlikely" the couple would be asked to take a lie detector test by police. He said: "Kate and Gerry McCann have absolutely nothing to hide and, if a request from the Portuguese authorities was made for them to undergo such a lie detector test, they would have no issue with it, provided the test is suitably overseen by an appropriate expert who can ensure the absolutely reliability of the equipment being used. "However, it is my understanding that such machines are not used in Portuguese criminal cases, nor is the information from them deemed admissible in court, and there are question marks over their reliability. Therefore we think it is extremely unlikely that such a request for a test would come through." The McCanns, from Rothley, Leicestershire, were declared "arguidos" or official suspects by detectives two weeks ago after DNA traces in a car hired after her disappearance were used to suggest the vehicle had been used to carry Madeleine's body. The couple have returned to Britain after a four-month stay in Portugal and have been told that police do not have enough evidence to justify interviewing them again. But they remain suspects and say they are determined to clear their names and continue the search for Madeleine who they believe may be still alive. Friends have revealed a series of details in recent days which could form part of their defence if they were ever charged with causing Madeleine's death and disposing of her body. It emerged this week that partial DNA matches found in the Renault Scenic hired by the family almost a month after her disappearance could potentially be explained by contact with Madeleine's clothes which were transported in it when they moved to a rented villa. The car was also used on a daily basis to transport bag-loads of household waste including her younger siblings Sean and Amelie's nappies. The couple believe its use as a "dumper truck" ferrying rotting meat, chicken carcasses and food scraps to nearby bins during the summer could also explain the excited reaction of specialist sniffer dogs when shown the car last month as part of a review of the case.

Kate refuses lie test, 18 November 2007

Kate refuses lie test Sunday Express (no longer online) Camilla Tominey Sunday November 18,2007 KATE McCann has done a U-turn over plans to take a lie detector test about daughter Madeleine's disappearance. She and husband Gerry offered to undergo a polygraph examination in September to clear their names. They hoped it would help to clear up any doubts about their involvement. Sources close to the couple made it known they were willing to be questioned after Kate was officially declared an "arguido" or official suspect in the case in Portugal. But despite being approached by a leading UK polygraph expert, mother-of-three Kate, 39, turned down the chance. Don Cargill, chairman of the British And European Polygraph Association, said he was "shocked" by her decision. Mr Cargill, official lie detector expert on TV's Trisha Goddard TV show, said: "I spoke to the McCanns' people and they came back with a list of conditions that would have been impossible to satisfy. "They wanted me to prove the test would be 100 per cent accurate, that I was the world's best examiner and that it would be admissible in a Portuguese court – but I could not guarantee any of those things. Although polygraph testing is very accurate, it is not infallible." Lie detectors work by measuring physiological responses such as blood pressure levels, pulse rate, breathing and sweat gland activity in the skin during questioning. Any significant difference in these rates as the subject answers may indicate they are lying. The process has been criticised but The American Polygraph Association says the current computerised technology is 98 per cent accurate. Lie detector tests are not admissible in British or Portuguese courts, but a positive polygraph result from Kate would prove a useful weapon for the McCanns against smears by the Portuguese police. Mr Cargill said: "Kate said she'd take it to prove her innocence but in reality, she wasn't willing. I was dumbfounded, to tell the truth. "I don't think it was the McCanns' fault. I was left with the impression the whole thing was a PR exercise to get sympathy at a time when Kate was under increasing scrutiny." Mr Cargill believes if the McCanns were to change their minds, now is the time to do it. Tomorrow marks 200 days since Madeleine, from Rothley, Leics, vanished from the family’s holiday apartment in Praia da Luz. He said: "In the immediate aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance, feelings would have been running too high. But now Kate is back in England and has had more time to come to terms with things, the timing would be perfect." Clarence Mitchell, the couple's spokesman, dismissed the idea, saying: "Of course they are not going to take the test. It's inadmissible in Portugal and there are doubts about the accuracy. "Gerry and Kate don't need to do one as they are telling the truth."

Killer Adrian Prout failed lie detector test and then admitted: "Your test is not wrong", 19 November 2011

Killer Adrian Prout failed lie detector test and then admitted: "Your test is not wrong" Daily Mirror Adrian Prout and Kate Prout By Ryan Parry 19/11/2011 MURDERER Adrian Prout failed a lie detector test and then brazenly admitted: "Your test is not wrong." Cool and calculating Prout thought he would sail through the polygraph, which measures breathing, heart rate and perspiration and has 99% accuracy. But when he failed the examination, paid for by his loyal fiancee Debbie Garlick as she campaigned to prove his innocence, he realised the game was up. The expert who tested him three months ago, British and European Polygraph Association chairman Don Cargill, recalled yesterday: "I said, 'You're a murderer.' He just said 'Ummmh.' So I said, 'Are you saying my test is wrong?' "He actually replied, 'No, your test is not wrong.'" Don, 59, also said: "He smiled in what was one of the most surreal and chilling experiences of my life. "There was no emotion at all, he was really calm and cool, chillingly so. "He'd been so used to being in control. He didn't fool the jury but he's fooled a lot of other people, his family and friends and his fiancee. "Debbie campaigned very heavily to prove his innocence but after he failed she was devastated. She realised she had been lied to all along." The home of Kate Prout and Adrian Prout Don, who did the test at Garth Prison, Lancs, added: "It was Debbie who convinced him to confess to the murder. "I can understand why people fell for his lies – but of course, you can't fool a polygraph."

Suspects will face lie detector tests in groundbreaking scheme by British police, 31 December 2011

Suspects will face lie detector tests in groundbreaking scheme by British police Daily Mail •  Polygraph questioning of 25 'low level' sex offenders •  Trial could lead the way to its use nationwide By CRAIG MACKENZIE Last updated at 12:59 PM on 31st December 2011 Lie detector tests on suspected criminals are being used for the first time by a British police force. Hertfordshire Police confirmed it had been using polygraphs, which monitor heart rate, brain activity, sweating and blood pressure, during questioning. The groundbreaking scheme is helping officers decide whether to charge suspects and the trial could lead the way to its introduction nationwide. Police tested 25 'low-level' sex offenders, with some making disclosures they might otherwise have been unlikely to and others apparently lying, the Times reported. This prompted officers to conduct further investigations with many of the men being reclassified as posing a more serious risk to children than originally thought. The force has now been given another year for research while senior officers across the UK are investigating ways the technology could assist in solving cases. The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) said its Homicide Working Group advised police on the use of polygraph techniques and would follow the trial in Hertfordshire with interest. A spokeswoman said: 'Polygraph techniques are complex and are by no means a single solution to solving crimes, potentially offering in certain circumstances an additional tool to structured interrogation. 'These initial trials are in their very early stages and we will follow their progress, working with chief officers across the country to provide further guidance if necessary. 'Whether these techniques are adopted elsewhere in the country is a matter for individual chief constables.' Offenders can only take the tests if they volunteer, and evidence gained is not admissible in court. Of the 10 offenders tested in April, six revealed more serious offending and testing ended so further inquiries could take place. Of the other four, two revealed offences, thus passing the test, and received cautions and attended a sexual offender treatment programme. The last two made disclosures and passed the test but refused to admit the offences when interviewed later. Their cases went to court. All four were placed on the sex offenders register, the newspaper said. Of the 15 offenders tested in November, eight failed while six passed. One was caught trying to beat the polygraph, breathing erratically and talking slowly. Polygraphs are used routinely by police in the U.S. but are considered too unreliable for use in criminal trials in the UK. Until now they have been mostly used on television, particular by the Jeremy Kyle Show to settle domestic disputes. A three-year pilot study in the East and West Midlands could lead to the compulsory testing of convicted sex offenders. The Ministry of Justice has been overseeing the project, aimed at testing sex offenders as part of their probation conditions when they are freed from prison. Detective Chief Inspector Glen Channer, head of Hertfordshire police's child protection unit, said lie detectors were an 'added weapon in the armory of investigative techniques'. But the tests were never solely relied upon as evidence and were only carried out by experts in a scientific environment. He told the Times: "It's about as removed from the Jeremy Kyle view of lie detector testing as real policing is to Miss Marple." At least one other force is now considering trialling lie detectors in pre-conviction situations, it is understood.

ITV: The Lying Game - The Crimes That Fooled Britain, 07 January 2014

Lie Detection Information - How to Detect Lies

How to Detect Lies (part 1)

How to Detect Lies (part 1) blifaloo.com Become a Human Lie Detector (Part 1) Warning: sometimes ignorance is bliss. After gaining this knowledge, you may be hurt when it is obvious that someone is lying to you. The following deception detection techniques are used by police, forensic psychologists, security experts and other investigators. Introduction to Detecting Lies: This knowledge is also useful for managers, employers, and for anyone to use in everyday situations where telling the truth from a lie can help prevent you from being a victim of fraud/scams and other deceptions. This is just a basic run down of physical (body language) gestures and verbal cues that may indicate someone is being untruthful. If you got here from somewhere else, be sure to check out our Lie Detection index page for more info including new research in the field of forensic psychology. Last update: June 5th, 2011. Signs of Deception: Body Language of Lies • Physical expression will be limited and stiff, with few arm and hand movements. Hand, arm and leg movement are toward their own body the liar takes up less space. • A person who is lying to you will avoid making eye contact. • Hands touching their face, throat & mouth. Touching or scratching the nose or behind their ear. Not likely to touch his chest/heart with an open hand. Emotional Gestures & Contradiction • Timing and duration of emotional gestures and emotions are off a normal pace. The display of emotion is delayed, stays longer it would naturally, then stops suddenly. • Timing is off between emotions gestures/expressions and words. Example: Someone says "I love it!" when receiving a gift, and then smile after making that statement, rather then at the same time the statement is made. • Gestures/expressions don't match the verbal statement, such as frowning when saying "I love you." • Expressions are limited to mouth movements when someone is faking emotions (like happy, surprised, sad, awe,) instead of the whole face. For example; when someone smiles naturally their whole face is involved: jaw/cheek movement, eyes and forehead push down, etc. Also see our article on micro expressions & lying. Interactions and Reactions • A guilty person gets defensive. An innocent person will often go on the offensive. • A liar is uncomfortable facing his questioner/accuser and may turn his head or body away. • A liar might unconsciously place objects (book, coffee cup, etc.) between themselves and you. Verbal Context and Content • A liar will use your words to make answer a question. When asked, "Did you eat the last cookie?" The liar answers, "No, I did not eat the last cookie." • A statement with a contraction is more likely to be truthful: "I didn't do it" instead of "I did not do it" • Liars sometimes avoid "lying" by not making direct statements. They imply answers instead of denying something directly. • The guilty person may speak more than natural, adding unnecessary details to convince you... they are not comfortable with silence or pauses in the conversation. • A liar may leave out pronouns and speak in a monotonous tone. When a truthful statement is made the pronoun is emphasized as much or more than the rest of the words in a statement. • Words may be garbled and spoken softly, and syntax and grammar may be off. In other words, his sentences will likely be muddled rather than emphasized. • The use of distancing language. Also see our article on Statement Analysis for a more in-depth look at word analysis techniques used by interrogators. Other signs of a lie: • If you believe someone is lying, then change subject of a conversation quickly, a liar follows along willingly and becomes more relaxed. The guilty wants the subject changed; an innocent person may be confused by the sudden change in topics and will want to back to the previous subject. • Using humor or sarcasm to avoid a subject. Final Notes: Obviously, just because someone exhibits one or more of these signs does not make them a liar. The above behaviors should be compared to a persons base (normal) behavior whenever possible. Most lie detecting experts agree that a combination of body language and other cues must be used to make an educated guess on whether someone is telling the truth or a lie.

Eye Direction and Lying (part 2)

Eye Direction and Lying (part 2) blifaloo.com Eye Movement and Direction & How it Can Reveal Truth or Lies This is a continuation of our previous article Detecting Lies. Many comments by our visitors asked about how eye direction can indicate the presence of a lie. Can the direction a person's eyes reveal whether or not they are making a truthful statement? Short answer: sort of. But, it isn't as simple as some recent television shows or movies make it seem. In these shows a detective will deduce if a person is being untruthful simply because they looked to the left or right while making a statement. In reality, it would be foolish to make such a snap judgment without further investigation... but the technique does have some merit. So, here it is... read, ponder and test it on your friends and family to see how reliable it is for yourself. Visual Accessing Cues The first time "Visual Accessing Cues" were discussed (at least to my knowledge), was by Richard Bandler and John Grinder in their book "Frogs into Princes: Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) " From their experiments this is what they found. When asked a question a "normally organized" right-handed person looks (from your viewpoint, looking at them):

Up and to the Left Indicates: Visually Constructed Images (Vc) If you asked someone to "Imagine a purple buffalo", this would be the direction their eyes moved in while thinking about the question as they "Visually Constructed" a purple buffalo in their mind.

Up and to the Right Indicates: Visually Remembered Images (Vr) If you asked someone to "What color was the first house you lived in?", this would be the direction their eyes moved in while thinking about the question as they "Visually Remembered" the color of their childhood home.

To the Left Indicates: Auditory Constructed (Ac) If you asked someone to "Try and create the highest the sound of the pitch possible in your head", this would be the direction their eyes moved in while thinking about the question as they "Auditorily Constructed" this this sound that they have never heard of.

To the Right Indicates: Auditory Remembered (Ar) If you asked someone to "Remember what their mother's voice sounds like ", this would be the direction their eyes moved in while thinking about the question as they "Auditorily Remembered " this sound.

Down and to the Left Indicates: Feeling / Kinesthetic (F) If you asked someone to "Can you remember the smell of a campfire? ", this would be the direction their eyes moved in while thinking about the question as they used recalled a smell, feeling, or taste.

Down and To the Right Indicates: Internal Dialog (Ai) This is the direction of someone eyes as they "talk to themselves".

The Gist of it... How this information is used to detect lies: Example: Let's say your child asks you for a cookie, and you ask: "Well, what did your mother say?" As they reply "Mom said... yes.", they look to the left. This would indicate a made up answer as their eyes are showing a "constructed image or sound. Looking to the right would indicated a "remembered" voice or image, and thus would be telling the truth. Final Notes: *** Looking straight ahead or with eyes that are defocused/unmoving is also considered a sign of visual accessing. *** A typical left-handed person would have the opposite meanings for their eye-directions. *** As with other signs of lying, you should first establish and understand a persons base-behavior before concluding they are lying by the direction of their eyes. *** Many critics believe the above is a bunch of bull***t. In my own experiments I have found these techniques to be more true than not. But, why not find out for yourself? Make up a list of questions that like the sample ones, and give them to your friends/family anyone who would be your guinea pig, observe their eye movements and record the results. *** This guide is hardly in-depth, I recommend getting the book "Frogs into Princes: Neuro Linguistic Programming" by Richard Bandler and John Grinder for a more thorough explanation if the subject interests you.

Micro Expressions, Subtle Body Language and Lying (part 3)

Micro Expressions, Subtle Body Language and Lying (part 3) blifaloo.com Is the show "Lie to Me" for real? I am not a police interrogator, scientist, or other expert... I am however a mother & people watcher. Years ago, when I wrote articles on How to Detect Lies & Eye Movement and Lying -- I knew of the Micro expression theory, but had a difficult time researching the subject well enough to relay it into an article. Recently, I've come across tons of new research, websites, articles, videos, etc. about micro expressions and believe anyone who reads my old articles about lying & body language would benefit from micro expression research and theory. What are Micro Expressions? A micro expression is a momentary involuntary facial expression -- that people unconsciously display when they are hiding an emotion. They are quick & intense expressions of concealed emotion. The main points to remember are that micro expressions are: Brief - Micro-expressions can appear then disappear off the face in a fraction of a second. In other words micro-expressions occur so quickly, that most people don't even notice them. Involuntary - A micro-expression is caused by involuntary movements in facial muscles. (See the fake-smile illustration). Most people cannot control these involuntary muscles which are affected by their emotions. Micro Expressions are generally grouped into seven universal emotions: anger, disgust, fear, sadness, happiness, surprise, and contempt. A Brief History of Micro Expression Theory According to Wikipedia - Micro Expressions were first discovered by Haggard and Isaacs in the 1960s. In 1966, Haggard and Isaacs outlined how they discovered these "micromomentary" expressions published under the title: "Micromomentary facial expressions as indicators of ego mechanisms in psychotherapy". Although it is not included in most histories of micro expressions; I would like to point out that Darwin's book "The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals" published in 1872 deserves a mention. Darwin noted the universal nature of facial expressions, the muscles used in facial expressions, etc. Check out more illustrations from Darwin's book. Also worth noting is Guillaume Duchenne and the Duchenne Smile. Most websites I can find next list William Condon as a pioneer who studied hours of tapes in the 1960s frame by frame to discover micro movements like micro expressions. I can find little info on this research but there is some other interesting body language & verbal expression / NLP research by a Dr. William S. Condon (I'm 99% sure it's the same dude - contact me if you have any info on the 1960s micro expression research by Condon as cited on wikipedia). Others mentioned as pioneering researchers in the field include John Gottman and Paul Eckman. Dr. Paul Ekman's research (along with the work of Silvan Tomkins) in the study of emotions and their relation to facial expressions took Darwin's work to the next level proving that facial expressions of emotion are not culturally determined, but biological in origin and universal across human cultures. Eckman co-developed the Facial Action Coding System (FACS) with Wallace V. Friesen in 1976. FACS is a system to taxonomize human facial expressions, and still used today by psychologists, researchers and animators. Dr. Ekman has published many books on emotions, facial expressions and lie detection including Unmasking the Face: A Guide to Recognizing Emotions From Facial Expressions and Telling Lies: Clues to Deceit in the Marketplace, Politics, and Marriage. Micro-Expressions and Lying Micro Expressions betray us when we lie. We can try to cover our feelings with fake smiles, but involuntary face muscles reveal this hidden emotions. Seeing is easier, watch this short video: (More Micro Expression Video Links Below) Paul Ekman and his research is the inspiration for the TV series "Lie to Me". Trained investigators, customs agents, etc. use micro expression recognition along with other body language & speech cues (see distancing language for an example) to determine truthfulness. While most people can be trained to recognize micro expressions and other deceptive cues, some folks are naturals. Ekman calls them "Truth Wizards". Latest Micro Expression Research & Training Dr. Paul Ekman and Dr. David Matsumoto created METT, an online micro expression training tool. METT and METT2 are being discontinued, but both Ekman and Matsumoto have developed their own micro expression training software available on their respective sites. (listed below). Dr. Mark Frank, a former student of Ekman's, continues work on deception and micro facial movement research. Frank identified specific and sometimes involuntary movements of the 44 human facial muscles linked to fear, distrust, stress and other emotions related to deception. Frank's work is being tested for it's use in anti-terrorism investigations. (see press release) My Opinion Another important thing to remember about micro-expressions is that they only show what someone is feeling...not whether they lying per-se, and not what they are thinking. The micro-expression only tells you their knee-jerk emotional state. (in my opinion). I believe (with no proof or scientific basis) that micro-expressions can also reveal emotions that are unconscious or only partially related to whatever is being talk about. In other words, just because someone says "that's awesome!" and flashes a brief micro-expression of contempt ... doesn't necessarily mean they are lying about their feelings.... just that there is something about the subject that "bugs" them (and they may not even know it bothers them). So, you show your friend Sarah a picture of your new dog. She looks at you and says "wow, really cute", but you catch a micro-expression glimpse of "disgust". I believe it would be presumptuous to take this as a sign that Sarah thinks your puppy is ugly. She may have been bit by a dog in the past, and that emotion briefly flashed across her face when she looked at the pic of your dog. ( I'm just cautioning readers who can see micro-expressions from simplifying and presuming too much -- human thoughts and emotions are complicated! ) Online Resources for Micro Expressions, Lying & Related Research (All links below are external and open in a new window/tab) Dr. David Matsumoto's Website and his Blog - Videos, info, resources & training. Dr. Paul Ekman's Website Wikipedia Articles on Micro Expressions, the Facial Action Coding System (FACS) For videos check out YouTube for Micro expressions & Paul Ekman Truth Wizard: The Eyes for Lies Blog & Website

Detecting Deception Using Statement Analysis® (part 4)

Detecting Deception Using Statement Analysis® (part 4) blifaloo.com How People's Words Betray Them By Mark McClish - StatementAnalysis.com Introduction by Blifaloo: I am super excited to introduce my readers interested in lie detection to "Statement Analysis®" -- a technique used by police and other investigators to determine the truthfulness of written or spoken words. Guest author Mark McClish is a well-respected retired Deputy United States Marshal, and an expert in interviewing techniques. You'll find more info & links about his research at the end of this article. Intro to Statement Analysis Statement Analysis is the process of analyzing a person's words to determine if the subject is being truthful or deceptive. The reason these techniques work is because people's words will betray them. There are usually several ways you can phrase a statement. People will always word their statement based on all their knowledge. Therefore, their statement may include information they did not intend to share. It is nearly impossible to give a lengthy deceptive statement without revealing it is a lie. The Statement Analysis techniques are very accurate because they are based on the English language specifically word definitions and the rules of grammar. For example, when a person states, "I am trying to be honest" he is telling us he is not being honest. The word "tried" means he is only attempting to be truthful. When a rape victim uses the pronoun "we" in her statement she is revealing she is being deceptive. The pronoun "we" not only shows plurality but it also means a partnership was formed. We would not expect a rape victim to partner up with her attacker. When a person uses phrases such as "later on" or "afterwards" he has withheld some information by skipping over something in his story. An example of utilizing the rules of grammar would be to analyze the verb tenses in a statement. When a person is telling us what happened, he is required to speak in the past tense. Therefore, if present tense language appears in his statement, this is a sign he is making up the story. Consider the following statement: "I was sitting in my car when a man opened my door, pointed a gun at me and tells me to get out." While the person starts out using past tense language, he switches to present tense language with the word "tells." The present tense language is an indication he is not drawing his story from memory. Another example of using the rules of grammar to detect deception is how a person uses articles within his statement. When we introduce someone or something that is unknown, we are required to use the indefinite articles "a" or "an." Once the introduction has been made, we then use the definite article "the." We see this in the following statement: "A man approached me and pointed a gun at me. He stuck the gun in my ribs and forced me into the car." In the first sentence, the victim properly refers to the attacker and the weapon as "a man" and "a gun." Having identified the gun, he then correctly refers to it as "the gun" in the second sentence. A problem arises when he refers to the vehicle as "the car." Since this is the first time he mentions the vehicle, he should have called it "a car." Using the article "the" tells us the victim either recognized the car or he is making up the story. Many times the truth goes unnoticed because people like to interpret what a person has said. However, you should never interpret. First, one cannot read someone else's mind. Secondly, people mean exactly what they are saying. We see a good example of this with O.J. Simpson's so called suicide letter. This was the letter that was discovered when Simpson failed to turn himself into the police. The letter starts out saying, "First everyone understand, I had nothing to do with Nicole’s murder." That is how you heard it read on television. That is how you saw it printed in the newspapers and magazines. The problem is that is not what Simpson wrote. In his letter, he crossed out the words "I had." His letter actually reads, "First everyone understand, nothing to do with Nicole's murder." He took himself out of the denial. So, why do most people include the words "I had?" Most likely because they believe this is what Simpson meant. However, people mean exactly what they say or in this case write. Simpson meant to cross out those words. By using the Statement Analysis techniques, you can determine exactly what people are telling you. This allows you to obtain additional information that sometimes goes unnoticed. These techniques will also show you if they are lying or telling the truth. Detect lies in emails, letters, as well live and recorded dialogue: Lie Detection, Statement Analysis & Interrogation Resources, Links & Books Blifaloo's note: This is just a basic introduction to statement / discourse analysis, for more information on detecting deception with statement analysis see Mark McClish's (this article's author) website: StatementAnalysis.com Related Links and Online Articles:

Statment Analysis Unique Words: "Never" [see below] Detecting Deception Using Statement Analysis. Mark McClish explains how the word "never" can be a signal of deception...if you know what to look (or listen) for.

Unique Words: "Actually" [see below] <-- Newest When people use the word "actually" they are comparing two thoughts. Take a look at the following article for Mark McClish's expert take on this unique word in its relation to deception

Lie Detection on Blifaloo - An index of all our articles on detecting lies plus tons of links, books and other resources. What do Suspects Words Reveal? - Another good introduction to the subject of statement analysis. Is the Number 3 Deceptive? - Mark McClish shares some of his research in this interesting article.

Unique Words: "Never"

Unique Words: "Never" blifaloo.com Detecting Deception Using Statement Analysis® By Mark McClish - StatementAnalysis.com Introduction by Blifaloo: Guest author Mark McClish is a retired Deputy United States Marshal, and an expert in detecting deception with his interviewing techniques. Unique Words – "Never" When analyzing a statement, there are several unique words that can provide you with additional information and show you if the subject is being deceptive. Some of these words are unique based on their definition, while others are unique based on years of observations. The word "never" is often used by deceptive people when making a denial. This is because people do not want to lie. Therefore, they will choose the easiest form of deception. It is easier for a person to be dishonest using the word "never" as opposed to directly telling a lie by saying "I didn't do it." For example, if a person was asked if he took the money he may state, "I would never do that." In addition to recognizing the use the word "never," we also see the person did not deny the action. He did not say he did not take the money. He only stated this is something he would in no way do. The word "never" means "not ever." If a person was asked if he "ever" cheated on his taxes, it would be appropriate for him to respond, "I have never cheated on my taxes." The use of the word "never" would be correct since he was asked if he "ever" defrauded the government. He is replying that he has "not ever" cheated. The word "never" does not mean "no." Therefore, you cannot substitute the word "never" for the word "no" which is something deceptive people like to do. Consider the following question and answer: Question:   "Did you sell him drugs?" Answer:     "I never sold drugs." Because the word "never" is a negative word, it sometimes fools the interviewer into believing the subject has answered the question and denied the accusation. This question requires a "yes" or "no" answer. The subject chose to answer the question using the word "never" instead of using the word "no." This shows us the subject is most likely being deceptive. Although he gave an answer, he did not answer the specific question. He did not state, "No, I did not sell him drugs." We see a similar use of the word "never" with former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. In March of 2006, she was asked about the possibility of her running for President. Question:   "Would you consider running for President in 2008?" Rice:         "I have never wanted to run for anything. I don't think I even ran for                 class anything when I was in school." Rice used the word "never" as a substitute for the word "no." She is not necessarily being deceptive but is giving a good political answer. If she were to have said "no," that would probably end any Presidential dreams she may have had. If she would have answered the question with a "yes," that would have caused a firestorm amongst the press. So, she chose to remain in the middle of the road. She gave an answer that sounded like she was saying "no" but in reality she did not say "no." Her answer tells us that part of her wanted to run for President. John Connolly is a former FBI agent who in the 1970s developed Boston Irish mobster James "Whitey" Bulger into an informant. Bulger was a valuable asset in helping the FBI dismantle the Italian Mafia in the Boston area. Connolly retired from the FBI in 1990. With Connolly gone, the FBI stopped using Bulger as an informant and instead turned their attention to his illegal activities. Their investigation uncovered that over the years Connolly had accepted bribes from Bulger and falsified reports about Bulger. In 1999, Connolly was indicted on these charges. That same year, Dateline NBC profiled John Connolly's case. Correspondent Dennis Murphy asked Connolly the following questions: Murphy:      "Did you go too far over the line?" Connolly:    "Anyone in my business, that knows what they're doing, knows enough                  to walk up to that line but to never step over it." Murphy:      "And you didn't?" Connolly:    "I never stepped over that line." In the first answer, Connolly states that "anyone" in his business knows not to cross that line. The problem is he did not tell us that he did not cross that line. In his second answer, Connolly clearly uses the word "never" as a substitute for the word "no." In 2002, Connolly was convicted of racketeering, obstruction of justice and lying to an FBI agent. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison. The use of the word "never" does not automatically mean a person is being deceptive. There are correct ways one can use the word. For example, I can state, "I have never been skydiving" because it is a truthful statement. However, if a person uses the word "never" as a substitute for the word "no," it is a strong indication the person is withholding information and possibly being deceptive.

Unique Words: "Actually"

Unique Words: "Actually" blifaloo.com Detecting Deception Using Statement Analysis® By Mark McClish - StatementAnalysis.com Introduction by Blifaloo: Guest author Mark McClish is a retired Deputy United States Marshal, and an expert in detecting deception with his interviewing techniques. This is the 3rd article Mark has contributed to Blifaloo.com Unique Words – "Actually" When analyzing a statement, there are several unique words that can provide you with additional information and show you if the subject is being deceptive. Some of these words are unique based on their definition while others are unique based on years of observations. When people use the word "actually" they are comparing two thoughts. Take a look at the following question and answer: Question:    "Did you buy a new car?" Answer:      "Actually, I bought a new truck." In this example, it is easy to see why the subject used the word "actually." The interviewer suggested that perhaps the subject bought a new car. The subject answered that he did not buy a new car but bought a new truck. He was comparing "car" with "truck." When the interviewer has not proffered anything and the subject uses the word "actually" we then have some undisclosed information. I once asked a friend the following question: Question:    "What did you do over the weekend?" Answer:      "Actually, I went to a birthday party." By using the word "actually," my friend was comparing going to the party with something else. Since I didn't suggest anything she may have done, this meant she was thinking about something else that she did or wanted to do. Upon hearing the word "actually," I asked her what she wanted to do. She told me that she wanted to go shopping but then she remembered she had a birthday party to attend. Because she was thinking about going shopping, it caused her to unknowingly use the word "actually." In Statement Analysis, the shortest sentence is the best sentence. Extra words give us extra information. "I went to a birthday party" is a good answer. "Actually, I went to a birthday party" means something else was going on. If a burglary suspect uses the word "actually" in his alibi, the police should take a closer look at him. Police:        "What did you do last night?" Suspect:     "Actually, I was at the movies." The word "actually" tells us he probably was not at the movies but was doing something else. He knows he committed the crime but he wants to lie and say he was at the movies. Because he is thinking about these two thoughts it causes him to use the word "actually." We find the word "actually" in a statement given by Casey Anthony who is currently on trial for the murder of her daughter Caylee. On July 15, 2008, Cindy Anthony, Casey's mother, called 911 to report that her granddaughter, Caylee, was missing. While on the phone, the 911 operator asked to speak to Casey. 911:        "And you know who has her?" Casey:     "I know who has her. I've tried to contact her. I actually received a               phone call today. Now from a number that is no longer in service. I did               get to speak to my daughter for about a moment; about a minute." In stating that she talked to her daughter on the phone, Casey tells the 911 operator, "I actually received a phone call today." By using the word "actually," Casey is comparing receiving a phone call with what? Not receiving a phone call? There is no reason to use the word "actually" unless she is thinking about something else. She uses this word to make her statement sound believable but instead it indicates she is being deceptive. When we look at the rest of her statement we see she states she knows who has Caylee but she does not give the 911 operator the name of this person. She says that she received a phone call but does not say who called her. The number that called her is disconnected the very same day. At her trial, her attorney stated that Caylee accidentally drowned in the family pool. This means Casey was lying when she said she received a phone call in which she spoke to her daughter. Anyone who was listening to what she was saying almost three years ago would have known she was lying. Listen for the word "actually." Most of the time you will be able to see what the person is comparing; "Is you car blue?" "Actually, it is red." When you cannot see the comparison, you then have some undisclosed information. You may want to find out what information the person is withholding.