April Newsletter: Writers writing badly, Lori Vallow acting badly and Prince Andrew answering badly.
Welcome to April’s newsletter covering all things around statements and deception. As always, it’s a mixture of the trivial and the serious to bring forward some vivid examples of how words are used and abused in real life. At the bottom of the newsletter, see how you can learn the skills for yourself!
The Pros of Pronouns
I feel like I’ve spent half of April covering the Lori Vallow Daybell trial. There’s an air of grandiose ridiculousness about her. Lori attempts to portray herself with such a large amount of self-belief and seriousness. I often point out that if we detect someone is speaking the truth it means it’s what they believe to be the truth, even though it might not be factually true.
For example, if I tell you that I own a blue car and you believe that, then the words you use to tell others that I have a blue car will have all the hallmarks of the truth, even if my car is factually green, red or gold.
So, in the clip below, when Lori tells us what a smart hairstylist she was, whether that is true or not, if she believes it then she’ll use markers of truth. For me, the big one in this was her high usage of personal pronouns, showing ownership and belief in what she says.
Compare that to when she trying to appear forceful when saying her previous conviction is unsafe. The personal pronouns disappear and she comes out with two-word phrases with no personal pronoun ownership at all.
Baffled or Bluster
Here’s a statement from a man called Sewell Chan about being fired from his job. The line that got me interested in this was “The decision to let me go was hasty, ill-considered and quite frankly baffling.”
14 words with three big indicators of something more going on. Firstly I noticed what is missing, he doesn’t say the decision was wrong. In this section he doesn’t argue with the decision made, only that it was made quickly, considered poorly and he doesn’t understand it.
Or does he understand it? He tries too hard to persuade us he’s baffled by saying it is “QUITE FRANKLY baffling”. Why these extra words? Why go the extra mile to say he’s not just baffled but “quite frankly” baffled.
The last thing I noticed in this sentence is the ordering. The most important thing for him to mention was it was hasty, then ill considered, then finally baffling. If you’ve been fired from your job and don’t know why, I ‘d expect to see that are the first thing you’d mention rather than how fast it was.
And for someone who claims he’s baffled by the decision, he spends the majority of the statement defending his “pointed” interactions with staff. Leading me to the conclusion that his staff members have complained about his attitude in his interactions and a quick decision made to let him go.
Sewell majors on resume statements through his missive. That’s where someone states their achievements to bolster their image. It’s a very weak form of defence as they don’t hold up logically, just because you’ve won awards as a journalist doesn’t me you didn’t bully someone. The fact an individual uses them highlights that they don’t feel a simple rebuttal of allegations will suffice in persuading the audience they did not do what they are accused of.
AI Deny
Here’s another writer issuing a statement. This one has been accused of using AI to help write their novel. The accusations came after readers noticed some AI prompts had been left in the manuscript!
Have read through, what do you spot?
Let me get it out the way. The first thing I saw was a lie. The author says every word was theirs and then later says that some changes were made by others and some comments were included that they didn’t make. Not good.
We have another resume statement to start off the explanation.
The statement started with a resume statement, an attempt to show how loved the book is and to minimise the slight quibbles.
So another statement from a professional writer and another weak denial that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
What’s the reason?
Having read all the above, what do you make of this statement? Let me know in the comments!
Finally
With the news the Virginia Guiffre has died, I revisited the car-crash Prince Andrew interview. When Andrew is asked about Virginia, is when he gives his infamous Pizza Express and “I don’t sweat” reply. If you go further into his answers he gets no more convincing. Let’s take a look.
Q (about the photo of Virginia and Andrew):
Just to clarify, so you think that photo has been faked?
Andrew:
Nobody can prove whether or not that photograph has been doctored, but I don't recollect that photograph ever being taken.
(Doesn’t answer the question, “I don’t recollect” may give him comfort but doesn’t say it didn’t happen)
Q: And you don't recollect having your hand round her waist in Gerlaine Maxwell's house on any occasion, even if it was a different date?
A: I'm terribly sorry, but if I, as a member of the royal family, and I have a photograph taken, and I take very, very few photographs, I am not one to, as it were, hug, and public displays of affection are not something that I do. So that's the best explanation I can give you. And I'm afraid to say that I don't believe that photograph was taken in the way that has been suggested.
(“I am not one to” is not the same as “I don’t”, “I’m afraid to say” suggests he has some fear about talking here)
Q: There's a photo inside Ghislaine Maxwell's house. Ghislaine herself is in the background. Why would people not believe that you were there with her that night?
A: Oh, they might well wish to believe it, but the photograph is taken upstairs, and I don't think I ever went upstairs. In Ghislaine’s house.
(Logically I want to know how he can say with certainty the photo is taken upstairs when he hasn’t been upstairs, also “I don’t think” again is vague and qualified)
Q: You're sure of that?
A: Yeah, because the dining room and everything was on the ground floor, as you came in the hall. So I don't remember ever going up there. I'm at a loss to explain this particular photograph.
If the original was ever produced, then perhaps we might be able to solve it, but I can't.
(He wants to give the impression that he’s only been in her dining room and hall - only he doesn’t say that, is that because it’s not true and he can’t find the authentic words to describe that situation)
Q: You can say categorically that you don't recall meeting Virginia Roberts, dining with her, dancing with her at Tramp, or going on to have sex with her in a bedroom in a house in Belgravia.
A: I can absolutely categorically tell you it never happened.
(He’s trying to hard to persuade us here with absolutely and categorically. Neither of those words change the meaning of sentence he just believes it makes the denial stronger)
Q: Do you recall any kind of sexual contact with Virginia Roberts then or any other time?
A: None whatsoever.
(Here Andrew shows low commitment to what he says with a Lori Vallow style lack of pronouns, he’s disappeared from what he says)
Q: Because she said in a legal deposition, a legal court document in 2015, she had sex with you three times. She is not confused about this. She said the first was in London when she was trafficked to you. The second was at Epstein's mansion in New York.
A: That is a date in April, I believe. Is that correct?
(Here a question in response to a question gives Andrew extra thinking time to compose an answer he’s happy with)
Q: She said it was a month or so later.
A: Yeah. Well, I think that the date that we have for that shows that I was in Boston or I was in New York the previous day and I was at a dinner for the Outward Bound Trust in New York and then I flew up to Boston the following day. And then on the day that she says that this occurred, they'd already left to go to the island before I got back from Boston.
So I don't think that could have happened at all.
(And finally, we have a vague answer with “I think” and many options, what we don’t have is a blanket denial, only a hint of ‘it couldn’t have happened the way she claims)
What I’m stunned about in revisiting this interview is I spot deceptive markers in almost every answer Andrew gives.
Get in Training
If you want to learn these skills for yourself, have a look at my 30 Day Statement Investigation Training Course. For 30 days you’ll learn a new skill in detecting deception in someone’s words, practical exercises and regular tests to see how much you’re learning. See https://statementfox.com/training/ and use coupon code FORTY to get 40% off.
Someone who completed the course recently said “I’m really enjoying the course and so grateful for the insights”. Give it a try!
Jack