August Newsletter: Bow Ties and Lies
Welcome to this month’s newsletter
I hope August has been good for you. I’m writing this at 7 a.m., outside my local coffee shop with the sun blazing down on me. These days won't last long, so I've got to make the most of them.
There's a lot to cover this month, all with the aim of uncovering the truth by looking at the word choices people make.
Never a Truer Word
The word “never” has come up a lot in my analysis this month. I repeat my mantra: when someone uses the word “never,” it isn’t proof they are lying, but it is an indication that deception could be happening.
One of the reasons for this is that “never” strictly means “not at any time, not ever, not in the past, the present, or the future.” By its true definition, it’s a solid word, but in use, it’s often less solid.
For example, "I'd never do that" is future-facing—a promise not to do it in the future—but it says nothing about whether you’ve done “that” in the past. It’s also no guarantee you won’t do it in the future either. This use of "never" is far from concrete.
How often have you heard someone use a phrase like "never in a million years have I done that" only to find out… they have?!
Here’s a social media post that demonstrates conclusively that when someone says “never,” you shouldn’t take it at face value. They state that “never” is a rule… and then, without shame, point out that by “never,” they mean 90% of the time.
Yellow Fever
So many of you have been watching Amy Bradley Is Missing on Netflix and asking me to take a look at Alister “Yellow” Douglas. Full confession, I haven’t seen the series yet, but I was told I’d be intrigued by the scene where Alister’s daughter, Amica, calls him to ask about what he knows of Amy.
Here’s the transcript with my commentary:
Amica: I would wish that you put yourself in my shoe and understand how I feel about this.
Alister: Amica, they brought the FBI on immediately, and then he said to me that they're trying to find this girl thata I was seen dancing with her. Everybody that had anything to do with cleaning her room, serving her drinks, we were grounded. When they realised nothing was involved, we continued to work. And I continued to work on the cruise ship until two years later
Yellow doesn't take on Amica's question. He prefers to launch into a story which on the face of it shows he was cleared by the FBI. Only, he doesn't say that. He only says he continued to work. He also seeks to hide in the safety of the crowd, pointing out it wasn't only him that came under suspicion—it was lots of others, too. It's a real "nothing to see here" statement.
Amica: Why am I hearing that you were seen on the beach with her, like, months later?
Alister: Which beach? Which beach they saw me on? Because I don't like beaches. Amica... Amica.. We danced at the club. Like, I've danced with many people at the club.
Here, Yellow goes for the classic question-to-a-question tactic. Often this is to buy some thinking time before answering a sensitive question. Here, Alister seems to go with the flawed logic that if Amica can't name the beach, then he must not have been on a beach with Amy. Curious. You’ll also note that here he doesn't deny he was on a beach with Amy.
Amica: So, you don't know if she ever got off the boat?
Alister: How would I know that? I left her in the club at one o'clock. And I went to my room.
How would I know she got off the boat? I'm a little boy from Grenada who's never had any experience like this before. So, I'm sitting there.
My name is called. I'm being questioned about something I don't know.
So much in this answer. We have question-to-a-question once more; he repeats his alibi, although it isn't asked for, and then he seems to reverse victim status and claim he's being picked on. Once again, he fails to answer the question.
Amica: Mommy found a bag of pictures of Caucasian women that you came home with, you know. It raises a lot of questions, Daddy.
Alister: Which one of the pictures was with her?
Amica: I don't know.
Alister: I have many pictures.
I'm sure you can see the pattern here. If you'd like me to go deeper into other interviews that Alister has given, let me know in the comments.
Liar Liar (No) Pants On Fire
This was planned to be a short piece about the biggest amount of possible deception I’d seen in a short answer, but Nick Kassotis took that crown.
Let’s do it anyway. This is English TV presenter Gregg Wallace dealing with allegations he appeared on the set of his show wearing only a sock on his… erm… male extremities.
"I was getting changed to go to a black tie event, a charity event. I put my bow tie on and my shirt. It’s only them outside the door. I put the sock on, opened the door, went, 'Wahey!' and shut the door again."
The people interviewed were either amused or bemused. Nobody was distressed.
In my analysis, this is a curated and altered version of the truth. What did I spot in these 56 words?
Resume statement: Telling us he was going to a charity event. Does he want us to know that so we think he’s a virtuous person and therefore not the sort of man to pull the prank he’s accused of?
Strange ordering: He says he put on his bow tie first and shirt second. That doesn’t work practically. Does the bow tie come first because it’s another indicator of the charity event and therefore more important to him, or did this not happen? Does he lack the authentic experience in his head to convert into words, so his imagined image came out strangely?
Change of tense: This is a story about the past, so we expect past tense. We get that with "I WAS getting changed," but it changes to present tense with "IT’S only them outside the door." Again, is this an indication of a story being made up as he’s speaking, which then moved to the present tense?
Dropped pronoun: Gregg says, "I put the sock on, opened the door." There is no "I opened the door." I don’t doubt he put the sock on, but is there something he’s hiding around the door opening? How did it happen?
Qualification: It’s “the people interviewed” that were either amused or bemused. Why is this so qualified? Were there other people there who might tell a different story about how they felt?
Specific denial: Finally, "nobody was distressed." But were they offended? Disgusted? Did they feel abused? Bullied? Humiliated? Was the allegation only that he distressed people who witnessed this? I doubt it.
And if you want to look at Nick Kassotis:
Biden Hidin’?
What do you make of this one? It’s from a recent Hunter Biden interview. He’s been asked about his sobriety.
Interviewer: When exactly do you think you had your last go?
Biden: O-Officially June 1st 2019
What a strange answer. Why not say "June 1st, 2019"? Why qualify it with “officially”? That makes it sound like an “official” story covering for the real one. Why the stutter, too? Nerves before telling a lie?
If we were to be told Hunter Biden has not been sober since June 1st, 2019, I wouldn’t fall off my seat with shock.
On The Other Hand
In the interest of annoying all sides politically, here’s a classic example of diversion from a sensitive subject. When someone answers a question with a question, you can conclude with a high degree of certainty that the truthful answer to the question is not what they want to share.
I wonder how many people on social media realize my provocative replies are mainly me testing the theories and collecting content for this newsletter!
Are the Actors Acting?
This rather sad story reminded me to always look for the actors in someone’s words.
This is a small example, but we can see from "Ex broke up with me" and "She removed me from all social media" that the ex was the decision-maker in the breakup and the writer here has been passive in both the breakup and the social media removal.
It’s also worth checking out the pronouns. This is definitely a separated couple, as the writer uses the singular pronouns "me," "she," "I," and "you" to talk about the situation, but never "us," "we," or "our," which would hint at some semblance of a relationship continuing in the writer’s mind.
Spelling Bee
This issue has featured a lot on the principle of question-to-a-question, the tactic used to buy thinking time when asked a question you’d rather avoid. Do you think that applies to the question of “pardon” in this clip?!
Separation Anxiety
I recently covered a note written by the mother of a (at the time) missing ten-year-old boy named Jayden Spicer. Sadly, since I analyzed the writing, Jayden’s body has been found, and his mom, Felicia Gross, has been charged in relation to his killing.
Now we have more detail, let’s revisit the note. Here’s the wording, including spelling errors:
"we love jayden and we want him safe at home
please if anybody see my son jayden spicer please report it to the jackson police department thank you
we love him very much please do the right thing call the police
please pray for use and my son jayden
thank you"
Concepts that jumped out at me immediately were:
Telling us “we” love Jayden before telling us he’s missing and they want him home. This indicates her priority was showing the audience how much she cares about her son. Why did she feel the need to show us that?
She does this again with "we love him very much" later. We take it for granted that a mother loves her child, so that they have to point out they do should raise suspicion.
The ordering in "please pray for use(us) and my son jayden." This showed that "us" was a higher priority than Jayden.
I said in my original analysis that when Felicia said, “If anybody see(s) my son,” it infers that she has the concept in her head that Jayden is out in the open, able to be seen, and that the concept that he may be with someone or under the control of someone else doesn’t seem to be one she entertained.
Sadly, Jayden was found in a shallow grave, very much out in the open and, I’d guess, from how quickly he was found, pretty easy to see.
Felicia’s words, “please do the right thing,” seem to have been aimed at herself.
Community Work
Doing a YouTube live last week, one of the people in the live chat mentioned how much they enjoyed being there with like-minded friends. We’ve built a great community there full of smart, kind, and curious people. If you like what’s in this newsletter, then you’ll probably find yourself right at home there.
I do often hear from people who’ve missed a YouTube event because they didn’t get notifications. YouTube is rubbish at these. If anyone has bright ideas about how to notify the audience a couple of hours before we go live on YouTube, do let me know in the comments.
Until September (when I’ll be writing this under a blanket and wearing a hoodie!), keep alert to the words that people choose to use.
Jack.
Yeah pray for ( Us) then Jaden names after them has got red flags waving at me . We want him safe stood out, but I will have to understand how she uses her grammar too. I would think you would say something like TO be safe . There's alot in this cheers Jack