July Newsletter: From Mushroom Murders To Roadside Chat
Welcome to July’s Newsletter!
This month, more tips on how to work with someone’s words to spot the truth, deception, and their motivations.
I often get comments along the lines of, “I could never be friends with you, Jack, you’d be pulling my words apart all day long.” However, I’m not “on” all the time. In general conversation, I’m simply present and enjoying the chat. But I had an unusual occurrence a couple of weeks ago when I realized I was analyzing my own words!
I was walking along the road when a car pulled up beside me. The driver rolled down their window and said:
“Excuse me, do you know where the athletics centre is?”
I replied, “Yes, go down to that junction there, turn right, and you’ll see it soon on your right-hand side.”
She drove off. I was pleased to have helped and then thought, “Hang on a minute, I went extra!”
“Going extra” is when someone answers a question they’ve been asked and then continues, talking about something else not connected to the question. It’s an extremely useful way of uncovering what’s important to the person. They use the opportunity of having the floor, through being asked a question, to convey a fact, an idea, or a story that is a priority to them.
You might be familiar with the politician going extra. They’re asked, “Do you think there will be further price rises?” and they say, “Not if we control the situation. Look at how we took control of the crime situation; in one year under this administration, serious crime fell by 25%. We’re making life better for ordinary citizens by controlling things like crime, and we’ve been hugely successful in doing that.”
From this, we can conclude this person doesn’t want to talk too much about price rises; instead, they want to focus on the success they have had, not current issues.
We see it in police interviews too. Like when a suspect is asked, “Where were you at 9 PM last night?” and the reply is, “Home watching TV. I was watching a documentary on wildlife. I don’t go out, and when I do, I don’t drink or do drugs. I keep myself to myself and get along with everyone I meet. I don’t have enemies and I don’t wish harm on people.”
Much more important to this suspect than sharing where they were is for them to give their own character reference. From this, we can conclude they feel a need to persuade the police they’re a good guy. Now, why would that be?
Back to me. I was asked if I knew where the athletics center was, and I didn’t just say “yes I do,” which is all the question requires. I gave instructions. Now, okay, if I’d only said yes, the next thing I would have been asked would be “where is it?” But going extra revealed I wanted to help that person find it; she looked panicked, as if she was running late.
It was such an innocuous conversation, but on reflection, it proved the point I often make: when someone goes extra, they reveal so much about their priorities and what is going on in their head.
July in Jail
July has been quite the month for seeing people I’ve analyzed being found guilty of murder. Brooks Houck has been convicted of murder charges relating to his girlfriend Crystal Rogers, and in Australia, Erin Patterson was found guilty of murder by mushroom.
I analyzed Erin’s words shortly after three people died after eating a meal at her house. From the way she answered questions, or didn’t answer questions, it was obvious she had a case to answer. As usual, I received comments saying I was being unfair, I was ignoring the fact she’s Australian and they talk differently, and so on. Sometimes there is validity in those points, but Erin racked up red flag after red flag, and I was as certain as I could be that she was the cause of the deaths.
The interview I looked at is here:
The biggest red flag for me was that she avoided answering any questions about the meal she cooked.
She was asked, “Can you tell us about the meal you cooked?”
Erin replied, “I'm so devastated by what's happened by the loss of Don and... Don is still in the hospital, the loss of Ian and Heather and Gail who are some of the best people that I've ever met.”
Next up, the question was, “Can you tell us a bit more about the lunch?”
The response was, “What I can tell you is that I just can't fathom what has happened. I just can't fathom what has happened. That Ian and Heather have lost their lives and Gail has lost her life and Don is still in hospital. And I pray, I pray that he pulls through because my children love him.”
(You’ll note the word “JUST” in there!)
And in reply to the question, “Can you tell us where the mushrooms came from?” she said, “I just ask you to leave me alone now please.”
Those are pretty telling answers. It shows conclusively she did not want to talk about the meal and its contents at all.
However, that’s not enough to conclude she murdered her guests.
So let’s add in this statement: “I'm devastated. I loved them. And I can't believe that this has happened and I'm so sorry that they have lost their lives. I just can't believe it. I just can't believe it.”
“I’m so sorry that they have lost their lives” got me. “I’m so sorry” has ownership of the sorrow, and the “sorry” implies responsibility. She doesn’t say what is devastating her. We might, on first impression, assume she means devastated by the deaths, but she doesn’t explicitly say that. If someone doesn’t say it, we can’t assume they mean it. She could possibly be devastated that she’s under suspicion, or that the mushrooms didn’t merely cause illness but death too.
When speaking about the victims, Erin said, “Gail is the mum that I didn't have because my mum passed away 4 years ago. And Gail's never been anything but good and kind to me.
And Ian and Heather were some of the best people I've ever met. They never did anything wrong to me, and I'm so devastated about what's happened.”
The focus on these people not doing anything wrong to her felt like she was stating that to show a lack of motive for her to harm them. Instead of saying there is no motive, she hints that she knows what the motive is and rebuts that. As so often, when someone attempts to tell us what ISN’T going on, it often is.
A very short interview, but full of data points. After that, it was no surprise to me the jury found Erin Patterson guilty.
Something Different
Here’s a piece I wrote for True Crime Times. Nothing at all to do with words and statements; instead, it looks at how the differences in legal systems between the UK and the US mean the Karen Read circus could not have happened here.
Learn from the Best
One of the best ways to observe how people deflect, evade, and divert with their words is to watch low-pressure interviews. These show how people deal with sensitive subjects in an atmosphere where they’re allowed to get away with it, as opposed to something higher pressure like a police interrogation.
Have a look at this press conference featuring three questions asked of Mercedes F1 driver George Russell.
He’s asked three questions:
“Have you got a new contract?” He very quickly says “no updates” before diverting to talk about the upcoming race. But do note, once he’s made a little joke at the start of his answer (buying thinking time), he says “no” before going off on his diversion.
“Do you question the team loyalty?” He avoids answering about loyalty at all. If he was not questioning the loyalty shown to him, he’d surely say so. So, we can conclude through his avoidance that he is wondering where the loyalty is.
“Are you talking to other teams?” He gives a “no” and nothing else—no diversion, no avoiding the topic, a plain no. That’s what the truth sounds like.
Get enlightened
If you want to learn at a deeper level, check out statementfox.com/training, and if you want to take the plunge, use coupon code FORTY to get 40% off.
Learn from the Worst
I love analyzing Sherri Papini. Compared to some of the cases I cover, her crime was nearly victim-free. I know her husband and children suffered, and she’s now putting her ex James through the wringer, but the biggest victim of Sherri Papini is Sherri herself. Through her lies and actions, her life is ripped to shreds.
She’s done media rounds recently telling a new story, and I can pick nearly every answer she gives and find it ripe with red flags.
I went for this question at random:
What do I spot? She keeps saying there was “no plan”. Again when someone tells you what not, it often is that the opposite is the case. Statements in the negative show us where the focus is. When she says “no plan” her focus is on plans rather than on forced abduction. When Erin Patterson says “Ian and Heather never did anything wrong to me” her focus is on people doing wrong to her, not doing the right thing.
We all know the person who shouts and screams “I don’t care” when they obviously do. Or that person with a customer complaint who says “it’s not about the money” when they most certainly want the money back.
Sherri says she has no memory of “getting in the car” rather than no memory of “how I got in the car”—she does this often. It’s leakage that she has the concept that she got in the car rather than was put or forced into the car.
And she wants to say she has solid proof of being abducted due to being drugged, but she weakens it with vagueness: “that KINDA demonstrates there was no permission” and “GENERALLY you don’t have permission”.
I’m sure there’s more I haven’t spotted—what do you see?
Finally
I’ve spent much of July analysing the Crystal Rogers case. I knew nothing about the case until a single YouTube comment that said “Crystal Rogers”, so if there’s any case you’d like me to consider please let me know (you can even provide some context!)
See you in August. Happy truth detecting!
Jack