June Newsletter: Speech and Drugs and Rock'n'Roll
Welcome to the June newsletter, digging into all things truth, deception, and motivation in words and statements. This month: Cultures clashes, talking in general and avoiding the topic.
LSD OFF RAMP.
Let's start in the world of celebrity. Have a look at this old video of George Harrison on a chat show. It was sent my way by someone who said, "I think you’ll like this"... and I did!
Here’s the transcript. What do you see?
"Q: And everybody knows that the Beatles went through a drug phase. Did it ever occur to you, or did you ever start to think of it this way, that the fact that this was known, and the fact that you were the Beatles, might have caused thousands of kids to go into drug problems that might not have otherwise?
George: Well, no, no, let him ask the question, let him ask the question. First of all, when we took the notorious wonder drug LSD, we didn't know we were having it. John and I had this drug, and we were having dinner with our dentist.
And he put it in our coffee and never told us. And we'd never heard of it. I mean, it's a good job we hadn't heard of it, because there's been so much paranoia created around the drug, that people now, if they take it, they're already on a bad trip before they start.
Whereas for us, we didn't know anything. We were so naive. And so we had it, and we went out to a club, and it was incredible.
It was really incredible. So, a couple of years later, Paul had the drug, too. And the TV people in England came, and they said, So, you've had this wonder drug LSD.
And he's saying, Oh, look, it's, you know, the question you asked me about, the responsibility for everybody else. Paul said to the TV people, Look, I'm not saying if I had the drug, it's you. If you're going to ask me if I've had it, I'm going to say yes, because I've had it.
I'm not going to lie. So he said, they said, Well, have you had LSD? And before they asked, he said, It's your responsibility, because if you're going to ask me, and I'm going to say yes, and you're going to put it on the TV saying, Yes, we've had LSD.
So really, it was their fault. So they asked the question. Paul said yes.
And then they put it on and said, Oh, they've had LSD. And then the world goes crazy.
Q: I just wondered if you have to stop and think about it. You used the word responsibility, which has always sounded so hokey when your school teacher says you have a tremendous responsibility. But did you ever take that kind of thing seriously and think, You know, we've got to watch ourselves, because if we do this, other people will do that.
George: Yeah, we always had to watch ourselves. Because if we weren't watching ourselves, there was somebody else out there who was.”
What do I note? George doesn’t answer the first question about responsibility at all. Instead, he takes an off-ramp, telling a story that's half anecdote and half a claim, essentially saying the drug-taking was everyone's fault except those who took the drugs!
George spends a lot of time telling us what didn’t happen, which is often a sign that the speaker is hiding events.
Finally, when asked about responsibility again, he answers not about responsibility, but about watching himself.
Conclusion: George felt he had no responsibility if Beatles fans took drugs!
(I did promise in the last newsletter I’d look at David Tennant too this month, but sadly the video we were going to look at has been taken offline.)
General Issues
I often point out when someone offers a general answer to a specific question. The conclusion, when you hear this, is that the responder wants to avoid the specific answer for a reason.
Here’s a clip from a recent court case. She was asked about “last night” but doesn’t deal with last night at all. She even uses the word "general" in her answer.
As an extra data point, note the stress at the start of the answer where she starts with an “um”, then starts a thought with “that was my” before abandoning that thought and going with the general one.
Do you think she received advice last night? Let’s find out!
Recommendation
If you like to test your skills, I recommend watching the documentary A British Horror Story about Fred and Rose West on Netflix.
It features many audio recordings of Fred being interviewed by the police. You’ll observe him using so many of the techniques that I teach. It’s fascinating watching one of the UK’s worst serial killers using familiar tactics in a bizarre attempt to preserve his image and protect his wife.
Want More?
If you want to supercharge your ability to detect deception in the words and statements all around you, you can get my email training program. After one month of learning, you’ll have many new skills to give you a deeper understanding of what is happening all around you.
Join at https://statementfox.com/training/ and use coupon code FORTY for a 40% discount.
Cultural Differences
Joshlin Smith’s mother and her boyfriend have been jailed for kidnapping and trafficking six-year-old Joshlin. I looked at the mother and boyfriend’s interviews from when they were pretending Joshlin was mysteriously missing in South Africa, and I concluded both were lying.
For example, in the boyfriend's interview, I noted that he told the story of the last time he saw Joshlin in the present tense when the past tense was expected. I also noted he used tenses correctly elsewhere, so it was safe to assume something was odd about this.
Man, the comments! They ranged from "this guy has no education, so you can’t say he uses tenses in the wrong way" to "he doesn’t speak the kind of English you do, so keep quiet."
This leads to one of the biggest pushbacks I get on my content, which often goes along the lines of "you need to remember this person comes from AREA and we talk differently here."
I’ve got news for them – no, you don’t. Not really. Sure, there are local words that mean different things from the rest of the world, but by and large, the techniques I use stand up throughout the English-speaking world.
The comments from South Africa were mostly warm and supportive, but this specific theme was familiar. It’s a reminder that the more data points you work with, the better and more informed our conclusions can be. There might be a local difference you’re not aware of, or a personal idiosyncrasy at play. However, with enough data points, it’s possible to reach a conclusion with confidence.
Here’s an example from a recent UK trial. The witness was speaking through an interpreter:
“I never seen a mattress down there. I never put any mattress there. If there was a mattress before I moved in, I don’t have any knowledge in relation to that.”
I often flag the word “never” as indicating possible deception, however as it is coming through an interpreter I won’t. I do note that the response is in the negative, it tells us lots about what didn’t happen or isn’t known rather than what did and is. That to me points to this guy having more knowledge of the mattress than he wants to say.
Speaking about a basement where abuse was alleged to have occurred the guy said:
“There were black bags down there, broken things, I don’t know what was inside those bags. It was very difficult to go down because there was so much rubbish down there.”
It’s clear from this that while he wants to portray the basement as somewhere he didn’t frequent, he doesn’t say that. Avoidance is the same in any language.
You won’t be surprised to know he was found guilty.
Keep in Touch
As always, do get in touch. Is there a case you’ve always wanted to look at? Let me know. The best way to chat directly is via email or Telegram: https://t.me/jacknatw
See you next month.
Jack