A talk with Mark McClish, a former US Marshal, and a longtime trainer of law enforcement personnel in interrogation/interview techniques. He has written two books on his statement analysis techniques: I Know You Are Lying, and Don’t Be Deceived. These are great books; the first book was one of the inspirations for me writing my book Verbal Poker Tells.
This podcast is meant to serve as an introduction to some statement analysis concepts. We talk briefly about quite a few cases, new and old, including OJ Simpson, Timothy McVeigh, Chris Watts, Making A Murderer, the KROQ radio DJ hoax, the McStay family murder, and the Van Dam child murder.
A transcript is below.
Here are links to this episode:
If you’d like to read some in-depth analysis of the Chris Watts statements, check out this blog post.
TRANSCRIPT
[Note: transcripts will contain errors.]
Zach: So today is September 6th, 2018, and this is the People Who Read People Podcast. My name’s Zachary Elwood and today we have as a guest, mark mcclish and I’ll give you a quick introduction of, uh, Mark’s background taken from his website, statement analysis.com. Mark is a retired supervisory Deputy United States Marshal with 26 years of federal law enforcement experience.
From 1991 to 1999, he taught interviewing techniques at the US Marshals Service Training Academy, which is located at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Georgia. During that time, he conducted research on deceptive language. He calls his method for examining people’s words, state statement analysis.
He actually has a registered trademark of that that Mark has registered. Mark has written two books. I know you are lying, and the second one is Don’t Be Deceived. And I just wanna vouch that [00:01:00] these are very good books. In fact, my own second book about poker tells, which was called Verbal Poker Tells, was partially inspired by reading Mark’s first book.
Mark’s work will help make you a better listener and will help you better understand written and verbal communication in my opinion. Without further ado, here’s Mark. Uh, good morning, mark. Good morning Zach. Thanks for coming on the show. And we’re gonna talk about some of your, uh, work today and, and hopefully give people an introduction to, um, you know, what they can learn from, from your work and how it will help them in their daily lives.
So let’s start from the top. For people who are new to your work, what’s your short, if you were gonna give a short elevator pitch for the value of statement analysis and. How it works. Uh, what would you say?
Mark: Well, statement analysis is the process of examining a, a person’s verbal or written statement to determine if they’re being, uh, truthful or deceptive.
And, and the reason the techniques work is that there are several ways you can phrase a statement, and people will always [00:02:00] word their statement based on all their knowledge, which means their statement may contain information they did not intend to share. Uh, PE people often give us more information than what they realize.
But unfortunately, they sometimes give us more information on what we realize and all gets down to listening to how a person phrases their statement. And the other reason, uh, the techniques work is because most of the techniques are based on the English language, such as, uh, word definitions and the rules of grammar.
And then lastly, when we examine a statement, we do not interpret what a person is saying. And that’s ’cause people mean exactly what they say, but too oftentimes we, a person says one thing and, and we hear something different. I mean, years ago, a sportscaster, Marv Albert got into some trouble and he came out with a statement and said that he is going to, that he intended to Vly defend himself.
Well, the key word was intent. He didn’t say he will defend himself, he just intended to. And then later on he pled guilty. And a lot of people were surprised. But if you listen to what [00:03:00] he is saying. You could almost see a guilty plea coming, you know, in the distance. So it all gets down to listening.
Zach: Right.
And one of the big things in your book is, you know, you talk about listening carefully to what people tell you. And, and like you said, people read into things. So the, you know, they’ll say something vague, indirect, and we absorb what they, they want us to hear without, you know, listening to the very subtle things that give us clues that they’re not telling the whole truth or that they’re actually saying something else.
Uh, right. Okay. So, uh. How does the analysis of verbal behavior, in your opinion, differ and compare to nonverbal physical behavioral analysis?
Mark: Well, with nonverbals, you know, reading somebody’s body language, uh, obviously one a person has to be present and we have to view their mannerisms. I. If we’re gonna rely on their non verbs, but with statement analysis, they don’t have to be present, which means we could use the statement analysis techniques, uh, in a telephone conversation, or we could use the statement analysis techniques if we’re [00:04:00] analyzing a written statement.
Obviously you can’t apply, um, non verbs in those types of situations, but with body language, you have to establish a norm. Uh, what, you know, establish a baseline. What is this person’s normal body movements? And then later you look for the abnormal gestures. They, they rub the back of their neck or, uh, comb their hair or something like that.
But this creates a problem and that sometimes we forget to establish that baseline. Or if you’re watching an interview on television, that interview is probably 20 minutes long. They edit down to 10 minutes for their broadcast and they cut all that chitchat. You, you don’t have an opportunity to establish that baseline.
But with statement analysis, we don’t have to establish a baseline for the far majority of the techniques. And that’s because people mean exactly, uh, what they say. And then with non verbs, it’s not always specific. Just because somebody performs an abnormal gesture doesn’t necessarily mean they’re being deceptive at that point in their statement.
Now, it may [00:05:00] indicate you’re, you’re hitting a hot spot or something like that. But the statement itself, um, may be a truthful statement, whereas again, with statement analysis, it’s, it’s, uh, it’s very specific because people mean exactly what they say. And that’s, so that’s some of the differences between reading somebody’s body language, which you have to somewhat interpret, versus statement analysis, which in which there is no interpretation.
Zach: It kind of ring, it rings true for me because working on the, uh, the Verbal Poker Tales book, uh, I learned a lot just writing the book because I spent a lot of time researching, you know, clips from, uh, televised poker and taking notes when I played. And I just found that after I was done with that book compared to the things I’d written about non-verbal, I just, you know, I, I, I really believe the, the verbal stuff was so much more actionable and reliable.
Because it, you know, it just contains more inf clear information to me when that information is present. And, uh, I think it, I think it has a corollary there. Obviously, poker’s different from. Other things, but I think it, it, there’s, there’s just a lot of information there. [00:06:00] Um, so your first book, I know you are lying.
I found very much eyeopening. I’ve read it three times. This book has so much interesting stuff in it. It’s a real period piece of crime from the late eighties and nineties. Uh, a few topics covered in the book job in a Ramsey Woody Allen accusations, Michael Jackson accusations, bill Clinton statements, OJ Simpson, and a lot more.
Uh. It’s interesting to read, just, uh, as kind of a, taking you back to that time and realizing how many, uh, you know, kind of epic, crazy, uh, news stories were happening around that time. And, and, and you talk about a lot of them and, and find very interesting patterns and, and information in the things that people say in those interviews.
Uh, so one of the things I wanted to do was we’ll play one clip from, uh, of an interesting example you talk about in your book. And to set this up a little bit, this is from. 1990, and these are two Los Angeles DJs who had a funny radio talk show. They had a caller call in [00:07:00] at one point during one of their shows who confessed to murdering his girlfriend.
And then there was a big police investigation to try to find out if it was a real call. Uh, many people wondered whether it was a hoax by the two DJs and the show, unsolved Mysteries did a feature on the story and they interviewed the 2D DJs. So we’ll play a clip right now from that show.
TV show: We asked them point blank if the call was a hoax created to boost their ratings.
Um, there are, there are real definite lines that you do not cross. Um, obviously everybody’s, you know, trying to get ratings, trying to get notice, trying to be this and that, but there are lines that you just don’t cross, and that’s one of ’em. Um, yeah, I, I, I don’t know that anyone could sit down and say someone confessing to murder will make our ratings go up.
Zach: So that was the first dj and then the second DJ clip starts.
DJ: Um, you know, all we could say is, you know what the, the experts feel that this guy was legitimate. It’s no one we know. And as you know, as far as we’re concerned, you know, that that’s his story. We certainly [00:08:00] hope it’s not true. You know, I trade whatever publicity we got from it, you know, for the story not to be true.
’cause it’s pretty grim really.
Zach: Okay, so I thought I picked this clip of these two guys because I thought it was a good, uh, a good example of having quite a few of the things you talk about in your book in one place. Uh, do you want to talk a little bit about what jumps out to you? Obviously, you know a lot about that clip.
Mark: Well, the first thing we see is despite both DJs giving a very lengthy answer, neither one of ’em answered the specific question. Uh, the question was, is the call a host created boost your ratings? And so if they wanna deny that they have to say no, and they can say every, all they said, and then, and by saying no, or say no to the very beginning and, and then keep on talking.
’cause sometimes people don’t wanna just say yes or no, they want to expound. Nothing wrong with that, but you have to answer that specific question. Neither one of them did. So that means absolutely they’re, they’re withholding some information. And then the first DJ start out saying that there are real different lines that you do not [00:09:00] cross.
And in statement analysis, we take the approach that we’re gonna believe what people tell us. And we notice that he used the pronoun you, there are real different lines that you do not cross. And I believe him that you and I wouldn’t cross those lines, but he couldn’t say there are real definite lines that I would not cross or, or we would not cross.
Referring to both DJs and so that that stood out, you know, pretty glaring. If you look at the pronouns, he’s not personalizing it, but he is just talking in general terms, wanting you to believe that he is talking about himself, but he is not. Mm-hmm. And the second DJ start out saying, uh, all we can say.
You know, is that the experts feel this guy was legitimate. Well, when people say, you know, all I know, or all I can say, they’re telling us they’re limited in what they can share with us. When people say, all I know, they’re limited by their knowledge, but when people say, all I can say. They’re probably limited by something else.
And what you should ask yourself is, is why is this all you can say? [00:10:00] What are you limited by in this case? Right? What’s stopping you? Yeah. What’s stopping you from giving more information? Apparently not your knowledge. All I know, but all I can say. So there’s usually a difference, uh, between the two. And then we have a rule and statement analysis that the shortest sentence is the best sentence.
You know, extra words give us extra information. And, and the first DJ concluded his statement by saying, you know, I don’t know that anyone could sit down and say someone confessed their murder will make our ratings go up. Well, you don’t need the phrase sit down. You just say, I don’t know that anyone could say someone confessed to murder and make our reigns go up.
So the question is, why did he use these extra words, sit down. Well, as you know, in reading the book, it turned out it was a hoax on their part. Uh, the caller was another DJ, I believe, from Arizona that called in. And most likely when the three of them got together to plan this, they were probably all sitting down talking about, is this gonna work?
Is it not gonna work? Mm-hmm. He can see, he can see them planning it. He can see them sitting there and it ends up coming into his [00:11:00] statement. Those extra words, uh, sit down.
Zach: Yeah, I really, I really like that one. It’s, it’s just such an interesting Yeah. You know, it’s, it’s the kind of thing that like a lot of, uh, these things that could pass by unnoticed if you weren’t paying a lot of attention and Right.
But then when you think about it, you’re like, that is a really weird way to phrase that, you know?
Mark: Yeah. So there, you know, and there were a few other indications of deception as well, the big ones where they didn’t answer that specific question. They’re not talking about themselves, they’re talking about you and I using the pronoun you.
Zach: One little one was when he said the second DJ ended it with, it’s pretty grim, really, you know, with that, the really modifier, uh, can you talk a little bit about how, how frequent those are and deceptive, uh, language?
Mark: Yeah. People like to use, uh, certain words to, to bolster their statement, but oftentimes it weakens the statement because again.
They’re, they’re not needed. Uh uh, the word really, it’s almost like saying truthfully, honestly. It’s like when people say, I swear to God, or honest to God, you know, I, I tell people it’s, it’s a 50 50 with [00:12:00] these, you know, half the time people have a habit of using some of these phrases and half the time, you know, they’re being deceptive.
But it’s something you definitely wanna take a look at and ask a few more questions about in an interview setting. You know, is this person trying to convince me they’re being truthful, or is this just part of their, uh, vernacular using some of these, uh, words and phrases?
Zach: And one other interesting thing was the amount of stutters and missteps in their speech, which I know you, uh, you know that in a similar way, the, those kinds of things aren’t usually that meaningful because some people just talk like that.
But in this case, these guys were radio DJs, which, you know, you would think they’d be, would be quite comfortable talking clearly and straightforwardly, so, right. All the little ums and stutters kind of are more likely to be meaningful. Right.
Mark: Yeah, that’s one. The few times we’d have to establish a baseline with statement analysis.
Does this person normally stutter? But as you pointed out, they’re professional speakers, they’re DJs, so I gotta believe they don’t stutter and, and so that stuttering, those pauses would both be indication that they’re under some stress. I.
Zach: Uh, [00:13:00] yeah, so that was an interesting one. I, I think it was just a good, a good example of a lot of different things in one place.
And it’s, it’s kinda like, um, you know, uh, like a lot of things, like for when you’re uncertain, when you, when you see a lot of signs of deception pointing the same way, I think it, you know, it helps make your confidence that there’s, there’s being, there’s some deception there better. Uh, and those, like you said, those guys were found out to have planned that, that, uh, radio hoax, um.
Any other recent examples in the, in the news that, uh, where you saw some or heard some, uh, interesting verbal or written behavior? Any, any recent current events?
Mark: Probably the most recent one is the, uh, the Chris Watts out in, uh, Colorado, who said, uh, that his wife and two. Children had disappeared. This was, uh, a few weeks ago and he, uh, I think he reported it was on Monday.
He reported three of them missing. On Tuesday, he gave an interview to local television [00:14:00] station. Then on Wednesday, he pled guilty to at least, uh, killing his wife. But a lot of people thought he gave a pretty good interview on that Tuesday. Uh, seemed like he was, uh. A grieving husband and father. But as I listened to his statements, uh, at one point he said, uh, I have no inclination of where they are right now.
And then later on he said, I have no idea like where they went. You very rarely can a person honestly say, I have no idea or no clue. When people use those phrases, they’re, they’re acting like they know absolutely nothing. And it’s just hard to believe ’cause most people have an opinion just about everything.
I mean, he may not know what happened to them. He may not know where they are, but he probably has somewhat of a clue. So when you hear those phrases, I have no idea. I have no clue that light bulb in your head should turn on. ’cause very rarely can a person honestly say that. And I, I see it happen all the time where that phrase is used and it turns out they’re being, uh, deceptive.
Zach: Yeah. It makes me think, uh, it makes me [00:15:00] think that you’re in your book there. I can definitely remember a, a good number of examples where people would feign, you know, complete cluelessness, you know?
Mark: Yeah. So it’s something to listen for. And then the other big one he had in his statement was, uh, he talked about his oldest daughter in the past tense.
He said Bella was going to start kindergarten next Monday. Now if he and you talking about people in the past, tense means it’s an indication that, you know, they’re no longer around, they’re deceased. Uh, if he felt his daughter was still alive, ’cause this is a Tuesday, he’s given a statement. He would say, you know, Bella is supposed to, or, or is going to start school next week or next Monday.
But he said was, and that’s a strong indication. He knows something that we don’t know. And it turned out that he, I think he claims now that his wife had killed his two daughters and then, and his angry killed his wife. I would love to see that statement. I haven’t, I don’t think they’ve released that yet.
Uh, most people believe he killed his entire family and then, uh, dispose of their [00:16:00] bodies, but there were strong several indications of deception in his statement. If you listen closely to what he was saying.
Zach: Yeah, I, I watched some of that last night. I, I think I might have watched a different one than you, but I, I made a couple notes that stood out to me and, uh, one thing he said was, um, when the interviewer basically said, uh.
Basically was like, well, one of the problems with this is, you know, people are saying you might have done something like this, and he is not angry at all and doesn’t, doesn’t deny it. He’s given a clear chance to say, I didn’t do this. But he said, he basically says every, everyone’s gonna have their own opinion on anything like this.
I just want people to know that I want my family back, I want them safe, I want them here. So he, you know, it, it was very similar actually to some things in your book with, uh, I think it was a Michael Jackson denial and the James Earl Ray denial, where they were basically saying, well, everybody’s gonna have their, their own opinion, you know, whereas like you would think an innocent person would be like, I just wanna let everybody know I had nothing to do with this.
You know? Uh, that was kind of interesting.
Mark: Yeah, no denial. You’re right. We expect him to deny it. And what we’re [00:17:00] looking for in a denial is to say, I didn’t do it. You know, I, I didn’t kill my family or I don’t know what happened to them. And, and he never, he doesn’t give a, a good denial, like you said, in fact.
Probably 99% of the things he said were true. You know, I want my family back. He probably does regret what he did and wants them back, you know? But as you point out, he, he never gave a, gave a good denial.
Zach: Mm-hmm. And one other thing I noticed that was kind of interesting was he says, twice, I want those kids back.
And he talks about those kids. He never says my kids or anything in the whole inter eight minute interview. So I thought that was kinda interesting too, like using the, the pronoun, the kind of analysis thing.
Mark: Yep. Yeah. Not using their names. Correct.
Zach: Okay, so we’ll, uh, we’ll move on. Maybe we’ll come back to another current event thing, uh, later.
But I wanted to move on to kind of some philosophical things about statement analysis. Uh, so one of the main concepts of statement analysis is that people don’t like to lie, so it pays to listen to them closely. [00:18:00] And, uh, you can break down these kinds of statements into. Uh, two main categories, the kinds of statements from, you know, interrogations and interviews and this kinds of, these kinds of things.
The two main categories to me are someone giving a history of things that occurred, like their, their version of events, their alibi, and then in the second category, they’re the actual denials of doing things like, I swear I didn’t set up that hoax, or I, I didn’t kill her. Things like that. So those can be very direct or in the case of guilty people often very indirect.
So I wanna talk about the first category a little bit. We, we can probably all understand that category because when guilty people give their version of events, there’s, there’re usually clues present because, you know, they’re afraid of slipping up. They don’t want to get caught in a lie. There’s a lot of mental load involved.
So they’re, you know, con uh, pretty frequently slipping up in those complicated storytelling, uh, you know. Endeavors, which kind of makes sense. You know, we’ve all tried to lie at some time and it’s takes a little [00:19:00] effort. Uh, the second category though, is more interesting to me because it’s the straightforward denials.
Uh, and you know, as you show in your work, there are many examples of people who don’t seem to be able to just come out and straight deny that they did something. You know, uh, they hedge and make ambiguous statements. They don’t just come out and say, I didn’t do it. And, uh, I, I just wondered if. If you’ve, over the years, have an idea for why it’s so hard for people, even people who have done horrible things, you know, murderers, why, why do they find it so hard to deny things in a straightforward manner?
Mark: Well, I think most people are raised that, you know, a lying is wrong. You should always tell the truth. So that factors into it. Uh, people know when they tell a lie, it causes stress. That stress can, uh, be manifested in the form of a body movement. And so, or even with a polygraph, it detects, you know, uh, a, uh, they’re perspiring more.
They have an increased heart rate. And so they’re afraid if they tell a lie that their body language may reveal the fact [00:20:00] that they’re lying. And then sometimes it’s hard to keep track of lies, you know, when it’s coming from the truth, when it’s the truth coming from memory. You can always recall what you just said, you know, previously ’cause it’s all there.
But when you’re telling a lie, you don’t have that memory to rely upon. And so they may forgot what they said just, you know, 10 minutes ago and they’re, they don’t want to contradict themselves. And then in like an interview setting, um, the subject doesn’t know what the interviewer knows and if, if the subject.
Tell us a lie, and the interviewer knows it’s a lie. Well then he just dug his grave, so to speak, a little bit deeper. So the safest way for people to play it, especially in an open statement. And by that I mean where they can say anything they want. You know, tell us what happened. Tell us what you did.
Very rarely will people lie. Now we’ll skip over Eric. They don’t wanna talk about, we can identify that. But this statement itself is probably a truthful statement. But even with, as you mentioned with direct answers, direct, uh, you know, specific questions. People still [00:21:00] sometimes won’t come out and say, I didn’t do it, or I didn’t hit her, or I didn’t take the money.
They won’t give a specific denial. They’ll just kind of, uh, allude to it and, and hoping you’ll believe they didn’t do it. And I think it’s because of some of those reasons that they just, um, don’t wanna lie. They know they could get caught in a lie. And so they, they just try to give, uh, the impression. Now, every once in a while somebody will tell, um, like in an open statement, will tell a lie, but then they’ll end up.
You know, softening the lie a little bit. Um, the, the DC sniper, John Al Muhammad, uh, represented himself in court, sent his opening statement to the jury. He told the jurors that the evidence will show that I had nothing to do with these crimes. Well, again, the best denial is to deny, deny, to deny the act itself.
The best denial would’ve been to tell the jury that owns a show. I didn’t do it, or I wasn’t a shooter. He just used a general phrase I had nothing to do with. Now, he was convicted of being a DC sniper, so he did do it. That’s a lie, but he [00:22:00] softens a lie. It’s hard for him to tell a direct lie even when his life is on the line, and it’s hard for him to say, you know, I didn’t do it.
So use the phrase I had nothing to do with.
Zach: Right. It’s just so, it is just so kind of mind boggling because you’d think if somebody was, you know, one had killed someone and was under a lot of stress already, that you would think those kinds of straight denials would be the easiest part of their, you know, uh, the, the things they’re doing.
You know, just saying like, I did not do this, but it, it just, it, it is just fascinating to me how. So many examples that it’s so hard to find those straightforward denials. You know, and, and your book, your books are, are full of those kinds of examples where people just, you know, hedge and yeah, it just, like you said, people are uncomfortable with lying, which, which makes sense.
But then you would think at some point your, your self, your, your survival instincts, uh, would, would kick in and you’d be like, okay, I’m just gonna make a. I’m just gonna straightforwardly lie, like what do I have to lose? So it’s just, it must really speak to how uncomfortable at some fundamental [00:23:00] emotional level people are with lying, I guess.
Mark: Yeah. And then even, you know, obviously every once in a while somebody will tell a direct lie and say, I didn’t do it, but their whole statement has to back that up. So they may tell, give a good denial, I didn’t do it. But then as you continue the interview, look at the rest of their statement, you’ll see other deceptive indicators.
Whereas with truthful people. You know, they’ll, there’ll usually be no deceptive indicators or maybe just one, and we would conclude that, you know, they are being truthful.
Zach: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Yeah. Uh, and I, one other thing I, I was thinking when I was reading your book most recently was, uh, one of the factors might be a little bit of pride for some of the, uh, people who’ve done bad things.
You know, like Timothy McVey, uh, springs to mind because when I was reading his interview, transcriptions it, you know, he, he, it felt like he. Probably had some pride in what he did because it was a cause he was behind and so he didn’t want to fully deny that he did it. You know? Do you think that was a factor, at least for him?
Mark: And that could be, uh, you could be right on the money there that [00:24:00] he, like you said, he was proud of what he did and so he didn’t wanna come out and say, I didn’t do it. Uh, he was asked, you know, did you do it? And he didn’t say no.
Zach: Right. He had many, many opportunities
Mark: because. In a sense, he wants people to know that he’s responsible for it.
You know, that was the whole gist of that.
Zach: And, uh, getting back to those, uh, getting back to those really actually modifiers. Like when someone says, I didn’t do it, honest to God or whatever, uh, I know those are, you know, only slight modifiers and, and don’t always point to deception. But I was, I was wondering what if you had an opinion about what it was about those kinds of, uh, statements, uh, that make it.
That, that make a guilty person more likely to use them. You know, the, like, it seems, it seems like a trivial difference between saying I didn’t kill ’em and saying, honest to God I didn’t kill ’em. But the, you know, the guilty person’s more likely to throw in those, those modifiers. And I just wondered what [00:25:00] is it about those that kind of hedge their statement a little bit or make it safer for them to, to say that in their, in their minds.
Mark: Well, I think it’s because they know they did it and they want to tell you they didn’t do it. But because they know they did it, they feel like they gotta add more to their denial instead of just saying, I didn’t do it. As you point out, they may say, I swear to God, I didn’t do it. To try to convince you that they’re being truthful or, or as a truthful person will just say, I didn’t do it.
Now if you challenge them. You know, come on. You know, you were there and they’re being truthful. They sense that you don’t believe ’em. Well then that may cause them to later say, you know, I swear to God I didn’t do it. ’cause once they sense that you don’t believe them, maybe they feel like they have to add these words or phrases.
And that’s why I tell people, you know, it’s something to definitely look for. But it’s, you know, it’s 50 50 depending on which phrases we’re talking about and, and how they’re being used. Like with the word really, you know, the word really. Um. Indicates possible deception. But again, if we’re talking [00:26:00] about pain, we have different pain tolerances that hurts versus that really hurts.
Well that really hurts. It’s acceptable. It probably means it’s more painful than that hurts. But when a person says, you know, I really can’t pay any more than this. There’s a very good chance you probably could pay a little bit more.
Zach: Hmm. Yeah. One of my favorite, uh, se parts of your first book was you talked about, uh, OJ Simpson saying he was a hundred percent innocent in his, I think either in his book or as a, a statement.
And then later in his book, he says he bel he believed in, uh, Nicole’s ability as a mother 1000%. You know, so just the, the difference between the 100%. His own own innocence and that the thousand percent competency had in, in Nicole. I, I just thought that was a, a really interesting, uh, yeah, based
Mark: on that scale, he’s 900% guilty and only 100% percent.
Right. Yeah. I mean, you know, obviously numbers go on forever, so people have different scales and, and we don’t know what scale he was [00:27:00] using.
Zach: I think it’s, I think it’s interesting because it, it kind of shows maybe the value that some, some people see in those kind of modifiers because it’s kind of like watering down the, uh, the statement a little bit.
You know, it’s like even if you’re using like, you know, honest to God or whatever, it’s just kind of like throwing more, almost like an instinct to just throw more material into your. Into your denial to just like muddy the waters in some way. Like, ’cause there’s always, you know, like for example, somebody says, honest to God, like if they don’t believe in God, like maybe in their mind they’re not lying or something, you know, like just throwing in these extra.
Extra levels of meaning that could kind of detract from the straightforward denial, I don’t know.
Mark: Yep. That’s the kind, that’s the kind of word games that people play. You know, like he pointed out, if they don’t believe in God, then it’s easy for ’em to say honest to God. ’cause it doesn’t mean too much to them.
Zach: Yeah. I think it’s interesting how people, you know, instinctually find these solutions. You know, it’s not like I, I don’t think, correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t, I don’t think a lot of these people are like, actively in their [00:28:00] minds, you know, uh, thinking of, uh. Really good deceptive ways to speak. It’s, they’re just finding natural instinctual ways to avoid telling the truth.
So they find these indirect ways. Um, you know, I’m, I’m thinking it from the, from the, uh, DJ hoax. Video when, uh, you know, he, he speaks, they speak in very, uh, ambiguous and indirect ways and use different pronouns. But I don’t, I don’t think that’s, that’s not like, uh, a purposeful deceptive act on their part.
They’re probably kind of speaking a little bit off the cuff, but it, it’s a natural, it, it forms those deceptive, uh, patterns naturally for them just out of. Solving the problem of how to lie. Well,
Mark: right. I, I agree. They, they’re not purposely thinking, well, I’m gonna use the pronoun you. It’s just in their mind, it’s hard for ’em to say, you know, these are lines that I wouldn’t cross ’cause I did cross ’em.
So they unknowingly use the pronoun you, and that’s the key there. It’s unknowingly, you know, they’re speaking a certain way and that’s what allows us to, [00:29:00] to determine they’re being deceptive.
Zach: In, uh, in my poker book, verbal Poker Tales, I I, after looking at a lot of footage and taking a lot of notes, one of my big findings was, you know, similar to statement analysis, it was people do not poker, players don’t like to lie, uh, during a hand, you know, as long as there’s a potential for a hand, their hand is still be exposed.
Most poker players don’t like to tell lies. They may speak in indirect. You know, ambiguous language, sort of like we’ve been talking about, but they don’t like to just directly lie and say, you know, I have whatever. Um, I mean, one, one reason for that is, you know, they don’t want to be, uh, perceived as a liar, uh, by the people.
They’re, they’re nearby. But I think, uh, another. Another factor there that doesn’t really apply to real life situations is that in competitive situations like poker, you kind of assume that people are going to be lying to you. So it, uh, it, you know, it makes, it makes direct statements less likely to, so, uh, yeah.
Anyway, just I was, I just wanted to [00:30:00] make that, uh. Analogy to poker there, because I think a lot of, a lot of people assume that poker players are often lying during a hand, but as it turns out, you know, when someone tell, makes a direct statement in poker, you should actually listen to it because there’s usually, uh, a lot of truth there and you just need to figure out what they’re, what they’re actually telling you.
Uh, okay, so moving on, let’s talk about, uh, some applications. Of this, of this kind of, uh, work you do. Uh, let’s see. What, what are some of the main applications and jobs that, that you’ve worked on? I, I know that, I know that this kind of work is probably not likely to be admissible in court. Is that correct?
Mark: Well, actually a lot of techniques are admissible in court because they’re, they’re based on the English language. Um, now, like, like we just discussed, you know, saying, I, I swear to God, honest to God. Oh, he’s lying. That, that wouldn’t fly in court. But, but you know, pronouns, [00:31:00] um, are what they are. Um, you had, uh, David Westerfield out in, uh, San Diego, California years ago who, uh, was convicted of killing Danielle Van Dam.
He had kidnapped her on a Friday night and then. Left in his RV and he claimed he was driving, driving around the Southern California countryside for the weekend by himself. And then when he came back on Monday, he found the neighborhoods all up in arms ’cause Danielle is missing. So that’s when the police interviewed him.
But when they asked him about this, you know, excursion that he went on at one point he used the pronoun we
Zach: Oh, right, I heard this. Which,
Mark: which absolutely tells us that somebody else is with you. I mean it’s, we know we is a plural pronoun, but yet throughout this lengthy interview, he insisted he was by himself.
Mm-hmm. And so, uh, they eventually found her body and forensically, they could place her in his rv and linguistically we could place somebody in his rv. That being Danielle. Now they, the detectives picked up on that and confront him on his language. And at this point you’re hoping to get a confession. [00:32:00] Uh, but he didn’t confess.
I don’t know if that was used in court, but I see no reason why you couldn’t use that in court, that as long as everything was legitimate, as far as the interview goes, that he. Use the pronoun we, mm, that we are at this little place because, uh, that’s admissible. Everybody knows we is a plural pronoun, yet he was insisting he was by himself.
And then like with Verb Tenses, you had the, uh, again, out in San Diego, uh, I think it was in 2010, the, uh, McStay family disappeared. Joseph McStay and his wife and two kids, their car was found near the Mexican border. Speculation. They’d walked in the Mexico and, and didn’t come back. Well, a couple days after they reported missing, the police interviewed, uh, Joseph McStay business partner, uh, Charles Merritt, and Merrit told the police, uh, Joseph was my best friend.
I. Well, he used the past tense woods. It should be, Joseph is my best friend. We gotta find him. Well, eventually, several years later, they found their bodies in in some shallow [00:33:00] graves, and they charged merit with their murders. And it still hasn’t gone to trial yet. I. But in their affidavit for his arrest warrant, they used the fact that he talked about their family members in the past tense prior to them, their bodies being discovered.
Oh, interesting. ’cause again, that’s a strong indication that he knows something that we don’t know. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. And so, yeah, there are some applications where it can be used in legal proceedings or in the courtroom. Unfortunately, even with prosecutors or even defense attorneys, uh, it just goes unnoticed.
Um, when a, a witness testifies a certain way.
Zach: Mm-hmm. Are you ever called to be an expert in court cases?
Mark: I, I get that question asked a lot, and I usually talk myself out of it because again, I tell them, you don’t need me as an expert to testify that when a person said, uh, well, I, I tried to be truthful, which is what Bill Clinton said, uh, the word tried means I didn’t do it.
Mm-hmm. Hey, I attempted but failed. Uh. You don’t need an expert to testify that you need me there to point out what he’s saying, which is how I help, uh, attorneys and, and [00:34:00] investigators. But, you know, I can’t testify to, like I said, if somebody says, I swear to God, that means they’re being deceptive ’cause that’s not gonna fly.
But since the rest of it’s, I. Most of it’s based on the English language. You just need me there to point out what the person is saying. So I only was asked to testify one time and I, I showed up, but then eventually there was a, a plea agreement was reached. It was, it was a case of he said, she said. But like I said, most of the time you don’t need an expert to, to testify.
And it can, again, I’ve seen it used in the courtroom, but it’s the attorneys have to pick up on the language.
Zach: Yeah. It seems like you’d be really valuable to just be in the courtroom listening to, you know, witnesses as they talk about things and, you know, giving your notes to the, to the lawyers. I, I would just think that would be really valuable, you know?
Uh. At the very least, uh, you know, just, just cover bases of maybe, we’ll, maybe we’ll see. Interesting things to ask. You know, down the, down the line, what other, what [00:35:00] other things do you work on? I know you do some live training. Uh, what are your, what are your, what is your schedule like these days for statement analysis related things?
Mark: I usually go out about every other month for a couple weeks and conduct, uh, three or four seminars just traveling around the country. There are one day seminars. Most of them are open seminars. Anybody can attend. Uh, obviously with my background, most of my audience is law enforcement, but I, I get human resources personnel that will attend, uh, loss prevention officers, private investigators, anybody who does interviews obviously would benefit from the training.
So that keeps me pretty busy conducting the, uh, the seminars. And then I, I have investigators send me statements, uh, to look at and, and give them. My opinion, is this guy being truthful or is he being deceptive? And I try to provide errors if I, if I think they are being deceptive. These are certain areas you should ask about.
I think this is where he is withholding information. [00:36:00]
Zach: Yeah, I would think, uh, I would think for law enforcement, I mean, I, I would hope that they value your kind of training much more than they would value, like nonverbal behavioral or physical behavior stuff. I, I would just think my opinion would be that, you know, verbal analysis would be so much more productive and than, uh, studying.
Behavioral, uh, physical behavior. Do, do you think that’s the case? Do you think that’s generally more respected? Um, the, the, the statement analysis,
Mark: well, the body language, the nonverbal has been around for a long time and so there’s lots of people who, who teach, uh, nonverbal communication and there’s a lot to be gained from that.
Uh, linguistic analysis. There’s not as many people, uh, teaching that, but, and so, but what I tell people is, um, you should focus on the language. I mean, pick up on any obvious nonverbal gestures a person may display, you know, at some point in the interview, they, they cross their arms, they lean back in their chair.
While that’s an indication, [00:37:00] they’re a little closed off, maybe trying to get away from you, but don’t focus on the non verbs. If you’re watching their hands and their eyes, which way are they looking? I. You’re probably not listening to what they’re saying, right? And everything you need to know is gonna be in that statement.
Right now, I tell people, now, sometimes people ask me, what if a body language says one thing and the language says something else? And I say, well, you go with the language. But what you’ll find, I. Is that they won’t contradict each other. I mean, I’ve seen cases where people said, well, his body language says he is lying, but the language says he is telling the truth.
And I say, no, the language indicates he’s lying as well if you listen to what he’s saying. So usually they’ll match up. I mean, if the guy’s being deceptive, it’s gonna pop up several different ways throughout his statement and probably several different ways throughout his, uh, nonverbal gestures.
Zach: Mm-hmm.
Yeah, I, I would just think this, this kind of knowledge would be so helpful for, for, uh, you know, people doing interrogations and I would just hope that. A lot of, a lot of police would, would get this kind of training. It just, you know, it just makes them [00:38:00] better listeners and, you know, they’ll, they’ll miss less, less clues, you know, and yeah, I just, I just hope more people are, uh, more law enforcement, get this training.
I, I think it’s important.
Mark: Yeah. One of the biggest comments I get, you know, when I’m done giving a seminar is that, you know, as people are leaving, they tell me, I wish I had this, you know, 20 years ago.
Zach: Mm-hmm.
Mark: You know, and I was the same way when I was out in the field. I wish, uh, yeah, I knew this too. It just, it just does, makes you a better interviewer,
Zach: right?
I mean, yeah, for example, like, I was just watching that Chris Watts video, and if I hadn’t been paying attention, like I was specifically paying attention because I was gonna be interviewing you today. But if I, if I had just let it kind of, you know, flow over me and not listen to it carefully, it would’ve just, those things would’ve just passed by without, without comment.
And I think it’s just a good example of, you know, uh. You gotta be, you gotta be tuned in for. For, uh, serious things that pays to be tuned in.
Mark: And that’s what I tell people when, when you’re in an interview setting, you have to turn it on. Mm-hmm. You listen [00:39:00] to every word that person says when you’re with a friend, a colleague having a conversation.
I mean, we’re, we participate in a conversation, but we’re not hinged on every word they say. We’re thinking about, what am I gonna have for lunch today? You know, what am I doing this weekend? Mm-hmm. In an interview setting. No, you gotta focus on. Everything that person tells you. ’cause sometimes it’s only one word that gives it away, but fortunately, if they’re being deceptive, it’s gonna pop up some different ways, uh, throughout their statement.
Zach: Mm-hmm. Yeah. Getting, getting back to that per personal, uh, social aspects. You had talked a little bit in your first book about how, uh, you know, being, being, uh, perceptive about these kinds of things can rub your, uh, you know, friends and family members the wrong way that ’cause you’re, you’re analyzing their statements and using that to.
Make decisions, uh, have you learned to kind of turn that off in your, uh, in your day-to-day life? Outside of, outside of work?
Mark: Yeah. That’s what you do. Like I said, you don’t hinge on every word a person’s saying when you’re just talking to a friend, but as I tell them in my seminars, I’m gonna give you some things that [00:40:00] you’ll never forget.
And even if you’re talking to a colleague, they may use a certain word and that light bulb in your head suddenly goes off. Well, well, how do you handle that? Well, again, we realize that sometimes there are indications of deception. That’s why we’re looking for several indications and it, and with a suspect.
You’ll probably get those several indications if they’re being deceptive with a friend. It may just be one word and that’s it. Nothing else indicates deception. Mm-hmm. In an interview setting, you’re gonna ask follow-up questions to determine are they being truthful or deceptive? Are they, you know, skipping over something here, you’re talking to a friend, you’re not gonna ask follow-up questions.
Zach: Yeah. Hopefully not.
Mark: No. So it’s just, it goes, it goes in one ear and out the other. In a situation like that, that’s one way you can kind of handle that.
Zach: Right. I, I feel like there’s a natural, you know, there’s a natural tendency to not use that stuff with, in social situations, even if you have that ability.
It just, it’s kind of a politeness factor. Like you don’t, it’s the same reason you don’t like spy on people when they’re talking. You know, you just, you don’t, you don’t want to do that to people in, in social situations. [00:41:00] Even if you were able to listen and parse their. Conversation, uh, that, that’s how I feel anyway.
It’s like I kind, you kind of wanna turn that off and be polite.
Mark: Ab Absolutely. Or else nobody would talk to you once they think you’re doing
Zach: right. Actually, my first, uh, interview that I did on this podcast, you’re the second person I’ve talked to, but the first, uh. Person I interviewed was a comedian talking about how he used, uh, you know, uh, parsing language and, and body language.
And he talked about how he could tell when friends were, you know, bored or bothered by something he was saying. And he would like, he had learned to not reference that stuff because it bothered them so much that he would like be parsing their, their language and what they were feeling during, uh, you know, his, during him talking.
So I thought that was an interesting tie in there.
Mark: Oh yeah. When, uh, if I meet somebody for the first time and we’re just having a conversation, they ask me what I do. You know, I tell ’em, you know, I’m a retired US marshal, but I tell them that I conduct, uh, [00:42:00] training on interviewing techniques, but I don’t say, I conduct training on how to tell somebody’s lying because again, all of a sudden people’s guards suddenly go up.
Right. You know, so I just label as interviewing techniques, which is true. That’s what we’re doing. Uhhuh.
Zach: Yeah, you, yeah. Sets, sets them on guard for sure, I’m sure. Uh, so, uh, do you feel, have you feel your, uh, skills at this have progressed over the years? Do you feel like you maxed out or near maxed out in skills somewhere along the line?
Or has it been a continual progression of improvement, would you say?
Mark: Yeah, it’s a continual progression of improvement. Um, when I first. Took several courses in linguistic analysis. It was eye-opening for me. I learned a lot. And then over the years doing my own studies, discovered more, uh, deceptive language that people like to use.
And, and I su suspect 10 years from now there’ll be, you know, some more, uh, words or phrases that will, will pop up. And so it’s, it’s a continual thing. I mean, I’m. When I first got into law form, [00:43:00] it was probably like, like most people, not the best listener, um, but by, you know, doing the training, teaching a lot of people, doing the studies, it it gets, it gets me to be a better listener now when I’m doing an interview or watching an interview, you know, on television.
Zach: Do you feel it’s something you were naturally good at before, uh, I guess you already answered that you were, you were average at it?
Mark: Yeah. No, I, I don’t think, uh, I mean’s obviously some people are better listeners than others. I. But I don’t think in terms of picking up on exactly what a person’s telling you, I mean, it’s more, I think of an acquired trait.
Once you’re told, listen for this, then you start to realize, yeah, that does show up a lot in, in deceptive statements.
Zach: Mm-hmm. Okay. Uh, I guess we have a little bit more time than I thought. Uh, if you’re okay for time, uh, we can talk about maybe another current event thing that pops in your mind. Uh, did you have anything else?
Mark: Um, the one that’s been in the news off and on. Uh, Steven Avery. [00:44:00]
Zach: Mm-hmm.
Mark: In 2015, Netflix released their documentary, uh, making a Murder. And Steven, uh, it had to do with, uh, Theresa Halach up in Wisconsin. She was a photographer for the Autotrader Magazine was last seen at the Avery’s auto salvage yard.
Talking to Steven Avery. She was there to take a picture of, uh, I believe it was a minivan that they were gonna sell through the magazine. She had been there other times taking pictures of other cars that they sold through the magazine and Netflix. Avery was convicted of her murder, uh, and sent to prison, but some people felt that the police framed him, and that’s because in 1985, he was wrongfully convicted of a sexual assault case spent, I think it was 18 years in prison before DNA exonerated him.
Mm-hmm. So he got a bad rap and he was suing the county. And I think that’s why some people felt that, well, maybe the police framed him. ’cause now he’s suing the county for mis imprisonment or whatever the title might [00:45:00] be for that. And the documentary by Netflix leans in that direction. I. Well, a couple days after Halach disappeared, a reporter interviewed Steven Avery and the reporter asked Steven Avery, did she mention any, any other appointments that day or anything like that, you know, trying to track, uh, halach, uh, whereabouts, and Avery replied, I don’t think so.
’cause most of the time she takes a picture, then she writes down the serial number, then she comes and collects the money, and that’s about it. And again, that’s a truthful statement. But the key words is, he said, I don’t think so, because most of the time, Hmm. And he is right. Most of the time that she was there.
That’s exactly what she did. But he couldn’t say that. She took a picture, wrote down the serial number, you know, collected the money, and, and left because she never left those premises. Hmm. And they had found. I think her car keys and his trailer, which sits on the property, they found her cell phone and a burn barrel next to his trailer.
They found parts of her bones and a burn pit [00:46:00] behind his trailer, and that’s why he was convicted. But again, a good reporter, a good interview would realize, well, you just told me what she did most of the time. Mm-hmm. Of course. I’m asking you, what did she just do, you know, two nights ago? Mm-hmm. When, when you, when she was at your, uh, at your, uh, business.
Mm-hmm. And so that’s that to me, as soon as I heard that was a big red flag that, uh, no, he had something to do with her disappearance. I mean, no doubt in my mind, based on other statements that he, uh, had killed Theresa Halach.
Zach: Yeah. That was, uh, surprising how many people seemed to assume that he was innocent from watching that documentary, because I know the documentary didn’t include a lot of incriminating things.
I’ve, I’ve read the list of incriminating things that they didn’t include, and I, I was really surprised by how many people were. Basically, you know, um, completely took the side of Avery for that, for that second crime, for that murder. Uh, when, to me, even watching the documentary, I was, I had a lot of questions.
I was like, this, uh, you could, you could simultaneously see that he didn’t commit the [00:47:00] first crime and yet find it probable that he committed the murder. Uh, and that was before I even realized all the information that they left out of the documentary, which was a lot of incriminating stuff. So, uh. Yeah. So that’s a, that’s an interesting one.
Have to look for that interview. I hadn’t, I hadn’t seen that. Uh, I’d like to see an interview of him about that.
Mark: And I think they were working on a, a second documentary, but I haven’t seen if that’s out yet or not. Hmm.
Zach: Okay. Uh, so if people were interested in, uh, learning more about your work, reading your work, what would you recommend them to do?
Where would they go?
Mark: Uh, I go to my website, it’s statement analysis.com. And, um, you had mentioned, you know, the two books I’d written. They’re, they’re available through my website as well as amazon.com. Uh, I know you’re aligned and, and don’t be deceived. If you go to my website, uh, you’ll see I have some on demand training.
It’s the same information I share in my one day seminars. And so you can also look at my seminars page, see where I’ll be if I’m gonna be in, [00:48:00] in your, in your area. But if not, you can take the on demand training and it’s, uh, it’s equivalent to seven to eight hours of training. Uh, certificate of completion when you, you complete it, there are some, a short quiz at the end of each lesson.
You know, it’s an open book test, uh, but to make sure people just don’t whiz through it. And then at the end, there’s a final test statement. People analyze. I have them send me their analysis and I give ’em some feedback on, on how well they’re doing. I also have a famous cases page on my website. Anything I see in the news of national interest, if I can get ahold of a transcript, I’ll analyze it and, and post my analysis of that case.
Uh, there’s probably over 40 cases on there right now, and so it’s a good way to, to pick up on some additional techniques, uh, that might not be in the books. ’cause anything I see in those statements, I will put it on the website there. So a lot, a lot of people find that interesting reading those, uh, case analysis.
Zach: Right? Yeah. I’ll have to check that out. I, I had missed that, that [00:49:00] section. Uh, yeah, that sounds great. Any, any other plans for, uh, other books in the works or any other big projects?
Mark: Uh, no other books. I think the two books pretty much, uh, sum it up. Uh. Writing a book is hard. You gotta be very detailed. I mean, speaking is a lot easier.
I think I’d rather speak for a week than, than, than write another book. Um, but I, yeah, I’m
Zach: kind of, I’m burning, I’m burning on the books myself.
Mark: Yeah. You know how it is. Uh, but I plan to put some, uh, YouTube videos out, perhaps, uh, series on, uh, statement analysis, just very short videos, things to look for in a statement, some of the things we talked about, and some additional techniques as well.
I’m hoping to do that in the near future.
Zach: Gotcha. Okay. Well thanks a lot for coming on, mark. It was great and educational to talk to you and, uh, it’s, this has been Mark ish, everyone, and that’ll do it. Thanks.