Parroting

/in , , /by

You know what parroting a sentence is, right? It’s when someone repeats back to you exactly what they’ve just heard.

People usually do it for three well-known reasons: (a) because they didn’t hear you right the first time, and they want to be sure they heard you correctly. And when someone doesn’t hear something, they usually indicate that fact before repeating the comment or question in order to get the attention of the other person to ensure they hear it correctly the second time. Or (b) they consciously decided to use this technique in a personal relationship to improve listening and communication skills (but this is relationship-specific). Or (c) they don’t believe what you are saying to be true. They doubt you, question the stated facts, etc., so they parrot back what you said in the form of a question.

Most people are familiar with these reasons.

But few people realize that people also parrot things back when they don’t want to hear the response they got, or because they want to deny the truth.

It’s quite fascinating.

For example, if you question a robbery suspect and say to him: Did you break into the hardware store the other night? Aren’t these your gloves? Oftentimes a liar will parrot back to the investigator: “Did I break into the hardware store the other night? Are those my gloves?” At which time, the suspect may sit and think. The thinking is clearly visible to anyone.

The robbery suspect precisely repeats the question so that he has time to think through his answer. The robber isn’t consciously stalling for time—he just doesn’t know what to say, and so he naturally just repeats the question. Also, the suspect never asks for clarification due to lack of hearing.

More often than not, the parroting individual will look confused, act like he doesn’t understand the question as he repeats it, and will stammer for words when trying to come up with an answer. He may even repeat the question multiple times. After all, the suspect is confused. He didn’t anticipate this question, and he has no idea what to say! In this example, it is a hint that someone could be deceptive.

Why is that? The truth comes naturally and flows—fiction takes time to create. And unless the question is complex, there is no excuse for confusion or a lack of understanding when parroting back a simple question like “Are these your gloves?” An honest answer doesn’t require much thought, unless of course the question is complex.

You may also encounter people who parrot when they don’t like the answer you gave them. Parroting doesn’t have to involve a lie. It could be simple displeasure to your response.

For example, if a friend asks you if you want to go out, and you say, “Sure, I’d love to,” and as soon as you do, your friend parrots back, “You’d love to go out?” The key here is they have to put the question back at you, still in a question format. If they do, it’s an indication that they really don’t like your response, and perhaps didn’t really want to hear the answer to your question. It’s either that—or they are flat-out surprised that you want to go out. The content and response will indicate which it is. If they make a strong parrot back in the form of a statement instead of a question, that would indicate potential excitement that they are thrilled to go out! It’s rather tricky, isn’t it? In this scenario, the parroted response can have three meanings!

So, next time someone parrots information back at you, look at it closely: Did they not hear you? Or are they hiding something, not really liking what they’ve just heard, disbelieving you, surprised by your action…or, could they be fibbing?

Fun Times

/in /by

Since I’ve learned that I am a deception detection wizard, I have shared it with all of my friends. While I expected a few to disappear into the distance due to insecurities or secrets, and some have retreated — others have stood steadfast by me, excited and thrilled with the knowledge. I know they are my true friends, even if they are a little nervous about my abilities.

In the process, I’ve witness something really sweet. I will be sharing something with a friend (a lunch I cooked, cookies I made, homemade wine, etc) and I will innocently without thinking ask for an opinion. I will say…”When you take a bite, give me your opinion. What do you think? Do you like it? And its okay if you don’t like it. Feel free to tell me what you really think.”

Then as I am innocently waiting for them to try it and give me a response — not even thinking about lies –I see an expressions on their face, like uh-oh. How do I deal with this one? What if I don’t like it? How do I tell her without her seeing right through me?

I can see the person’s mind going, thinking through how to handle the situation. I wish I was prepared for these responses — because if I was — I would have broken the ice. Instead, they were offering an opinion as I was figuring out what was happening before me.

One friend was smart: This friend immediately passed on the goods to another person — and let this other person decide. It was clever, fast thinking and very sweet. This behavior told me that my friend(s) do value me, don’t want to lie even a polite acceptable lie. That was really dear to me! And the second friend who then gave an opinion, in this situation, stopped for a second, and then was open and honest — almost without thought. It was precious.

For me, I much prefer the honest answer — even if you don’t like something. That’s A-O K with me. Next time I know exactly what I need to do so I know you are happy. I hate trying to hit the mark, knowing I missed – yet I hear how lovely things are! I can’t improve then because while I will know you don’t like something — I won’t know why! Remember, I am not psychic.

Better yet, when you give me an honest critique, I might actually agree with you in the end — and learn something myself! I may get a whole new, refreshing perspective. I love to learn 🙂

P.S. Do know when I am casually having fun with friends, the last thing on my radar is if you are telling me a lie. Likely, unless it is a whopper, I won’t really care enough to take note 🙂

Reading People

/in /by

In order to see lies, you have to have the fundamental skill of understanding people: knowing what makes people tick, what makes them think and do what they do. I have always known, long before I knew I could see lies, that I understood people beyond what the average person could, innately — just lately I’ve started thinking about it more. I want to understand the degree to which I am unique.

Friday night, my husband and I were watching Crime & Punishment on MSNBC’s cable channel. For those of you not familiar with the show, it’s a type of documentary. In a one hour show, you are brought into a live courtroom trial. You are introduced to all the players and get to watch them throughout the trial. Often times, you get to see them talk and interact outside of the courtroom as well. I’m simply fascinated by it! I get to watch people which naturally is a big hobby of mine.

It was when I was watching an episode Friday night that I had a light bulb moment. My light bulb moment was this: When I see a new person — a stranger — I immediately have a framework for who they are — almost without thought. The way they dress, the way they carry themselves instantly gives me a frame of who they are even before any words are spoken.

I always knew I saw more than the average person when I heard a stranger say a few sentences, but I didn’t realize I see plenty before any words are spoken.

Then as stranger’s talk, they paint an elaborate picture for me (figuratively) that builds on my initial framework and in a very short time (a couple of minutes), I can tell you heaps about a person. The amount of information I can tell you often stuns people. That’s when people often suspect I am psychic (Arrrrgh! You know I am not). My talent lies in observation and understanding of human nature: pure and simple. It’s that basic.

Anyway, on Friday night, while watching the show, I stopped the tape and asked my husband what he could tell me about the two attorneys before him — the prosecutor and the defense attorney. I could discern so much from how they dressed, how they carried themselves, how they felt about the world around them, but could he? Could he see even a little of what I saw? After all, my husband is a very intelligent man. When it comes to math and science, I’m handicapped compared to him. In those areas, he’s my wizard!

Since my people-reading skills are the baseline skill to my ability to read lies, I was curious to know what my husband sees — as he represents an intelligent normal person.

I asked my husband if he gets an initial framework when he meets someone, or if he read into a person’s personality from minimal responses — and he confirmed it for me: when he looks at someone new, a stranger, he sees a blank slate. He doesn’t see what I see. Furthermore, he said when someone starts talking, he takes everything they say at face value — exactly as I had come to suspect.

Naturally, I don’t. I want to stress that I am this way because this is how I was born. I was not taught how to “read” people. I did not consciously sit down and study people. I just realized one day that I was different — that I understood people — and this is just part of it.

How about you? Do you get a framework, and then an elaborate painting like I do when you meet a stranger? Or do you see things at face value, like my husband?

Fast forward to dinner on Saturday night. Saturday night was my husband’s birthday — so my family all went out to dinner to celebrate. At the restaurant, my mom and I were talking about my light bulb moment on Friday. My mom sees it exactly as I do. My dad, however, confirmed that he doesn’t see what “we” see. He sees it like my husband.

With that, my mom and I took note of our waiter. We started talking about him. He was bright-eyed and quick. His service was exceptional. He was friendly. He was tall and clean-cut. He was well dressed. He was confident in how he carried himself. He had the mannerisms of someone who will succeed in life. In these few clues, you can derive a lot of information — without any words being spoken.

As the waiter took our order, I watched him. But it was when the waiter was picking up the plates from our appetizer when my mom said, “Boy, that was a lot of food — and we ate it all! Do you offer any free exercise plan with this?”

The waiter laughed, and said, “Yes, actually we do. We offer complimentary laps around the restaurant. We just ask that you go clockwise until you hear the whistle. When the whistle blows, change directions, please.”

My mom laughed, and said, “Do you provide tennis shoes too?” and the waiter said, “No, our preference is that you go barefoot.”

We all laughed and the waiter went on his way. His sense of humor showed that he was a quick thinker on his feet, and that he had excellent communication skills. Furthermore, his sense of humor validated the fact that he was a secure and confident individual. You could also discern that he knew how to put people at ease.

I volunteered to my family that I suspected this young man was working this job part-time in the evening for the money — but that he had full-time career during the day or was still studying at the college level. My mom and I both bantered back and forth about how this young man was going to be successful one day. He had what it takes to get ahead. It was clear for my mom and I to see — based on simple observations. We enjoyed conjecturing about this man.

My mom then wondered if he had gone to college. After we finished dinner, got up to leave and put on our coats, my mom said, “I’ve got to tell this guy if he hasn’t gone to college — he needs to. It will open doors for him!” As she started to approach the waiter, I tried to reach for her but I missed. I wanted to say to my mom that he may have already graduated from the looks of his age (perhaps 21) — but my mom was out of grasp.

When she approached the waiter, and told him he needed to go to college because he had a bright future, the waiter responded back that he had just graduated, and that this was only a part-time job. He explained he was working full-time during the day for a magazine — pursuing his career.

The guy beamed that my mom noticed him and complimented him.

It was thrilling for me to get the feedback that my observations and understanding of people can be so accurate. But naturally, they have to be for me to see lies as much as I do. Understanding people is my baseline skill — or rather an inborn ability — seeing lies is a tributary of it. It’s just who I am…

What do you see when you meet a stranger?

Liar’s Eyes

/in , , /by

Approximately once a week, I review my web log (Statcounter.com) to see who is stopping by (IP numbers only), what they are reading, where they come from, and what searches are bringing people to my blog.

I think that every week since the first week I started looking, I’ve seen people searching about liar’s eyes. This week Google brought me people searching for:

can the eyes lie
eyes that lie
lie detection eyes
eyes and lies
how we can detect a liar from his eyes?
lie eye look to right

I’ve even been asked by readers if someone can simply have “lying eyes”, as in “I just don’t trust Jon’s eyes.” (in general). To skip to the point, the answer is no—someone cannot have lying eyes. That actually makes my skin crawl.

Imagine being born with eyes that people distrust. You’d be very unfortunate. It’s not like you can change your eyes.

The next question then, naturally, is whether you can tell if someone is lying simply by their eyes alone?

In short, it is not likely.

Eyes are expressive, and they express mood. However, when someone shifts their eyes, it could be for a variety of reasons other than deception, including, but not limited to, a sign of distraction, boredom, preoccupation, nervousness, insecurity, fear, and amazingly, when they are recollecting something! Yes, when people recollect things, they look out into nowhere!

I’ve even read studies that say that liars are more apt to stare at your eyes when they lie than to look away. This completely concurs with what I’ve seen, statistically speaking. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that when someone stares at you when they tell you something, they are lying. It’s simply not that straightforward.

I, myself, would never call out a liar on eyes alone. I couldn’t do it in all fairness. I might notice shifting eyes or someone giving me a direct stare, but all that would do is prompt me observe the person a little closer. If nothing else alerted me as odd or unusual, I’d forget about it.

I’d forget about it!

Eyes can show excitement by a dilated pupil, and if this excitement is inconsistent with what the person is saying, that’s a red flag. In this situation, I’d ask myself: What could this person be excited about? I’d search for other potential causes that I might have missed. If I didn’t see anything, then I’d ask myself: What could they be excited about that perhaps they are trying to conceal? Last, I’d look to see if my answers fit my hypothesis. Sometimes they do, but sometimes they don’t. That’s about all you can glean from eyes.

Please, please, please—if you are judging someone by their eyes alone—stop!! You’d be much better off listening to what the person is saying. If the person’s behavior or story is out of character for them, ask yourself why? What would cause this person to react this way? Think of all the potential reasons for the behavior change—not just the one you think it is. Think through everything. Put yourself in the other person’s shoes.

If they are doing something, and you suspect it, check it out further for yourself before you accuse. Get the facts. It’s the facts when misrepresented that will lead the average person to a lie quicker than anything else!

John Ramsey Interview

/in , /by

Case Summary: John and Patsy Ramsey’s six year old little girl was reported missing by her mother. Eight hours later, her body was discovered in the family basement. While the Ramsey’s have declared their innocence, no suspect has been formally charged with the murder. Public opinion on the case varies. Some people believe there was an intruder. Others suspect the parents of foul play.
* * *

I have to say that part of my heart really goes out to John Ramsey. He has had a tragic life, full of pain, regardless of who killed his daughter. He lost another grown daughter in a car accident in 1992. He lost JonBenet to murder in 1996. And now, this past year, he lost Patsy Ramsey. That’s almost too much for a sane person to handle.

Yet when I watch John Ramsey speak, I get ill-at-ease. I don’t feel his words flow naturally. His emotions, behavior and actions don’t seem to be consistent with someone who is truly looking for the killer of their daughter.

If either John or Patsy Ramsey were in anyway involved in their daughter’s death, I do believe it was an accident — not premeditated.

Here are my thoughts from the 48 Hours interview that aired this past weekend:

  1. In the 911 call from Patsy Ramsey, she says, “Sir…we have a — there’s a note left and our daughter is gone.”

    I find this choice of words very strange. Also, who puts politeness first on a 911 abduction call? I also find the pauses troubling. If your daughter was missing, you’d likely say anything but “sir”, “we have a–there’s a note…” The last thing you would say is not that “our daughter is gone.” It would be the first thing you would say.

    Also, the pauses wouldn’t be there. The speech wouldn’t be so interrupted. It would flow– out of fear. More complete thoughts would come naturally. They might flow to together but they would be complete — not totally disjointed. Patsy’s thoughts were really broken up. It’s a red flag.

    Comment: (Added 4-13-2007). It has been brought to my attention that Patsy Ramsey didn’t say “Sir”. I stand corrected. I suspect what happened was that when I watched 48 Hours they started the audio mid-recording (after the address information) and with that, the first word I heard wasn’t a complete word, and I misheard it. I stand corrected.

  2. Throughout the interview with John Ramsey, he keeps smiling. It wasn’t a genuine, I’m- happy-smile. It wasn’t a nervous smile. It was a strange, deceptive smile. It was inappropriate in timing — almost as if the smile is expressing his true feelings — that he is so happy 48 Hours is doing this show because they are pointing the finger away from him. It’s like he is so thrilled with it, he can’t contain it. I find John Ramsey making this smile throughout the majority of his interview. It bothers me more than a little. There is no logical explanation for it.

    An innocent man would not be joyous thinking about finding the killer of their daughter. He would more than likely be mad at the whole scenario, tired of being treated so badly by the media that there would be hints of anger – a truly felt emotion — that would not flee in time upon reflection. There would be a desire to get resolve — to find the true killer – because it would be haunting to know that killer is still out there potentially killing other children. None of these emotions would make a true victim of such a heinous crime smile. So, when I don’t see any normal expressions — and I see expressions that are out of place — I’m on alert.

  3. John Ramsey says, “We should have just stood right up there in the beginning and said, ‘Okay, charge me.You think I’m guilty? Charge me, or clear me,'” John Ramsey says.

    I find this statement arrogant now — after the fact — when he knows they have nothing to charge him with at this point and time. He says this at a time when 48 Hours is focusing their efforts on the people who believe the Ramseys are innocent (Tracey, Smit, Demuth), when they show a DNA report that is supposed to (but doesn’t for me) remove suspicion from the Ramseys. It’s an easy time to be so smug — when all the fingers are pointing away from you!

    Tracey also clearly shows his bias on the show when he says something to the effect if the media can convict them (the Ramseys), then surely I can use the media to clear them! Tracey’s investigation is clearly biased.

  4. In Tracey’s British documentary of the case, Tracey asks the Ramseys…”Did you have anything to do with the death of JonBenet?” Watch John Ramsey’s face. He shakes his head up and down in a yes motion. Then he sighs.

    Don’t you find that perplexing??

    Then his conscious mind appears to kick in, and he shakes his head in a side to side “no” motion before he speaks…”That is the most difficult question I have ever been asked…ah…I would have given my life for JonBenet and I regret…I will regret…(he continues on)…

    What does Ramsey regret? Why does shake his head yes, at first and then no before he answers? Why the inconsistency? He does this again later on, too.

  5. During the same question from number 4 above, Patsy Ramsey says no, shakes her head no — consistently unlike John, yet then she smiles really oddly. The timing and behavior of her smile doesn’t fit. It isn’t consistent.

    If you were WRONGLY accused of killing your daughter, could you EVER smile when you talked about it? Ever? I think not. If you were trying to “play cool” and hide something, you might.

  6. Tracey says that in an e-mail Karr referred to Patsy’s mother by her nickname, Neddie. This got Tracey excited. John Ramsey says, “He referred to Patsy’s mother’s nickname: Neddie. And that was unusual that someone would know that. I went to a book that we’d written about it. To see if we ever mentioned that in the book. And we had not,” Ramsey recalls. “That added fuel to the fire in my mind.”

    I ask you — how would the killer find this out? Was it written on the walls of the house? How does that in any way link John Karr? I don’t make that connection. John Karr was obsessed with the Ramseys so he may have unearthed it at some point — but that doesn’t mean he killed JonBenet.

  7. It really disturbed me when John Ramsey said (about Karr) “He was so abused and vilified and convicted in the media that I started to feel sorry for the guy, which is a bizarre feeling,” Ramsey says. “Having been through what we went through, I was gonna be the last guy that leaped out there and said, ‘Aha! This is the guy!’”

    If you just potentially laid your eyes on someone who you believed might have killed your daughter — do you honestly think you’d feel sorry for the killer because the media harassed and accused him — after he made a public confession?

    I think not. I know not! A true victim would be mad, furious, hoping for justice — but would never feel sorry for the criminal –especially a criminal who could have killed his daughter and who confessed!!!

    This statement by John Ramsey is exceptionally scary!!! It’s inconsistent, out of place, and definitely, hands-down out of character for an innocent man. It is consistent with a man who knows who killed his daughter — and knows the killer isn’t running around out in the world somewhere. Then and only then would someone feel sympathy for Karr.

  8. 48 Hours goes on…”This was the biggest effort to find a suspect since really your daughter was killed,” Moriarty remarked to John Ramsey.

    “Oh yeah,” he agrees. And he acknowledges that he had his hopes up. “I mean I was grateful that the effort was going on and I was hopeful that this, in fact would be the conclusion.”

    Notice Ramsey’s grin. The timing is just odd. The pain of seeing a killer, or a potentially killer, would be immense. Most people whose daughter was killed, even recollecting the Karr situation, even when Karr was released — would still feel immense pain. Why isn’t John Ramsey feeling that pain??

  9. 48 Hours goes on… Moriarty asks John Ramsey…”John be honest. He’s obsessed with your daughter and your family. Are you at all concerned that he could show up here?”

    Ramsey shakes his head side-to-side as if he is saying no. Then he says “I” as he then moves his head in a yes motion. You can see his conscious thought kicking in… “The thought has gone through my mind, absolutely and you know that you can’t live your life in fear. But you know, we tend to be careful,” he replies.

  10. 48 Hours releases some of the tape of Karr talking about the murder of JonBenet. I find it interesting.

    Karr: She, of course, was asleep from the time that she was…that I took her from her bed and took her into the basement. Her first reaction was “Where am I?” And I said, “You’re in your basement.”

    Did you notice the searching for words? Also, when you listen to the words as Karr says them above — he speaks slow and methodical — as if he is thinking as he talks. When you tell a true story, it flows much more naturally. The speed and pitch of your voice is also more natural. It’s not slow and methodical, calculating.

    Then as Karr continues, notice the speed and pitch of his voice. It changes completely. It’s fast, and full of emotion — where before it was void of emotions. Why the change?

    (Karr) “She wasn’t in that room to be disgraced. I would never disgrace her or dishonor her. She was there temporarily. And what really hurts me is that she stayed there, and that’s where her father found her, and I couldn’t just…it’s just a horrible thing. “

    In the segment of speech from Karr above, I believe he talking about his true feelings. He thinks its a disgrace that her body was left there and he almost says “I couldn’t just”. Was he thinking, I couldn’t do that?

    (Later) Karr: No man could worship a pretty little girl more than this man does.

    Listen to the emotion, and emphasis in Karr’s voice. It’s strong, said with conviction and full of emotion. Yet when Karr talks about the crime, he is void. Why?

  11. Tracey says that it is odd that Karr is using the words “Listen carefully” as those words were in the ransom note. Really? Who on earth didn’t know about those words in the ransom note after the murder? Six years after the murder? And wouldn’t you expect a man who is obsessed with the JonBenet case to at least know the basics? The basics the media printed everywhere!?
  12. Tracey says the following about why he is motivated to follow this case for eight years, “I wasn’t doing this as a journalist, as a scholar, I was doing this as someone who is extremely concerned about what I was reading and extremely concerned about what might happen to some other kids.”

    I don’t find this to be true. If this is true, then how come Tracey didn’t get the police involved as soon as D/December Man/Daxis admitted that he knew who did it. And furthermore when Daxis said it was he, himself!? Instead, Tracey had no problem e-mailing him and then letting this man disappear for 18 months. Tracey’s behavior is inconsistent with what he is saying.

    Tracey was in contact with Karr for four years before he decided to go to the district attorney — before he started to worry. I find that haunting. If Karr truly was the killer — how many children could he have killed or molested in four years Tracey stayed in contact with him? I shudder at the numbers.

  13. 48 Hours basic premises for the show is that John Karr was not arrested for the crime because his DNA did not match to the crime scene. And ironic as it may be — the Ramseys also took a DNA test back in 1996 (or 1997) and were also not a match to the DNA yet no one knew. 48 Hours obtained the documents in manner they did not disclose.

    With that, 48 Hours hints, why was Karr let go — and the Ramseys are still under suspicion? Granted, the Department of Homeland Security is still investigating Karr.

    With that, I have to ask this:

    A) Why didn’t the Ramseys and their attorney bring up their DNA tests to the media and go all over town with it? They should have known they gave DNA samples, shouldn’t they? Weren’t they given the results?? If not, why didn’t they make a public outcry for them to be released…if they knew they were innocent. What did they have to hide? Let’s face it, as parents, they have every excuse to be present in DNA on JonBenet regardless. A positive match to DNA on JonBenet to her parents really tells us nothing.

    B). Just because JonBenet had DNA under her finger nails and in her underwear — doesn’t mean that DNA is the killer’s DNA, either. JonBenet was at a party with other children the night she was killed. It is not out of the question that she could have lightly scratched one of the children while playing and got DNA under her nails — where she could have further contaminated herself. While I am not saying that happened, it could happen. Correct?

    C). At some point, 48 Hours said that investigators were not sure if the DNA was the killers. If that’s the case, it should NOT be the main focus in the investigation to find the killers — should it?

    D). If I were the D.A. at this point, I would ask permission from the parents of the other children who were at the party to obtain their DNA to see if there is a match. Why not rule out self-contamination – childhood play, scratches — different explainable DNA? If there is, it ends this whole DNA fiasco. If it’s not, we are narrowing down the search.

With that, I don’t find anything new in this interview that clears the Ramseys. I do not believe Karr had anything to do with the murders.