The purpose of
this site is for information and a record of Gerry McCann's Blog
Archives. As most people will appreciate GM deleted all past blogs
from the official website. Hopefully this Archive will be helpful to
anyone who is interested in Justice for Madeleine Beth McCann. Many
Note: This site does not belong to the McCanns. It belongs to Pamalam. If
you wish to contact the McCanns directly, please use
the contact/email details
In the Kate Prout murder case, the failure of Mr Prout to pass
a Polygraph test led ultimately to his confession to the murder of his wife.
Back in September 2007 the McCanns,
as part of their PR 'fight back' against the action of the Portuguese police in making them arguidos, made it known
- albeit through the inevitable use of a proxy 'friend of the family'/'source' - that they would be willing
to take a lie detector test to clear their names.
"They have said all along that they want to co-operate fully
with the Portuguese police," the anonymous 'friend' stated, adding that they had "received no such request
from the Portuguese authorities".
Once the frantic headlines, such as 'McCANNS: WE'LL TAKE LIE TEST',
had been successfully embedded into the nation's newsstands, Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns spokesperson, stepped forward
to pour cold water on the idea. Principally on the grounds that such evidence was not admissible in a Portuguese court.
And there the matter lay...
Until November, of the same year, when a "shocked" Don Cargill, chairman
of the British And European Polygraph Association, spoke to the Sunday Express. He revealed that he had spoken to "the
McCanns' people", with regard to taking a lie detector test, and they had come back "with a list of conditions
that would have been impossible to satisfy".
Mr Cargill said: "Kate said she'd take it to prove her
innocence but in reality, she wasn't willing. I was dumbfounded, to tell the truth."
headlines, such as 'KATE REFUSES LIE TEST', were clearly unhelpful and so, as usual, Clarence Mitchell was afforded
the final word on the subject:
"Gerry and Kate don't need to do one as they are telling the truth."
Kate and Gerry McCann are willing to take a lie detector test to clear their names.
are desperate to refocus the hunt for daughter Madeleine, four, as the tide of suspicion against them recedes.
source said: "They're happy to do anything that will clear them.
"If they were asked to take a lie
test by police, they'd agree.
"They've said all along they want to co-operate." Kate and Gerry,
both 39, were named suspects two weeks ago. Police believe they may have accidentally overdosed Madeleine and hidden her body.
But after cruel and unfounded speculation the inquiry is turning in their favour.
Taking a lie test would
strengthen their position. Last night the McCanns gained further comfort when Portuguese prosecutor Luis Bilro Verao said
he had NOT ruled out other lines of inquiry.
Earlier he declared that no new evidence had emerged to justify questioning
them again or to change their bail conditions.
Meanwhile a prosecution source fuelled belief that the police case
was floundering by saying the inquiry had reached an "impasse phase". Together, the signs indicate a softening in
the Portuguese position, paving the way for an eventual "exit route" for the McCanns.
Clarence Mitchell said yesterday: "We see it as very encouraging.
"Kate and Gerry have nothing to hide.
They're innocent. But they're still suspects and we need to get that status lifted.
"The main thing
is Madeleine. She's still out there, possibly alive. Kate and Gerry feel the focus has been removed from the search or
for answers to what happened."
Madeleine vanished from her holiday villa in Praia da Luz, 141 days ago.
Yesterday her parents, of Rothley, Leics, met their London solicitor for six hours.
The couple also hired
another leading lawyer. Rogerio Alves, president of the Portuguese Bar, will work with Carlos Pinto de Abreu. He said: "I'm
delighted to help."
KATE and Gerry McCann are willing
to take a lie detector test to clear their names.
The couple are desperate to prove they had nothing to do with
the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine.
A source said last night: "If they were asked to take a lie
detector test by police, of course they would agree.
"Kate and Gerry are happy to do anything that will help
clear their names.
"They want to co-operate fully with the Portuguese police."
believe four-year-old Madeleine is alive and they want to re-focus the investigation on finding her.
or polygraph machines, are not used by British police and they are inadmissible in most European courts.
Portuguese law, the results can be used by defence lawyers during a criminal trial.
Two weeks ago, Kate and Gerry
were named as official suspects, or "arguidos" in Madeleine's disappearance.
Yesterday, they had
a six-hour meeting with lawyers in London.
The couple have hired top lawyers in Portugal and the UK to build a
strong defence against Portuguese allegations.
Portuguese police suspect that Madeleine was killed accidentally
and her body disposed of at a later date.
This week, the McCanns were told that Portuguese prosecutors had no
plans to re-interview them.
The couple's spokesman Clarence Mitchell said yesterday: "Kate and Gerry
are still arguidos and that needs to be lifted.
"That is the legal route - clear their names, get that status
"They'll then be able to talk again when they see fit.
"The main thing though
is, don't forget Madeleine. She is still out there, quite possibly still alive. They hope she is.
feel the focus has been removed from the search for her or the search for the answers to what has happened to their daughter.
"Kate and Gerry are very keen that this is seen as a co-operative exercise with the Portuguese authorities.
"If they need to go back at any stage - and that is still possible - they are happy to do that."
Glasgow-born heart surgeon Gerry and GP Kate, both 39, have always been convinced that Madeleine is alive and they
are becoming more confident of that as time goes on.
It is now 141 days since she disappeared from the family's
holiday flat in Praia da Luz.
Friends say Kate and Gerry, of Rothley, Leicestershire, believe if their daughter
had been killed, her body would have been found.
A source close to the family said: "On the face of it, it
is an amazing way of thinking about things. But then again, there is some logic to it.
"Had Madeleine been
killed soon after she disappeared, you would have expected her body to be found by now. Similarly, if her body had been taken
further away and dumped at sea, then surely a body would have washed up somewhere by now.
"In any case, Gerry
and Kate need something to get them through their days and they are holding on to this belief.
"As they see
it, they are not ready to give up on their daughter.
"As well as doing everything they can to find her, that
also means that they won't give up on her mentally."
Sources say a team of top psychologists have been
advising the McCanns and urging them to stay positive.
The couple have been told to imagine that Madeleine is
alive and will one day return home.
As part of this strategy, Kate and Gerry lay an extra place at the dinner
table and cook a meal for Madeleine every night.
They also display photos of her prominently at home and regularly
talk about her to their two-year-old twins Sean and Amelie.
Yesterday, Dr Lesley Perman-Kerr, a psychologist specialising
in trauma, said: "It is extremely common for people in this situation to believe their children are still alive.
"It would be virtually impossible for the McCanns to let go at this stage. That could go on for a long period
McCanns happy to take lie detector test, 21 September 2007
Kate and Gerry McCann have said they are prepared to take a lie detector test to prove they had
nothing to do with the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine, it has been revealed.
The couple's decision
is the latest stage in a high-profile fightback led by family and friends against police suspicions they may have been responsible
for Madeleine's death.
The McCanns, from Rothley, Leicestershire, were declared "arguidos" or official
suspects by detectives two weeks ago after DNA traces in their hire car were used to suggest the vehicle had been involved
in moving Madeleine's body.
The couple have returned to Britain after a four-month stay in Portugal and have
been told that police do not have enough evidence to justify interviewing them again.
But they remain suspects
and say they are determined to clear their names and continue the search for Madeleine who they believe may still be alive.
Friends have revealed a series of details in recent days which could form part of their defence if they were ever
charged with causing Madeleine's death and disposing of her body.
It emerged this week that partial DNA matches
found in the car hired by the family almost a month after her disappearance could potentially be explained by contact with
Madeleine's clothes which were transported in it when they moved to a rented villa.
The car was also used on
a daily basis to transport bag-loads of household waste including her younger siblings Sean and Amelie's nappies.
A friend said: "If they are asked to take a lie detector test by police they would.
"They have said
all along that they want to co-operate fully with the Portuguese police, but as of today they have received no such request
from the Portuguese authorities.
"Kate and Gerry are happy to do anything that will help clear their names."
McCanns: 'Lie Detector Test Will Clear Us', 21 September 2007
McCanns: 'Lie Detector Test Will Clear Us' Sky News
Madeleine vanished aged three
3:38pm UK, Friday September
Kate and Gerry McCann are unlikely to face a lie detector test in connection with the disappearance
of their daughter Madeleine, the family's spokesman has said.
The couple had said they were
prepared to take a test to prove they had nothing to do with the child going missing.
But spokesman Clarence Mitchell
said evidence from any test would not be admissible in a Portuguese court.
"Kate and Gerry McCann have absolutely
nothing to hide," Mr Mitchell said.
"If a request from the Portuguese authorities was made for them to
undergo such a lie detector test, they would have no issue with it, provided the test is suitably overseen by an appropriate
expert who can ensure the absolutely reliability of the equipment being used."
But he said he understood that
such machines were not used in Portuguese criminal cases, nor was the information from them admissible in court.
"Therefore we think it is extremely unlikely that such a request for a test would come through," he added.
The McCanns' declaration that they would be happy to take a lie detector test is just the latest stage of a public
fightback to show they had nothing to do with their daughter's disappearance.
The couple, from Rothley, Leicestershire,
were declared suspects by detectives after DNA traces were found in a car hired after Madeleine's disappearance.
The couple have returned to Britain after a four-month stay in Portugal and have been told that police do not have enough
evidence to justify interviewing them again.
The parents of Madeleine McCann are prepared to
take a lie detector test to prove their innocence.
Friends say Kate and Gerry McCann want to show they
have nothing to hide over the disappearance of the four-year-old who went missing on a family holiday in Portugal in May.
The couple's decision is the latest stage in a high-profile fightback led by family and friends against police
suspicions they may been responsible for Madeleine's death and staged an elaborate cover-up.
the McCanns' spokesman, said that it was "extremely unlikely" the couple would be asked to take a lie detector
test by police. He said: "Kate and Gerry McCann have absolutely nothing to hide and, if a request from the Portuguese
authorities was made for them to undergo such a lie detector test, they would have no issue with it, provided the test is
suitably overseen by an appropriate expert who can ensure the absolutely reliability of the equipment being used.
"However, it is my understanding that such machines are not used in Portuguese criminal cases, nor is the information
from them deemed admissible in court, and there are question marks over their reliability. Therefore we think it is extremely
unlikely that such a request for a test would come through."
The McCanns, from Rothley, Leicestershire, were
declared "arguidos" or official suspects by detectives two weeks ago after DNA traces in a car hired after her disappearance
were used to suggest the vehicle had been used to carry Madeleine's body.
The couple have returned to Britain
after a four-month stay in Portugal and have been told that police do not have enough evidence to justify interviewing them
again. But they remain suspects and say they are determined to clear their names and continue the search for Madeleine who
they believe may be still alive.
Friends have revealed a series of details in recent days which could form part
of their defence if they were ever charged with causing Madeleine's death and disposing of her body.
this week that partial DNA matches found in the Renault Scenic hired by the family almost a month after her disappearance
could potentially be explained by contact with Madeleine's clothes which were transported in it when they moved to a rented
villa. The car was also used on a daily basis to transport bag-loads of household waste including her younger siblings Sean
and Amelie's nappies.
The couple believe its use as a "dumper truck" ferrying rotting meat, chicken
carcasses and food scraps to nearby bins during the summer could also explain the excited reaction of specialist sniffer dogs
when shown the car last month as part of a review of the case.
Kate refuses lie test, 18 November 2007
Kate refuses lie test Sunday
Express (no longer online)
Camilla Tominey Sunday November 18,2007
McCann has done a U-turn over plans to take a lie detector test about daughter Madeleine's disappearance.
She and husband Gerry offered to undergo a polygraph examination in September to clear their names. They hoped it would
help to clear up any doubts about their involvement.
Sources close to the couple made it known they were willing
to be questioned after Kate was officially declared an "arguido" or official suspect in the case in Portugal.
But despite being approached by a leading UK polygraph expert, mother-of-three Kate, 39, turned down the chance. Don
Cargill, chairman of the British And European Polygraph Association, said he was "shocked" by her decision.
Mr Cargill, official lie detector expert on TV's Trisha Goddard TV show, said: "I spoke to the McCanns'
people and they came back with a list of conditions that would have been impossible to satisfy.
me to prove the test would be 100 per cent accurate, that I was the world's best examiner and that it would be admissible
in a Portuguese court – but I could not guarantee any of those things. Although polygraph testing is very accurate,
it is not infallible."
Lie detectors work by measuring physiological responses such as blood pressure levels,
pulse rate, breathing and sweat gland activity in the skin during questioning.
Any significant difference in these
rates as the subject answers may indicate they are lying.
The process has been criticised but The American Polygraph
Association says the current computerised technology is 98 per cent accurate.
Lie detector tests are not admissible
in British or Portuguese courts, but a positive polygraph result from Kate would prove a useful weapon for the McCanns against
smears by the Portuguese police.
Mr Cargill said: "Kate said she'd take it to prove her innocence but
in reality, she wasn't willing. I was dumbfounded, to tell the truth.
"I don't think it was the McCanns'
fault. I was left with the impression the whole thing was a PR exercise to get sympathy at a time when Kate was under increasing
Mr Cargill believes if the McCanns were to change their minds, now is the time to do it.
Tomorrow marks 200 days since Madeleine, from Rothley, Leics, vanished from the family’s holiday apartment in Praia
He said: "In the immediate aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance, feelings would have been running
too high. But now Kate is back in England and has had more time to come to terms with things, the timing would be perfect."
Clarence Mitchell, the couple's spokesman, dismissed the idea, saying: "Of course they are not going to take
the test. It's inadmissible in Portugal and there are doubts about the accuracy.
"Gerry and Kate don't
need to do one as they are telling the truth."
Killer Adrian Prout failed lie detector test and then admitted: "Your test is not
wrong", 19 November 2011
Killer Adrian Prout failed lie detector test and then admitted: "Your test is not wrong"
Adrian Prout and Kate Prout
By Ryan Parry 19/11/2011
MURDERER Adrian Prout failed
a lie detector test and then brazenly admitted: "Your test is not wrong."
Cool and calculating Prout
thought he would sail through the polygraph, which measures breathing, heart rate and perspiration and has 99% accuracy.
But when he failed the examination, paid for by his loyal fiancee Debbie Garlick as she campaigned to prove his innocence,
he realised the game was up.
The expert who tested him three months ago, British and European Polygraph Association
chairman Don Cargill, recalled yesterday: "I said, 'You're a murderer.' He just said 'Ummmh.' So
I said, 'Are you saying my test is wrong?'
"He actually replied, 'No, your test is not wrong.'"
Don, 59, also said: "He smiled in what was one of the most surreal and chilling experiences of my life.
"There was no emotion at all, he was really calm and cool, chillingly so.
"He'd been so used to
being in control. He didn't fool the jury but he's fooled a lot of other people, his family and friends and his fiancee.
"Debbie campaigned very heavily to prove his innocence but after he failed she was devastated. She realised she
had been lied to all along."
The home of Kate Prout and Adrian Prout
Don, who did the test at Garth Prison, Lancs, added: "It
was Debbie who convinced him to confess to the murder.
"I can understand why people fell for his lies –
but of course, you can't fool a polygraph."
Suspects will face lie detector tests in groundbreaking scheme by British police,
31 December 2011
Suspects will face lie detector tests in groundbreaking scheme by British police Daily Mail
• Polygraph questioning of 25 'low level' sex offenders • Trial could
lead the way to its use nationwide
By CRAIG MACKENZIE Last updated
at 12:59 PM on 31st December 2011
Lie detector tests on suspected criminals are being used for the first
time by a British police force.
Hertfordshire Police confirmed it had been using polygraphs, which monitor heart
rate, brain activity, sweating and blood pressure, during questioning.
The groundbreaking scheme is helping officers
decide whether to charge suspects and the trial could lead the way to its introduction nationwide.
Police tested 25 'low-level' sex offenders, with some making disclosures they might otherwise
have been unlikely to and others apparently lying, the Times reported.
This prompted officers to conduct further
investigations with many of the men being reclassified as posing a more serious risk to children than originally thought.
The force has now been given another year for research
while senior officers across the UK are investigating ways the technology could assist in solving cases.
of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) said its Homicide Working Group advised police on the use of polygraph techniques and would
follow the trial in Hertfordshire with interest.
A spokeswoman said: 'Polygraph techniques are complex and
are by no means a single solution to solving crimes, potentially offering in certain circumstances an additional tool to structured
'These initial trials are in their very early stages and we will follow their progress, working
with chief officers across the country to provide further guidance if necessary.
'Whether these techniques
are adopted elsewhere in the country is a matter for individual chief constables.'
Offenders can only take
the tests if they volunteer, and evidence gained is not admissible in court.
Of the 10 offenders tested in April,
six revealed more serious offending and testing ended so further inquiries could take place.
Of the other four,
two revealed offences, thus passing the test, and received cautions and attended a sexual offender treatment programme.
The last two made disclosures and passed the test but refused to admit the offences when interviewed later. Their
cases went to court. All four were placed on the sex offenders register, the newspaper said.
Of the 15 offenders tested in November, eight failed while
six passed. One was caught trying to beat the polygraph, breathing erratically and talking slowly.
used routinely by police in the U.S. but are considered too unreliable for use in criminal trials in the UK.
now they have been mostly used on television, particular by the Jeremy Kyle Show to settle domestic disputes.
three-year pilot study in the East and West Midlands could lead to the compulsory testing of convicted sex offenders.
The Ministry of Justice has been overseeing the project, aimed at testing sex offenders as part of their probation conditions
when they are freed from prison.
Detective Chief Inspector Glen Channer, head of Hertfordshire police's child
protection unit, said lie detectors were an 'added weapon in the armory of investigative techniques'.
the tests were never solely relied upon as evidence and were only carried out by experts in a scientific environment.
He told the Times: "It's about as removed from the Jeremy Kyle view of lie detector testing as real policing is
to Miss Marple."
At least one other force is now considering trialling lie detectors in pre-conviction situations,
it is understood.
ITV: The Lying Game - The Crimes That Fooled
Britain, 07 January 2014
Warning: sometimes ignorance
is bliss. After gaining this knowledge, you may be hurt when it is obvious that someone is lying to you. The following deception
detection techniques are used by police, forensic psychologists, security experts and other investigators.
Introduction to Detecting Lies:
This knowledge is also useful for managers, employers,
and for anyone to use in everyday situations where telling the truth from a lie can help prevent you from being a victim of
fraud/scams and other deceptions.
This is just a basic run down of physical (body language) gestures and verbal
cues that may indicate someone is being untruthful.
If you got here from somewhere else, be sure to check out our
Lie Detection index page for more info including new research in the field of forensic psychology. Last update: June 5th,
Signs of Deception: Body
Language of Lies
• Physical expression will be limited and stiff, with few arm and hand movements.
Hand, arm and leg movement are toward their own body the liar takes up less space.
• A person who is lying
to you will avoid making eye contact.
• Hands touching their face, throat & mouth. Touching or scratching
the nose or behind their ear. Not likely to touch his chest/heart with an open hand.
Emotional Gestures & Contradiction
• Timing and duration of emotional gestures and emotions are off a normal pace. The display of
emotion is delayed, stays longer it would naturally, then stops suddenly.
• Timing is off between emotions
gestures/expressions and words. Example: Someone says "I love it!" when receiving a gift, and then smile after making
that statement, rather then at the same time the statement is made.
• Gestures/expressions don't match
the verbal statement, such as frowning when saying "I love you."
• Expressions are limited to mouth
movements when someone is faking emotions (like happy, surprised, sad, awe,) instead of the whole face. For example; when
someone smiles naturally their whole face is involved: jaw/cheek movement, eyes and forehead push down, etc.
see our article on micro expressions & lying.
Interactions and Reactions
• A guilty person gets defensive. An innocent person will often go on the offensive.
• A liar is uncomfortable
facing his questioner/accuser and may turn his head or body away.
• A liar might unconsciously place objects
(book, coffee cup, etc.) between themselves and you.
Verbal Context and Content
• A liar will use your words to make answer a question. When asked, "Did you eat the last
cookie?" The liar answers, "No, I did not eat the last cookie."
• A statement with a contraction
is more likely to be truthful: "I didn't do it" instead of "I did not do it"
• Liars sometimes avoid "lying" by not making direct statements. They imply answers instead of denying something
• The guilty person may speak more than natural, adding unnecessary details to convince you... they
are not comfortable with silence or pauses in the conversation.
• A liar may leave out pronouns and speak
in a monotonous tone. When a truthful statement is made the pronoun is emphasized as much or more than the rest of the words
in a statement.
• Words may be garbled and spoken softly, and syntax and grammar may be off. In other words,
his sentences will likely be muddled rather than emphasized.
• The use of distancing language.
see our article on Statement Analysis for a more in-depth look at word analysis techniques used by interrogators.
Other signs of a lie:
• If you believe someone is lying, then
change subject of a conversation quickly, a liar follows along willingly and becomes more relaxed. The guilty wants the subject
changed; an innocent person may be confused by the sudden change in topics and will want to back to the previous subject.
• Using humor or sarcasm to avoid a subject.
Final Notes: Obviously, just because someone exhibits one or more of these signs does not make them a liar. The above behaviors
should be compared to a persons base (normal) behavior whenever possible.
Most lie detecting experts agree that
a combination of body language and other cues must be used to make an educated guess on whether someone is telling the truth
or a lie.
Eye Movement and Direction & How it Can Reveal Truth or Lies This is a continuation of our previous article Detecting Lies. Many comments by our visitors asked about how eye direction
can indicate the presence of a lie.
Can the direction a person's eyes reveal whether or not they are making
a truthful statement? Short answer: sort of. But, it isn't as simple as some recent television shows or movies
make it seem.
In these shows a detective will deduce if a person is being untruthful simply because they looked
to the left or right while making a statement.
In reality, it would be foolish to make such a snap judgment without
further investigation... but the technique does have some merit.
So, here it is... read, ponder and test it on
your friends and family to see how reliable it is for yourself.
Cues The first time "Visual Accessing Cues" were discussed (at least to my knowledge),
was by Richard Bandler and John Grinder in their book "Frogs into Princes: Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) "
From their experiments this is what they found.
When asked a question a "normally organized" right-handed
person looks (from your viewpoint, looking at them):
Up and to the Left Indicates: Visually Constructed Images (Vc) If you
asked someone to "Imagine a purple buffalo", this would be the direction their eyes moved in while thinking about
the question as they "Visually Constructed" a purple buffalo in their mind.
Up and to the Right Indicates: Visually Remembered Images (Vr) If you asked
someone to "What color was the first house you lived in?", this would be the direction their eyes moved in while
thinking about the question as they "Visually Remembered" the color of their childhood home.
To the Left Indicates:
Auditory Constructed (Ac) If you asked someone to "Try and create
the highest the sound of the pitch possible in your head", this would be the direction their eyes moved in while thinking
about the question as they "Auditorily Constructed" this this sound that they have never heard of.
To the Right Indicates:
Auditory Remembered (Ar) If you asked someone to "Remember what their
mother's voice sounds like ", this would be the direction their eyes moved in while thinking about the question as
they "Auditorily Remembered " this sound.
Down and to the Left Indicates: Feeling / Kinesthetic (F) If you asked someone
to "Can you remember the smell of a campfire? ", this would be the direction their eyes moved in while thinking
about the question as they used recalled a smell, feeling, or taste.
Down and To the Right
Indicates: Internal Dialog (Ai) This is the direction
of someone eyes as they "talk to themselves".
The Gist of it...
this information is used to detect lies: Example: Let's say your child asks you for a
cookie, and you ask: "Well, what did your mother say?" As they reply "Mom said... yes.", they look to
the left. This would indicate a made up answer as their eyes are showing a "constructed image or sound. Looking to the
right would indicated a "remembered" voice or image, and thus would be telling the truth.
Final Notes: *** Looking straight ahead or with eyes that are defocused/unmoving
is also considered a sign of visual accessing.
*** A typical left-handed person would have the opposite meanings
for their eye-directions.
*** As with other signs of lying, you should first establish and understand a persons
base-behavior before concluding they are lying by the direction of their eyes.
*** Many critics believe the above
is a bunch of bull***t. In my own experiments I have found these techniques to be more true than not. But, why not find out
for yourself? Make up a list of questions that like the sample ones, and give them to your friends/family anyone who would
be your guinea pig, observe their eye movements and record the results.
Micro Expressions, Subtle Body Language
and Lying (part 3)
Micro Expressions, Subtle Body Language and Lying (part
Is the show "Lie to Me" for real?
am not a police interrogator, scientist, or other expert... I am however a mother & people watcher.
when I wrote articles on How to Detect Lies & Eye Movement and Lying -- I knew of the Micro expression theory, but had
a difficult time researching the subject well enough to relay it into an article.
Recently, I've come across
tons of new research, websites, articles, videos, etc. about micro expressions and believe anyone who reads my old articles
about lying & body language would benefit from micro expression research and theory.
are Micro Expressions? A micro expression is a momentary involuntary facial expression --
that people unconsciously display when they are hiding an emotion. They are quick & intense expressions of concealed emotion.
The main points to remember are that micro expressions are: Brief - Micro-expressions
can appear then disappear off the face in a fraction of a second. In other words micro-expressions occur so quickly, that
most people don't even notice them.
Involuntary - A micro-expression is caused
by involuntary movements in facial muscles. (See the fake-smile illustration). Most people cannot control these involuntary
muscles which are affected by their emotions.
Micro Expressions are generally grouped into seven universal emotions:
anger, disgust, fear, sadness, happiness, surprise, and contempt.
Brief History of Micro Expression Theory According to Wikipedia - Micro Expressions were
first discovered by Haggard and Isaacs in the 1960s. In 1966, Haggard and Isaacs outlined how they discovered these "micromomentary"
expressions published under the title: "Micromomentary facial expressions as indicators of ego mechanisms in psychotherapy".
Although it is not included in most histories of micro expressions;
I would like to point out that Darwin's book "The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals" published in
1872 deserves a mention. Darwin noted the universal nature of facial expressions, the muscles used in facial
expressions, etc. Check out more illustrations from Darwin's book. Also worth noting is Guillaume Duchenne and the Duchenne Smile.
Most websites I can find next list William Condon as a pioneer who studied hours of tapes in the 1960s frame
by frame to discover micro movements like micro expressions. I can find little info on this research but there is some other
interesting body language & verbal expression / NLP research by a Dr. William S. Condon (I'm 99% sure it's the same dude - contact me if you have any info on the 1960s micro expression research by Condon
as cited on wikipedia). Others mentioned as pioneering researchers in the field include John Gottman and Paul Eckman.
Dr. Paul Ekman's research (along with the work of Silvan Tomkins) in the study of emotions and their relation to facial expressions took Darwin's work to the next level proving that
facial expressions of emotion are not culturally determined, but biological in origin and universal across human cultures.
Eckman co-developed the Facial Action Coding System (FACS) with Wallace V. Friesen in 1976. FACS is a system to taxonomize human facial expressions, and still used today by psychologists,
researchers and animators.
Micro-Expressions and Lying Micro Expressions betray
us when we lie. We can try to cover our feelings with fake smiles, but involuntary face muscles reveal this hidden emotions.
Seeing is easier, watch this short video:
(More Micro Expression Video Links Below)
and his research is the inspiration for the TV series "Lie to Me".
Trained investigators, customs agents, etc. use micro expression recognition along with other body language
& speech cues (see distancing language for an example) to determine truthfulness.
While most people can be trained to recognize micro expressions and
other deceptive cues, some folks are naturals. Ekman calls them "Truth Wizards".
Latest Micro Expression Research & Training Dr. Paul Ekman and Dr. David Matsumoto created METT, an online micro expression training tool. METT and METT2 are
being discontinued, but both Ekman and Matsumoto have developed their own micro expression training software available on
their respective sites. (listed below).
Dr. Mark Frank, a former student of Ekman's, continues work on deception
and micro facial movement research. Frank identified specific and sometimes involuntary movements of the 44 human facial muscles
linked to fear, distrust, stress and other emotions related to deception. Frank's work is being tested for it's use
in anti-terrorism investigations. (see press release)
Another important thing to remember about
micro-expressions is that they only show what someone is feeling...not whether they lying per-se, and not what they are thinking.
The micro-expression only tells you their knee-jerk emotional state. (in my opinion).
I believe (with no proof
or scientific basis) that micro-expressions can also reveal emotions that are unconscious or only partially related to whatever
is being talk about.
In other words, just because someone says "that's awesome!" and flashes a brief
micro-expression of contempt ... doesn't necessarily mean they are lying about their feelings.... just that there is something
about the subject that "bugs" them (and they may not even know it bothers them).
So, you show your friend
Sarah a picture of your new dog. She looks at you and says "wow, really cute", but you catch a micro-expression
glimpse of "disgust". I believe it would be presumptuous to take this as a sign that Sarah thinks your puppy is
ugly. She may have been bit by a dog in the past, and that emotion briefly flashed across her face when she looked at the
pic of your dog.
( I'm just cautioning readers who can see micro-expressions from simplifying and presuming
too much -- human thoughts and emotions are complicated! )
for Micro Expressions, Lying & Related Research (All links below are external and open
in a new window/tab)
Introduction by Blifaloo: I am super excited to introduce my readers interested in lie detection
to "Statement Analysis®" -- a technique used by police and other investigators to determine the truthfulness
of written or spoken words.
Guest author Mark McClish is a well-respected retired Deputy United States Marshal,
and an expert in interviewing techniques. You'll find more info & links about his research at the end of this article.
Intro to Statement Analysis Statement Analysis
is the process of analyzing a person's words to determine if the subject is being truthful or deceptive. The reason these
techniques work is because people's words will betray them.
There are usually several ways you can phrase a
statement. People will always word their statement based on all their knowledge. Therefore, their statement may include information
they did not intend to share.
It is nearly impossible to give a lengthy deceptive statement without revealing it
is a lie.
The Statement Analysis techniques are very accurate because they are based on the English language specifically
word definitions and the rules of grammar. For example, when a person states, "I am trying to be honest" he is telling
us he is not being honest. The word "tried" means he is only attempting to be truthful. When a rape victim uses
the pronoun "we" in her statement she is revealing she is being deceptive. The pronoun "we" not only shows
plurality but it also means a partnership was formed. We would not expect a rape victim to partner up with her attacker. When
a person uses phrases such as "later on" or "afterwards" he has withheld some information by skipping
over something in his story.
An example of utilizing the rules of grammar would be to analyze the verb tenses in
a statement. When a person is telling us what happened, he is required to speak in the past tense. Therefore, if present tense
language appears in his statement, this is a sign he is making up the story. Consider the following statement:
was sitting in my car when a man opened my door, pointed a gun at me and tells me to get out."
the person starts out using past tense language, he switches to present tense language with the word "tells." The
present tense language is an indication he is not drawing his story from memory.
Another example of using the rules
of grammar to detect deception is how a person uses articles within his statement. When we introduce someone or something
that is unknown, we are required to use the indefinite articles "a" or "an." Once the introduction has
been made, we then use the definite article "the." We see this in the following statement:
approached me and pointed a gun at me. He stuck the gun in my ribs and forced me into the car."
first sentence, the victim properly refers to the attacker and the weapon as "a man" and "a gun." Having
identified the gun, he then correctly refers to it as "the gun" in the second sentence. A problem arises when he
refers to the vehicle as "the car." Since this is the first time he mentions the vehicle, he should have called
it "a car." Using the article "the" tells us the victim either recognized the car or he is making up the
Many times the truth goes unnoticed because people like to interpret what a person has said. However, you
should never interpret. First, one cannot read someone else's mind. Secondly, people mean exactly what they are saying.
We see a good example of this with O.J. Simpson's so called suicide letter. This was the letter that was discovered
when Simpson failed to turn himself into the police. The letter starts out saying, "First everyone understand, I had
nothing to do with Nicole’s murder." That is how you heard it read on television. That is how you saw it printed
in the newspapers and magazines. The problem is that is not what Simpson wrote. In his letter, he crossed out the words "I
had." His letter actually reads, "First everyone understand, nothing to do with Nicole's murder." He took himself out of the denial.
So, why do most people include the words "I had?" Most
likely because they believe this is what Simpson meant. However, people mean exactly what they say or in this case write.
Simpson meant to cross out those words.
By using the Statement Analysis techniques, you can determine exactly what
people are telling you. This allows you to obtain additional information that sometimes goes unnoticed. These techniques will
also show you if they are lying or telling the truth. Detect lies in emails, letters, as well live and
Lie Detection, Statement Analysis
& Interrogation Resources, Links & Books Blifaloo's note: This is just a basic
introduction to statement / discourse analysis, for more information on detecting deception with statement analysis see Mark
McClish's (this article's author) website: StatementAnalysis.com
Related Links and Online Articles:
Statment Analysis Unique Words: "Never"
[see below] Detecting Deception Using Statement Analysis. Mark McClish explains how the word "never" can be
a signal of deception...if you know what to look (or listen) for.
Unique Words: "Actually" [see below] <-- Newest When people use the word
"actually" they are comparing two thoughts. Take a look at the following article for Mark McClish's expert take
on this unique word in its relation to deception
Guest author Mark McClish is a retired Deputy United
States Marshal, and an expert in detecting deception with his interviewing techniques.
Unique Words – "Never" When analyzing a statement, there
are several unique words that can provide you with additional information and show you if the subject is being deceptive.
Some of these words are unique based on their definition, while others are unique based on years of observations.
The word "never" is often used by deceptive people when making a denial. This is because people do not want to
lie. Therefore, they will choose the easiest form of deception. It is easier for a person to be dishonest using the word "never"
as opposed to directly telling a lie by saying "I didn't do it." For example, if a person was asked if he took
the money he may state, "I would never do that." In addition to recognizing the use the word "never,"
we also see the person did not deny the action. He did not say he did not take the money. He only stated this is something
he would in no way do.
The word "never" means "not ever." If a person was asked if he "ever"
cheated on his taxes, it would be appropriate for him to respond, "I have never cheated on my taxes." The use of
the word "never" would be correct since he was asked if he "ever" defrauded the government. He is replying
that he has "not ever" cheated.
The word "never" does not mean "no." Therefore, you
cannot substitute the word "never" for the word "no" which is something deceptive people like to do. Consider
the following question and answer:
Question: "Did you sell him drugs?" Answer: "I
never sold drugs."
Because the word "never" is a negative word, it sometimes fools the interviewer
into believing the subject has answered the question and denied the accusation. This question requires a "yes" or
"no" answer. The subject chose to answer the question using the word "never" instead of using the word
"no." This shows us the subject is most likely being deceptive. Although he gave an answer, he did not answer the
specific question. He did not state, "No, I did not sell him drugs."
We see a similar use of the word
"never" with former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. In March of 2006, she was asked about the possibility of
her running for President.
Question: "Would you consider running for President in 2008?" Rice: "I have never wanted to run for anything. I don't think
I even ran for class anything
when I was in school."
Rice used the word "never" as a substitute for the word "no." She
is not necessarily being deceptive but is giving a good political answer. If she were to have said "no," that would
probably end any Presidential dreams she may have had. If she would have answered the question with a "yes," that
would have caused a firestorm amongst the press. So, she chose to remain in the middle of the road. She gave an answer that
sounded like she was saying "no" but in reality she did not say "no." Her answer tells us that part of
her wanted to run for President.
John Connolly is a former FBI agent who in the 1970s developed Boston Irish mobster
James "Whitey" Bulger into an informant. Bulger was a valuable asset in helping the FBI dismantle the Italian Mafia
in the Boston area. Connolly retired from the FBI in 1990. With Connolly gone, the FBI stopped using Bulger as an informant
and instead turned their attention to his illegal activities. Their investigation uncovered that over the years Connolly had
accepted bribes from Bulger and falsified reports about Bulger. In 1999, Connolly was indicted on these charges. That same
year, Dateline NBC profiled John Connolly's case. Correspondent Dennis Murphy asked Connolly the following questions:
Murphy: "Did you go too far over the line?" Connolly: "Anyone
in my business, that knows what they're doing, knows enough
to walk up to that line but to never step over it." Murphy: "And you
didn't?" Connolly: "I never stepped over that line."
In the first
answer, Connolly states that "anyone" in his business knows not to cross that line. The problem is he did not tell
us that he did not cross that line. In his second answer, Connolly clearly uses the word "never" as a substitute
for the word "no." In 2002, Connolly was convicted of racketeering, obstruction of justice and lying to an FBI agent.
He was sentenced to 10 years in prison.
The use of the word "never" does not automatically mean a person
is being deceptive. There are correct ways one can use the word. For example, I can state, "I have never been skydiving"
because it is a truthful statement. However, if a person uses the word "never" as a substitute for the word "no,"
it is a strong indication the person is withholding information and possibly being deceptive.
Guest author Mark McClish is a retired Deputy United
States Marshal, and an expert in detecting deception with his interviewing techniques. This is the 3rd article Mark has contributed
Unique Words – "Actually" When analyzing a statement, there are several unique words that can provide you with additional information and show
you if the subject is being deceptive. Some of these words are unique based on their definition while others are unique based
on years of observations.
When people use the word "actually" they are comparing two thoughts. Take a
look at the following question and answer:
Question: "Did you buy a new car?" Answer:
"Actually, I bought a new truck."
In this example, it is easy to see why the subject used the word "actually."
The interviewer suggested that perhaps the subject bought a new car. The subject answered that he did not buy a new car but
bought a new truck. He was comparing "car" with "truck."
When the interviewer has not proffered
anything and the subject uses the word "actually" we then have some undisclosed information. I once asked a friend
the following question:
Question: "What did you do over the weekend?" Answer:
"Actually, I went to a birthday party."
By using the word "actually," my friend was comparing
going to the party with something else. Since I didn't suggest anything she may have done, this meant she was thinking
about something else that she did or wanted to do. Upon hearing the word "actually," I asked her what she wanted
to do. She told me that she wanted to go shopping but then she remembered she had a birthday party to attend. Because she
was thinking about going shopping, it caused her to unknowingly use the word "actually."
Analysis, the shortest sentence is the best sentence. Extra words give us extra information. "I went to a birthday party"
is a good answer. "Actually, I went to a birthday party" means something else was going on. If a burglary suspect
uses the word "actually" in his alibi, the police should take a closer look at him.
"What did you do last night?" Suspect: "Actually, I was at the movies."
The word "actually" tells us he probably was not at the movies but was doing something else. He knows he
committed the crime but he wants to lie and say he was at the movies. Because he is thinking about these two thoughts it causes
him to use the word "actually."
We find the word "actually" in a statement given by Casey Anthony
who is currently on trial for the murder of her daughter Caylee. On July 15, 2008, Cindy Anthony, Casey's mother, called
911 to report that her granddaughter, Caylee, was missing. While on the phone, the 911 operator asked to speak to Casey.
911: "And you know who has her?" Casey:
"I know who has her. I've tried to contact her. I actually received a
phone call today. Now from a number that is no longer in service. I did
get to speak to my daughter for about a moment; about a minute."
In stating that she talked to her daughter
on the phone, Casey tells the 911 operator, "I actually received a phone call today." By using the word "actually,"
Casey is comparing receiving a phone call with what? Not receiving a phone call? There is no reason to use the word "actually"
unless she is thinking about something else. She uses this word to make her statement sound believable but instead it indicates
she is being deceptive. When we look at the rest of her statement we see she states she knows who has Caylee but she does
not give the 911 operator the name of this person. She says that she received a phone call but does not say who called her.
The number that called her is disconnected the very same day.
At her trial, her attorney stated that Caylee accidentally
drowned in the family pool. This means Casey was lying when she said she received a phone call in which she spoke to her daughter.
Anyone who was listening to what she was saying almost three years ago would have known she was lying.
the word "actually." Most of the time you will be able to see what the person is comparing; "Is you car blue?"
"Actually, it is red." When you cannot see the comparison, you then have some undisclosed information. You may want
to find out what information the person is withholding.