#statement analysis

Guest Post

I’m excited that Colin Ector, talented Statement Analyst and author of this article, has shared this article with me. Colin published the article on 30th June 2023 on his blog, Through the Lens of Statement Analysis.

I hope you enjoy reading it.

—Sophie

Dan Andrews Family Car Incident with Ryan Meuleman

By Colin Ector

10 years ago, Dan Andrews and his family were involved in a car accident where 15-year-old Ryan Meuleman was seriously injured. Andrew’s wife is reported to have been driving when the teenager rode his bike into the side of their car when they were on their way home from the beach.

The Herald Sun revealed that lawyers for Ryan had launched a Supreme Court Damages claim against Andrews and his wife Catherine. There is also a question of whether Andrews himself may have been the driver of the vehicle at the time of the incident.

Andrews refuses to speak publicly on the incident now, although he did give a radio interview on January 16th 2013, just over a week after the event. This close, the event should be fresh in his mind which should allow for reliable recall.

What can we learn from his words? He is the one who knows what happened and through analysis we can get to the truth.

Dan Andrews 3AW 693 Radio Interview with Justin Smith Jan 16 2013

Dan Andrews Statement Analysis

Questions for Analysis

Is the subject truthful? Is this a reliable account of what happened?

Who was driving the car?  Does the subject’s language support or negate the theory that he was the driver?

Was alcohol consumed?

Who was at fault regarding the accident?

Has Andrews used his position to influence the Police investigation?

Justin

“The front page of the herald sun this morning is not a good read for Daniel Andrews. The opposition leader and his wife have been accused of cold heartedness after the car they were in, driven by Catherine Andrews was in an accident with a teenager on January 7 at Blairgowrie. Ryan Meuleman is the boy 15 years old was badly hurt and sent to the royal Children's. Internal bleeding broken ribs, punctured lung. His father peter is upset at the silence of the Andrews family. Reading through the story the Andrews family say they called police to check up on the boy's condition. Mr Andrews was not keen to talk about it. He said his wife was a private citizen He's on the line. Daniel Andrews good morning.”

Noted this interview is taking place only just over a week after the incident. The details should be clear in the subject’s mind of what happened. We have an expectation of clear reliable language.

The accusation from source unknown but likely media at this point is “cold-heartedness”. The interviewer likely has no knowledge at this time of rumours that Andrews was the driver.

Ryan’s father is “upset at the silence of the Andrews family”

Andrews

“Good morning, Justin.”

Justin

“How how are you and how is your wife?”

Andrews

“Oh look it was a very traumatic incident for everybody involved but our thoughts Justin are obviously with Ryan and we're very pleased that he's out of hospital now and that he's got the best care possible and that he's going to be going to be okay. It was a very nasty incident. He um hit the side of our car very hard um it was very very traumatic for everybody involved.”

The subject (Andrews) does not directly answer the question of how he is, or how his wife is. He answers that it was a “very traumatic incident for everybody involved”. He includes everybody involved into this trauma. It avoids saying that he is fine and so is his wife unlike the boy who is in hospital. His answer has the effect of putting them all in the same boat. They are all victims. This is the first thing he says making it a priority for him.

The subject uses the name of the interviewer here right from the start. We will watch to when he uses this and when he does not. This may be familiarity with the host, it can be to include the host or sometimes it can be used in a controlling or dominating fashion. The subject’s intention is not clear at this point.

The subject reports that Ryan hit the side of our car very hard. There is an “um” which is a slight pause, but the sentence is otherwise reliable.

This is an “incident” rather than an accident. Andrews linguistically lays the blame of this incident at the feet of the boy. “He um hit the side of our car very hard”.

The subject (Andrews) repeats his previous statement that it was traumatic for everybody involved. He qualifies this for emphasis with the inclusion of the word “very” twice. We must consider that he has a need to persuade us that he and his wife should be included in the status of victim in this incident. This in turn raises the question of whether he is harbouring guilt in this.

Within his first response to a question that he does not answer the subject (Andrews), has revealed two things he wants us to know as his priorities.

Everyone is a victim here. Him included.

The fault for the “incident” lays at the feet of Ryan (the boy)

Justin

“Were you move just so people have an understanding of what happened, were you moving at the time?”

This is not a good question from the interviewer. This question has removed much information that would have been gleaned from the subject had he simply asked, “what happened”. When a subject is asked “what happened” they have to go into their memory and will begin wherever the incident starts for them. This can be anywhere. This direct question about the subject status regarding movement denies us this important information.

Andrews

“Yeah we were we’d turned right from a standing start into a, into a side street um there's a bike path that runs parallel to the street we’d turned from and you know the next thing we knew he was in the uh in in the windscreen having hit hit us if you like at a sort of perfect 90 90 degree angle to the side of the car so it was a very nasty accident.

“Yeah” is casual but reliable in context.

The subject speaks for them all again here. “we’d turned right”. They were not all or both driving. The subject unifies himself with his wife. Is this appropriate? We like people to speak for themselves. They were both in the car and the subject may feel protective of this wife’s actions or there could be another reason for this use of “we”. The subject is answering the question of “were you moving?” which could also provoke the unified answer.

“from a standing start” To turn right the subjects car will have crossed over the oncoming traffic lane. This is an indication there was traffic on the road they turned from, and they had to wait for a gap to turn.

Why the need to tell us “from a standing start”? Unnecessary wording is always important.  Does the subject want us to believe they couldn’t have been going fast as they were not moving moments before? This may be an indication of the opposite. Did the driver of the car have to pull into the side street quickly due to traffic on the main road where they were at a “standing start”

A “standing start” is a phrase often used in reference to the start of a race.

The subject does not tell us that Ryan came out of the bike path. We cannot say it for him. It may be the case, but it is not reliably reported by Andrews.

“the next thing we knew” is a Temporal lacunae or a jump over time. There is missing information here. What happened here?

Again, the subject is speaking for them both. An account should be what you did. What you saw. Here the subject is telling us the next thing they both knew.

Is the missing information that they were going fast into the side street?

The use of “In” for “in the windscreen” tells us that Ryan was through where the windscreen would usually be either fully or indented inside the driver’s area. This was a hard hit into the windscreen.

“the next thing we knew he was in the uh in in the windscreen having hit hit us if you like”. He was in the windscreen is passive which conceals responsibility. It does not tell us who put him there or how he got there. This passivity is then immediately followed by a weak assertion that it was Ryan’s fault. “having hit us”.

“Having hit us” is a weak assertion. The addition of “if you like” weakens this assertion to a preference.

A “sort of perfect 90 degree angle” is not a 90 degree angle. “Sort of” and “perfect” are contradictory.

Should the subject be pressing that his wife did the right thing rather than hiding her in the overuse of “we”. Why would he do this? Should he be telling us that “she pulled into the street. There was no way she could have seen him or got out of the way”

This entire sentence is then made even more sensitive to the subject as he makes it an unnecessary reason why it was a very nasty accident.

There is a lot of sensitivity and unreliability about this part of the interview from Andrews. There is in fact, enough to conclude that Andrews is withholding information about the incident from this sentence alone.

“it was a very heavy hit and we're just all very grateful and and very pleased that he's been able to be treated properly and that he's come through it.”

Does the subject wish to move away from the topic of what happened? He has removed everything that happened between “having hit us if you like at a sort of perfect 90 degree angle” and “he’s been able to be treated properly and come through it”

By whom was the heavy hit?

The subject continues with his unity of “we, we’re”

It is interesting he uses the phrase “come through it” after the boy was through the windscreen. The brain knows what it knows..

Why would Ryan (the boy) not have been able to be treated properly? Is the subject going to claim that he helped get good treatment for the Ryan?

Justin

“Yeah should you have given way to him or is it the other way around?”

Andrews

“well look I don't want to get I don't want to be you know finding fault with him but he struck the righthand side of our car. We didn't see him. He was not visible on the road or anything like that um you know he then went over the car after having gone into the wind screen. It was a very nasty incident and one that you wouldn't wish on anybody”.

The subject does not want to answer the question here making it sensitive to him.

He tells us in the negative what he doesn’t want to do which is finding fault with Ryan. Anything in the negative is important to the subject.

The word “but” refutes or minimises what came before. In this case that the subject does not want to find fault with Ryan

“We didn’t see him”. The overuse of speaking for them both continues. If the subject’s unity with his wife is protective, then he should be telling us what she did. He could have said “Ryan came out of nowhere. There was no way my wife could have seen him or avoided him”. He does not.  This overuse of “we” is often used by those who wish to hide in the crowd. At this point in the statement, the question for analysis of who was driving remains open and unanswered. We cannot say who was driving. The subject has not told us that his wife was driving. He has not used her name which may be an indication of a strained relationship at this point in the statement and his continual overuse of the pronoun “we” is concerning.

“One that you wouldn’t wish on anybody” This is unnecessary to say and may be to portray himself as the good guy often an indication of the opposite.

Justin

“yeah the windscreen broke I believe”

Andrews

“yeah so we”

Justin

“and your wife your wife sustained some some cuts”

Andrews

“oh some very minor cuts we had our three little kids in the car and they were sort of there was glass showered everywhere and it was very nasty and I I I can only imagine um what it must have been like for Ryan's father. I'm obviously a father and no parent would want to get that call to say that their son that their child had been involved in an accident”

Justin

“what was it what was it like at that time when you you both realised what had happened and you got out of the car? what condition was Ryan in at that time was he was he conscious at all?”

Andrews

“He was conscious. Yeah he was conscious at all times. He was lying on the road just behind the car. We'd stopped the car. ( ) Got out. I rang triple o immediately and my wife then you know sat sat beside him and tried to comfort him.”

The overuse of “we” continues. This time it was them both that stopped the car. This is not an action that can be shared unless he pulled up the handbrake from the passenger seat which is unlikely. If he is not willing to say his wife stopped the car, we cannot say it for him. Why would he linguistically share this action? We must consider he is concealing who was driving the car?

This overuse is not appropriate. It is sometimes used when subjects are unified in deception or as a way of crowd sourcing guilt. The subject does not want to be alone in this statement.

The subject has still not said that his wife, (who remains unnamed) was driving the car. He has not assigned linguistically any actions to her relating to the car. Now however, for the first time he tells us of his wife’s action. He tells us that she “sat, sat beside him” presumably on the ground. Andrews allocates no actions to his wife regarding the car.

The argument that Andrews is defending his wife with his overuse and unity of the pronoun “we” is becoming a stretch. He has not linguistically defended her actions as the driver of the car in any way.

Andrew’s wife who remains nameless in his verbalised perception of reality has only been allocated an action by herself when sitting on the ground next to the boy whilst Andrews is taking control on the phone. All actions previous to this, even though she is supposed to be the one driving have been allocated the pronoun “we” by Andrews.

“Got out”. What has caused this missing pronoun? This is one place where the pronoun “we” is expected as it is an action that they both would have taken and yet there is no pronoun for this brief sentence. I believe the subject and his wife got out of the car, but something has caused his brain to omit the pronoun. This is a lack of psychological commitment to the act of getting out of the car. Was there a delay in getting out? Some conversation between the subject and his wife? What was it?

“Got out” is unnecessary to say. It slows down the pace avoiding getting to what happened next.

Finally, we have “I”, entering the statement, in the context of what happened from the subject. This makes this sentence very important to him. “I rang triple O” is reliable. The need to portray it as immediate raises the question of whether there was a delay in doing so. People who do things straight away don’t have this need to say they did it immediately. They simply state what happened, what they did etc. There was likely a delay here. This comes immediately after the subject omits the pronoun when telling us unnecessarily that they got out of the car. This may be where the delay happened.  Was there discussion in the car before getting out?

We still do not know the subject’s wife’s name. He has not said it. He takes possession of her with the pronoun “my” and gives her the title of wife but without a name.  This can be an indication of a poor relationship between them at this point. This sort of language can indicate that the spouse is more of a possession than a person.

“then” is another indication of a delay or missing information. It is also telling us that the subject’s wife did not sit down and try to comfort Ryan until after there had likely been a delay for some reason and then also after the subject rang triple zero. What was happening in these time delays? The incomplete social introduction from the subject for his wife may give us insight into this. Were they arguing about something or trying to decide what they were going to do? What could they have to discuss or argue about that is more important than a 15-year-old boy injured and lying in the road?

“Sat” is repeated. The inclusion of body posture in a statement is an indication of tension.

Why the delay in calling triple O and the tension with “sat” repeated and stuttered over? What did the subject and his wife do here? Where was the subject when his wife was sitting next to Ryan?

“There's not much you can do really other than try and offer some sort of reassuring words. um and I impressed upon the triple O operator that it was a serious issue and we needed an ambulance here as soon as we could.”

The subject is portraying himself as the good guy again reinforcing the opposite assumption. Again, he uses the pronoun “I”. Again, the pronoun “I” is used to portray himself as the “Good Guy”. The need to portray yourself as the good guy is often an indication of the opposite.

Anything reported in the negative is important. The subject tells us there is not much you can do. What did he do? We want to him to speak for himself. You could check the injured boy’s injuries. You could try to make him comfortable. The subject is telling us he did not do this, and he doesn’t tell us reliably that he gave “some sort of reassuring words”. Did he? We cannot say but he wants us to believe he is the good guy likely indicating the opposite.

For whom is this a serious issue?  For the boy it was a serious injury. For the subject it is an issue. Who is the priority here for the subject?

Justin

“all right well the herald sun is accusing you of cold-heartedness here and so is is the family. Is the story fair?”

Andrews

“Well look I’m I'm not here to bag journalists off that's never been my way. What I want to make very clear though is um we did not contact Ryan. We did not contact his father um and the reason I didn't do that the reason we didn't do that is that the police have not as I understand it, has still not interviewed him.

The subject avoids the question and is unwilling or unable to say “No. It is not fair”. He tells us in the negative what has never been his way. The good guy narrative continues.

The subject continues with the “we” format but slips into “I” revealing it is he who would have contacted Ryan’s family if it were going to happen. He is running things even though we are led to believe it was his wife who was the driver.

He's obviously a witness to the incident the police have got an important job to do um and I'm not after any special treatment. I'm certainly not after uh I'm certainly not going to interfere with the police doing their important work and I made the judgment yeah and the police the police confirmed that judgment Justin that it would be inappropriate for me to be contacting a minor uh before the police had spoken to him.

The subject tells us in the negative making it doubly important what he is not after and what he is not going to do. He qualifies this with the word “certainly” which weakens an already sensitive negative assertion.

The subject self-censors and changes “certainly not being after” to “certainly not going to interfere”. This change of language leaves it to the police if there is to be special treatment. It is also in the future. Has he obtained special treatment or interfered already enough to influence police actions? Is he confident that with his position he will not need to interfere, in order to get special treatment?

He ingratiates himself to police with flattery. “Their important work”

It is him that made the “judgement” to not contact Ryan

He does not say he intends to make contact with the family after they have spoken to Police.

Now we've just been really clear about this my wife on the night only a few hours after the incident spoke with police. She spoke with the royal children's hospital um they couldn't tell her much but directed her back to police.

“spoke with police” is not interviewed. Did the police not conduct a formal interview?

“my wife” Possession again without her name still. This is not a good relationship at this time.

She's I think had five conversations with police in less than a week getting an update each time um on his condition so we've been well informed and perhaps Ryan's father doesn't know that we've made those calls and maybe that's why he's angry. Maybe he thinks that we haven't been interested, far from it. Nothing could be further from the truth.”

“spoke” is now “conversations”. Both are informal and casual. Did she make a statement on the accident? If not, is this the special treatment which the subject is no longer after by his words.

Justin

“As you know it is there has there been any attempt by by him to make contact with you?”

Andrews

“uh not that I’m aware of um there may have been but he certainly hasn't uh I I’m not I’m not I I don't know about that.

When a subject who does not normally stutter, stutters on the pronoun “I” it is a clear indication of anxiety.

Continuous negatives and the subject shuts down this question. This was a stressful question for the subject.

The subject’s language is indicative of someone who knows of attempts to contact him by Ryan’s father and has ignored and avoided the contact.

um what I do know is that you know there's a there's a comment in the paper today that this doesn't look good for me. Well you know, I've not been at all concerned with how this looks. I've been concerned with the welfare of Ryan and I’ve been concerned to make sure that I didn't at any stage interfere in the police's investigation that's that important process that they should go through you know whether it looks good or bad that's not been my concern and it's not my concern now.”

The subject has moved from the uncomfortable question of whether Ryan’s father has tried to contact him to where he portrays himself as a victim of the media. He is the victim now.

As well as a victim he continues to portray himself as the good guy. When a subject has the need to portray themselves in this way it is indicative of the opposite.

Why would you be concerned that you would interfere in the police investigation? The subject doesn’t mention the receiving of special treatment.

The subject is sermonising about the importance of the police investigation. Sermons are often included in the statements of those harbouring guilt.

Justin

“all right well just a couple of questions that I had off air to people people asking me so please don't take these as uh as trying to lead into anything else. Was your wife breath tested?”

Andrews

“the police did not breath test her no.”

Reliably stated information

Justin

“okay do you would you consider that to be unusual”

Andrews

“well, I've not been involved in an accident like that before. I don't know how how usual or unusual that is. Now this was one o'clock in the afternoon um we had three little kids in the car um you know she spent quite a lot of time with the victoria police they were on scene before the ambulance. she's cooperated with police. She spent you know there was every opportunity and she would have had no difficulty in in uh in being breath-tested if they asked her to. they didn't raise it you know.”

The subject has used a lot of words to answer a yes or no question. “Well” is a slight pause to think.

The subject then tells us why he doesn’t know if not being breath tested after an accident is usual

The subject also floats three reasons why he doesn’t know if it is unusual to not be breath tested after a car accident. He has not been involved in an accident like that before. The time of day and “3 little kids” being present in the car. This is to avoid telling us that his wife (who still remains unnamed) had not been drinking.

Is it difficult being breath tested if you have been drinking? Would she have had difficulty passing a breath test?

Did the police breath test him? If he were the driver they would have no need to breath test his wife who remains unnamed.

Justin

“Had she had a drink at all?”

Andrews

“absolutely no, no no way at all we've been at the we've been at the beach. I want to be very clear about that absolutely no alcohol whatsoever.”

Who is the subject speaking about here? He does not tell us that he is talking about his wife. He could be answering for himself as well as his wife. He uses no pronouns or names.

“No” would be reliable language. “No My wife had not had a drink” would also be reliable. Using her name would be better.

The addition of “absolutely” weakens his denial.

Stuttering on the word “no” and “we’ve” is an indication of stress at this question.

“no way at all” weakens the denial further.

A hina claus is where a subject has the need to tell us why something happened or didn’t happen without us asking. The subject needs reinforcement for his words. It is like he is telling us someone did not drink because they had been at the beach. This is a need to persuade.

He then tells us what he wants to be very clear about. This is not to tell us what is true. It is simply an intention of clarity which has no bearing on truth. It adds to the need to persuade.

More additional unnecessary words. “absolutely and whatsoever”. The subject has demonstrated an excessive need to persuade that no alcohol was involved whilst being unable to say who he is talking about, and without telling us reliably that there was no alcohol.

Justin

“was ryan wearing a helmet?”

Andrews

“he was yes, and I and I'm very thankful that he was.”

This is a reliable sentence from the subject.

It tells us that he, when not having the need to persuade and deceive will give reliable language. The contrast is evident.

Justin

“all right and look the last one uh is that uh why do do we need a four-wheel drive is that as your as your taxpayer car?”

Andrews

“well it's not a four-wheel drive it's a it's a ford territory like it's a large vehicle it's a family vehicle um it's not on a four-wheel drive as it's as it's as described in the paper it's just a normal ford territory”

Justin

“that seems fair you've got three children so that seems fair oh well yeah yeah”

Andrews

“So, look Justin I want to be really clear about this you know our thoughts have always been right from the moment the incident occurred, have been with Ryan to to give him whatever support we could um and to make sure that we were kept informed and we have been regularly uh I was never going to interfere with a police investigation. If people mark me down for that well then I can't help that but the the last thing I was ever going to do was try and speak to him before the police had spoken to him. That would just not be right. I'm just very grateful that very grateful that he's been able to get the best care possible at the royal children's hospital. That he's going to be going to be okay.”

What is this support for Ryan that the subject speaks of? He has not contacted him or his family.

Justin

“I mean this is something that not everyone is obviously going to care about but but would it have been better for you if you had have been not not so much up front but you had disclosed straight away look my family and i've been in an accident it's under police investigation early on?”

Andrews

“Well some people might come to that judgment you know i think a one or two line statement that probably would have posed more questions than it answered or wouldn't have done much good i think it's more fulsome statement that would have seen us putting our version of events out there into the public domain before the police had an opportunity to speak with the other party you know I don't think that would have been appropriate um you know people will make their own judgments on that but I I just make the point again that  Ryan's welfare has been foremost in our minds and second to that I've been absolutely determined not to be interfering with Victoria police investigating what was a very serious incident. Thankfully he's going to be okay thankfully his injuries weren't more serious. i wouldn't wish it on anyone and my my thoughts and my best wishes are for him for his family”

The subject is the “good guy”

What does being absolutely determined with not interfering with Victoria Police’s investigation look like?

Being “absolutely determined” is to be committed. Being committed takes effort and work.

“I’m certainly not going to interfere with the police” is now “I’ve been absolutely determined not to be interfering with Victoria Police”. A change of language indicates a change in reality.

We do not have to be determined to not do something we do not desire to do. The additional word “absolutely” weakens this.

Is there an unintentional recipient to this statement? Is Victoria Police the unintentional recipient?

What is the difference between “Police” and “Victoria Police”? Is “Police”, rank and file officers and  “Victoria Police” Higher up the ranks in charge?

If the subject does not get the “special treatment” will he then submit to his desire to interfere with the Victoria Police higher up officers?

Andrews

“uh you wouldn't wish it on anyone Justin”

Justin

“yeah no absolutely and, and also to your family too I hope your wife is fine and your children are okay and yourself. Thank you very much all. Right thank you Daniel Andrews State opposition leader”

Dan Andrews Statement Analysis Conclusions

Is the subject truthful? Is this a reliable account of what happened?

This is not a reliable account of what happened on the day of the accident between the Andrews vehicle and Ryan Meuleman. There are many indicators of sensitivity and missing information about what happened.

Who was driving the car?

The subject had and created many opportunities to say his wife was driving the car at the time of the accident. He consistently used the pronoun “we”, for all actions involving the car which served to conceal the identity of the driver.

An argument could be made to say he is protective about his wife and so unified them in the accident. However if he wished to buttress his statement in protection of her, we would expect to hear more reliable language saying what she did, and what she would have been unable to do in avoiding the accident. For example, “My wife could not have seen Ryan or avoided colliding with him”. He did not do this. Instead, he used the pronoun “we” to hide in the collectiveness of them both.

He did not linguistically defend her actions as the driver of the car. In all actions involving the car the subject used the pronoun “we” unifying himself and his wife in the control of the vehicle.

In a casual conversation we may say “we went for a drive, and we stopped at a café” showing unity in the actions involving a car. Context is key. The context in this café example shows the unity of a recreational drive and visit to a café.  The context of the radio interview with Andrews is not the same. The actions of each individual had consequences, which should lead the subject to speak for themselves and to say who did what and when. In this context repeated use of the pronoun “we” is not appropriate.

The language used by the subject leaves the question of who was driving suspiciously open. As the question of who was driving, was not addressed by either the interviewer or Andrews further questioning is required to make a solid conclusion. It is noted however that the language used by Andrews is consistent with him being the driver although not conclusive.

Was alcohol consumed?

The subject does not tell us reliably that alcohol was not consumed by either his wife or himself.

Who was at fault regarding the accident?

From the statement the subject has a need to persuade us that Ryan was at fault for the accident making it likely that either some or all of the blame lies with the driver of the Andrews vehicle.

Has Andrews used his position to influence the Police investigation?

Whether directly or indirectly the language is consistent with the use of position to gain favour with both Police and Victoria Police. He is likely aware they will listen to this interview.

There is a call now (June 2023) for the Triple Zero Emergency call from Andrews to Police to be made public. If this happens it will provide us with a valuable sample for analysis. Emergency calls are an excellent source of information usually free from contamination. They have helped solve many cases in the past. Emergency call operators job is to gain information free from outside concerns such as keeping their interview subjects happy, entertaining the public or ratings figures. All things that radio hosts have as concerns.

If you enjoyed reading this article, you can read more analysis on Dan Andrews’ behaviour and statements:

Body Language Analysis: Dan Andrews' Alleged Fall

Statement Analysis: Dan Andrews' Alleged Fall

STATEMENT ANALYSIS SERVICE

Don’t kid yourself.  

Whenever anybody says, 

“I embellished my resume…,” 

or she “embellished the story," that’s statement analysis code for “I lied.”

When a stick of butter 🧈 is softened, it’s still butter 🧈.

When lies are softened to the word “embellishment,” 

lies are still LIES.

Don’t be duped.  

See through the bull 💩 sh*t.  Get to the TRUTH.

Contact @JanetteGhedotte of @AccurateBodyLanguage for consulting and training.

Dan Andrews—Alleged Accident

Dan Andrews Slips and Falls While Holidaying

On the morning of 9 March 2021, Dan Andrews, Premier of Victoria, Australia, is reported to have slipped and fallen on wet stairs while holidaying on the Mornington Peninsula. No legitimate photograph or footage of Andrews has been published anywhere in Australia since his alleged accident.

Dan Andrews—Rumours

Incident at High-Flyers Party

He returns to work this week after three months off with full pay, whilst Melbournians suffer repeated lockdowns, business closures and some of the strictest enforced Covid regulations in the world. During this time rumours have circulated, including in the Cairns Post that he was involved in an incident at a high-flyers party with a seventeen-year-old girl and was beaten up by the father of this girl’s friend. 

Shadow Treasurer, Louise Stayley has received backlash for calling on Andrews to answer questions on the matter.

What can we learn from Andrews’ words through Statement Analysis?

With his return to work this week Andrews has now finally spoken on the incident. What can we learn from his words through Statement Analysis? He is the one who knows what happened. We must listen to him. We do not interpret. We believe the subject and we allow them to tell us what happened. In order for us to conclude deception, we must be talked out of this position.

Dan Andrews’ Statement

Dan Andrews:

“As I'm coming back to work ahh I thought it was appropriate to update you on where things are at but also to tell you a bit more about, my story, our story of these last few months. We’d been down the Beach ah having a family weekend.”

Statement Analysis:

Andrews (the subject) does not begin with the pronoun “I” which statistically makes what he says less likely to contain reliable information. It is to lack psychological presence.

He instead begins with the reason why he is talking to us now. This is sensitive to him and likely shows awareness that he has not spoken for a considerable amount of time and that many are wondering why, and what happened.

He does not address “where things are at” in this statement. What does “where things are at” mean to him? What are the “things”? The word “but” minimises or refutes what came before. The reason for him speaking is to address what happened to him to be injured and absent for three months.

“my story”. He changes to “our story”. It is about him. Is his wife an afterthought? Or was she not there? He has a need to include her in his story.

A story implies a work of fiction. Often when a subject tells us they are going to tell us a story it will be a story.

“We’d been down the beach” When? The subject does not say this is the day of the incident. This would be true if it were a different day. It elongates time. The addition of “having a family weekend” elongates this time period again. We cannot say he is talking about the specific day of the incident.

Dan Andrews:

“ It was a bit of a bit of a chance to have some time together and to make up for the fact that summer had been really busy and a holiday that had been planned hadn't happened.”

Statement Analysis:

This is passive. Who planned the holiday? Whose holiday? To where? Passivity is used to conceal either identity or responsibility. This is unreliable language. We cannot say if they had a holiday planned.

Is this the reason why he was where he was? Does he have a need to persuade us that this is why he was there. This may indicate another reason for being away.

Dan Andrews:

“And I'm making my way to the car to head off to work and ahh it had been raining not sure it was raining at the time, but it had been raining.”

Statement Analysis:

When someone is telling us what happened, we expect to hear the account in past tense. A slip into present tense can be an indication that the subject is not speaking from experiential memory. There are some exceptions. Some will habitually speak in present tense and we also hear it in the language of those who are suffering from PTSD. Andrews does not appear to fit into either of these exceptions.

We then have the unnecessary reason why the subject was making his way to the car. This makes it sensitive to him in that he wishes to beat us to the question we may not have asked. Why he was going to the car is of no consequence in the context of having an accident, yet he has a need to tell us.

If he was on holiday, as he says, why was he going to work? Is he trying to make himself seem conscientious? This need to portray himself as “the good guy” often indicates the opposite.

“head off” is noted. A common phrase perhaps, but if the rumour were true, could someone have told him they were going to knock his “Head Off”? Potential leakage like this is noted, but we do not put too much weight on it until after we discover what happened and then revisit the statement.

“raining” is repeated 3 times making it important to the subject, yet he unwilling or unable to tell us that the steps were wet. If he cannot say it, we cannot say it for him.

Dan Andrews:

“ As I put my foot onto the first step, I knew I was in trouble. I didn't really connect with the step. It just slid straight off.”

Statement Analysis:

What slid straight off? The subject wishes for us to interpret his words into him putting his foot onto a wet slippery step and then his foot sliding off. It is a mistake to interpret people’s words. Truthful sentences are usually straightforward and somewhat boring to analyse. This “story” reads like an account of fiction with suspense as the subject intuitively knows he was “in trouble”. Deceptive accounts often use this “storytelling” method. He narrates as a story because he is not speaking from experiential memory.

“I didn’t really connect with the step”. This may be an embedded admission that his injuries were not caused by the step? Sometimes a subject will embed within their words a confession of the truth.

I believe the subject when he says, “I knew I was in trouble”. This may be leakage. The brain knows what it knows, and words leak out, sometimes revealing the truth. For what he knew he was in trouble for is not so clear.

Dan Andrews:

“I became airborne almost. So I'm hor, horizontal with the step. And then all I could hear was just this Almighty crunch.”

Statement Analysis:

The addition of “almost” negates the assertion that he became “airborne”.

Again, the subject goes into present tense “I’m horizontal with the step”. This is unreliable language that is common in deceptive statements.

The words “And then” are an indication that there is missing information here.

The word “just” is comparative, meaning the subject likely has something else in his mind as he is thinking of this part of his story.

It is worth noting that both times the subject says “crunch” he punches his fist into his hand. I am not a body language expert but considering the accusation that he was beaten up, it is interesting. Perhaps Sophie Zadeh could comment on Andrews' body language.

It is worth considering what you would say if you had fallen down some steps and broke your ribs. What would your account sound like? Would you take three months before you were able to speak?

It is likely you would say something like “I went to go down the steps to the car and my foot slid off the step and I fell down breaking my ribs” From Andrews we have this vague story with unreliable language. 

Dan Andrews:

“ And that's when I knew. I knew that when I heard the crunch, I thought that’s This is serious. We're in trouble here.”

Statement Analysis:

The element of time has been prominent throughout the subject’s statement. This raises the question of whether the timing of this account is important or different to how the subject is telling it.

“crunch” is repeated making it important.

Who is “we”? The subject does not want to be alone with this account. Those who are deceptive often have a need to linguistically hide within a crowd.

Dan Andrews:

“Cat must have heard me groaning in pain. I couldn't yell out she comes and finds me. A few moments later. It felt like an eternity because I sort of couldn't breathe I could only the most shallow breaths in and out.”

Statement Analysis:

Does the subject not know if his wife heard him groaning? Has she not said? We cannot say that Cat heard Andrews groaning. He does not say she did, and neither does she.

Anything in the negative is doubly important to the subject. Why does he have a need to tell us that he couldn’t yell out? If he had yelled out, would neighbours have heard and been able to corroborate his story?

This is the third instant of unreliable present tense language. We cannot say Cat came and found Andrews. If they cannot say it, we cannot say it for them.

Cat Andrews:

“It was awful cause you were going blue and we were looking at each other and I was thinking, you're gonna die, here in Sorento at this holiday house and you were looking at me and you felt the same.” 

Dan Andrews:

“Ahh Cat called the ambulance ahh and she called my close personal protection detail er the Victoria police detail the Two guys that are with me 24/7, they were parked just a few houses down the Street waiting for me to drive out.  Ahh I can remember the Ambos getting there and they gave me one of those green whistles, but because I had broken ribs, they knew I had broken ribs.”

Statement Analysis:

Notice how now there is no present tense language. The normal reliability of normal past tense verbs returns.

Why the need to tell us that the two close personal protection officers were waiting for him to drive out? This is unnecessary language. Is there another reason?

Dan Andrews:

“They said, don't breathe on that too hard or it'll make you cough. But it wasn't until I got the line into my arm and into my hand and gave me ahh some pretty significant pain relief that things kind of settled. Look, the ambos did a fantastic job and I'm proud of them and I'm grateful to them. Ahh But I've never experienced anything like this. I've never really been injured. I've never been admitted to hospital in all my life. I've never broken a bone. Everyone who's taken care of us from coppers, the the guys that are with me 24/7 who are are great. They're part of our family, basically. They do an amazing job. Physios to ambos ahh all of our doctors.”

Cat Andrews:

“Nurses in ICU”

Dan Andrews:

“Nurses in ICU just well amazing.

There's something very special about those people. They are the best of us. As painful, as difficult, as traumatic as it was, we were very lucky, very, very lucky. And we've seen some really vile stories being put around about what happened. Politics isn't always like that.”

Statement Analysis:

After the subject tells us that they have seen “some really vile stories being put around about what happened” he tells us that “politics isn’t always like that”. This is an indication that for the subject, in his verbal perception of reality, sometimes politics, is like the vile stories.

The subject does not address the “vile stories”. It is noted that he does not deny anything.

Dan Andrews:

“And I got one of the most touching and most important messages that came to me in a text message from Ted Baillieu, on the day of this accident, the evening of that Tuesday, where he shared his experience having injured his back 40 years ago, having not taken the time to recover properly. And still today, living with that injury. And he made it really clear to me and to us that we needed to take our time and heal properly.” 

Statement Analysis:

Considering the unanswered allegation of sexual assault, “most touching” is an interesting phrase and maybe another instance of leakage from the subject.

What does the subject’s wife need to heal from? She did not fall down any steps. Has he caused her pain? Does she need time to forgive him for something?

This is a reoccurring theme from the subject “my story, our story” and now “to me and to us” This may speak to the subject’s personality. Does he see himself first and then add his wife as an afterthought?

The subject has not spoken to the press or been filmed or photographed for three months. Is he using this message from Ted Baillieu as an excuse for this? He could have still taken the time off to heal and spoken earlier.

Dan Andrews:

“To, to everybody, To every one of you who sent a Facebook message, a card and note, an email, a text message uh wishing us well. I'm deeply grateful. We're deeply grateful. I think there's tens of thousands of them, literally tens of thousands. And the kindness of strangers. It's a it’s a beautiful thing. It's the best medicine in some ways. Well, being the premiere of this state is the greatest honour of my life, and it's an important role. When you have a traumatic moment in your life, you kind of reassess things. You work out, and you remind yourself of the things that are really, really important. Family is important. But so, too, is delivering for every family, working hard for every single Victorian family that's the Oath I swore. That's the job I've got.”

Statement Analysis:

He does not say he is going to work hard for every Victorian family. It may seem trivial to an average reader but there is no psychological commitment from Andrews to do this. This is political language.

He tells us of “the oath I swore” and “the job I’ve got” without linguistic commitment again to actually working hard for the Victorian families.

Dan Andrews:

“I'm I’m coming back this week. I'm fit, I'm strong, I'm healthy. I'm on the ballot next year. I'm running, and I'm running to win. There's unfinished business, and I'm determined to get it done.” 

Statement Analysis:

Now he has the strong linguistic presence of the pronoun “I”. He is psychologically present and linguistically committed, but to what?

Coming back this week.

Being fit, strong and heathy.

Determination to get “unfinished business” done.

Dan Andrews Statement Analysis Conclusion

This is an unreliable account.

The language used is consistent with a subject who demonstrates no linguistic commitment to his words regarding what happened to him for him to become injured.

It is not reliable that the incident happened at the subject’s holiday home or that it happened the way the subject has said.

From the language used and the focus on the element of time, it is possible that it happened elsewhere and then the subject moved to the holiday home.

The subject language is indicative of a person who is comfortable being deceptive and is well-practised. He has likely learnt this from an early age and was not corrected properly.

The subject is well-practised in political speech. His deceptive language flows easily as is common with many politicians. He does not tell what we call a “true lie” in this statement.

The subject does not linguistically commit to working hard for Victorian families.

The subject does linguistically commit to getting “unfinished business” done.

Fillers in conversation, like ‘um’ and ‘er’, tend to be viewed negatively. However, there’s plenty of evidence that they serve a valuable purpose during communication. In this article, we’ll look at some of the suggested meanings behind these discourse markers, with the aim of breaking negative connotations.

If you’re aware of your use of these utterances and are concerned about how you use them, hopefully, I can put you at ease.

‘Um’ is also known as, or can sound like, ‘em’ or ‘mmm’.

‘Er’ is is also known as, or can sound like, ‘uh’ or ‘ah’.

Vocal Delivery is an area of Nonverbal Communication

A large area of nonverbal communication is vocal delivery—how we deliver our words. This area includes speed, pitch, volume, intonation, inflexion, etcetera—anything that isn’t an exact word. When people struggle with the concept that nonverbal communication forms the majority component of our communication, it’s usually because they think of body language and facial expression as nonverbal communication, not realising the vocal delivery is also a key area.

A statement can take on different implied meanings, depending on where the vocal emphasis is placed. Let’s take the statement, ‘I didn’t say he lost his car’, try saying this with emphasis on each word in the statement each time you say it. It sounds different each time.

Every time you shift the emphasis to another word, consider what the implied meaning could be.

For example, if the emphasis is placed on the word ‘car’, the implied meaning could be that ‘he’ lost something else, not his ‘car’. Perhaps he lost his ‘card’. What else could be implied by this single, short statement? This is one way nonverbal communication adds meaning to verbal communication.

Since utterances like ums and ers are not exact words, they fall under the umbrella of nonverbal communication. That said, some researchers would argue that the meanings of these utterances are so specific that they are part of language and should therefore be classed as words.

Ums and Ers are Filled Pauses

One long-standing and commonly known theory is that ums and ers are filled pauses. Typically when a speaker (silently) pauses during a conversation, the conversation partner sees this as their cue to start talking. By filling the pause with an um or er, the speaker gains the time to gather their thoughts and at the same time is signalling, “I’m not done yet”. They hold the floor of the conversation without being interrupted. In public speaking, however, they don’t serve the same purpose as a signal, because the communication is typically one way—the floor is already held.

These pauses are needed during most interactions, to provide speakers with time to recall, search for or select the relevant word or phrase so that they can correctly express themselves. Depending on who we’re talking to and what we’re talking about, we adapt our words and construct our sentences to give the receiver the message we want them to receive. Some people do the same thing with nonverbal communication, deliberately using specific behaviours to assist in getting the right message across. This can be tied to deception, which leads me to the next point—ums and ers as a way of self-correcting.

Ums and Ers to Self-Correct

Sometimes, ums and ers are used in speech directly after misspoken words or phrases. Typically, these are shorter, sharper utterances, which can sound like desperate attempts to erase what was said. Of course, when these happen, it doesn’t necessarily mean that someone is being deceptive, they may have just used the wrong expression. So if you find yourself doing this, don’t panic that it seems like you’re lying. This is a typical way of self-correction and none of us are perfectly fluent.

I’d be interested to hear Statement Analyst, Colin Ector’s comments on this, with his expertise in statement analysis, from the perspective of deception detection. Colin joined My Alcomy recently as a contributor to the blog and statement analysis service provider.

Er as an Warning Signal of an Upcoming Statement

Sometimes an er is used before the speaker makes a statement which could result in a negative response by the conversation partner (or audience). This type of er, as filled pause, perhaps signals the speaker’s hesitation, signalling, “I know this sounds bad, but…”, signalling a warning to get ready for what’s about to be said.

For example, “Er, excuse me, would you mind not smoking in the queue? It’s bothering me quite a bit and I think the other people are affected too.” This is what I once said to someone smoking in a long and winding taxi queue outside Sydney airport. The (pre-social distancing) queue was so tightly packed that many of us were inhaling his smoke. People around were visibly bothered and rightly so. I’m assuming the smoker was desperate for a smoke after a flight. The queue was directly outside the airport doors and was much longer than usual, so his urgency to get into the queue probably came before finding somewhere more acceptable to smoke.

I had a feeling someone was going to say something and I was concerned that a fight might break out, taking us all down with it. So I figured, that I (once labelled ‘the diplomat’ as a child) was the right person to deliver it. I knew that I may receive a negative response but I’m a firm believer that you can say awkward or sensitive things in a nice way. Part of this is using positive nonverbal behaviours to soften the blow of the statement. In hindsight, I’m not sure what behaviours I used, but knowing myself, it was most probably a smile and an initial brief touch on the forearm to get his attention. For once, being tiny felt like an advantage and probably negated potential perceptions of dominance and aggression. And I was sure that if I was in trouble people would step in to help. Side note for bartenders—please serve small people.

His response, “Of course—sorry”, as he exhaled up into the air, then extinguished his cigarette. I observed simultaneous relief and quiet exhales in those around me. I followed with a big smile, a nod and a, “thank you”, as everybody turned away, resuming their queuing orientation.

Teachers Using Er for Attention and Command

When I lived in the UK, a lot of my work was based in schools working with teachers or students. With colleagues, I’d visit schools, mostly in the North West, often working in several schools each week. We’d notice the use of loud, audible er, as a command by teachers to gain the attention of the children to settle them down. This er seemed to resonate from deep within the chest and is most certainly an attention grabber. Sometimes it would catch me off guard and I’d jump in response.

The teachers would use this when students behaviour became rowdy or unacceptable. I’m not sure if this otherwise uncommon behaviour is limited to North West or UK schools, or whether it happens elsewhere too. If you’re a teacher, please share your thoughts.

This type of er often had no words surrounding it, but a long pause and hard stare followed. Before long, I found myself using it in the schools I visited, for the same reasons. The habit seems to spread easily. Thinking logically and with the er as a warning signal in mind, I think it’s exactly that, a warning signal. Despite usually having no words surrounding it, perhaps this is a warning that if student behaviour didn’t change, trouble was to come. Perhaps the er was all that needed to be said after previous conditioning that an er of this nature comes with stern words and the possibility of punishment. Pavlov’s Dogs springs to mind.

Ums and Ers are not a Stress Behaviour

Contrary to what many people believe, ums and ers are not indicative of stress. Research suggests the same utterances don’t decrease when we’re chilling with the family.

Ums and Ers Don’t Indicate a Lack of Confidence

While ums and ers typically increase when we are unprepared, for example, during public speaking or when speaking on a topic we don’t know much about, it doesn’t mean the speaker lacks confidence. Because being unprepared doesn’t always go hand in hand with a lack of confidence. An over-use of ums and ers can be an issue for over-confident people who don’t bother preparing for a speech and for those who aren’t overly confident but decide to wing it.

Ums and Ers in Public Speaking

Even when a speaker is prepared and well-rehearsed, ums and ers can still occur during public speaking. In this case, they are not signalling to hold the floor, since they already hold it, but the speaker may still use them as a means to pause and gather their thoughts.

Generally speaking, and especially in regards to public speaking, people view these utterances negativity. Rehearsing and preparing can reduce the amount of ums and ers because the preparation in thinking and delivering has been done. However, if you’re giving a talk and you’re well prepared, keep an eye on your pace and don’t try to eliminate pauses, to give your audience time to process.

What’s interesting are studies into how listeners respond to these filled pauses, especially those in the field of neuroscience. Activation in the brain’s of listeners, suggests that ums and ers can act as a cue to pay attention to what’s coming—engagement is held at these points! So maybe there are benefits to moderate use of ums and ers during public speaking. What’s more, there’s evidence suggesting that listeners can better recognise words after ums and ers and that there are no detrimental effects.

Like with using most nonverbal behaviours, there’s a sweet spot. If your speech is filled to the brim with ums and ers, whether it’s true or not, you’re more likely to be perceived as not being prepared or not being competent. So take preparation seriously. And when ums and ers happen in moderation, embrace your filled pauses.

Get in Touch

Guest Post

I’m excited to announce that Colin Ector, talented Statement Analyst and author of this article, has kindly agreed to let me re-post his article here on the My Alcomy blog. Colin published the article on 24 March 2021, on his blog Through the Lens of Statement Analysis.

I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I did.

—Sophie

Christian Porter “Strenuously Denied” Allegations

Earlier this month Attorney General Christian Porter identified himself as the Australian cabinet minister accused of historical rape and has “strenuously denied” all the allegations against him in a Perth press conference.

His accuser spoke to detectives at Kings Cross station in February 2020 and was in contact with them at least 5 times thereafter in the following three months. On June 23rd the woman emailed Police to say she no longer wanted to proceed with reporting the matter. At that point, she had not yet made a formal statement. She took her own life the next day.

After her death police came into possession of a personal document/statement made by the woman sometime prior to detailing the accusations. This document was made available to some media outlets.

Christian Porter Rape Allegation Statement—Content Summary

Katherine Murphy, the Guardian’s political editor summarised the contents of the statement.

I have shortened this to the following bullet points. 

1.     The alleged assault took place on a specific date in January 1988.

2.     The accuser ironed Porter’s shirt prior to the assault.

3.     Porter made lewd comments about her breasts and said she would make a good housewife.

4.     The accuser agreed to a non-penetrative sex act at Porter’s request after an evening out in Sydney.

5.     Porter then allegedly sexually assaulted (raped) her more than once that same evening. 

6.     The accuser states she was drunk and felt dizzy.

7.     The details recounted in the woman’s statement are graphic.

8.     She says the man helped her clean up afterwards, including washing her body and her hair.

9.     she was “deeply shocked and ashamed” in the aftermath, and told nobody about what had happened."

  Although we cannot analyse this list of bullet points there a couple of things to note.

Statement Analysis: Reliable Denial

1.     We have a specific time, date and place named for the assault. This is important in that it gives us the expectation that the accused will give a reliable denial. A reliable denial consists of 3 things. 

a.     The pronoun “I”. This places the subject psychologically in his words. It is very powerful and its absence is not to be missed. It can indicate a desire to not be present. A missing pronoun “I” creates distance psychologically between the subject (speaker, writer) and his or her words.  The more serious or heinous the allegation the more likely it is that this powerful psychological presence (The use of “I”) will be used when denying the allegation.  It is instinctive and intuitive.

b.     “did not”, or “didn’t”. Either is fine. The use of “never” elongates time.  This is why it is important to know the context. Is the allegation of a specific time and place? Is it clear what the allegation is? In this case, we have established date, time, location and that consensual non-penetrative sex is alleged, as well as rape at least twice thereafter.

c.     The specific allegation stated. In this case both consensual non-penetrative sex and rape.

A Psychological Need to Wash

2.     Also, worth noting is the mentioning of washing.  The accuser’s account allegedly includes that Porter helped wash her body after the assault.  Those that commit sexual offences often include in their language the mentioning of washing or water after the assault has taken place.  They have a psychological need to wash themselves clean of the deed they have done. Language and reality sometimes mirror each other in this way.

For the sake of understanding of how instinctive this is, imagine for a moment you are waiting in your car at a traffic light and another car fails to break in time and rams straight up the back of you. When the police arrive the driver of the other car tells the officer, in front of you, that you reversed into him, when he was sitting at the lights.

What would be the first thing you would say? Would you say “Naa Never happened”? Would you say, “I can say categorically that nothing of that nature ever happened”?

It is very likely that the first word to come out of your mouth would be the personal pronoun “I”, followed by “did not” and then “reverse into him”. You may well say a lot of other things…., but the reliable denial will usually appear early and often. A personal accusation should produce a personal pronoun response.

 Christian Porter Press Conference

Twenty Denials

The press conference went on for more than forty minutes. In this time Porter denied the allegations repeatedly.  He was reported in the press as “Strenuously denying all allegations against him”. On closer inspection did he deny having consensual non-penetrative sex or raping his accuser?

Below are all of Porter’s 20 denials from the press conference. 

 1.     And I hope that whatever else happens, from this point, that you will understand that in saying today that the things that are being claimed to have happened did not happen, that I do not mean to impose anything more upon your grief.

2.     what is being alleged did not happen

3.     nothing in the allegations that have been printed ever happened.

4.     I can say categorically that what has been put in various forms and allegations simply did not happen.

5.     something that simply did not happen, 

6.     Reporter: Is your defence here that you didn't sleep with the alleged victim or it was consensual?

Mr Porter: I did not sleep with the victim. We didn't have anything of that nature happen between us.

7.     I can say to you all, it didn't happen

8.     I can only say to you it didn't happen.

9.     all I could say is what I have said to you today, that it just didn't happen.

10.  Reporter: Were you ever alone, the two of you?

Mr Porter: Look, I just — I don't think so.

11.  All I have by way of the allegations is what I have literally read, the same things that you would have read. They just didn't happen.

12.  something that just didn't happen 33 years ago. So, if that happens, I couldn't succeed to disapprove something that didn't happen

13.  they just didn't happen.

14.  Could I have forgotten the things that have been printed? Could I have forgotten or misconstrued the things that I have read, which are said to have occurred? Absolutely not. They just didn't happen

15.  You allegedly then forced her to perform oral sex on you and that after that you raped her twice. What do you say to that allegation?

Mr Porter: Just it didn't happen, and it's not true.

16.  I'm not commentating on survival or politics. I'm simply saying to you all, that I did — it just did not happen.

17.  Was there a time that you spent alone with this person?

Mr Porter: It's not impossible, but I have never been in the person's room or anything like that.

18.  you don't remember having any other kind of relationship with her?

Mr Porter: It's because I didn't.

19.  I'm just saying, it didn't happen.

20.  I will finish by saying the things that I have read did not happen, and to suggest that they could be forgotten is ridiculous. They just never happened.

 Wow! Twenty denials of a terrible allegation and yet he is unwilling or unable to give a single reliable denial. There are some worthy mentions within these.

The Pronoun “I”

Porter demonstrates that the pronoun “I” comes naturally to him as it does with all of us who speak the English language.  He uses it several times to deny the accusations but to what does he connect himself so strongly?

“I can say categorically”, “I can say to you all”, “I can only say to you”, “All I can say”, “I’m simply saying to you all” and “I’m just saying”.

All of the above use the pronoun “I”, places him psychologically there. But where does he go? He uses the personal pronoun to tell us what he can say. That is where the weight of the sentence is. It is not to the denial.

This is similar to a Police officer in a press conference where he is not permitted to make public some of the details of a case. “All I can say is that the suspect was white and about 6 foot tall.” This would likely be an indication that there is more information that the officer has that he is not going to tell the press.

“I did not go to the shop” is reliable. “I can only say that me at the shop never happened”, is not. The weight is what I am able say rather than what I’m saying. This is how deception works. The stress of a true lie will be avoided by the brain 90 percent plus of the time.

 Sleeping with the ‘Victim’

Denial #6 is also interesting.

Reporter: Is your defence here that you didn't sleep with the alleged victim or it was consensual?

Mr Porter: I did not sleep with the victim. We didn't have anything of that nature happen between us.

At first glance this looks good. Pronoun “I” followed by “did not”. But, then not only is the allegation parroted from the reporter (“sleep with the victim”) but it is not the allegation against him.

We all have a subjective internal dictionary. What is it to “sleep with someone” in the subject’s internal dictionary?  

In most people’s internal dictionary to “sleep with someone” is likely consensual penetrative intercourse with the possible addition of spending the night together. This may of course differ, but it is unlikely that either oral sex or rape would be included under the umbrella of “sleeping together”. The subject needs to be asked “what is sleeping together?”

The language of sex differs greatly for different people.

“Sexual relations” for Bill Clinton meant penetrative sex allowing him to say reliably, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman Miss Lewinsky”. He did not lie. Oral sex was not included in his internal definition of “sexual relations”. Miss Lewinsky’s dictionary definition differed from Clinton’s as did Hilary’s judging by the black eye Clinton sported in the aftermath.  

Lastly in this particular denial is the use of the word “victim”.  It is parroted from the journalist words meaning that it did not come from the subject himself in the free editing process. That it remained in the subject’s reply is still unexpected and concerning. 

Had it not been parroted it would be very concerning.  Some suspects have used similar phrasing and worse describing their accusers as “my victim” thereby taking ownership of the victim. That is not the case here, but its use is still not good.

Self-Censoring

In denial #16 the subject self-censors. It looks as if he was going to say, “I did not….” but was unable to. It is amazing how the brain won’t allow the true lie. He says, “I did”, and then pauses. In a fraction of a second the brain protects itself from the stress of a true lie as he reverts back to his repeated sentence with psychological distance between himself and the denial.

“I'm not commentating on survival or politics. I'm simply saying to you all, that I did — it just did not happen.”

 In conclusion within the press conference, there were twenty separate occasions where either the subject was put in a position where a reliable denial was expected, or he created an opportunity to give one himself. 

Both the accusation of consensual non-penetrative sex and the allegation of rape are still very much a possibility and moving towards being likely by this many unreliable denials and distancing language. This is not however definitive, and the accuser’s statement would be preferable for a complete conclusion.

—by Colin Ector

Christian Porter’s Body Language

It was fascinating to read the hidden communication that Colin deciphered from Christian Porter’s statements. Thank you Colin for contributing your article to the My Alcomy blog.

Statement analysis and reading body language (or other nonverbal behaviours) complement each other. Both independently draw on subtle communication cues which point towards the truth—yet usually go unnoticed. Each is valuable as a tool for gaining a better understanding of others. Together, they offer even more information—the bigger picture—what is really going on in the mind of the communicator.

I haven’t analysed Christian Porter’s nonverbal behaviours, instead, I thought I’d hand it over to you. If you’re a regular reader of my blog, you’ll have (hopefully) picked up some knowledge along the way of the meaning of specific nonverbal behaviours.

Jussie Smollett's TEXTS tell the REAL story.

In our collaborative Accurate Body Language webinar, "Liars Leak Clues," former Deputy US Marshal Mark McClish (http://statementanalysis.com/) shows you how to catch the Statement Analysis clues during the Jussie Smollett interview with Robin Roberts:

https://go.accuratebodylanguage.com/jussie-smollett-words-registration

Janette Ghedotte provide my play-by-play Accurate BODY Language Analysis:

https://go.accuratebodylanguage.com/jussie-body-language-register