Adam Jones reported that he was a victim of racism in Boston where fans threw peanuts at him and called him "the N word." It made headlines throughout the media.
Curt Shilling raised doubts saying that if this was heard, Twitter would have been all over it as everyone has cell phones. Shilling also reported that Jones has an agenda.
Statement Analysis gets to the truth.
Does Adam Jones say "the fan called me the N word"?
Or, is he deceptive?
“Schilling is over there with his rants. He just wants an outlet. Somebody will take his call, take his rants. He can keep them for himself. Because he’s never experienced anything like I have. I’ll stick with what [Mark] McLemore said about it: Schilling, hell of a career. But he’s never been black, and he’s never played the outfield in Boston.”
Jones said defending himself. We expect him to say, "he called me the N word" or "they yelled the N word at me."
This would include identifying the fan or fans, the past tense verb, and the topic ("N word") identified.
Truthful people speaking from experiential memory are psychologically connected to the event.
The event is imprinting upon the brain and when there is an escalation, such as Jones' claim, there is an elevation of hormone that further increases memory recall.
Here he tells us what happened. Note the underlining and color coding to call attention to sensitivity indicators within his answer.
As a general principle, truthful people state from experiential memory and do not feel a need to add many words to the statement.
"The guy called me the N word" is such an example.
Psychological Weakness in Deception
Those who are not speaking from experiential memory (of the specifically claimed event) feel a need or burden to convince the audience. This "need to persuade" seeks out assistance via a multitude of words.
We also find that a deceptive person may anticipate being asked a question that is very uncomfortable, leading them to explain "why" in an answer before being asked.
This is a study unto itself and is fascinating. One of the greatest benefits within detecting deception in noting this "reason why" is this:
The person answers a question without being asked and quite often, the question would not have entered the mind of the audience/interviewer.
This is to give away information (sensitivity=importance) that we may not have even sought. It is a consistent way to not only catch liars, but to obtain more information. The "reason why" is highlighted in the color blue to assist catching the eye's attention to the word. We note that the statement does not begin with the pronoun "I" and a past tense verb. Statistically, we begin with "less reliable" status.
Next, we note that he now defends what happened by telling us "why" we should believe him: he has great hearing.
"To hear and and understand what I hear, what I heard, I got great hearing. And um, you know, we understand that we're the road team.
Note the use of the pronoun "we" indicates contextual weakness: liars do not like to be "alone" in a deceptive statement. Like school children saying, "everyone was doing it", the deceptive person will not take personal responsibility as an attribute for himself in this statement.
And uh, fans, they don't need to uh, welcome us. It's all part of the competitive edge for the fan base to, you know, tell the opponents, you know, you suck, ha ha, you struck out and various things on your performance which is completely understandable in the lines of, uh, just how sports work and how fan bases work.
This is a lecture or "sermonizing" (ethics) that is unnecessary. It is often used to establish a "moral high ground" by a deceptive person. The need for moral high ground often shows the opposite.
Uh, um, so, I heard that all night
Note he reliably reports hearing all night "you suck" "you struck out", and tells us, his hearing is good as is his attention span.
and then, then just something that caught my attention.
His ability to hear "all night" is now escalated. His "attention" was sufficient to hear specifics about "suck" and "striking out" all night, but he now feels the need to qualify what happened next.
I heard the N word
This is better; he uses the pronoun "I", the past tense "heard" and the topic, N word. What is missing is the fan or fans who made this claim.
Yet, he is not done yet, and this is where we obtain information to judge the quality of the partial sentence:
and you know, I, I, I get so
He stutters, as a non-stutterer, on the pronoun "I", which indicates an increase in anxiety. He is intelligent and articulate and has used the pronoun "I" millions of times in his life.
Question: Does he stutter on the pronoun "I" anywhere else in the statement?
He now address an increase in attention:
certain reactions when someone says something clever or something really really stupid and ignorant
note "stupid" before "ignorant"
note "stupid" is qualified as "really, really"
and last night it was not clever
note the rule of the negative
it was really stupid and ignorant so it caught my attention
note "really" for the third time;
Note the need for him to now explain the incongruence of his previous words about his attention, though no one has asked,
"Why did this particular ____ (fan, word?) catch your attention?"
This means that the subject (Jones) anticipates being asked the question, though, after his explanations of how attentive he is, including his great hearing, it is not likely that anyone would think to ask this question.
"you know" is a habit of speech. We note what causes its intrusion and what topics do not. It is to show an acute awareness of his audience/interviewer.
he now moves into a general use of the 2nd person, running away from personal commitment to a topic that he just claimed elevated his personal attention:
and you know, and by the time you look back you can't tell who says what and who's doing what so I was just like this is okay this is really, um, this is really you don't go down here, so okay."
Reporter: Do you think it was more than one person?
Jones; I don't know. It's hard, its hard to say exactly who is what and who's voices is from where, you know I'm focused, I'm focused on the game. Dellenbodi (?) was pitching a hell of a game, so I'm focused on that.
He does not know anything specific and feels the need to tell us why he does not know: his attention span.
After telling us about his attention span and hearing, we would not have sought such justification.
Reporter: As a person or persons were watching right now, what would you say to him?
We now get further insight into not only his character, but motive:
Jones: Square up. Let's fight and get it over with.
This is narrative agenda.
Analysis Conclusion: Deception Indicated
Adam Jones is deceptive.
If you look at his original statement, you will find the same pattern of "running away" from commitment.
For training in detecting deception please visit www.hyattanalysis.com for law enforcement, business, journalists and citizen training.
The value for journalists is highlighted in cases such as these.
Study is in seminar or at home.