|





 

Anna Salter
 @ 
6 ~
Sex Offenders F l Us
6 Detecting Decepti n

B dy Language
Statement Analysis
Ad lescent Sex Offenders
Kinesic Intervie
ing
Incest Dynamics
R



 R
 

Angie ± age 5

Wet the bed

Nightmares
N t
anting t g n visits
Refused t let grandm ther sh
er her
Dad gave ³fun sh
ers´ n ³b bies
and vagina´
Straddle injury
 R
 

Brad ± age 6

‡ Public masturbati n
‡ Refusing t st p
‡ Grabbing sister fr m behind (b th
nude) & rubbing penis n her
‡ Said t uching his sister¶s butt
ith
penis
‡ Dad
uld think it is funny
 
 
 @


 


6 Father t ld her a secret

6 ³It¶s in the play sh
er´

6 Dad
uld get mad & thr
t ys ut

6 Dre
penises extended

6 Dad d esn¶t
ant S. [br ther] t

kn

6 Dad rubbed her vagina ³a l t´

6 She
ashed him and rubbed his penis

 
 
 @


 


6 ³~e rubs me in the sh
er and I can¶t rub

myself´
6 She rubs dad¶s penis and he gets s apy´
6 ³It stands up and sits d
n´
6 ³It
as red
hen it
as up and red and peach

hen it sits d
n.´
 R


³My clinical intervie
s
ith Mr. G. als made
clear that heis n t a ped phile, has n t
engaged in activities inv lving ped philia
and is n t danger us t his
n r any ne
else¶s children.´
 R


³M re ver, and imp rtantly, I d n t
believe, based up n my pr fessi nal
pini n and experience that Mr. G is a
ped phile. While it is unf rtunate that he
did n t b undary behavi r in sh
ering

ith his s n, this
as n t sexualized by
Mr. G.,
as n t d ne f r the purp se f
sexual gratificati n, n t did it pr v ke
sexual gratificati n. ³
 


6 Discl sure by 6-
6-year-
year- ld

6 M m severe health pr blems

6 Overd sed
ith date rape drug

 |

 


6 ³Sincere´

6 ³F rthright´

6 ³Quite c ncerned and frustrated ab ut his

legal situati n and the limitati ns n his
c ntact
ith his three children´
6 ³N evidence f ped philia´

6 N kn
n hist ry

6 ³Did n t dem nstrate r rep rt past r

current attitudes that
uld c nd ne r be
supp rtive f sexual ffending´
6 ³N evidence . . . That he has sexual
pre ccupati ns´

6 Admitted t bsessi n
ith sex clubs

6 Therapist: ³n m re than $10,000´

6 Spent as much as $200,000 n them

6 ³L
est categ ry f risk´

6 ³D es n t sh
evidence f deviate sexual

behavi r´
 R

 
6 ³Unsatisfact ry sexual relati ns
ith his
estranged
ife´

6 ³An indicat r f a dysfuncti nal marital

sexual relati nship´
6 ³this evaluati n . . Did n t reveal any
marked c ncerns regarding the questi n
f inappr priate r paraphilic sexual
behavi rs
ith r interests in
prepubescent children, including his
y ungest daughter´
×  


 



6 |hild¶s discl sure?
6 ~
he sc res n pers nality tests?
6 Dad¶s criminal rec rd?

6 ~
³nice´ dad is?

6 ~
he presents clinically?

6 Self
Self--rep rt?
6 Strip clubs?

6 Drugging m m?
 @
R@R 



³Evaluat rs d n t ffer c nclusi ns
regarding
hether an individual has r has
n t c mmitted a specific act f sexual
abuse.´
(Ass ciati n f r the Treatment f Sexual
Abusers 2005).
 @
R@R 



6 ³Members refuse referrals f r evaluati ns
t determine if s me ne has r has n t
c mmitted a specific sexual act.

(Ass ciati n f r the Treatment f Sexual

Abusers 2005, p.4)
 @
R@R 

³Members are a
are f the limitati ns f
client self-
self-rep rt and use c llateral
inf rmati n in c nducting evaluati ns s
that c nclusi ns and rec mmendati ns are
n t based s lely n client self-
self-rep rt (i.e.,
intervie
s and/ r c mputerized paper
paper--
and--pencil tests).´
and

(ATSA Standards f Practice)

 Pr files?

³There has been n d cumentati n f a

typical µ ffender pers nality¶ . . . Rather,
these men
ere characterized by their
diversity: An ffender c uld as
ell have
been a pr fess r as a pauper. . .M re ver,
an ffender . . . Might as
ell have had an
extensive hist ry f arrests r n ne at all.´
(Maletsky,1991,, pp. 16-
(Maletsky,1991 16-17)
6 ³Evidence suggests that very fe
child
m lesters suffer fr m either any f rm f
psych path l gy r disturbances in
pers nality functi ning.´
(Marshal and La
s, 1997)
³Psych l gical tests and instruments are
useful aids t diagn sis and treatment,
but they cann t be used t determine

hether an act ccurred. . . When
rking

ith individuals
h deny deviant
behavi r, h
ever, all available
psych l gical tests are subject t ³faking´
and c ncealment. There is n
psych l gical litmus test t detect sexual
deviancy.´
(Nich las & M linder, 1984, pp 133-
133-134)
~R


And ~
We F l Ourselves
× 


Everyb dy lies
6 ³Man
as given a t ngue
ith
hich t
speak and
rds t hide his th ughts.´
(~ungarian Pr verb)
Number f c llege students
h admitted lying
t a p tential sex partner

92%
(Kn x et al., 1993)

R

M st frequent lie b th sexes?
Number f previ us sex partners

Men
I l ve y u

W men
Sexually gratified
 



@



American and British married pers ns

2/3 t ¾
  

  
Number
h ³varnish the truth´

1/3

(Under
d, 1993)
  

  !


6 | llege degrees
6 Stretching empl yment peri ds t hide
unempl yment
Men
Played n c llege f tball team

W men
President f s r rity
 @



³We¶re c nceived, b rn, and deceived. By the
time s me ne reaches the age f 10, he¶s
pretty cynical.´

(Jerry Della Femina,

Femina, advertising executive
qu ted in McL ughlin et al., 1987, p. 59)
 


!×  "

6 Lies t get elected

6 Lies t gain supp rt f r p licy

6 Lies t pr tect nati nal security

6 Stupid lies
 
R  
~
many cheated n exams?

10%
 
 
Number f psychiatrically h spitalized
patients
h lied ab ut using drugs?

60%

(Blumberg et al., 1971)

  R

 
6 Isaac Ne
t n fudged data
6 L uis Pasteur used an ther¶s vaccine
6 Greg r Mendel fudged data
6 |harles Dar
in used thers¶ the ries

ith ut credit
6 R bert Millikan nly used data that
supp rted his the ries
6 |yril Burt fudged data
Questi n is n t d they lie
But
Why?
~
much?
~

ell?
 R
!
|



 

|
6 Liars Specific lie(s)

6 | n Man Lies
Pers na
Relati nship
 




P sed as
6 Physician in R yal |anadian Navy

6 Rem ved a bullet
ithin half an inch f the

heart

6 Rem ved a lung

 




P sed as

6 Teacher
6 Ph.D. in psych l gy
6 | llege dean
6 Assistant
arden f a Texas pris n
6 J ined and deserted fr m US army & navy
³I am a superi r s rt f liar. I d n¶t tell any
truth at all, s then my st ry has unity f
parts, a structural integrity, and this
s unds m re like the truth than the truth
itself.´
(| n man Ferdinand Demara qu ted in
|richt n, 1968, p. 92)
 
  

General Principles
 ë#
  


G d Lie Detect rs
6 M re likely t use n nverbal al ne r in
relati n t speech

6 G d at reading micr -expressi ns

Bad Lie Detect rs

6 Used speech al ne
(Ekman & O¶Sullivan, 1991)
 R

 
W men

6 Better at reading n nverbal clues

6 Better at telling h
pe ple are feeling

h are telling the truth

6 N better at detecting decepti n

(DePaul et al., 1993)
 ë


6 Practiced Liars

6 Natural Liars

6 Psych paths
  
@
 

6 ~igh Stakes Up
Suspici us Target

6 L
Stakes
Gullible Target D
n
  
@
 

Greatest

6 Target reputati n f r being t uch t f l

6 Target suspici us
6 Liar little practice and n rec rd f success
6 Stakes high
6 Punishment, n t just re
ard, at stake
6 Punishment is great
6 Target in n
ay benefits fr m lie
(Ekman, 2009)
 |





 
 



6 Othell err r ± misinterpreting em ti n

6
6 ³A statement sh uld n t
hisper deceit; it
sh uld sh ut it.´ Avin am Sapir

6 ³A lie catcher sh uld never rely up n ne

clue t deceit; there must be many.´
(Ekman, 2009, p. 147)
×    
 

Gaze Aversi n?

Fidgeting?
 
 

ie
ed as a sign lying
ë$@



6 Sadness
6 Nerv usness
6 Embarrassment
6 Guilt
6 Disgust
 ë$@


³Even the guilty liar pr bably
n¶t avert his
gaze much, since liars kn
that every ne
expects t be able t detect decepti n in
this
ay. . . Amazingly, pe ple c ntinue t
be misled by liars skillful en ugh t n t
avert their gaze.´
(Ekman, 1992, p. 141)
³At times there
as a great am unt f
shame f r being deceitful. At times there

as a great am unt f pride:
ell, I pulled
this ne ff again. Y u¶re a g d ne.
Y u¶re very capable f d ing this. It

rks f r y u. There
ere times
hen
little ld ladies
uld pat me n the back
and say, µY u¶re ne f the best y ung
men that I ever have kn
n.¶ I
uld
think back and think, µIf y u really kne

me y u
uldn¶t say that.¶´
³T begin
ith, h
I felt ab ut f ling
pe ple is
hat¶s really hard t describe. I
felt ashamed. F r lack f a better
rd t
describe it. Because I kne
these pe ple

ere trusting me. . . When I
uld lie t
them, t start
ith I felt a l t f shame.
But eventually, I had lied s much t , the
shame element
as n l nger there. It

as just a matter f keeping my tail
c vered. Keeping everything c vered up.´
   
³There is agreement that neither guilt ab ut
lying n r fear f being caught
ill cause a
psych path t make mistakes
hen he
lies.´
(Ekman, 2009)

   × 

6 Excitement
6 Relief at being believed

6 | ntempt

6 Pride
r %
&


‡ Pe ple rarely get ab ve 60%
accuracy

‡ S me gr ups
rse than chance

(Ekman, 1992)
 × |' 

6 |IA
6 FBI

6 ATF

6 P lice

6 DEA

6 F rensic psychiatrists

6 |ust m Officials

6 P lice

6 Judges

6 La
yers

(Ekman, 1991)
 × |' 

6 |ust ms inspect rs vs. c llege students)

(Kraut & P e, 1980)

6 Federal la
enf rcement fficers vs students

(DePaul & Pfeifer, 1986)

6 P lice fficers n better than chance

(K hnken,
hnken, 1987)
 × |' 

Gr up % Ab ve |hance

6 Secret Service 29%

6 Psychiatrists 12%

(Ekman, 1991)


  

ery fe

85% accuracy
(Ekman, 2009)
 Federal la
enf rcement fficers

M re | nfident Than | llege Students

N M re Accurate

(DePaul & Pfeifer, 1986)

 @ 

What Didn¶t Make a Difference

Age
Sex
Years f J b Experience

(Ekman, 1991)
 @ 

P lygraphers & Secret Service

W rse as G t Older

(Ekman, 1991)
 ×
R
 

×
(
6 Signs the liar d esn¶t kn
t
fake

6 Signs the liar can¶t fake

×  @
% 
 
6 Decepti n?

6 Em ti nal leakage?
³There is n sign f deceit itself.´
(Ekman, 2009,p. 80)
 




6 Fear f being caught

6 Guilt ab ut lying

6 Guilt ab ut behavi r

6 Duping delight
 

6 Fear f n t being believed

6 Fear f being caught

| |




6 Face

6 W rds

6  ice |haracteristics

6 B dy Language
 



6 Aut matic Expressi ns
 @ 




R

6 Inner c rner f eyebr
raises, n t full

br

6 15% v luntarily

(Ekman, 1992)
 @ 




×

@
 


6 B th eyebr
s raise and pull t gether

6 10% v luntarily

(Ekman, 1992)
 





 
) 


(


(


~ard
Fear,
rry, apprehensi n, terr r
Sadness, grief, distress

Easy
Anger, surprise
 &

 
F rehead
 @ 

6 Reliable: Narr
ing f lips

 




6 Micr -Expressi ns - 1/25´









 


http://


.mett nline.c m/pr ducts.aspx

 




6 Squelched Expressi ns
 



6 Asymmetry
 @



 luntary Expressi ns

6 Br
-

-l
ering in anger str nger n left

6 N se-
se-
rinkling in disgust str nger n right

6 Stretching f lips back t
ards ears in fear are

str nger n right
 



6 Timing
×



R 
 

6 Surprise 1 sec nd






5 sec nds

Likely Ph ny

10 sec nds

Alm st Definitely
 #




Affect sh uld be n face

Bef re r at start f
rds

  
  


6 M re speech hesitati ns

6 M re changes in pitch

6 M re pupil dilati n

(DePaul et al., 1985; Zucker & Driver,

1984)
 


6 Wave g dbye 6 |razy (circle ear)
6 Thumbs up 6 Praying
6 Thumbs d
n 6 Sleeping
6 | me here 6 Middle finger
6 ~itchhiking
6 Peace
 #   
6 Emblems

6 Illustrat rs
 
| 
 



Upset Pitch Rises

Sad Pitch Dr ps

Angry L uder/faster
 3
R 
 @ 
 
6 Face

6 W rds
 3
R  !
 @ 
 

6 B dy

6 | rrect 65% f time

 3
R 
96% accuracy

6  ice |haracteristics: Rise in Pitch

6 Face: Miserable Smiles

 
@
|
 R  

@|R
6 44 Acti n Units
30 | ntracti n f Specific Muscles
E.g.., Fr ntalis, pars medialis
Inner | rner f Eyebr
Raised
13 Unspecified
E.g.., Ja
Thrust
6 7000 | mbinati ns Observed
|

 
|
 R  




&  



10 ~ urs f | ding Time Per

Minute f Behavi r
(Ekman, 1992)
|
 

$@ 






6 96.7% Accurate

(Tian et al.,2000)

 |@

 |@| 


 

6 N = 210
6 69% Female; 31% Male
6 81% Eur -Americans
6 13% Afr -American
6 6% Other
6 Age 18 t 50
(Kanade et al., 2000)