22 (1 of 2): THE SHOCKING TRUTH ABOUT KAREN READ THAT PROSECUTORS DON'T WANT US TO KNOW: Decode The "TRUTH" Behind Karen Read's Words & Gestures

The Verbal & Nonverbal Evidence You May Have Missed

Instead of delving into the cinematic twists of this real-life drama, the murder of Boston police officer John O’Keefe and the subsequent charges against Karen Read, combined with the allegations of a cover-up by the Canton, MA police, I’ll be doing a deep-dive, four-part, human behavior newsletter series, called, “THE SHOCKING TRUTH ABOUT KAREN READ THAT PROSECUTORS DON'T WANT US TO KNOW.” We will decode, with great precision, Read’s word choices and statements, then we will explore the hidden nonverbal messages leaked by Read in her TV interviews and public statements. Next we will decipher and analyze her anger and connect her strong personality to her behavioral fingerprint:

• Newsletter 1 of 2 (today): Overview of the Series & Decode the “TRUTH” Behind Karen Read’s Words & Statements

• Newsletter 2/4 (coming soon)You Say More Than You Think: Decode Karen Read’s Facial Expressions, Micro-Expressions, & Body Language

Welcome to “In the DRIVER’S Seat” with me, Janine Driver. I’m happy you’re here! Buckle up, it’s time to DRIVE into the wild ride of the contraversal murder case that has rocked a small Massachusetts town, Canton, MA, only 19.2 miles away from where I grew up, in Waltham, MA…

Caution!

Because these interviews are edited, it can be a challenge to evaluate with accuracy. I will do my best to keep this in mind, while I’m decoding Karen Read’s word choices and statements.

Brief Overview: The John O’Keefe Murder Case: A Real-Life Crime Drama Unfolds in Canton, MA

In the quiet town of Canton, MA, a story unfolds that seems ripped from the pages of a crime thriller screenplay. The murder of Boston Police Officer, John O’Keefe, has captured the public's imagination, not just for the tragedy itself, but for the controversial whirlwind that followed.

At the center of this storm is O’Keefe’s girlfriend, Karen Read, accused of murdering her boyfriend in what the police claim was a fatal consequence of drinking and driving. According to police reports, Read's alcohol consumption that night led to a deadly accident, a narrative swiftly constructed and presented to the public. But the simplicity of this explanation didn't sit right with many, especially Read herself.

What followed was a storyline (which now includes an active investigation from the FBI into government corruption) that many would expect to see in a crime drama, not their local news. Read and her attorney have vocally criticized the Canton police department's handling of the investigation, suggesting that the evidence against her might not just be flawed, but fabricated. "This isn't just about proving my innocence," Read stated in a recent interview, "it's about exposing the truth that's been twisted to fit a convenient narrative."

Here’s the thing, although I can see why Karen Read’s awesome ability to stand her ground, persist against difficult odds, and when things get tough, she gets tougher, may rub some people the wrong way (a’hem, Karen and I have this in common),

I believe her.

Introduction to The Complexity of Decoding Human Behavior

Understanding how people feel or think by listening closely to what they say AND looking at their tiny facial movements and body language is like being a detective, and it's not easy!

Make sure you are still buckled up because it’s time to DRIVE into deciphering Karen Read’s statements and word choices through the lens of statement analysis…

Clarity in Communication: Analyzing Statements to Detect Truth or Deception

Statement analysis, created by author and Supervisory Deputy United State Marshall Mark McClish, is a fascinating tool used to analyze written or spoken statements to uncover potential deception or hidden information. It's like being a detective, but instead of looking for physical evidence, we will be examining the words Karen Read uses use and how she uses them.

Here's an overview of how statement analysis works and how it can help you detect truth or deception when evaluating Karen Read’s interviews:

• Words Matter: In statement analysis, every word counts. I have been trained to always pay close attention to the specific words chosen by the speaker or writer, as well as their order and context (i.e. OJ Simpson once said Nicole and him had a normal relationship, “…we had a few downs and ups.” What’s odd about that order?). Certain words or phrases can reveal underlying emotions, intentions, or even attempts to deceive.

• Verbal Clues: People often reveal more than they intend through their language. For example, someone might use language that distances themselves from the event they're describing ("The money went missing") instead of taking direct responsibility ("I lost the money"). Think about former President Bill Clinton when he said, “I did not have sexual relations with THAT woman.” This linguistic distancing can indicate deception or a desire to avoid accountability.

• Emotional Signifiers: Emotions can leak into language, even when someone is trying to hide them. I’m always looking for discrepancies between the emotions expressed and the events described. For instance, if someone claims to be sad about a lost pet but uses detached or clinical language to describe the incident, it could signal insincerity.

• Timing & Detail: Deceptive statements often lack specific details or contain inconsistencies in timing. For instance, if someone claims to have witnessed an event but struggles to provide coherent details or gives conflicting timelines, it could indicate fabrication or deception.

• Baseline Behavior: Establishing a baseline for an individual's normal communication style is crucial in detecting deviations that might signal deception. I’m comparing the current statement to the person's typical language patterns and behaviors to identify any inconsistencies or anomalies.

• Nonverbal Cues: While statement analysis primarily focuses on language, it can also incorporate nonverbal cues such as body language and tone of voice. These additional signals can provide valuable context and corroborate findings from linguistic analysis.

• Training and Practice: Becoming proficient in statement analysis requires training and practice. It's not about reading minds but rather understanding human behavior and communication patterns. With experience, you too can become adept at spotting subtle linguistic clues that indicate truthfulness or deception.

In essence, statement analysis is like deciphering a secret code hidden within the words people use. By carefully examining language patterns, emotional cues, and contextual details, we can uncover the truth behind the words and gain insight into Karen Read’s intentions and credibility. (As you might imagine, this skill-set of mine drives my three sons crazy because I always know when they are holding something back -poor kids!)

Now let’s explore some of the words Karen Read used and break-down what they indicate and let’s address their significance with regard to the death of her boyfriend, John O’Keefe.

The Power of Using the Word “I”

In a statement made on TV, Karen Read proclaimed, “I did not kill John O’Keefe. I have never harmed a hair on John O’Keefe’s head.” And while this statement notably lacks the intimacy one might expect from a partner, as she opts not to say, "I did not kill my boyfriend, John," keep in mind. This interview is conducted over a year and a half after John’s death. Now let’s focus on the use of the word, “I,” and what it indicates.

In this Thursday’s newsletter, part two of this four-part series, “From Shock to Anger: Analyzing Karen Read’s Initial Grief Response & Why We Don’t See Her Crying,” we will analyze grief and its stages, including anger, and how the stages do not follow a set sequence for everyone.

Video: Video clip of Karen Read (ABC’S NightLine)

Despite the absence of obvious sadness and (what some people may think) warmth in Karen's declaration, "I did not kill John O’Keefe," there exists a firm denial. By utilizing an "I" statement, Karen takes full ownership of her assertion of innocence. This form of self-reference is crucial in legal and interpersonal communication, as it underlines the speaker's accountability and directness. Truthful individuals are more likely to use first-person singular pronouns, emphasizing their direct involvement or experience.

Research in forensic psychology suggests that the use of "I" statements can be indicative of truthfulness. Contrary to liars, who withhold a strong denial and use the lighter denial with vague assertions like "I'm innocent," the specificity and directness of "I did not" provide a stronger, more credible denial.

“I did not kill John O’Keefe. I have never harmed a hair on John O’Keefe’s head.” - Karen Read

Additional research in psycholinguistics suggests that truthful statements often contain more first-person singular pronouns. This extensive research supports the credibility of Karen's statement and proclamation that she did not kill John O’Keefe.

My question here is at what point in time did Karen Read realize, with 100% certianty, that she did NOT hit John with her car? Was it once she saw his injuries? Or was it the fact that the owner of the house, Brian Albert, didn’t come outside despite a dead man, fellow Boston cop, is laying on his front yard? Or other things that didn’t add up? Or did she actually recall seeing John walk up to the side door and stick his head in the house?

Likely only Karen Read likely knows this answer.

Keep in mind, that while "I" statements can be one piece of the puzzle, they should not be taken as conclusive evidence of truthfulness without considering the context, consistency, and other non-verbal cues.

The Retelling of A Conversation With John From That Night

Karen Read takes us inside a conversation she said she had with John about if they were actually invited to go to the house after-party. When someone tells a story and repeats the exact language they claim to have used in a conversation, it’s important to analyze these repetitions for consistency, detail, and emotional congruence.

Video: Video clip of Karen Read (ABC’S NightLine)

Truthful statements tend to contain more detail and are more likely to reflect the complexity and emotional texture of genuine human interactions. Genuine statements often include spontaneous, specific language reflective of the speaker's unique perspective and experiences. If the repeated language seems overly rehearsed or lacks the spontaneity expected in a real conversation, it might raise questions about the authenticity of the account. However, its important to also acknowledges that people can remember and repeat specific phrases from significant or emotional conversations accurately, so this criterion alone would not necessarily indicate deceit.

As for the way Karen Read talks about the conversation she said she had with John, she is congruent with her baseline, is full of appropriate emotional texture, and it does not seem rehearsed or a memorized. This leads me to believe that this conversation really did happen.

Regarding going to Brian Albert’s after party at his house, Karen Read says, during ABC’S NightLine interview, she said to John,

“…Are you sure we’re welcome HERE?”

I’m curious, when did she say this to John? Was it once they arrived at the Albert house or along the way? The reason I wonder this is because the news segment edits the piece, in a way, to make us believe that she said it at the bar, however, she used the word “HERE” and not the word “THERE.”

A “Tense” Situation: The Role of Past, Present & Future Tense in Decoding Karen Read’s Story

Opposed to using future tense, straightforward denials, typically concise and in the present or past tense, are stronger and more indicative of honesty, which is what we hear from straight-shooter Karen Read with regard to her belief that she did not kill John.

Strong Declaration of NOT Killing John

Karen Read’s assertion, "I never harmed a hair on John O'Keefe's body," exemplifies a likely truthful declaration, not just because it employs an "I" statement but also due to its past tense usage. Liars, when discussing past events, often mistakenly project into the future tense, such as saying, "I would never harm a hair on John's body." This shift in tense can subtly indicate deception.

A notable example is O.J. Simpson's response during a civil court inquiry about owning Bruno Magli shoes—linked to the crime scene by their unique prints—where Simpson retorted, "If Bruno Magli makes the shoes they showed in court, I would never own those ugly ass shoes!" O.J.’s future tense and conditional phrasing diverted from a simple, direct denial. Moments later Simpson is shown a picture of him wearing those “ugly ass shoes” walking along the side of a football field.

Video Above: O.J. Simpson (A&E)

Did you hear the difference between Karen Read’s statement and O.J.s?! Pay attention when people, in your life, are asked a question about something they either did or didn’t do and they answer in future tense - a’hem, ya, red flag.

In scrutinizing Karen Read's statement within the framework of linguistic analysis, it becomes apparent that her assertion carries weight in the realm of truthfulness. By employing an "I" statement and utilizing past tense, Read's declaration stands in contrast to the linguistic patterns often associated with deception. As you might imagine, this reinforces a sense of trust in Read's assertion regarding her innocence in the case of John O'Keefe.

Karen Read used four (4) “I” statements, within 14-seconds, when recounting the story where she dropped of John at the after-party house.

The Drop Off at Albert’s House

Let’s do a little comparison between three stories: how Karen Read and John O’Keefe reconnected, and the two incidents from the past: New Years Eve and when she dropped John off at the Albert house after-party. This way we can evaluate if there is a change in Karen Read’s verbal baseline when telling a past story

SPOILER ALERT: There is a change!

The “Reconnected On Facebook” Story Between John & Karen

After dating a decade earlier, Karen Read and John O’Keefe, reconnect online. Listen to the clip (22-seconds) below for the eleven (11) past tense words and no current tense words Read uses when telling this story.

Video Above: Karen Read interview (ABC’S NightLine)

PAST-TENSE

• He had reached out…

• He said…

• Saw…

• Was with several young…

• And then it…

• Triggered my memory that…

• Had passed away…

• He told me…

• I admired that…

CURRENT-TENSE

None, other than when she repeats dialogue between her and John.

The “New Year’s Eve” Story

You will notice that, in the New Year’s Eve story, Read uses twelve (12) past tense words (in 27-seconds) and no current tense words.

Video: Video clip of Karen Read (ABC’S NightLine)

PAST-TENSE:

• We had had an argument…

• We were away…

• He became…

• Drunk…

• I ended up…

• John didn't come back to our room…

• That was rough…

• I felt… taken advantage of

• He apologized…

• If you can’t…

CURRENT-TENSE:

None, other than when she repeats dialogue between her and John.

The “Drop-Off at Albert’s House Party” Story

Now, let’s analyze when Read tells us the details about pulling up and dropping John off at the house party, she uses zero past-tense words and nine (9) current-tense words (in the 14-second edited TV clip)…

Video: Video clip of Karen Read (ABC’S NightLine)

PAST-TENSE:

None. Yes, zero!

CURRENT-TENSE:

• I pull…

• It’s snowing…

• John has no coat…

• It’s windy…

• I drop him off…

• Goes up the driveway…

• Approaches the side door…

• I see him…

• I look down at my phone…

Why the Change in Tense Karen? Can Truthful People Recall a Story in Present Tense?

When people tell stories about things that happened, they usually use past tense, like we heard in Karen Read’s story about how her and John reconnected on Facebook and about the New Year’s Eve debacle.

Why? Because it occurred in the past.

But sometimes, even truthful people might describe past events using the present tense. This can seem odd, especially in serious situations like in court cases or police investigations. Let's explore why someone like Karen Read, who is being charged with a crime, might tell her story this way, even if she's telling the truth.

Why Use Present Tense?

When people feel really emotional or stressed, they might use present tense to talk about past events. It's like they're reliving the moment right there and then. Because the memory is so strong and clear, it feels like it's happening all over again. This could be the case with Karen Read, especially because the night of the alleged crime likely was (and still is) very traumatic for her. Or sometimes, telling a story in the present tense can make it feel more real or urgent to the listener. If Read wants people to understand her experience better, she might unconsciously switch to present tense, even if she doesn't realize it.

The Catch 22

Here’s the Catch 22, changing tenses also can be a sign of making up a story. Some human behavior and detecting deception experts might because Karen Read switched between past and present tense, with regard to the night John was killed, it could be because she's not recalling real memories but creating a story. Skeptics could point to studies that suggest inconsistencies in storytelling, including tense shifting, can sometimes indicate dishonesty.

However, it's important to remember that language and memory are complex. Just because someone, like Karen Read, uses present tense to talk about a past event doesn't automatically mean she’s lying. Emotions, stress, and the desire to make her story clear could all be reasons for this language choice.

Plus, Read used four (4) “I” statements, within 14-seconds sharing this story. And tomorrow, when we analyze these interviews through the lens of facial expressions, eye movements, and body language, you’ll discover that Read’s nonverbal communication remains consistent with all three past stories. This leads me to believe that either the story, about dropping off John and watching him walk to the side door, happened the way she’s recalling it - or she believes that’s how it happened.

This is a reminder that understanding human behavior and language can be tricky and requires a careful, compassionate approach.

“So” - Starting a sentence with the word “so”

Before we jump into the word, “so” and it’s significance, I have to mention (again), the problems with analyzing tv interview clips. Because they are highly edited, instead of one long response, we only get bits and pieces of what and how Karen Read told her story, so we don't actually know how often Read uses the word “so” (and yes, I know I used the word “so” in this sentence).

With that being said, based on the ABC’s NightLine interview footage the NBC’s TODAY Show that aired, we hear Karen Read use the word “so” three times, once at the end of her story about New Year’s Eve and how that was rough and then two times when she tells us what happened once her and John arrived at Brian Albert’s house.

Video Above: Karen Read (ABC’S NightLine)

When deciphering words, with statement analysis, we need to pay particular attention to how sentences are initiated. Karen Read begins her account of what happened once she got to the after-party house, the night John was killed, she prefaces her narrative with the word "so" and uses another “so” a sentence later. When someone starts a sentence with the word "so," it can be insightful for a several reasons:

• Casual or Informal Tone: On a more benign note, starting sentences with "so" can simply reflect a person's speaking style, especially in more casual or informal contexts. It might not necessarily indicate deceit but rather a conversational habit.

  I do not think this applies to Karen Read because her baseline does not include numerous “so”s.

• Defensiveness or Justification: In some contexts, beginning a sentence with "so" could signal defensiveness or an attempt to justify an action or decision. It might suggest that the speaker feels the need to explain themselves in a way that frames their response more favorably.

  This is a potential option on why Read started this part of the interview with the word, “so.” Read just finished telling us that she tried to ask John if he would be welcomed at that party. Then she takes us to arriving at the house. There are several missing minutes in her story here. What did they talk about in the SUV? Did they argue? What led her to still drive him to the house if she didn't want to go and if she wasn’t sure if John was invited? Keep in mind, this is an edited tv interview, so we don’t know what else she said when retelling what happened that night.

• Transition or Preparation: Starting with "so" might indicate a transition in thought or a preparation to answer a question more fully. It can serve as a verbal cue that the speaker is organizing their thoughts or attempting to provide a comprehensive response.

  I think this is most likely why Karen Read uses the word “so” as she transitions from challenging John if in fact he was “invited” to the after party, which is the primary topic we want to hear about because she is being accused of killing John with her large SUV.

• Evasion: "So" at the beginning of a response might also be used to buy time as the speaker formulates their answer, which can be particularly revealing in a high-stakes or deceptive context. It could indicate that the person is not immediately ready to provide a straightforward answer and may be considering how best to present their information or possibly evade the truth.

  This is not why Karen Read used the word, “so,” and we know this based on her baseline cadence of speaking. She does not have a dramatic pause then says, “so….”

The use of "so" in this context underscores the complexity of verbal cues in statement analysis and the importance of considering the broader context and cumulative behavioral indicators before drawing conclusions about her truthfulness.

Behind the Bottle: Questioning Karen Reed’s Drinking Claims

When discussing her alcohol consumption on the night in question, I believe that Karen Read’s potential dishonesty (and sensitivity) emerged twice, on NBC’s Today Show and then again on ABC’s NightLine.

NBC’S TODAY SHOW

When Karen Read responded - before the question was finished being asked - if she ever felt like she was “over-served” that night, she responds, “No. Nope.” This short statement consists of not one, but two, deceptive hotspots.

The Preemptive "No"

Have you ever noticed someone saying "no" before a question is even fully articulated? This preemptive response can be quite revealing. It often suggests a defensive stance or a desire to shut down a line of inquiry before it even begins.

But what does it truly indicate?

Video: Video clip of Karen Read (NBC’S TODAY Show)

In many cases, a preemptive "no" may stem from discomfort or apprehension about the forthcoming question. It’s likely that Karen Read anticipated this question would be coming her way and it may have challenged her belief about her drinking not being an issue, or it could’ve threaten her self-image, or exposed her to even more continued scrutiny. By preemptively rejecting the question, it’s possible, Read subconsciously attempted to maintain control over the conversation and protect herself from perceived threats.

Furthermore, a preemptive "no" can signal deception or evasion. Karen Read may fear that the question will uncover inconvenient truths or reveal inconsistencies in her story. By preemptively denying the allegation or discrediting the question, it’s possible she may have hoped to divert attention away from potentially incriminating evidence.

This makes me wonder if, in Canton, people give Karen Read a hard time about her drinking and if she’s overly-sensitive about this topic. Because after all, she was drinking and driving that night, and it may be embarrassing for her that now the whole world knows this about her decision to drink and drive that night.

Repeated Responses: A Tale of Repetition

Another curious behavior that often surfaces in deception detection is the repetition of the same answer twice in a row. When confronted with a question, an individual might offer the same response in quick succession, almost as if to reinforce their initial statement.

Perhaps you’re wondering, “But why do people resort to such repetition, and what does it signify?” Thanks for asking…

Repeated responses can be indicative of several underlying factors. Firstly, they may signal discomfort or uncertainty on the part of Read. Faced with a probing question or a challenging situation, some people might instinctively revert to familiar ground, repeating their initial response in a bid for reassurance or clarity.

Moreover, repeated responses can serve as a deceptive tactic, designed to create an illusion of consistency and conviction. By reiterating the same answer, Read may unconsciously be seeking to convince us of her truthfulness and deflect suspicion away from potential falsehoods. However, this strategy often backfires, drawing attention to the rehearsed-like nature of their responses and it unfortunately may raise doubts about her credibility, not with just the drinking, but with the murder as well.

ABC’S NIGHTLINE

On ABC’S NightLine, Karen Read’s hesitant, "probably about four," and later confronted with claims of her having nine drinks, illustrates a common deceit tactic. The use of vague terms like ”probably” and "about" allows for ambiguity, a tool often employed by those attempting to obscure the truth - or for those who might be in denial about the truth.

Video: Video clip of Karen Read (ABC’S NightLine)

Read's deviation from direct answers to using these squishy words suggests a departure from truthfulness about her drinking. This is in a stark contrast with her consistent, direct, and convincing narrative and demeanor when denying the act of killing John.

I Still Believe Her

With all that being said, while I do think she lied about how much she had to drink and I suspect she knew it was more than four drinks, I still believe Karen Read did not kill Brian O’Keefe and I also believe she is being framed by the police.

Baselining Assistance with Decoding Signals & Secrets

Karen Read’s non-committal word choices provides us with a helpful baseline for recognizing when she might not be telling the truth. This is a valuable tool we can use when Read discusses the core accusation against her - murder. Read's consistent use of direct, past-tense "I" statements AND her stable demeanor align more closely with indicators of truthfulness.

Compare Read’s statements to those of Amber Heard and you’ll clearly notice a giant difference between the two women. While Read only used squishy uncertain language when speaking about how many drinks she had that night, as opposed to Amber who used evasive and uncertain language and phrases during her telling of the actual crimes in question.

Check out the 2-minute video montage (below) I put together for this newsletter on Amber’s ambiguous statements. After you watch it. go back and listen to how certain Read is with what happened when she dropped John off at the after party.

SQUISHY WORDS: The following words often suggest ambiguity, uncertainty, or an intent to be non-committal. Such words may indicate the speaker is holding something back or trying to remain vague.

About, kind of, sort of, it felt like, I thought, it looked like, it was like, tried to, basically, usually, typically, normally, ordinarily, probably, something like, I think, perhaps, possibly, maybe, presumably, seemingly, conceivably, potentially, might, could, supposedly, arguably, theoretically, practically, virtually, almost, nearly, sort of, essentially, roughly, more or less, somewhat, relatively, allegedly, technically, tentatively, likely, approxoinately.

Coming Up Tomorrow: The Many Faces & Body Language of Karen Read

In tomorrow’s edition of my four-part, human behavior newsletter series, called, “THE SHOCKING TRUTH ABOUT KAREN READ THAT PROSECUTORS DON'T WANT US TO KNOW” we will evaluate the many facial expressions and body language of Karen Read. In the courtroom, in TV interviews, and when she’s made public statements her demeanor oscillates between steely resolve, anger, and vulnerable emotion.

God bless Karen Read, as she navigates the unbelievable tumultuous waters of legal battles and personal struggles that a (what I believe) corrupt team of law enforcement officers and possibly even prosecutors are putting her through. I don’t know about you, but I can’t wait to read (and decode) the 3,074 page report from the Department of Justice regarding allegations of police misconduct.

QUIZ

Can you guess when Karen Read pulled her legs in, as seen in the clip below, which is an indicator of a spike in stress and anxiety?

Conclusion

Ultimately, the examination of linguistic cues not only sheds light on the complexities of human communication but also bolsters confidence in the sincerity of Karen Read's testimony. It's important to remember that while these interpretations can provide insights, they should not be taken as definitive evidence of deceit or honesty on their own.

Statement analysis emphasizes the importance of considering the totality of verbal and non-verbal cues, the context of the communication, and the consistency of the individual's speech patterns before drawing conclusions about the underlying truthfulness or intentions behind their words. These elements, combined with a thorough analysis (highlighted in tomorrow’s newsletter) and consideration of all verbal and nonverbal behavioral evidence, are essential in forming my comprehensive opinion that Karen Read did NOT kill John O’Keefe.

Why You May Choose to Believe My Analysis

Perhaps you’re asking yourself why you should believe me?

Because, here’s the deal, I’ve been trained by:

• J.J. Newberry: Retired ATF special agent and the #1 truth wizard in the world (I know it’s a dorky title, but it’s based on legit research by Dr. Maureen O’Sullivan)

• Dr. Paul Ekman: Author on emotions and facial expressions, Professor Emeritus in Psychology at UCSF, is the world’s foremost expert in facial expressions and a professor emeritus at the University of California Medical School in San Francisco

• Dr. David Matsumoto: Psychologist and author in the areas of expertise of culture, emotion, facial expressions, nonverbal behavior, and microexpressions

• Lena Sisco: Former Department of Defense (DoD) certified military interrogator and Naval Human Intelligence Officer who served in the Global War on Terror as an interrogator in Guantanamo Bay, CubaNCIS Investigator & author of Honest Answers

• Frank Marsh: Human behavior expert, critical thinking analyst, and instructor on thinking critically about toxic, violent and evil people - formerly from the FBI Behavioral Unit

• Among numerous other mentors and instructors in the detecting deception space

The Bottom-Line

Based on all my years of training and experience, I believe Karen Read is NOT responsible for the death of her boyfriend, John O’Keefe.

Plus, for the last 18-years, I’ve used the skills taught to me, to then train thousands of police officers, chiefs of police, special agents, SACS, judges, US attorneys, AUSAs, covert spies, diplomats, a Vice President and President of the United States, in the world of separating fact from fiction, plus weighing in - on TV - on such criminal cases as Casey Anthony, Scott Peterson, Drew Peterson, Chris Watts, Jussie Smollett, Susan Smith, Bill Cosby, Amber Heard (the list goes on and on), and writing the best-selling international book on detecting deception, YOU CAN’T LIE TO ME (Harper One) and the New York Times best-selling book YOU SAY MORE THAN YOU THINK.

Resources:

- Kübler-Ross, E. (1969). *On Death and Dying*. Macmillan.

- Jung, C. G. (1921). *Psychological Types*. Pantheon Books.

- McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). *Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers*. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 81-90.

- Ekman, P. (2003). *Emotions Revealed: Recognizing Faces and Feelings to Improve Communication and Emotional Life*. Times Books.

- DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). *Cues to deception*. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 74-118.

- Newman, M.L., Pennebaker, J.W., Berry, D.S., & Richards, J.M. (2003). Lying words: Predicting deception from linguistic styles. *Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin*, 29(5), 665-675.

- Toma, C. L., & Hancock, J. T. (2012). What lies beneath: The linguistic traces of deception in online dating profiles. *Journal of Communication*, 62(1), 78-97.

- Porter, S., & Yuille, J. C. (1996). The language of deceit: An investigation of the verbal clues to deception in the interrogation context. *Law and Human Behavior*, 20(4), 443-458.

- Sapir, A. (1987). The LSI Course on Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN). Laboratory for Scientific Interrogation, Inc.