by guest poster "Arax"
Statement Analysis is the most accurate way of determining if a person is lying in a verbal or written statement. A person cannot give a lengthy deceptive statement without revealing that it is a lie. This is because people will always word their statement based on all their knowledge. Therefore, their statement may contain information they did not intend to share.
Transcript of Palin Interview
Reporter: I was hoping you could walk us through a little bit about kind of what happened because he came earlier that you thought and not when and where.
Palin: And, uh, he wasn’t due for 4 or 5 weeks later and um, while I was at the energy conference. I felt perfectly fine but uh, had thought maybe a few things were starting to progress a little bit that perhaps there was an idea there that he might come early. So I called my doctor at about uh four in the morning in Texas and um I said ya know I’m gonna stay for the day here at the energy conference - have a speech that I was determined to give at one o’clock that afternoon and, um, had Todd check on a couple of flights that were earlier than we had scheduled. I decided it would be ok to, um, skip the reception that night that we’d already by that time have taken care of our meetings and my speech. So Todd checked on flights. A flight allowed us to get out a little earlier than we had planned.
Her use of the word "I"-- I was at the energy conference. I felt fine. I called my doctor. I said I'm gonna stay. I was determined. I decided. This is distancing between her and her husband and leads an analyst to wonder if Todd was present with her during those times she described. When she changes the pronoun from "I" to "we" it indicates when they were actually together (after the meetings and speech). By repeating twice that Todd was checking on early flights, she shows us this topic is sensitive to her, which indicates deception.
Sarah says, "I was at the energy conference, I felt perfectly fine." These are true statements; there are no unnecessary words added in and no effort made by the subject to clarify them as she feels the need to do with Todd checking on flights.
Reader: note that she uses "he" to refer to Trig. She does not use his name or any kind of pet name or nickname, which suggests that she is not at this time close to Trig on an emotional level.
Skipped the reception and, um, called my doctor before I got on the plane to say, ‘Yea, we think that we will come home a few hours early,’ and, uh, she said ‘OK call when you land and I’ll check you out.’ But none of my babies had been early and being my fifth child I know what labor feels like (laughing) and if I had felt at all that I was really engaged in uh, labor activities I would not have desired to fly and, um, get back uh, to deliver in Alaska. But anyway, so no real huge labor signs. Landed in, uh, in Anchorage at about10:30. Got out to the valley at 11:30 and she met us at the hospital, checked me out and said, ‘Um, Yea you look, you may have it um tonight or in the morning.’ And it was smooth, it was relatively easy, in fact it was very easy, the easiest of all of them because he was so tiny. And, um, it’s just been absolutely wonderful. It was all, it just all seemed meant to be… the logistics and everything else just worked out so perfectly and to us he’s absolutely perfect, too.
Note that her narration changed from her deciding, her coming home has changed to "we." Also note the missing pronoun for "skipped the reception and called my doctor." This indicates deception because she has skipped a large chunk of time. She is not being led by questions, she is free-editing her own story and for some reason decides to go straight from Todd checking on flights to skipping the reception and getting on the plane. Judging from her use of pronouns, we can determine that she was not alone when she arrived at the hospital. However, she gives no indicators as to who she was with.
She refers to her other children as"my babies," not "our babies, which is very telling. She then refers to Trig as her "fifth child." For those well-versed in Statement Analysis, when someone uses the word "child," it is associated with risk, danger, harm, and abuse. It is not called baby abuse/kid abuse, it is called child abuse. Trig is not her baby like her other children have been, he is simply her fifth child.
She starts out by describing her labor as relatively easy, and then corrects herself by saying it was not just easy, not just very easy, but very very easy. When the subject uses these qualifiers, she is telling us she wants us to believe them. From this sentence we can say that his birth was not very easy.
Reporter: Of course you’re back to work already today and actually signed a bill that day, right?
Palin: That day, yeah, staff came out to the hospital and I signed a bill there so I could uh make sure we transmitted that in time and then uh here today also yeah, we have some energy updates I didn’t want to miss so that was good. Look at him he’s just doing so well and it’s been easy and relaxing and again it all seems just meant to be this way.
Please note that any use of "so, since, therefore, because" shows a reason why something did or did not take place. This indicates sensitivity. She had no reason to explain why she signed the bill but offers us a lengthy response as to why she did. Again, Trig is mentioned using only he/him pronouns. He has not yet been mentioned with a name/term of endearment/nickname by his mother. "Meant to be" indicates that God is controlling the situation (freeing her from all guilt) and that God is the only person who can judge her alleged actions.
Reporter: You said you felt some signs of labor, what were those signs?
Palin: Well not contractions so much because I had Braxton Hicks contractions for months as every pregnant woman does, and nothing real painful but just knowing that, um, it was feeling like, I may not um, be able to be pregnant a whole another four or five weeks knowing that it would be not a bother to call our doctor and let her know. And um she’s delivered how many babies over the year did she say?
Extra words in describing that not just she, but all pregnant women have Braxton Hicks for months. This indicates sensitivity concerning her labor. She says she was not in pain and not having contractions which would have alerted her. She goes on to say knowing that she may not be able to be pregnant and corrects herself halfway through by saying it was feeling like she may not be able to be pregnant for much longer. Her first response indicates that she knew Trig was close to being delivered. She gives no indication as to what alerted her to this. This is also the first time that "my doctor" has been referred to as "our doctor," why the change? Sarah then asks how many babies CBJ has delivered over the year; it is a specific time frame (the year) that she changes to a couple of decades in her next breath.
Palin: A lot. It’s been a couple of decades of her delivering babies. We knew to call her and just get her advice and, um, from there we again decided to skip the energy conference reception and come on home and get checked out.
She says "we knew to call her" but in her first paragraph she said that she called the doctor herself. Usually the person dialing the phone makes the statement that they were the one who called. In her whole paragraph she indicated she was alone when she called to talk to her doctor. Was the decision-making in reference to phoning the doctor made over text messaging? She also says "we again decided to skip the energy conference." Who is "we?" In her first paragraph, she describes herself as making the initial decision, indicating that Todd had nothing to do with the decision. Her priorities are also telegraphed by her saying "come home and get checked out." Getting back home was paramount to her getting checked out.
Reporter: So did your water break?
Readers note that this is a very straightforward question. It is a yes/no answer. The strongest statement Palin could make to answer this truthfully would be to say "Yes, my water broke" or "No, my water did not break." She does neither of these.
Palin: Well, if you must know more of those type of details, but, um…
Reporter: Well, your dad said that and I saw him say it so that’s why I asked.
Palin: Well that was again if, if I must get personal, technical about this at the same time, um, it was one, it was a sign that I knew, um, could lead to uh, labor being uh kind of kicked in there was any kind of, um, amniotic leaking, amniotic fluid leaking, so when, when that happened we decided OK let’s call her.
This response is incredibly sensitive to Palin. She telegraphs this by repeating words: if if, personal technical it was one it was a sign, amniotic leaking amniotic fluid leaking, so when when that happened. This shows she does not want to answer the question and indicates deception. Her use of synonyms with regards to "personal, technical" also indicates sensitivity. Is the question personal or is it technical? One implies she shouldn't have to answer it and the other implies it's too difficult to answer it. She was asked, did your water break and answered that "I knew [amniotic leaking] could lead to labor being kicked in. When that happened we decided OK let's call [the doctor]."
She again states that "we decided" to call CBJ, although she does not indicate that anyone was with her when she called, only that there was another person who helped her make the decision to call.
Todd: There’s a lot of new doctors out there on the streets in the last couple of days.
This is a sarcastic remark. It would seem to be aimed at the interviewer, since he was asking personal/technical questions.
Palin: Yeah, that’s significant too. Todd said, uh, after getting a couple of comments he said that he said wow everybody’s a doctor, Everybody’s going to tell us what we could have should have done and even though these folks - especially the critics- they’re not doctors. They didn’t know the situation. They don’t know the situation. They, they certainly don’t know our doctor and the consultations that we’ve had with her. So we did nothing to put our child nor anyone else in danger, uh, going through this five times I know what labor is and, uh, I am not a glutton for pain and punishment. I would have never, um, wanted to travel if I had been fully engaged in labor.
That's significant too, she says. What is it significant to, especially since it was a facetious remark and not intended to be serious? The timing of this remark in this interview suggests that the doctor comment was significant to what she was just talking bout: her water breaking. This implies that she does not think discussion of her whether or not her water broke is significant. She states that "they didn't know the situation, they don't know the situation;" there is only one situation being questioned which is her labor. She indicates that there is not just a past situation, but also a present situation that people are unaware of. Presumably because they are not doctors, don't know CBJ, and were not present during consults. Consultations is plural, meaning they had more than one need to consult her. A consultation is not a prenatal appointment or testing.
Conclusion: there is marked deception indicated multiple times throughout her story. She does not refer to her newborn as her baby, a baby, by a nickname-- only as her "fifth child" or "child." She uses pausing fillers like "um, uh, yeah" more than thirty times in this section of the interview, this indicates she is not recalling an actual memory but has to think of what she's going to say. Her ums and uhs stop entirely when she gets defensive and angry about people acting like doctors. She is genuinely upset. They start up again as soon as she mentions that they did nothing to put their child in danger. Does this interview give proof that Sarah Palin did not give birth to Trig Palin? Sadly, no. It does indicate that she is lying throughout the entire interview concerning the Wild Ride, however. Does it give proof that Sarah has a poor relationship with her husband and her fifth child by using distancing language? (Skeptics please remember that if Trig was adopted, he's legally a Palin) Yes.
I know that many mothers, nurses, doctors, and Trig Truthers have already decided that the Wild Ride was a load of Palin crap. But hopefully this analysis gives us a few more clues as to certain nuances in the Palin clan.
Thanks, Arax, for this detailed analysis of Sarah’s statements regarding “The Wild Ride”. I know it has been discussed many times but examining the Palins statement as a whole in this manner truly leaves little doubt that they weren’t being truthful about the events that occurred on April 17-18, 2008.