Chiquita71 you certainly have thrown a lot out there.
Let me first reiterate that there is no known way to consciously control what is put forth in reverse speech.
David J. Oates discovered reverse speech more than 25 yrs. ago. Since he has been aware of the phenomena the longest, and using him as the example, he has found true speech reversals to be 100% accurate. Therefore since there is no known way to control what is revealed through reverse speech, it can be said that reverse speech offers the highest of truths. I've been aware of reverse speech for about 8 yrs. now and have not found anything to the contrary myself. Here is a link to an article from his site entitled
How to Find and Understand True Speech Reversals. I've already given the links to other articles which validate the existence and accuracy of reverse speech from his site in this thread.
chiquita71:
"Every interpretation here for the MC and for the CA case I see the complete opposite. I expect to hear stuff like: oh, god, that poor baby(Haleigh or Caylee)..I loved her...someone help find that baby...I am innocent...
The backward stuff that comes out does not make me think they are telling the truth forward. I would like it to but..."
To make your statement true, you would have to completely dismiss all of MC speech reversals such as;
And I don't know about the source remove her.,
This is true.
I was not sure who's in the house.
I don't know. I'm not in, it's untrue.
No scum to prevent that.
Do you believe MC when she told TJ Ward that she was molested by "Joe", and he molested her 5 yr. old cousin? If so, is the reversal Was awful, so I don't need to tell it. not to be believed as accurate when it is a specific reference to the forward speech?
You also mention Casey Anthony. I have about 4 dozen examples of speech reversals of her. None of them indicate direct involvement in the death of her child. They do indicate that other(s) are involved, she is scared and also a reversal where she says Not this guilty. and
"I still love her."
chiquita71:
"...I think it would be interesting to do this to a person we know is completely innocent of what you are accusing them of(this is not practical as it would be cruel to do to a person)and ask them the questions like they were a suspect and then even say you KNOW they are lying and have them under suspicion a la(the 'pressure' LE has put on MC with TM tricking her and RC and all): MC...AND THEN listen to what they had to say backward..."
I recently posted 5 examples of reverse speech of man named Gary Hilton.
Here is an example of a case where there is a confession to a murder. The person leads authorities to the exact location where the body is found. And he is convicted in the court of law for the crime. This shows irrefutable proof of Gary Hilton’s involvement. Therefore can reverse speech examples that are found on Gary Hilton, regarding any involvement with the crime, leave any doubt as to the accuracy and validity of reverse speech? In these examples 5 for 5 reversals show clearly his reversals are congruent with the forward speech in referencing Meredith Emerson as he relates his story. Would that be sufficient to satisfy your curiosity? Link to web page:
Gary Hilton
chiquita71:
"If LE, the FBI, etc. didn't think MC was lying...why don't they move on and investigate say..uncle joe? Are we saying that the FBI or LE has not looked into this information? I don't know. I am asking."
The first problem is they think she is lying. For 18 years investigators believed the stepfather for Jaycee Dugard was lying when he claimed he had nothing to do with her disappearance, and look how that turned out. I still would like someone to tell me if they are not looking at "Joe" as a suspect in Haleigh's disappearance, why aren't they at least investigating him for child molestation?
Quote Respect ShawnHS
And respect for the work you do with backward speech. I knew about backward statements before I came to WS but I had not seen your site till I read this thread. Thank you for answering my questions.
What I was meaning to say and was really all over the place about it :slap: was (as example) Casey or Misty saying through backward statement "I'm innocent." I get that you are saying that backward speech is always the truth because we are not conscious enough of it to be able to "lie"(and I agree). They truly believe/think, even in their subconscious that they are innocent. IIRC Casey says; "I'm not
that guilty" in Casey's mind she probably is- and has laid most, if not all the blame for Caylee's death, on anyone and everyone else and especially if she was the one who killed Caylee or knows how Caylee died. Most "criminals" are not known for taking responsibility for their actions. So she would say forward and backward that she is "not that guilty." If she gave Caylee to "boys" or knows the boys that hurt Caylee, we are still looking for her to speak of this forward. The other examples continue on and state that maybe they or she is afraid to come forward with this information. This still fits with my interpretation that Casey knows more than she is telling about the disappearance and death of her daughter.
And "I still love her." Well, that probably is the truth. Even if Casey killed Caylee she can/may/probably still loves her. That love is where we expect it
would be, in her unconscious.
Many people have killed and said they did it because they loved the person. Same with Misty. Maybe what happened was not something that she feels guilty over? If she knows what happened to Haleigh but knows she could have done nothing to prevent it...and for whatever reason can't or won't share that info, she would also say the same thing backwards and forwards. And would be telling the "truth."
I am a believer in plain 'ole statement analysis and so I am excited about backward speech also. Where I think we differ is that I feel that the unconscious statements should be 'analyzed' the same as conscious statements. It is not the truth or accuracy of the backward statements themselves or that those involved are incorrect in their interpretations of what is being said backward. It is the interpretation of the information that is received though backward speech that I differ so greatly.
These are just
my interpretations.
And I don't know about the source remove her.
I can play this statement either way. 1. She is saying that she is completely innocent or ignorant as to what happened to Haleigh. Or 2. She just doesn't know "about the source remove her" she wasn't privy to that info or she was off doing something else. She is lying by omission even in her unconscious statements. I don't think backward speech would bring up any more information to a question asked than in forward speech. Just because she does not know 'about the source remove her' does not mean she knows nothing about what happened to Haleigh.
This is true.
I forgot the context for this answer.
I was not sure who's in the house.
If it was a drug deal gone bad, and Misty did not know who these people were, she would be telling the truth forward and backward. Whatever the situation, Misty(to me) is just saying she is not
sure of who's in the house. Not that she knows nothing of what happened to Haleigh.
I don't know.
I'm not in, it's untrue.
The phrase "I'm not in" could again allude to Misty only being privy to certain information. And the "it's untrue" I have no context for.
No scum to prevent that.
Again, the same point. This statement can go either way and might even confirm the above theory that she feels she is innocent because what happened was something she was unable to prevent. Depending on Misty's inner moral code, any given person's inner moral code; they are telling their truth as they see it. These statements do not satisfy me, frontwards or backwards that Misty is telling all she knows.
Do you believe MC when she told TJ Ward that she was molested by "Joe", and he molested her 5 yr. old cousin?
Yes. But this is not about Haleigh. If uncle joe is not the one who took Haleigh, regardless of whether it is Misty or the family, then she can answer this without any deception frontwards and backwards because it is not about her. Not about what she may have done. Being molested was something done to her when she was a child. If her forward mind knows what
did happen to Haleigh and she is trying to deflect attention it would be smart to bring up uncle joe. He molested her
and her little cousin and if she knows what happened to Haleigh was an accident and she or whoever knows about this are really good people and uncle joe was never brought to justice for what he did and he is still getting away with it why not pin it on him? This would be an easy moral choice for some. We each would see this situation differently.
So she brings up uncle joe and what she is saying forwards and backwards is the truth. Was she asked; "do you think uncle joe took Haleigh?" It would be interesting to hear the backward speech to that answer, if we are seriously thinking uncle joe had something to do with this. And, I too hope and wonder if LE is following up on uncle joe because of the molestation regardless of whether he took Haleigh.
"The first problem is they think she is lying." (Quoted from your post with respect.)
I am unfamiliar with the Dugard case but I think you are saying that LE(was investigating)thought the step-dad was lying(for 18 years)but in the end found out they were wrong? And you are saying that backward speech showed he was telling the truth? That is interesting but it would make sense for a person who was telling the truth, of course. This time LE was wrong but each case would be different, again because of the inner moral code and all I spoke about in the beginning of my post. Each case would be as different as the mind we are analyzing, forward and backward. So, the flaw that LE was wrong would be the factor in that case(if I am understanding you correctly). And, if LE is corrupt or inept and they are focusing on an total innocent while dismissing leads to the true perp, then as I said: that is disturbing. I know it does happen, has happened. I am not close enough to the Haleigh case to give my opinion of LE involved but with Caylee Anthony I do not feel that is the case.
For me the Cummings and the Anthony family do enough obvious lying up front and in your face(see WS threads "Cindy/George/Lee/Casey's inconsistencies) that reading what they have to say backwards wouldn't be able to, on it's own change my mind. Especially when I hear the same story backward as I do forward and I still interpret deception. :twocents:
...jmo...