IS KOURI RICHINS NEW APPEAL EVER GETTING HER OUT? VEROSCOPE INVESTIGATES THE SENTENCING ALLOCUTION.

Added: 2026-05-15

[00:00:00]Welcome back to the Veroscope channel where we're going to be listening and then analyzing using forensic linguistics the allocution of Corey Richens the speech that she makes at sentencing and she's been sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.

[00:00:19]And if you're new to the Periscope channel, each day we run through a new analysis of a trial transcript or a statement and we do the forensic linguistic analysis and statement analysis looking for intelligence from the words that they use. And so what we're going to do first is listen to a little part of her uh it's the end of her speech. It's the last 10 minutes where she starts accusing the family of wanting her sentenced and what they're going to get out of it. And then she goes on to talk about um well, let's listen. Watch. It's it's jaw-droppingly awful. Her narcissistic type behavior continues. The selfdeception and the attempted gaslighting and deception of others is on display with a full spotlight on it.

[00:01:14]and Veroscope are going to show the forensic level details. And why is this important? Let me tell you why. She's going to appeal and I think the evidence, the forensic linguistic evidence that she has just demonstrated, I believe it convicts her. Again, let's listen. And just this and just 10 minutes of it. Let's listen.

[00:01:38]Some think a verdict or the sentencing will be the answer that they seek or that they need, but it won't.

[00:01:48]It will only give them something else to think about for a while.

[00:01:52]>> So, she's essentially insulting everyone who's been hurt by the murder that she committed and she's um insulting them by by telling them that it won't last.

[00:02:05]Whatever whatever Chardan Freud you might get from my sentencing, it won't last. She's saying absolute. She's still cold. She's still callous. She's still highly self-centered and narcissistic type.

[00:02:22]>> It may help to disperse some of their hurt or their resentment, but it won't relieve it.

[00:02:30]This grief will outlive us all.

[00:02:34]the hundreds of lives that this has affected the life >> and she now puts herself on the side of the hundreds of lives that this has affected. She's trying to join in the crowd with the hurt that whatever has happened has happened but it's not her fault. She bel she's psychologically joining the hundreds of people who have been hurt and yet it is her that has committed the crime. Uh or so far the evidence presented to a court shows that it's only her who has committed a crime.

[00:03:12]We don't know if others were involved.

[00:03:13]Time will tell.

[00:03:14]>> Long trauma you boys have suffered this last four years will outlive us all.

[00:03:22]You haven't I had to just endure losing one parent, but losing two. And no child should ever have to go through that, especially when one was an unforeseen tragedy.

[00:03:35]>> Okay. So, let's look now at some of the analysis.

[00:03:41]Now, listen. Look.

[00:03:44]Later on, we're going to hear her say to kill someone. And then look how she switches the pronoun. And look how she doesn't say who.

[00:03:56]Just she starts the sentence to kill someone.

[00:04:01]And then she says in a similar error to OJ Simpson where he said my guilt. He used the pronoun my and guilt. My guilt.

[00:04:13]He said. Well, here she says to kill someone are someone and then she self senses because she doesn't like where it's heading and she switches to your dad was in physical pain which is part of the excuse making isn't it? And then the unnecessary language of a lot of physical pain to emphasize. So she's building the excuse. Don't forget she's talking. She's hoping her sons will look at this in the future.

[00:04:50]And I think perhaps they will, but in totality.

[00:04:58]Do you see this concerning?

[00:05:02]She was even concerned because she self censored and changed sentence or or interrupted herself.

[00:05:16]So this is her language.

[00:05:21]Don't forget this is free will. And when we look at the mathematics of forensic linguistics in particular where we're looking for different source in other words is it coming from imagination and fabrication and construction which might show a mathematical use of certain types of words versus is it coming from encoded reality on the brain which might show another mathematical percentage use of a certain type of words. So the conjunctives for instance the causal words, the becausees and the sos, they might increase at certain points in the sentence because the person is justifying before the questioner asks them the question. So we might see spikes of causal word increases or we might see spikes of um additive words uh which explain the story. So I went to the car and I got this and then we went to the cinema and then we came came home. So different percentages of different types of words are used in different parts of the brain when it's imagination construction fabrication versus encoded reality. And why is that? Well, because encoded reality will have everything from color, temperature, feeling, your feet on the ground, um what what you're holding, the sounds, the moisture in the air, the bird song, the conversation, everything on your computer, your brain is encoded.

[00:07:05]It's truth. It's reality. And so when you speak, you can draw from your personal dictionary all of the words to deliver that truth when you're speaking. In fabrication, you have to draw from a different area of the brain. And when you when that different area of the brain constructs the imagination or fabrication, it draws different percentages of these conjunctive words. Do you see? They're different they're different types. And so we can measure on a statement provided we can segment it properly. Um and we can look at the mathematic.

[00:07:44]Anyway, I've probably bored you all with um with some of the latest science, but that's where we're heading. We're we're heading to be able to mathematically confirm what a forensic statement analyst sees in in in um in in the old way of analyzing a statement. you know, looking for uh dropped pronouns or um uh articles which shouldn't be in there like a and the etc. Anyway, right, let's let's crack on or else we're going to get stuck, aren't we? And not actually listen to her send to her sentencing speech. Let's listen again.

[00:08:20]>> Based on injustice in a system we're supposed to trust.

[00:08:36]Your dad's memory will always be the kind that's a physical hurt. The tightening in your chest when you think of him, particularly on days like today, his birthday because he was so loved that no verdict. One of the things with a lot of these killers and criminals, they find it very difficult to mention the name of the victim. In particular, um the parents where where they do the old kidnapping ruse and pretend, uh you know, with the missing child that the child has been kidnapped, whereas really it's one of the parents or both of the parents has, you know, has committed the crime. Very common. Um, and you'll find that they struggle to mention the child's name unless they've been media trained and and then the use of the child's name will increase. Um, and it's the same same with Corey here. She doesn't use Eric's name. She has lots of names for him, but she can't bring herself on his birthday to use his name. or sentence will ever be able to release that kind of suffering.

[00:09:53]I'm broken.

[00:09:55]Broken without your dad.

[00:09:58]I'm broken without you boys.

[00:10:01]God did not put me in this world to take a life.

[00:10:06]God put me in this world to give life your life.

[00:10:12]>> Right? So we have what's called a reliable denial in statement analysis.

[00:10:19]And the gaslighter, the liar, the deceiver, the criminal, they will often say things which are close to denial, hoping that the listener will sort of finish the sentence for them or complete the communication for them. But they themselves don't actually make a denial like I did not kill my husband Eric or I did not murder Eric or I did not poison Eric.

[00:10:56]But they can't bring themselves to do it. Mostly there's a certain group that can but mostly people avoid direct lying.

[00:11:11]and they find clever almost ways to deny without actually denying. So there we saw an example of I was not put on this earth to take a life. Well, that's not denying. And also people have different personal dictionaries. So take a life is um so so as an example let's say a a shoplifter if the interviewer said stolen they might not you you'd have a hard time getting getting them to agree whereas if you if you say perhaps um took that's less than stolen isn't it? So here, so not only has she not done a reliable denial, she's also take a life, which is minimizing murder.

[00:12:07]Let's have a look at um some of the analysis.

[00:12:11]So your dad, Eric has been your dad for 30. Uh so excuse the transcript error there. um and are someone which I've already covered the unnecessary language.

[00:12:42]She also says later on I will not be blamed for something I did not do.

[00:12:53]So again, this is another example. This is not a reliable denial, is it? I will not be blamed for something I did not do. That's not saying I did not kill Eric.

[00:13:06]She got close, but then she slipped in something. She couldn't bring herself to actually talk about and deny the murder.

[00:13:27]The act has a name, doesn't it? Everyone so far has used it. The verdict used the name. The judge used the name. The state used the name.

[00:13:39]The jury used the name. Her own attorneys used the name. And the trial used the name. But she produced in her denial all she could bring herself to do is produce something.

[00:13:59]So, she uses seven different labels as we go through the analysis. We've only got about seven or eight minutes more to watch of it. So, we're only analyzing this 10-minute section does show the level of detail we can get to with with forensic linguistics. But, she uses seven labels for the act of murder just in this this 10 minutes or so that we're watching.

[00:14:21]Take a life with which we've just heard.

[00:14:24]No victim name.

[00:14:27]It's an abstract God sentence.

[00:14:32]Took your dad from you. This is a euphemism.

[00:14:37]She's not saying that she did.

[00:14:41]Dad was murdered.

[00:14:46]Capable of murder.

[00:14:49]To kill someone, take him from you, from us.

[00:14:56]She can't bring herself to say it.

[00:14:59]Look, she said, well, we just heard this, didn't we? God did not put me in this world to take a life.

[00:15:16]You've been influenced into thinking that dad was murdered, that I took your dad from you. That is completely wrong and an absolute lie.

[00:15:28]The thought of that is still as absurd today as it was four years ago.

[00:15:34]Anyway, we're going to listen to some of these, but she goes through lots of different ways of attempting denial, but each one fails. Each one after 12 attempts, and this is just in the 10 minutes, don't forget, but she can't produce a a reliable denial amongst them. So, let's carry on listening. And if you've been watching some of the Veroscopes already, see how many deception markers you can pick out. And if you're new to the Veriscope channel, you'll pick it up really quickly. I promise you. And the and the benefit of learning. And do subscribe if you get any value out of the video. I'd really appreciate that. Um or or like the video too. Um or most importantly, comment and join in the conversation. um and identify the deception markers that you see from her or the plenty of the one the ones that I miss because I probably only get about 10%. Um which is the benefit of different sets of eyes, isn't it?

[00:16:33]Together as a team, we're far more effective and learn far more quickly.

[00:16:38]But anyway, I digress. Let's let's see what else she has to say or hear what else she has to say rather.

[00:16:46]>> I don't know who or what I'm supposed to be if it's not a mother.

[00:16:51]your mother >> and as much as you've been influenced into thinking that dad was murdered.

[00:16:58]>> So here we would notice if we were doing analysis in more detail rather than the surface level skim that we're doing we would notice that she chose the article a mother. Did you notice that? Did you hear that? So also as we get better at analysis we want to be able to analyze at conversational speed and I'll cover that in another video about because you can't do it constantly. You'll be exhausted. it takes a lot of concentration. So, we have little trigger points which turn the radar on.

[00:17:25]Uh it could be articles, usually is pronouns, um but not the fact that they're there, but they jar if they're the if they're incorrectly chosen or they're dropped.

[00:17:37]And when we have lots of these in a row, we get what's called convergence.

[00:17:44]And then the radar turns on and we start really listening because we know we're at a segment of the statement which is deceptive and it becomes like a like an accent its own language as I've said in many times before but for the for people watching for the first time. Um anyway let's carry on.

[00:18:01]>> I took your dad from you.

[00:18:04]>> That is completely wrong and an absolute lie.

[00:18:08]And the thought of that is still as absurd today as it was four years ago.

[00:18:14]And just because someone may not be perfect, that's a far reach for them to be capable of murder.

[00:18:21]To kill someone, our someone.

[00:18:25]Your dad was in physical pain.

[00:18:28]A lot of physical pain.

[00:18:31]And just because some people didn't know or didn't want to see certain things doesn't mean they weren't happening or they weren't true.

[00:18:42]He would have never left us intentionally.

[00:18:45]>> Yes. See, we would pick that up, wouldn't we? The radar would go on. He would never.

[00:18:53]He would never. So, whenever somebody uses the word would, we uh pay attention because it means that they haven't necessarily done it. So if I said well I would or especially if I said if I would normally well I would normally.

[00:19:13]So you're um normally by the way turns a radar on and so does the word would. But what did we get here? I forget >> and I would have never taken him from you from us.

[00:19:27]He was >> oh yeah from you. From us. So notice how pronoun switches as well. So we had a little article pronoun switches here would never. So now the problem is of course she's going to be deceptive all the time. So my point about learning at conversational speed not getting exhausted by having trigger words to turn the radar on radar on. Unfortunately I think we're going to see the whole 10 minutes with the radar blinking and going on the blink. No doubt. Let's carry on.

[00:19:59]>> The glue that held us all together that made us us.

[00:20:06]And again, us little boy needs their father.

[00:20:24]>> She really took these two in, didn't she? Well, this is what happens with an effective gaslighter. They can be extremely good. And if you have extreme cognitive dissonance, um, and you're naturally good, you know, warmhearted, uh, person, and most people that, you know, go into the law, at least start in the law that way, whether it's law enforcement or legal, you know, they start with a good heart, most of them, don't they? So, if you're goodhearted, and, you know, perhaps you're not used to uh, gaslighting criminals um, who are very good. Anyway, my point is she took both of these in. I think I think these people genuinely believe her.

[00:21:09]He's supposed to teach you the things that I can never explain.

[00:21:19]He's supposed to teach you and do things with you that only a dad can do.

[00:21:29]and only he could give you those life lessons between a father and a son.

[00:21:36]>> This is a bit sick, isn't it?

[00:21:40]>> I would have never taken that from you, boys.

[00:21:44]>> I would have never. What a liar.

[00:21:50]I would have never. I mean, and that she's talking to her boys sick.

[00:21:58]She's still Well, she's hoping for an appeal, isn't she? She's hoping for for a miracle.

[00:22:07]Can't blame her. I guess we're all human and she can't uh admit it. And this is why it's doubly important because actually this little speech of hers is so full of forensic linguistics and evidence and mathematics showing where construction and fabrication exists versus encoded memory.

[00:22:34]And I think she has um she didn't have any before, but you know, let's say there was a 20,000 million billion to one chance. Well, she's just lost that.

[00:22:49]>> I know how much you need him, how much you love him, >> how much you aspire to be just like him.

[00:23:14]and I would have never taken that from you.

[00:23:17]>> She does it again. You'll you'll you'll notice there's a couple of hundred videos up now on Veriscope. So a few hundred hours of forensic linguistic statement analysis intelligence training and examples and after a dozen random ones different cases I do encourage you to look at different cases because some of those you won't know the circumstances and so you're genuinely without cognitive dissonance testing your skill level and the amount of times that we hear would never.

[00:23:58]It's I mean it's just off the charts.

[00:24:00]And the amount of times that we see that they very rarely struggle or or if they do struggle to bring themselves to mention the victim's name.

[00:24:13]>> And I'm so sorry that I can't bring him back for you.

[00:24:20]for me, >> for you, for me, and who's last in order. In statement analysis, we look at the order of importance. What's important to them is bloody important to us. Now, look at the order of importance.

[00:24:37]The children, fair enough. Her, fair enough. But then, who?

[00:24:46]Who should it be next? Or who should it be first in the real world? Who should it be first?

[00:24:55]>> Family.

[00:24:57]>> Oh, she managed to bring herself to say family. Don't forget this is her husband. It's his birthday.

[00:25:05]If she was innocent, she would not be acting this way, would she? She would be saying completely because Eric wouldn't be the enemy.

[00:25:20]Poor Eric would be part of it, but she can't bring herself to mention his name here. It's the children, me, the family. That's She knows there should be the third one.

[00:25:36]What does she say?

[00:25:38]Let's listen to that again.

[00:25:41]>> And I would have never taken that from you, >> liar.

[00:25:46]And I'm so sorry that I can't bring him back for you, for me, for our family.

[00:25:56]>> Yeah. And the only reason she might want him back is due to her current personal circumstances of well, she doesn't know it yet, but life without the possibility of parole. And if there is an appeal then I'm quite sure uh the uh evidence which has accumulated from her speech here uh won't help her case.

[00:26:35]Another awful thing. I don't know if you saw the uh the the the thing live, but there was a moment where one of the um Oh, I I won't say it actually. It's too upsetting. But but the point is she comp she was just chatting and yapping away to a lawyer.

[00:27:08]But then as soon as it was about her, she's in tears and spending 100% attention.

[00:27:14]But when it came to others, she had no interest. And there was a particular upsetting part.

[00:27:20]And she was yapping away to the lawyer instead of listening and paying respect.

[00:27:26]That was two more deaths which are the result of this individual.

[00:27:39]I can beat myself up all day about how I could have been a better person or made better personal choices. And I can understand and accept you boys being upset about those things.

[00:27:53]>> Ah well okay. And look at the Yeah.

[00:27:55]Yeah, you can be upset about those things.

[00:28:00]And I can understand that she so gracious.

[00:28:05]So gracious. And look at the little face she pulls that she can understand that her boys can be upset about these little minimizations that she's just listed out. No doubt spent hours in her jail cell writing it out on her scrappy bit of paper.

[00:28:24]But murder? No. Absolutely not.

[00:28:28]>> But murder? No. Absolutely not. Notice the lack of complete reliable denial. Still, so just in the just in the small section that we've heard, this is how she refers to herself. I, me, my, myself, and mom.

[00:28:57]The boys are you, you boys. You uh you three. Sorry. Yeah. Uh my world, my reason for living.

[00:29:06]Transcript error here, I think. Unless she was referring to um anyway, I don't know. Apologies. The Richens family.

[00:29:17]The jury are eight people and they the court becomes this court, the state, our justice system.

[00:29:28]God is God and then Eric never spoken.

[00:29:48]Eric becomes your dad, dad, him, he, their father, his father, dad, and I, your father.

[00:29:57]This is his birthday.

[00:30:00]An innocent wife does not leave him out of you. I wish I could bring him back for you, me, and the family. She cannot do it. Not even on his birthday. Not even at the sentencing.

[00:30:19]She just cannot mention his name. She is still unable to.

[00:30:28]>> I will not accept that. And I will not be blamed for something I did not do.

[00:30:34]>> Notice this is not denial. This is I won't accept that. I will not be blamed.

[00:30:42]for something I didn't do. The brain chooses the easier way of denying. It hates direct lies partly because direct lies are dangerous. There's no backtracking.

[00:30:59]So barefaced lying is the last resort.

[00:31:03]Generally, it's through the gaslighting systems.

[00:31:11]I will appeal and fight these charges no matter how long it takes. Not because I have anything to prove to this court, to the state, to the richest family, or to the world, but I do have something to prove to you three.

[00:31:28]I do care what you boys think, and I need you boys to know the truth.

[00:31:35]And because of that, I will never quit or give up on this fight for justice, the truth, and coming home to you.

[00:31:44]So please, I know that right now you may not believe me. That you believe I took dad from you, and that's okay.

[00:31:54]>> You see, you believe that I took dad from you. There's an element of an embedded confession there, isn't there?

[00:32:04]Or a latent confession of sorts. I took dad from you. Do you see that? Sometimes we look at that. It's always um a little bit of a reach when we look at leakage and embedded confessions and latent confessions or latent admissions.

[00:32:25]It's a bit of a reach, but they're often there and they're often there a lot.

[00:32:34]So, the unconscious is very clever.

[00:32:39]It speaks and different parts of the brain, as you all know by now, some of you are bored of me saying it, different parts of the brain produce different language and some of it's unconscious and it's impossible to mathematically um alter that in conversation. You can if you know what you're doing afterwards, you can in statements if you know how to change the statement to sound more honest and truthful. Anyway, let's carry on.

[00:33:08]>> I still I will always love you. And I'm asking that you please just don't give up on me. I'm coming home. Not today, not this year, but we're going to make this right. Our justice system will get this right. Although this courtroom can't seem to notice she doesn't claim innocence and she doesn't say the courtroom's wrong.

[00:33:37]It's all eluding to, isn't it? She's hoping that the listener will join the dots. That's very common, especially in gaslighting.

[00:33:54]They'll they'll they'll almost carry on forever until you join the dots, but they won't say it directly themselves.

[00:34:05]We have a long road ahead, but I will never quit biting my way home to you boys. I love you more than these words could ever express.

[00:34:17]I loved you before I ever met you.

[00:34:24]And I will love you long after I'm not here to say it.

[00:34:32]every minute of every day.

[00:34:35]I miss you boys more and more.

[00:34:40]long after I'm not here to say it about how much I wish I could be with you.

[00:35:00]This nightmare would go away and we could have our family back.

[00:35:10]This entire situation isn't fair to anyone, but it's especially not fair to you three. And you boys are all that matters.

[00:35:19]I want to remind you just how strong you are.

[00:35:23]>> Eric doesn't matter.

[00:35:26]>> That you are loved by so many and I am beyond proud of you.

[00:35:31]of everything you have overcome, everything you have achieved, and how much you bring into this world.

[00:35:49]You boys have been through so much, and I wish I could take away all your sadness and all your pain, tell you how much Dad and I love you, and that everything's going to be okay.

[00:36:07]I wish I could count the freckles, their little cheeks, reading books before beds and help you with all your homework.

[00:36:26]Wish I could help you through your toughest nights.

[00:36:31]can hear your laugh through your happiest days.

[00:36:35]But for now, that's just not the way it is.

[00:36:45]We have to be strong.

[00:36:48]We have to remember that our strength grows in these moments.

[00:36:56]But we don't think we can go on.

[00:37:00]But we keep going on anyway cuz we have to push in these hard days.

[00:37:08]Because in the end, at the end of this war, it will be so worth it.

[00:37:14]But I need you boys to always keep pushing through these hard days cuz this will come to an end. I just need you to hang in there.

[00:37:26]Listen to your little hearts.

[00:37:29]Listen to your little bellies for the truth.

[00:37:33]Before you were told who to be and what to believe.

[00:37:39]Remember who you are.

[00:37:42]Remember who we are.

[00:37:44]Remember our family.

[00:37:46]>> So little victim blaming fa family there. blaming the family that they're responsible for telling the boys that she's a murderer. That is not the case.

[00:37:57]The state have done that and the jury have convicted you. It's nothing to do with the victim's family convincing the boys of the truth. The truth is the truth and you are guilty. So again, she's trying to switcheroo here to blame the richen's family on the boys knowing the truth. Again, narcissistic type behavior. It's gaslighting type behavior. Um, and what she doesn't realize is that there, if there was any doubt whatsoever, she has now sealed her own fate. In my opinion, the appeal just off this ridiculous speech that she's made um shows that she's extremely dangerous to those children still.

[00:38:50]which would be the only reason to, you know, allow the possibility of parole after 35 or 40 years.

[00:38:58]I think she's blown it.

[00:39:02]>> I will continue to call you every day, even if my calls are blocked, just so you know that I'm here. I've always been here, and I will always be here.

[00:39:14]>> That's right. You got that bit right at last. Right. Let's carry on with the actual analysis.

[00:39:20]So, the name that was never spoken, Eric, which is awful, especially on his birthday, but how fortunate that was that on his birthday for his family and for him, justice was served.

[00:39:45]So, I'm so She insults the jury, doesn't she? Look, I'm sorry that eight people from a jury who have never met you or me or our family had the right to determine our future.

[00:40:01]And they did that in less than 3 hours.

[00:40:05]This is what she said.

[00:40:10]In a perfect world there might be justice but perfect world nothing ever goes wrong. Tragedies don't happen.

[00:40:26]It's very very common to hear I'm sorry from the perpetrators.

[00:40:34]It's normally hidden in the language and but it's there for some strange reason again. Look, all of her language cannot bring herself to talk about the truth.

[00:41:06]Everything is skirted around the edges.

[00:41:12]Nothing is faced.

[00:41:14]And an innocent person doesn't need to do that. In fact, they wouldn't, would they?

[00:41:24]This is the actions and the language of the guilty.

[00:41:31]She brings God into it, doesn't she?

[00:41:34]Bringing the deity into denials.

[00:41:40]She says, "I'm broken. I'm broken. I'm broken." It's very sensitive. I believe she's telling the truth.

[00:41:54]your dad, not my husband.

[00:41:58]It's your dad.

[00:42:03]God did not put me in this world to take a life. She says, and here she says, oh no, she says your mother. That's a transcript error. I do apologize.

[00:42:24]Yeah, remember this are someone and just because so here look we what we would be doing at certain points at certain points in the sentence we'll be we would be counting up the different uh groups of conjunctive words and we would be seeing where they deplete go down in number at certain points. points of the statement and when they increase.

[00:42:54]And what we found is that there's depletion of the causal words in the lie and a spike of the causal words surrounding the lie. When we looked at university studies, these are the sorts of studies where you ask a thousand students to tell a lie or you know what, say you did something yesterday that you didn't. So some will say they went swimming, some will say they went to the cinema. Um so you have to lie um and do a complete statement and then the other statement you tell the truth about what you did and then the team at the university who are involved in deception detection, they take these um results and they analyze them. And historically the way that they've measured the resolution that they've measured at, it was an error. It's called the Simpsons paradox.

[00:43:46]They managed to get an average over 205 of these studies over 60some years, 54% a coin flip. It was in fact people could guess better if the person was being deceptive or lying. But the way that they did it and the way that they measured it, that was the average that they got. And so they thought it was very difficult, almost impossible to spot liars. They were incorrect. They were just measuring it wrong at the wrong resolution. And if you if you measure at the correct resolution where the person is compared against themselves at a particular point of the statement where there is a change of language then you can get 10 times the deception signal. Anyway, I've uh uh gone off on a tangent, haven't I? do apologize if you're not interested in in the uh science aspect but what I'm saying is we can mathematically correlate where traditional statement analysis finds deception and we can see that over thousands of people how um the language depletes and then spike almost it spikes around the lie almost to make up for it.

[00:45:11]It increases dramatically. Anyway, sorry, I've gone back to that, haven't I?

[00:45:16]Where are we?

[00:45:18]Do put in the comments if you're if you're bored of uh the science aspect and I'll stick more to the actual analysis.

[00:45:26]Look, she says, "I took your dad from you."

[00:45:33]I took your dad from you.

[00:45:40]What do you think of that? This is this is in between. This isn't a sentence.

[00:45:45]This is in between other words. So, the inverted commas um lend it some weight that it doesn't actually have. It wasn't this. This wasn't an independent sentence. It was in between other words in a sentence, but it it's there. Do you see it?

[00:46:04]And the unconscious mind will often do this in statements.

[00:46:20]Then she says to kill someone are someone.

[00:46:25]And she self senses doesn't she? The sentence does not complete.

[00:46:40]I would have never taken.

[00:46:47]This is sensitive. Look. So, this is part of the reason why we mark a document up. And if we were going to mark it fully up that we would um be looking at time, we'd mark that in green. subjective time, object objective time. It would all be marked green. Um, but here we've speed it up. So, we've got pronouns in red, the ants in blue, and sensitivity in pink.

[00:47:19]And that this gives you a snapshot of a statement.

[00:47:39]And here carrying on with the pretense that it was an accident or an overdose and that he's in a lot of pain, a real lot of pain. He would never have he would have never rather.

[00:47:54]But she does keep changing and slightly altering the versions.

[00:48:07]Something I did not do. She can't see.

[00:48:10]Do you see every single time she can't do it?

[00:48:22]She almost got there, didn't she? But then she resorted to something.

[00:48:30]And that's okay.

[00:48:33]This is the acceptance.

[00:48:36]She was talking about being blamed for Eric's murder. And that's okay.

[00:48:49]So that's a lot of opportunity she's been given for for a denial to act like an innocent wife, but she can never do it.

[00:49:01]And then to the children, it's not, you know, check the facts. It's see if you can feel my innocence.

[00:49:11]Listen to your little hearts. She says, "Your little bellies." So, she doesn't want to go on the evidence.

[00:49:19]She just wants them. She just wants them to feel that she's innocent, narcissistic, dangerous individual with no real acceptance.

[00:49:35]And yet the continued sherad, the continued pantomime with the intention to appeal to get back to those boys as she gaslights them in front of the world.

[00:49:54]12 attempts.

[00:49:56]She just cannot land the the denial.

[00:49:59]She had a good half an hour, didn't she?

[00:50:01]Or longer. And she can't mention Eric's name.

[00:50:09]and the I would have never taken and the that's okay in essence. Oh, and and the uh embedded admission.

[00:50:30]Okay, so that brings us to the end of today's Veriscope. I do hope you enjoyed it and learned from it and got some value. Please do subscribe if you haven't yet. Find the subscribe button now. If um if you got some value and want to carry on learning, um remember to like. Thank you for liking everyone that does. I do appreciate that. I've noticed the like percentage has gone up.

[00:50:52]So, I really do appreciate you doing that. Um and chat with you in the comments as always. Okay. Enjoy the rest of the day. And it's the weekend coming up, isn't it? So, hopefully we'll all have a great weekend. Okay, chat to you later.