The inadvertent release of information is simply a polarity of thoughts that intertwine.
I am guilty of A, but I speak of B because if I speak of A, there will be consequences.
While I speak of B, what am I thinking about?
My thoughts are with A; that which I must avoid while I speak freely of B.
Because I am thinking of A, while I am speaking of B, and words flow from the brain processing, these two parallel thought patterns sometimes blend.
Recall the case of missing baby Ayla Reynolds when the deceptive father, Justin DiPietro sought words to defend himself against the allegation that he was not assisting police efforts to recover the child he, himself, had reported kidnapped.
Ayla is "A" for DiPietro.
"B" is the allegation that he is not cooperating.
These are two separate thoughts.
He knows the truth: Ayla was not kidnapped. No one had entered that home, and the trail of blood led straight to him, with the volume of blood only confirming what analysis of DiPietro's own words revealed: Ayla did not survive the Waterville home that dreadful night.
Yet, DiPietro cannot reveal "A" due to the consequences. Ayla had been a victim of abuse in his care before, including bruises, leg injuries and lastly, a broken arm of which he did not seek timely medical attention for. This, including her death that night, is his "A", that he must avoid. He must address "B", the allegation of lack of cooperation.
These two should be separate thoughts which have separate word, even though they are about the same topic. They should run parallel and not intersect.
Yet, the pressure upon the brain to avoid this form of 'leakage' of words, is stressful and challenging.
"Contrary to rumors floating around out there, I have been cooperating with the Waterville Police"
The word "with" between people shows distance. The pronoun "I" and "Police" are separated by this word, "with", belying his own assertion. Yet, we cannot say that the pronoun "I" could be no further from "Police" in this case because he prefaced his remark, showing us priority:
"Contrary to rumors floating around out there" suggests Ayla's remains, or Ayla's belongings (pajamas, etc) were dumped in water.
This work is subjective.
1. The word "with" between "I" and "Police" indicates distance.
2. The word "floating" suggests possible water and something floating is on his mind and this should be explored in both the interview, and in searching the rivers that touch both Waterville and Portland.
One is an "indication", which is strong, while the other is a "suggestion", that needs follow up in an investigation. In analysis, these two are dealt with separately and an analysis should never confuse the language.
The distancing language was because he was not cooperating with police and was given the chance to 'negotiate', via media, with the alleged kidnappers. He refused and when shown a photo of the blood he had cleaned up, ran out of the station. He did what he could to make sure Ayla was not found. Thus, the distancing language regarding cooperation was used instead of, "The Waterville Police and I..." or something similar.
*When successful classification of leakage is noted, such as pajamas found at a river, the analyst is tempted to become more 'definitive' about leakage and profiling in general. When taken to an extreme, we have Andrew Hodges work which says, without reference or principle: "this means that" with its 'hit or miss' success. Although I agree with some of his conclusions, the methodology can be used to assert and 'prove' anything means anything we wish. In the barbaric violence of the Koran, the same is used today in stating it means something else. Hermeneutics has principle to follow, which is why "backwards language" and extreme, unprincipled 'leakage' cannot withstand scientific scrutiny. A talented and well trained therapist or other professional can have good success with this but only with plentiful contextual knowledge that must be affirmed by the facts of the case. This is where Statement Analysis' work is compared to confessions and polygraph results.
The words are not "subconscious" nor "secretive", though such terms sells books. When principles are followed strongly, and information is gleaned from both the statement and the interview, the "suggestions" of profiling and 'leakage' are followed for affirmation or denial.
The talented therapist who, week after week, is told how "cold" the weather is, may eventually seek to learn if the client is lonely. Yet, to insist that "cold" is "lonely" is without discipline and allows for anyone to begin with a premise, and prove it through almost anything one says.
Melania Trump made the following statement about Donald Trump which is given for both analysis and for the inadvertent revealing of information.
What might this suggest, not about the actions of what Donald Trump will do, for this is plainly stated. We seek something else.
Our focus is upon the subject herself, and the words she chose to use.
What might this suggest about the subject's own experience?
If you were questioning her about possible abuse, how far back would you need to go?
If you began with "Tell me about yourself" and found her answer to begin in the here and now, such as, "I am a wife, mother and a businesswoman. I am supporting my husband's campaign, and I believe..." (and so on).
might you consider,
"What were you like growing up?"
True enough, this brings the subject to a much earlier time but it will still allow her to begin, in childhood, where her priority exists. Is it her first memories? Or, does she begin at age 10?
Note the specific language, including numbers, while formulating a strategy of questions.
"As you may know by now, when you attack him he will punch back 10 times harder. No matter who you are, a man or a woman, he treats everyone equal."