Have you ever found yourself questioning the truth behind the words of a person accused of a crime? What if there was a tool that could potentially detect deception patterns and reflect the truth? In today's episode, we're thrilled to have the creator of such an instrument, Dr. Darrell Turner, who will enlighten us about the Analysis of Patterns of Denial (APOD), designed specifically to detect deception among those accused of sexual offenses.
Dr. Turner isn't just teaching us about APOD in this episode, he's showing us its application in real and high-profile cases. We'll be delving into the infamous BBC interview of Prince Andrew and his association with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The conversation doesn't stop there; we also examine how APOD can be applied in different cultural contexts and languages, even in situations where English isn't the first language of the interviewee.
Then, we journey into the past, revisiting some of the most notorious criminal cases in history, such as Casey Anthony and Ted Bundy. We discuss how APOD could help detect patterns of denial and deflection in these cases, potentially shedding new light on their attempts to mask the truth. But APOD isn't just about exposing the guilty - we'll also explore how it can be used to vindicate those falsely accused of serious crimes. So, join us and Dr. Turner as we unravel an intriguing web of denial and deception, and search for truth in criminal cases involving sexual offenses.
We recommend listening to our previous conversation with Dr. Turner released on June 26, 2023 titled, "Analysis of Patterns of Denial: Evaluating the spectrum of denial to reveal sexual offenders", to learn how APOD was researched and developed.
Have you ever found yourself questioning the truth behind the words of a person accused of a crime? What if there was a tool that could potentially detect deception patterns and reflect the truth? In today's episode, we're thrilled to have the creator of such an instrument, Dr. Darrell Turner, who will enlighten us about the Analysis of Patterns of Denial (APOD), designed specifically to detect deception among those accused of sexual offenses.
Dr. Turner isn't just teaching us about APOD in this episode, he's showing us its application in real and high-profile cases. We'll be delving into the infamous BBC interview of Prince Andrew and his association with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The conversation doesn't stop there; we also examine how APOD can be applied in different cultural contexts and languages, even in situations where English isn't the first language of the interviewee.
Then, we journey into the past, revisiting some of the most notorious criminal cases in history, such as Casey Anthony and Ted Bundy. We discuss how APOD could help detect patterns of denial and deflection in these cases, potentially shedding new light on their attempts to mask the truth. But APOD isn't just about exposing the guilty - we'll also explore how it can be used to vindicate those falsely accused of serious crimes. So, join us and Dr. Turner as we unravel an intriguing web of denial and deception, and search for truth in criminal cases involving sexual offenses.
We recommend listening to our previous conversation with Dr. Turner released on June 26, 2023 titled, "Analysis of Patterns of Denial: Evaluating the spectrum of denial to reveal sexual offenders", to learn how APOD was researched and developed.
The subject matter of this podcast will address difficult topics multiple forms of violence, and identity-based discrimination and harassment. We acknowledge that this content may be difficult and have listed specific content warnings in each episode description to help create a positive, safe experience for all listeners.
Speaker 2:In this country, 31 million crimes 31 million crimes are reported every year. That is one every second. Out of that, every 24 minutes there is a murder. Every five minutes there is a rape. Every two to five minutes there is a sexual assault. Every nine seconds in this country, a woman is assaulted by someone who told her that he loved her, by someone who told her it was her fault, by someone who tries to tell the rest of us it's none of our business and I am proud to stand here today with each of you to call that perpetrator a liar.
Speaker 1:Welcome to the Podcast on Crimes Against Women. I'm Maria McMullen. Season 5 of the podcast on crimes against women begins now and we are back with Dr Darrell Turner for the long-awaited part 2 of our discussion about the analysis of patterns of denial among sex offenders, also known as APOD. You may recall, we promised listeners a follow-up to the episode that aired in June 2023 so we could talk about the practical applications of APOD in high-profile cases. You can still listen to that episode wherever you listen to podcasts.
Speaker 1:Darrell Turner is a clinical psychologist with a focus in forensic psychology. Dr Turner is the creator of the analysis of patterns of denial, or APOD, among sexual offenders, publishing numerous research articles and book chapters on risk assessment of sex offenders, risk assessment tools, child sex offender and victim behaviors, grooming, psychopathy, risk assessment of child pornography offenders, juror perceptions and decision-making in sex offense cases. Dr Turner works throughout the nation as an expert witness. His work includes many high-profile cases, such as testifying in the R Kelly trial and as a consultant in the Derek Todd Lee and Samuel Little serial killer cases. He provides APOD and other trainings across the nation and internationally and serves as a consultant with local, state and federal law enforcement agencies and the media. Dr Turner, welcome to the podcast.
Speaker 3:Thank you very much. It's nice to be here.
Speaker 1:It's good to see you again because we met a few months ago, back in May, when you were on location at the conference on crimes against women. I think that was your first time presenting at the conference, is that right?
Speaker 3:That's correct, it was.
Speaker 1:Was it about APOD, the topic that we're actually going to talk about today? Is that what your presentation was on? I just can't remember. There were so many.
Speaker 3:Yeah, I was presenting on, I think, paraphernalias and fetishes and then also doing an introduction, or the APOD what it is and how it's used and what the training looks like and stuff like that. That's when you and I spoke. That was also my first podcast interview.
Speaker 1:That's right. How many podcasts have you done since then?
Speaker 3:I've done one more between that one and this one.
Speaker 1:Okay, perfect, now you're a pro.
Speaker 3:I'm a hard and better.
Speaker 1:Here's podcast number three. When we ended that conversation a few months ago, we were just really getting into some of the more interesting ways that APOD can be applied, such as to interviews, especially in cases that our listeners might have heard or be familiar with.
Speaker 3:We're going to do a deep dive into that application, but before we do, give us a reminder as an overview of what APOD is and what it is used for, the APOD is the analysis of patterns of denial, and it is an instrument that detects deception among people that are being accused of a sexual offense against either adults or children, and the instrument was normed on adult males.
Speaker 3:It's designed for use in its current format with adult males who are accused of sexually offending in any respect, as long as certain criteria are met. At this point, it's contact offenses, as opposed to CCM offenses or formerly CP offenses, and now we call them child sexual abuse material cases, but there's some exciting things coming up in that. But in general though, it's a checklist and it's 12 items and it's 12 methods of deception and responding. That differentiates offenders who are saying they didn't do it and they really did, and people that are saying they really didn't do it and they really didn't do it. It's an investigative tool. It's also a research tool. In fact, we're finding out. People are using it in all kinds of ways and are trying to use it in lots of new and exciting ways, but that's essentially what it is. It's a tool for investigators or people that work with this population.
Speaker 1:So what are some of the new and exciting ways that the tool is being used?
Speaker 3:There's a group out of the UK in conjunction with somewhere in Connecticut, a university in Connecticut, and they're looking at the APOD in domestic violence cases. So they have a sample of interviews of folks that are accused and in the process of being investigated for domestic violence cases and we have ongoing research now looking into CCM cases. I was recently talking with some folks in law enforcement that do primarily CCM investigations and so we're looking at that. Those are some formal research projects that are going on. There's also a validation study that's being conducted out of out of Washington DC, which is very exciting. All of this and it's not even been out a year, so it feels a little bit like fast forward. Sometimes it could be a little intimidating, but there's a prison system in Southwest Asia that is now utilizing the APOD with their sex offenders there. People are interested, which is what I was really hoping for, and that seems to be what's happening, so hopefully it can do some good.
Speaker 1:That's really exciting, and especially because you know, as you said, it hasn't even been out a year. So, that publication that you had when, it was fine, the research was finally published, must be extremely helpful.
Speaker 3:Right, because that's really the only reason that it's worth anything is because it was peer reviewed and it was published.
Speaker 3:So because once that happens and it gets into the literature, then it carries a very different kind of weight with it than just, you know, an idea that you have or an essay or or something like that.
Speaker 3:So to have it, to have it been peer reviewed and published and I have to thank Dr Michael Burke for that and it has it's been fantastic because then so you know, I knew what the numbers were and I knew what the results were. But as a scientist, until it's peer reviewed you have to respect that process. And until that happened, you know I was quite reticent to talk too much about it, other than to just describe what the research was looking like and things like that. But now, to be able to come with that level of confidence, I'm talking with attorney generals offices in three different states at least, about getting it into court and testifying about the door hearings, and so yeah, I don't know if it's just a wave of interest that'll pass or what, but so I guess I guess this is what you were referring to when you and I were talking offline is a lot of things are blowing up around APOD and it is really exciting.
Speaker 1:I want to encourage people to go back and listen to the episode that we recorded in May and I think it aired sometime in June of 2023, the conversation Dr Turner and I had about APOD and, more specifically, what it is and how it's utilized and how to kind of understand the different terms and the checklist that he referred to.
Speaker 1:And so pause here, go listen to that interview and then come back because now we're actually going to apply it to some different cases. So I invited you here today to talk about applying it to an interview like that of Prince Andrew, where he publicly spoke on British television about his relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, and so you had mentioned to me in our previous conversation you know, kind of using this tool to interpret some of the more high profile or infamous cases that people might be familiar with, and that was one that popped up the interview with Prince Andrew. So since you and I spoke, I've watched that interview multiple times. I see something different in it every time. I always pick up on something different and I'm really excited to hear how you interpret it using APOD and kind of just your all of your knowledge as a forensic psychologist.
Speaker 3:Well, I think that what you picked up on is probably exactly what I picked up on, and we'll talk about details and everything. I'd really like to hear what some of your takeaways were from it. But that's really one thing. Before we get into that, that I just want to say that I'm very proud of with the APOD is these are not 12 techniques that I invented or came up with, right. These are things that we all deal with every day.
Speaker 3:We hear people in our line of work that we talk to that are denying sex offenses. We hear them engage in them and we just it doesn't seem right or it's something kind of like what you're saying. You pick up on little things, and so what the APOD does is it? It provides some data to sort of a gut reaction that we have to things and it lets us know, okay, when we hear that and we kind of you know it doesn't quite sound right or sound from off. Very often not every time, but very often the APOC will account for that and it'll be a scoreable item.
Speaker 3:And one neat thing that I'm seeing is, you know, doing trainings all over the country and certainly consulting in different places to have people sort of speak in the same language now about something that we've all been doing together.
Speaker 3:We've all been doing at the same time just across, you know, not around each other, but now all of a sudden we're speaking the same language. So when I say victim integration to someone, that that is a title for something that we all know, that we all deal with, but that didn't really have a term for it, you know. And so now it kind of facilitates, and it's interesting in trainings to hear people talk to each other. Well, did you see when he, when he did this item or that item and talking, talking a similar language, now, that everything is kind of in one easy place and and rateable place? So I think it's that's why I bring that up just because you're talking about how you pick up one things, and I'm sure the things that you picked up on are probably, are probably going to be, the things that I picked up on, you know.
Speaker 1:Well, you met. You probably picked up on a few more than even I could because of the training you've had. So I want to go back to a couple of things that you said. So you mentioned that it was being used in Southeast Asia.
Speaker 3:Southwest. Yeah, there's a. There's a country there that is using is using it with the sex offenders that are incarcerated there in part of their prisons.
Speaker 1:So the reason I've kind of narrowed in on that is because are they speaking English or a different language?
Speaker 3:I don't know. That's a good question. I would imagine they're not speaking English.
Speaker 1:And so then, how was APOD interpreted for them, or translated? I'm just curious how this works in other languages, because essentially, apod has some key terms as as part of the checklist right, like we talked about. You know, like the words like well, not really Right. So I just wonder how that translates to other cultures and other languages.
Speaker 3:It translates very carefully. It was normed on English speaking populations and so, in terms of what you're asking about that sense, we didn't include bilingual interviews in the sample because we didn't have enough of them to include very similar to females and juveniles. But I've spoken with folks from that use a lot of different languages in interviews with folks and they say that it carries over. You know, there are some cultural aspects that you have to take into consideration and colloquial dialogue and it's not been normed on, say, spanish speaking or anything like that. So I see the point that you're saying. I don't know in what capacity they're using it in the in that prison system.
Speaker 1:So it was normed on English. And so that brings us to going back to wanting to talk about the Prince Andrew interview, which was, which was extremely English. Right, it's British, in fact, the Kings English, the Kings English, and so it was English in the sense that the spoken language was English, but the culture is British in this, in this interview, which is different from American. You don't need much explanation as to why or how. It's just is not the same as American culture. So the norm of the, of the development of APOT is slightly different from the application here. But, that being said, so me, you asked how, what I, what I picked up on. Right, I'm going to offer my very humble examples of what I saw in the interview.
Speaker 3:Well, let me just clarify before you do that. It was. It was normed on English speaking folks in interviews so he can speak with a British accent. They can be English second language. We had lots of folks like that. Using it on someone that speaking English outside of America doesn't invalidate it. Using it on Prince Andrew doesn't, doesn't isn't stretching how it was normed or how it's supposed to be used. It's an English interview. He has an accent. That doesn't. That doesn't matter. We had folks with accents in our normative sample, but as long as.
Speaker 3:English is the fundamental language of the interviewer, of of whatever they're saying, then it's. That's perfectly far.
Speaker 1:And and I love that you offer that clarification because I think that's really helpful and I also think that his manner is distinctly British and and royal in fact, and so a lot of that goes into kind of understanding why he's acting as the way that he's acting. There's a very high brow kind of air to this conversation and I think he acted frequently surprised to be accused of anything, least of all being associated with someone like Jeffrey Epstein and being associated with any types of accusations that would imply he had done anything criminal or even sexual or deviant in nature. It was. It just seemed unfathomable to him and he you know words like incredulous come to mind when I see his expressions that he just couldn't believe that anyone, let alone his own subjects, royal subjects, would, would would even consider that he could do something like that.
Speaker 3:I think that worked against him.
Speaker 1:For sure, for sure. I think a lot of things in the interview worked against him. I also think he had like the interview itself. It was challenging for him to understand the depth of the of the problem with being associated with Epstein or someone like Epstein and and being in in staying in his home as a guest and with all of these other things going on. It was very challenging for him to understand why, why that was a problem and how severe of an issue that actually is.
Speaker 3:Very glib, very superficial, very glib, very narcissistic. Narcissistic to the point of I'm not saying Prince Andrew is a psychopath, but I do think he's somewhere along the spectrum and that level of insincerity and just glib and not appreciating the depth of a what he's being accused of, the association, the allegation, and talking about it like he did. And I'll give you a good example at the end when he says yeah, now in hindsight it was clear that Mr Epstein was engaging in conduct on becoming, and she says you remember, she says unbecoming. He said he was a sex offender, right, yeah, just that whole, just not, you know, not not falling to a level of kind of oh no, that you would expect from someone. But he's also someone that, as you said, is very used to to getting his way, surrounds himself with people as most narcissists do. He just happens to be a member of the world family, so it's facilitated for him with people that don't do not question him, never question him, can't question him, right?
Speaker 3:I don't know the interviewer's name. I've not done a deep dive into that interview and seen the aftermath or anything, but I think she does a fantastic job. I cannot imagine being a sub, a subject, like you said right In in in England of of the royal family, at least on paper, and being in Buckingham Palace interviewing the then queens, some people argue favorite son and and and have that level of pressure on her and to have been able to be as professional as she was but still call him to task on certain things like like that comment about conduct on becoming For sure, and that was, that was a moment right in that interview and I wish we could play the clip here on our show.
Speaker 1:But that was really a moment and it really took me back as well when he he used that, that phrase unbecoming to describe such heinous crimes. I mean, as we're what we're going on in the Epstein household and on the private island and so on and so forth. And you're right about the interviewer she was incredibly professional and it had to be challenging for her to to pose those Terrifying.
Speaker 3:Terrifying.
Speaker 1:Terrifying is probably good word to describe it.
Speaker 3:My wife is a is an English royalty buff, and she expressed to me that she's like you know, I can't imagine. I mean, it's the British broadcasting corporate. So even the, even the company that she's representing is managed by the government. You know it's somewhat socialist and everything. So I just all of those factors combined and then, in terms of scoring the APOD.
Speaker 3:I was actually quite intimidated to do that when it was first suggested to me by a friend of mine, because for that very reason I thought well, here's someone with an entire nation's intelligence agency at his disposal, royal handlers who have gotten him and every other monarch through all kinds of horrible situations. Certainly they're telling him how to answer. Certainly they're coaching him, they're handling him. I imagine they were very nearby in Buckingham Palace when that was going on.
Speaker 3:I don't know. There were a few things that he it's noticeably didn't do that I was very much expecting him to do, um, and I thought, well, this is going to be somebody that could sort of score as you know, score in a way that indicates they're not being deceptive, because he's being so coached and so handled. And he still had the average score. Uh, that we saw in the sex offenders that were denying their guilt, that were ultimately shown to be guilty he, he, he scored a seven. He scores a seven in that interval, so he's just dead to rights. It was an absolute train wreck.
Speaker 1:Right, so that's seven out of 12.
Speaker 3:Correct. And in saying this, I want to say that I'm not, I'm not giving anything away because they're you know, they're a pattern, it's a, it's an analysis of patterns of denial, right? So, um, you know, I'm generally kind of careful about saying this item or that item, but I don't think it's going to. I know that it won't give anything away, because the folks that are falsely accused engage in response patterns as well. It's just how they're scored and how they're, how they're coded and how they appear. Um differentiates them, um, but one thing that he engaged in quite a bit is what we call um excessive detail, which is, um, I can tell by your face that you can't get up on that one. So you know he's there to talk about a specific thing and you heard him go off for various reasons, about his time in the Navy and and all this and that, and um, his explanations about sweating and and uh, I'm sorry, not sweating, or whatever that was and, uh, and and not. All of these are excessive detail, but those are some things that he, that he did that really stand out. And I, you know, I think everyone picks up one and goes okay, okay, a speech about how you haven't sweat in 20 years. You know it's a little bit, it's a little bit suspect, so things of that nature.
Speaker 3:But um, also about the, the motive of accusers. You know, uh, touching one, that and talking about his, his thick skin, and um being a member of the Royal family and uh, how he separates himself, uh, in that regard, very much, like you said, uh, at the outset, um, his overall presentation is of someone, like you said, that doesn't understand the seriousness of it. There's no sense of, of humility, oh my gosh. He says a couple of times I hope they have closure or they're being heard, and rightly so. But then he's quick to add you know, it's important for me to have closure to just as much, and things of that nature, yeah, um, so so those were some of the, the very just, that very narcissistic that you that you mentioned and picked up on. And then some of those not all of the side speeches that he went off into would would meet criteria, uh, under the APOG for that item, but in in his case they certainly did.
Speaker 3:Um, did you notice some of the stuff too? That's great about that interview? That has nothing to do with APOG, but there's a, there's a part in the interview. It's about halfway through where she first mentions the name of the girl that he took the photo with, virginia, and Roberts was the name they use. That's a pseudonym, um, uh, but they said Virginia Roberts, and you just see this big, lumpy swallow in his throat and then he just instantly starts his, his, his pattern of of responding at that moment shifts very dramatically.
Speaker 3:Uh, and things start to. Things start to bubble up to the surface. Where you're going, uh, okay, um, this is different from talking about, uh, you know, working in the Navy. Now, something's now is, now he's invested in this right, um, so you can see that change. I feel like his tie gets a little bit more crooked as the interview goes on. He just becomes more and more unkempt and, uh, I imagine that, uh, he was advised very strongly against doing that interview, uh, and did it anyway, and he should have listened to his advisors because it was bad. It was real bad.
Speaker 1:I think there was a lot incriminating about it. I did not hear him use any of the terms, or even very many, if any of the terms that you and I talked about previously, where you know, when answering questions you might say something like oh, not, I did not really, or not usually, or um, I didn't hear him do that.
Speaker 3:Right, no, he didn't, he was. He was, uh, quite poised and he did well in that respect. He also. He also did well. As I said, there were some other. There were some other things that I would have expected him to come out swinging with um, uh, referencing himself in the royal family as being maybe a reason, uh, that he shouldn't be suspect and stuff, and he only kind of danced around that. So it's interesting because here we have one of the best, most coached interviews that we know of about someone accused of committing sexual offenses and he's, and it's still, you can still score. I mean, he still scores in the range of being well into the range, um, of being deceptive. Um, some of the, some of the you talk about colloquial and cultural considerations, right, so interesting, it's interesting to me. I think that there are certain terms that British use, um, like funny enough, oddly enough, right, and I think that those kind of became the pretty much basically for him given um, I think that he's oh, yes, now that you say it, yes, yes.
Speaker 3:Right, yeah, so, um, if you think about times in the interview when he says that, if you kind of substitute that for um, you know some of the terms that we talked about, it, it fits right away, because he doesn't say that in other times of the interview, right, when he's just talking about today's Tuesday, and my name is Philip or whatever, it is Andrew, um, he's sorry, he's um, he's not responding that way, and then, and then, when it you know, he gets the big lump in his throat and then all of a sudden, it's all funny enough. Oddly enough, you know you talked to Glein Maxwell this year. Yeah, did you talk about Epstein? No, funny enough, we did it. Well, of course you did. Of course you did. There's no way in hell. You did Right, so, um, so yeah, so they're still there, they just um they just it's interesting.
Speaker 3:It's a cultural kind of to look and see.
Speaker 1:And see how I was very fooled by those responses because I didn't understand to take that British term funnily enough and kind of put it into the American context of well, basically, or no, not really. Yeah, that's. That's actually my favorite, and we've talked about why.
Speaker 3:Yeah, no, not really. Yeah, um, yeah, you can. Yeah, you can get yourself into trouble, though Start, I have a problem. I can't. I have to turn my brain on my APOP brain off when I'm talking to people. I have to swallow that pride when they give me an answer like that. Okay, all right, buddy.
Speaker 1:No, I see, I don't think you do. I think you just call them out. Start calling them out now. I know you're lying.
Speaker 3:God they'll be. They'll be scarred worse than they already are, I'm afraid Okay.
Speaker 1:So we've we've kind of gone through Prince Andrew. I really think people should, after listening to this conversation, go back and and listen to some of that interview again Uh, I think it's about 40 minutes long or so and, um, after your third time of watching it, come back and listen to the rest of the show, because it did take me several times to kind of get through it, to really see through the smoke and mirrors, because, to your point, this was a directed production and it was, if it wasn't scripted, it was extremely rehearsed conversation on on the part of the of Prince Andrew.
Speaker 3:Well, I, you know, if I'm a betting man, this guy was practiced, this guy was rehearsed, um, um, you know, this is the royal family, they don't mess around, you know. And and he was doing something that I think they were terrified that he was doing, you know, which is why I didn't initially want to score it, because then I thought, well, I'm going to, I'm going to score this and it's not going to work and that's going to suck. Yeah, but, um, but yeah, and you know, I think so much of it too is that it's just unconscious. It's not things that you plan on doing. They're not things that he, you know he may have thought to himself. Well, he might have thought to himself okay, make make sure to mention getting shot in the Navy. Make sure to mention my kids and my wife, make sure to you know, he might have had things like that. But his response is to her questions these A pot of items. They're not things that people plan on.
Speaker 3:Okay, this is going to be my approach, right, what speaks to that is, as long as someone is being accused of a sexual offense and they're talking about it, you can score the APOT Transcript. As long as it's verbatim, uh, it can be an interview with police, it can be, it can be therapy, it can be an evaluation. Talking about this is just how these folks go about doing what everyone does when they deny their guilt. But they just do it in in a different way and we've been able to detect what that pattern is, and that's, that's what the A pot is. That's what it all boils down to.
Speaker 3:I'll tell you another good one. It's not a sex fence case, but you want to talk about a famous case where the A pod, for me, has shed some light on things Is the Casey Anthony case. You know, we didn't get to hear her talk a lot, right, we didn't get to hear, uh, her police interviews. We didn't get to hear, we heard little blips and pieces of it and whatnot, but she did a. Um, are you familiar with this Couple of years ago? She did. I think it was like a three-part series on her side of the story. You're familiar with the Casey Anthony case.
Speaker 1:I am familiar with the case, yes, and I vaguely remember the series, yeah.
Speaker 3:Yeah, and so and it's her, it's her being filmed kind of in secret in South Florida where she is now just talking about talking about the case and talking about every aspect of the case. You know, it's not, it's not a sex offense case and I'm just kind of informally, just sort of doing it in my head, like I do all the time anyway, and she's just dead, dead to rights, one after another, item after item, and I think this is the. I think this is what people are picking up on and I'm getting more and more I'm being contacted about it more and more and I'm having more and more people show up to trainings and things that are that are interested in. Let's take the APOT out of the context of sex offending and let's look at it as so. The group out of out of the UK. What they said was that they think that it is the pattern of human denial when trying to avoid consequences for something that you did.
Speaker 1:And it's instinct, it's an instinct.
Speaker 3:Yeah, it's not. It's not. Let me sit down and plan, and when I sit down and plan what I'm going to say, this is what I come up with. It's, it's and some of it is based on, you know, like we were talking about with Prince Andrew, right, we were talking about a lot of that glibness and kind of narcissism and stuff that is inherent in a lot of especially like repeat sex offenders, right? So that glibness and that narcissism it's picking up on.
Speaker 3:I think some of these items are picking up on that and I think that that anti-society and narcissism we see in other crimes as well. Not, I'm not talking about pegging, I'm just talking about along a spectrum. So, using it up, spoken with guys that do guys and girls that do murder cases or assault cases or white color property crimes, and they're all saying that, aside from one particular item that addresses sexual sexuality, that if you kind of tweak that item, that all these other things are what they're getting, regardless of what kind of crimes they work. And that's, of course, anecdotal and I'm not suggesting that it can be used on all those other crimes. We're just talking about what's in the works and what's happening and I think so I understand.
Speaker 3:You know, I watched that thing about Casey Anthony and you know it was a murder and it was a child murder but it wasn't a sexual offense so it wouldn't normally work. But I definitely see, I definitely see a lot of the same things. So I understand why people are wanting to use it to research different crimes, which I just think is great. I mean, how awesome would that be if it can help across the board. You know, yeah, for sure.
Speaker 1:I mean it will be interesting to see in the coming months and years how people apply it and what and how it works out. You and I talked about a few other cases as well that APOD could be applied to. Now, one that you mentioned to me, which I don't know much about the case in great detail, but you had mentioned the case against Lee Harvey Oswald, which is taking us a little bit away from our mission on the podcast on crimes against women.
Speaker 1:Yeah but it is a fascinating, fascinating case nonetheless, and one of the things that I did learn about Lee Harvey Oswald well, you and I were, you know, over the summer, kind of anticipating this conversation was what a notorious liar he actually was known to be so. Have you APODed? Is that a word? Can you APOD someone? I'm going to APOD.
Speaker 3:I think it is. I think you just made it a word.
Speaker 1:Have you APODed Lee Harvey Oswald or video I?
Speaker 3:APODed. I APOD actually in the training I use as an example just to kind of you know it gets very dark and heavy talking about sexual crimes, all not that the assassination of the president isn't heavy, but just to kind of you know, take a brain break for everybody and just look at it in a different light. There's a clip that I play of Lee Harvey Oswald being brought out. The media is hollering questions at him, some of which he's answering and some of which he's not, and there's one that he answers with kind of that sort of pretty much thing that we talked about and I just had never.
Speaker 3:I've been a buff of the Kennedy assassination since I was 10 years old. I remember I checked a book out of the library on it and I've studied it my whole life. And it wasn't until I started doing this research that I saw that same interview. I'd seen 600 times and I heard them do that and I just thought, wow, there it is. There it is.
Speaker 1:Right there. Yeah, I think the more you try to unravel that case, the more lies and deception you reveal, and we could APOD, everyone could be APODed. Let's put it in the back.
Speaker 3:Yeah, but again, it's not a sex offense and so not coding him and we don't have any full interviews of him. None of those were reported. But yeah, just the premise. That's just one way that people avoid telling the truth. They hedge their answers. I mean that's not news to anybody and just hearing him do that, and just a little. I mean it's like a little 20-second clip of him answering questions asking for legal representation and then he busts out with one of those and it's like Lee Lee come on out, lee, he really was an amateur.
Speaker 1:Yeah, now there are some other cases I asked you about, and one of them was how you might apply the tool to Ted Bundy, and so you started telling me offline about how it may or may not work with that case. Why is that?
Speaker 3:Well, what we don't have of Ted. We have a lot of FaceTime headshot of talking heads of Ted Bundy, right, things he says quips to the media or on his way into the courtroom or things like that. But we don't at least what I've seen, we don't have an interview of him sitting down and talking just about the offenses and not going off into some tangent, because those recordings that we have, or what I was saying earlier was that he just towards the end he just kind of started pimping himself out as an expert here, is an expert there, in an effort to stay alive. So he contacted I want to say I don't know if it was Jimmy Swagger or Falwell, one of those guy, one of those evangelist guys that was on an anti pornography campaign and said hey look, I'm the famous Ted Bundy. I can tell you that you're right, pornography is evil.
Speaker 3:If I had never seen pornography I wouldn't have ever done any of this. Let's go, let's do it, let's get this message out right. And then did the same thing with my hero, dr Robert Keppel, who investigated and caught Ted Bundy well, in the Washington cases and then also worked on the Atlanta child murders and the Green River case and all these other cases. But Bundy contacted him and said hey, you know from death row, hey, I hear you got this Green River case. Obviously I'm paraphrasing, because I'm pretty sure Bundy never said y'all, that's more of a movie than anything.
Speaker 3:I hear y'all got this Green River case and you know that's my territory and let me help y'all out. I mean they kind of based some of some of the silence of the lamp stuff on that because he was, you know, sort of again kind of to use the term pimping himself out as a, as a profiler right before that was a term. So he was just doing anything he could to stay alive. So the interviews that we see with Bundy, they're very much there's ulterior motives and ulterior focuses of the conversation, right. So it's on things like pornography or death penalty or let's talk about the Green River killer and you can pick up on some things. But it's not like a set interview, like the Prince Andrew where we can just sit and watch it, where he's just saying, you know, either minimizing or outright denying his guilt so that we can score it, because the APOD will score the same. Interestingly enough, whether it's full on outright denial or whether it's partial denial and minimization, they still score.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I mean, I guess I can see your, your point and I didn't realize exactly like what you needed a certain type of video and transcript in order to use the tool against as the analysis for something. Yeah, I think, the interesting, one of the interesting things with Bundy is his power to deflect things. I mean, he just he could deflect and deflect, and to me that appears like some type of denial or a form of denial by constantly changing the lens around to focus on someone else.
Speaker 3:Yeah, well, it's like what you mentioned earlier about Lee Harvey Oswald. There's just part of psychopathy is. It can be, you know, just pathological, where it's easier. It's just easier to lie, even when there's no benefit to it, even when it's not for secondary gain, it's just it's. It's almost like sport, it's just lying they're.
Speaker 3:Interestingly enough, though, there was a letter that Ted Bundy wrote to his ex fiancee, whom he lived with for a time, and in the letter he says something to her to the effect of oh, you know, don't worry, their case is very weak, or something like that, and it was at that moment that she kind of went from holding on to holding on to some hope that maybe he hadn't done it, to realizing that he had, and that's, you know, that's getting at APOD stuff, that sort of some. Some innocent folks do that too, and guilty folks do that. But the way that he went about doing it and what set off that red flag in her would be scored as an A-Pod item based on the rest of that conversation in the letter, but so it's used in Ted Bunty. That's when I've been able to use it in Ted Bunty. He did score that one in that letter that I read as he's denying his guilt.
Speaker 3:But unfortunately we don't just have him sitting down for any length of time saying you know, no, I didn't do this. And here's why.
Speaker 1:And I think that you know my personal opinion. The whole story about the pornography, I think, is just garbage.
Speaker 3:Oh well it is. I think somebody like Ted Bundy is. I think it's, I think it's nature and nurture, I think there's. He's born with a predilection for things and depending on how things turn out in his life, especially his early life, you know, then he may be predisposed to a certain type of behavior or whatever. But I mean he was engaged in very dark, sexually violent fantasies from the time he was young. So I mean him getting on and saying that pornography did this to me was just, that's just yes, it's ridiculous.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it just seems like it had to be bigger than the fact that he saw some pornography in a garbage dumpster and it just gave him an addiction to it, which then turned him into this monster. I find that a very loose case in itself, yeah.
Speaker 3:I think it's also insulting to the victims and their families. You know, just to just to make it such a glib, again, there it is. There's that perpetual, just not getting the severity of it. Oh, it was pornography that explains, you know, what I did to your daughter, for example. It's just, it's just awful, just completely awful. Yeah, and insulting.
Speaker 1:How about OJ Simpson?
Speaker 3:OJ Simpson. That's interesting because it wasn't a sexual offense, was it? But it was the murder. It was the murder of his wife, yeah.
Speaker 1:Yeah, because you know, to your point of you know DV cases, I mean they're clearly with DV in that relationship.
Speaker 3:Yeah, did you read about the trouble that Henry Lee has been in recently, the forensic pathologist that was involved in that case?
Speaker 1:I don't believe so.
Speaker 3:Yeah, there was. He was involved in that case and John Benet Ramsey he's written literally wrote the book on on blood spatter analysis and things like that and he's just had some. He's dealing with some allegations now that he was planning evidence in a recent case.
Speaker 1:Whoa.
Speaker 3:Which is, yeah, which is really disappointing and disheartening, but anyway, that's not what you want to talk about, oj for Okay.
Speaker 1:Okay, but we may need to come back to that.
Speaker 3:Well, he's a leading I mean any list. You look at Henry Lee. I don't know what his background is, but he's a doctor of something and there was a case and it's. I mean you can look it up. I was reading about it the other day and he's yeah, he was accused of doing some things that he shouldn't have been done. I certainly hope it's not true, but but he's been on a lot. You know the staircase murders, that guy that his wife allegedly fell down the stairs, the Netflix special. He was on that.
Speaker 2:Yeah, he's been on every case.
Speaker 3:Yeah, he's just, he's in release all over everything.
Speaker 1:So if you watch any video, however, of OJ Simpson and you think about the APOD and and what it's designed to do, even though it's your point, it's not a sexually related case. There's so much. There's so much. There's there's a 12 plus score, in my opinion, of of denial in his interviews, and the idea that OJ Simpson would write a book about if he had done it, how he would have done it and how he would have covered it up and so forth, is just incredible. I mean, I can't even imagine who thought that would be a good idea to write that book.
Speaker 3:Yeah, that's probably. It kind of calls to mind Prince Andrew. He probably had a lot of people telling him not to do it, but he's, but he's. So you know narcissistic that he just thought now I'm going to control the narrative, I'm going to make some money, I'm going to you know it was also. I remember when that came out. I remember just thinking boy, what a big F you to the families of those victims. True, I mean, that's that had to hurt. You know, it sounds like a bad side of it. I've skipped a book with.
Speaker 3:I did it on the cover, and if it's written real small, come on.
Speaker 1:Sick, I really sick and definitely narcissistic. Yeah, I can't think of a worse way to to talk about your involvement or not in in a horrible homicide such as that one, yeah, yeah. What about video of different trials or depositions and other types of interviews related to things like genocide or the Holocaust? Is there any way to apply APOD to those types of testimonies?
Speaker 3:One of the things that's come up and talking with some folks out of DC is is it the kind of thing that could be normed on, like like you're talking about some, some group, for you know whether it's a terrorist threat or whatever? There's a university in the south that is wanting to look at the APOD in the context of political deceit, especially in light of people arising to power like Nazi Germany and things like that. Yeah, now, whether they'll be able to do that with language and it not being sex offenses and all that. I feel like you and I are just kind of having a conversation about some things and ideas that people are floating around.
Speaker 2:For sure, some things that.
Speaker 3:I've heard. So I'm not, I'm not, obviously I'm not out here saying, yeah, use it for this, use it for this Right and. And in the conversation they said well, you know, maybe not because it's it's this kind of lying or that kind of lying, or maybe we shouldn't even try to. And my response was look if there's deceit. If you're looking at deceit, it's worth trying, it's worth looking at. So their idea is to look at that, like specifically looking at the rise of, like the Donald Trump and the whatever that's called, the populist movement or whatever, and looking at that and how that was done and how that was orchestrated and what kind of deceit was used, and if it's, if it's APOD ish or if it's not. So that would be, I guess.
Speaker 3:I guess all that to say we'll find out, we'll find out if that can be used in instances like you're talking about or not. Is it just? Is it just how people lie to not get in trouble, or is it specific to sexual offenses? You know, and I think that's the, that's kind of what is, I think, in the next God, I want to say like five years, but I mean it hasn't even been out a year and we're already here, so I don't know, but I know folks are picking it up and so it'll be fun to, it'll be fun to see.
Speaker 1:It will be interesting to see. I like the way that you kind of pose that question of is this unique to the way that people who lie or deny sex offenses the way that they speak or talk about their denial?
Speaker 2:Is it?
Speaker 1:unique to them. Are there other ways of doing this? I suppose there are other ways of doing this. Are there other ways of collectively rating? It is the whole other question.
Speaker 3:Right, and you know people ask me about wanting you know this and that, and what do I want to study next?
Speaker 1:And I think this I think you have to keep studying this, because I don't think we're done.
Speaker 3:You know, I've done this for 10 years and and it and I didn't get paid for it, and I did it while trying to start a private practice. I didn't have a grant. I'm not going through university, and so it's just funny because I talk with government agencies that want to do a study on it. They're like, yeah, we put the request in and we got 400 interviews last week.
Speaker 3:Whoa, oh, my God that took me a decade, you know like right, but if that, but if agencies like that are are interested in it and are are wanting to pull samples and look at it, then I think we're going to find out where it fits and where it doesn't fit a lot faster and maybe I won't be in an old, senile man by then. Maybe it'll happen in my lifetime and I'll be able to see that. That would be really cool for me.
Speaker 1:That would be really cool, and I think you probably have a long way to go before you become an old man.
Speaker 3:I'm getting kind of gray these days.
Speaker 1:Any other ways that APOD can help us kind of solve some of these crimes.
Speaker 3:I think anywhere where you have. You know, one of the one of the agencies that I was talked with was the innocence project at the time when I was putting the data together in cases where someone is incarcerated for, and those cases would would meet the criteria that I had for inclusion in the falsely accused group, which was a very strict criteria that you and I talked about last time. That level of proof that they didn't do it. It's a DNA, a new, a new match for DNA, right, somehow they come so to have the initial interviews and be able to watch them and and code them on the APOD. I can see that as a use for it, because the APOD is not just designed to identify people that did something wrong. It's certainly designed to do that, but it's also identified to help exonerate people that are accused of this most hard of crimes and didn't do it.
Speaker 3:You know that's a life ending accusation, sure. So I think that it would be that could be a good use of it too, and that's something I've been kind of tossing around lately with some folks in the APOD Institute, as we're now called, which is a bit ridiculous, but that's what it is. We had to, we had to incorporate. So we had to come up with something and I wasn't going to use my name like a moron. So if you have someone, can you go back and look if it was a sex offense during time for a sex offense and you have, and you have the DNA mismatch and you have all this other stuff, then you know, could the APOD be used then to go back and score that initial interview and just provide another level of? Hey look, here's another thing that makes it look like they were telling the truth at that time.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it's fascinating. I really hope we get to catch up again in the next couple of months so I can hear more about the progress that you're making and hopefully I will see you at the Conference on Crimes Against Women in May of 2024. I hope you'll be back.
Speaker 3:I hope so too. I look forward to talking to you again. It's always nice.
Speaker 1:Dr Turner, thank you so much for talking with me today. Thanks so much for listening. Until next time, stay safe. And for the 2024 Conference on Crimes Against Women is now available. The 2024 conference will be held in Dallas, texas, at the Sheraton Dallas, may 20th through the 23rd. Visit our website at conferencecaworg to learn more and register today, and follow us on social media at nationalccaw for updates about the conference, featured events, presenters and more.