Sunday, March 29, 2015

"No Man Can Lie Twice": Statement Analysis of Cat Stevens

Yusuf Islam

Readers here know that "no man can lie twice."  This is a principle that my healthy scientific skepticism caused me to carefully research, including employing the help of many others, including analysts, investigators and researchers. 

I asked for any information that could defy this principle. 

*This is why we "lock one into his lie" on a statement.  We know that "no man can lie twice", which is now a powerful tool in our hand.  We cause the subject to focus in upon his lying statement.  If we know "he did it" while he says "I never did it", we then bring his attention to his lie, knowing it will force him to tell the truth. 

We can force someone into the truth.  

This is the power behind the principle that "no man can lie twice."  I will give a short explanation here, but please use the search feature to grasp this amazing rule in Statement Analysis, and learn how you can use it to gain truth.  

Here it is:

If one says "I didn't do it" and really did "do it", the subject will not be able to look at his lie, and lie about it, saying "I told you the truth."  We can use "never" as well, once it is confirmed that "never" is not only "unreliable", but it is a lie.  

We "lock" the subject into a position, truth or lie, and then focus his attention on his statement and force him to tell us the truth. 

In Analytical Interviewing:  

We psychologically force the liar to tell the truth.  

In trainings, we do it over and over and over, until the investigator knows how to pounce on it.  Once we have locked the subject into an answer, truthful or deceptive, the right technique will always yield the truth. 

If he did it, and says he "didn't do it" or "never" did it, and we focus his attention on this lie

The pronoun "I" and the word "truth", coupled with "told" or even "telling", will not exist in his response.  "Lie", "lying", and other such words may, but "I told you the truth" will not exist on top of a lie, but will exist on top of the truth. 

In other words, by locking the subject into one or the other, we now use his own ego against him, clearing the innocent, and exposing the guilty in the interview process.  

Analytical Interviewing is the sharpest sword in the arsenal of all lie and truth detection.  

Rule:  No man can lie twice. 

When the liar is asked, "Why should we believe you when you say you didn't do it?", he may say 
anything along these lines:
"I don't lie.  I'm not lying.  I am not a liar."

He may use the word "lie" but he will not be able to use the word "truth" with the pronoun "I" and "told" or "telling" in his response.  It is that psychologically, he cannot look at his own lie, and lie about it.  

I know, I know, it is not something easily understood but the years have proven this out. 

Perhaps Cat Stevens can help us understand it. 

If you grew up in the 70's, you likely heard Cat Steven's, "Peace train" "Morning Has Broken" and "Father and Son."  It was almost required learning for anyone trying to play the guitar.  

If you've read this blog anytime in the past few years, you've come to see that the word "never", when referencing a specific allegation, is deemed "unreliable" for our work.

We play the odds. Cat Stevens, having spoken up recently, has given us the opportunity to test our principle.  

We work by percentages. We are guided by odds, turning left when it says "70% turn left" and turning right when it says "80% turn right" and, with enough signals, we get to the truth, whether one is guilty or innocent.  We will know.  

It can be that "never" is an appropriate response, especially if the question is, "Have you ever...?", but when found as a denial, in substitution of "didn't" or "did not", is not reliable. 

Sometimes, unreliable does not necessary mean deception, but where it is that one will not make the simple reliable denial, we are likely looking at deception.  

Back to Cat Stevens. 

He eventually dropped this stage name, converted to Islam, denounced his records, but continued to cash royalty checks, giving away money from "offensive" songs he sang. but keeping the rest, with Rolling Stone estimating that from the few hits of the 70's, he has brought in about 1 million dollars per year, every year.  

Some wondered if the 70's folk-rock star would return to popular music  but 9/11, however, brought anger from Americans, though, perhaps, less from his home country.  

As the years went by, he moved to the middle east but his children kept urging him to return to music.  
Yusuf Islam, (he new name), was conflicted about playing again, but the war in Afghanistan was raging and another conflict was looming in Iraq.  Over the years, Yusuf's children tried in vain to get him to begin playing guitar again. Then, a few months after 9/11, Yusuf found himself holding an acoustic guitar his son had brought home. It made him cry, he said, even as he continued to use his money to build Muslim schools in England, and even sought to raise money for victims of 911 as a way of countering the negative publicity for Islam. 

 Yusuf Islam said  that the world needed "to see at least one nonviolent Muslim on TV. " He chose himself to be that Muslim but, he was confronted about the death sentence pronounced by Muslims on the author, Salomon Rushdie.  
Recently, after recording another album, he addressed the issue and said, 

""I was never a supporter of the fatwa, but people don't want to hear that" to Rolling Stone magazine. He said that he was sick of everyone bringing this back up to him, over and over.  He was serious about showing a non violent Muslim to the world.

Was this a reliable denial?

A reliable denial has three components:

I.  The pronoun "I"
II. The past tense verb "did not" or "didn't"
III.  The specific allegation answered.

"I did not support the fatwa against Salomon Rushdie" is an example of a reliable denial.  If asked why he should be believed, were he to say "I am telling you the truth.  I did not support the fatwa against Salomom Rushdie" the odds of him telling the truth are now above 99%.

We play the odds and where the sample is increased, so is our success, when we stay in principle.

"I was never a supporter of the fatwa, but people don't want to hear that" has the pronoun "I", and the accusation ("fatwa") but the verb "didn't" is not there, violating component number II.  The entire quote will follow, with analysis.  

"Never" is something we hear a great deal from deceptive people.  Lance Armstrong, Marion Jones and David Ortiz "never" took PEDs, and all three relied upon the number of tests they passed as "proof", yet were unable or unwilling to say the word "didn't" in their denial.  

"Never" can be considered, psychologically vague, as it expands over indefinite time.  

Cat Stevens did speak to a college audience and it was recorded.  Stars often get "passes" on things.  Michael Jackson's child molestation pay offs and lack of denials did not stop the hero worship, even after his death, in spite of the lifetime of pain inflicted upon his sufferers. 

Women were raped by Bill Cosby, yet his audience support is strong. 

Methinks is A-rod hits home runs, the man who not only cheated, but threatened to sue the game of baseball, while lying, will be cheered in the Bronx.  

Yusuf Islam

Now, if "I was never a supporter" is a lie, will he lie about it, should he refer back to it in the complete statement?

Our principle says that if "I was never a supporter of the fatwa" is, indeed, deceptive, he will be unable to refer to this statement and lie about it.

Even in the Islamic rule of deception.

This means that even if it is his religious belief to lie to non-Muslims, or "unfaithful Muslims" in the cause of Islam, psychologically, he will be unable to look at it (if it is a lie) and lie about it.

I will not keep it a mystery.  It is true that he publicly stated that Salomon Rushdie should be murdered for his exercise of free speech.  Therefore, the unreliable use of "never" is deception indicated."
I will give the quote shortly. In fact, he has said he "never supported" it, more than a few times over the years.  Yet, he did, in fact, support it, publicly.
In the entire quote, spoken recently, we have him addressing his lie.

Question:  Will he be able to lie about his lie, affirming the "never" to be true?  If so, the principe is broken.  



Yusuf Islam
Yusuf Islam playing in London in 2009. Samir Hussein/Getty Images


After the Ayatollah Khomeini declared a fatwa against author Salman Rushdie in 1989, Yusuf had told a crowd at London's Kingston University that "He must be killed. The Quran makes it clear: If someone defames the prophet, then he must die.
This was recorded.  Herein proves that "never" was deceptive, but there is no surprise there, and, perhaps, not a big deal.  We see a lot of deceptive statements here, in the, you know, deception blog.  However: 

We now have the chance to see what happens when he is referred back to this.  

That he really did support it, had some repercussions for his money making. When Rushdie heard about Yusuf Islam supporting the fatwa and did a comedy sketch with  Jon Stewart, he called Stewart, quite angry about the apparent hypocrisy of Stewart, since Steward claims to be a freedom of speech supporter. 
Jon Stewart's reply also is here for analysis: 
"It became very clear to me that [Yusuf] is straddling two worlds in a very difficult way," Stewart said two years ago. "I wouldn't have done [the bit], I don't think, if I had known that. . . . Death for free speech is a deal-breaker."
You may note the weakness in Stewart's statement.  "Death for free speech is a deal breaker" but he only "thinks" he would not have done the comedy bit.  
In a recent interview, Cat Stevens defended himself, and clarified his belief.  Since his denial was unreliable, and video tape proof to the contrary, would he ask for forgiveness?  Would he say it is wrong to condemn someone to death for free speech?
Would he lie about his lie?

Remember:  We, the Statement Analysis world,  claim this to be impossible. 

What about the two worlds?  Not only do we have the "no man can lie twice" rule, but Stevens is now faced with a dilemma:
If he says he was wrong to support the fatwa, he has to deny the Koran and could be killed for it by the "peaceful religion."
Can he say "I never supported the fatwa.  I am telling the truth", it would mean that he has to lie about his lie.  

He was in a tough place.  Since I believe in the rule, he would have to look back at his lie, using the word "never" and contradict it, and admit the truth:  he believes that Rushdie should be killed.  

*Please note that this is what we mean when we say we want to "lock the liar into his answer."
We get the liar to commit to his lie, and then we focus on the lie, and produce truth.  

If he says that killing over free speech is wrong, he speaks against Islam. He could be sentenced to death for it. 
If he believes in Islam, seeing that he denied it the past, will he come clean?
Will he be deceptive?

Remember:  it is impossible for a liar to lie about his lie.  "No man can lie twice."  There is something within us that will not allow it.  The reporter said he made this remark clearly irritated:  

 "People need to get over it.  It's 25 years ago. I've got gray hair now. Come on. I was fool enough to try and be honest and tell people my position. As far as I'm concerned, this shouldn't be the subject of my life.  I'm a firm believer in the law.  I was never a supporter of the fatwa [against Rushdie], but people don't want to hear that because they keep saying that I believe in the law of blasphemy. All I'm saying is, how can you deny the Third Commandment? It's an Islamic principle that you must follow the law of the land where you reside."

Here is the same quote with analysis: 

 "People need to get over it.  It's 25 years ago. I've got gray hair now. Come on.

He begins with the responsibility of "people." This is not about whether or not he said an author should die for expressing his opinion, but of "people" having to "get over it. "
Next, note the passage of time:  "25 years" and "gray hair", spoken close to getting over it, showing the reason people should "get over it" is due to time. 
"come on" shows a persuasion.   Is he saying, 
"I was young and foolish but now I have gray hair and am wiser and of course, I do not want someone beheaded for free speech.  I disagree with him but defend his right to say it."?

Remember:  we do not interpret: we listen: 

 I was fool 
The emotional impact of this word, "foo", with the pronoun "I", is that one is now older and gray, and wiser, and was a "fool" as being young.  
Again, do not interpret, but listen: 


"I was fool enough to try and be honest and tell people my position. 

Note that being a "fool" when he was young was not for the position, but because his "foolishness" was in being honest. 
In his personal, subjective, internal dictionary, being a "fool" is telling the truth to the college audience. 
This is similar to the doctrine of Aisha, where a Muslim can be deceptive, but only to non Muslims and only for the cause of Islam.  
Note "my position" takes ownership of the position:
The author who ridiculed Islam should be put to death. 

As far as I'm concerned, this shouldn't be the subject of my life

Note that "this" is close; and it "shouldn't" be the subject of his life.  This recognizes that for many, particularly Americans who saw the multitude of death in the name of Islam in the New York City, and 911 attacks, it is associated with a pop star who took for his last name, the very word associated with death:  "Islam" and his very public declaration of support for its call to kill. 

This from a man who wanted to show a non violent Muslim on television.  He was only a "fool" for telling the truth about Shariya law.  The law comes directly from the Koran and for him to deny it, would be to have the "peaceful religion" visit violence upon him.  
Deception Indicated. 
Keep in mind his use of "this" and "that" in his language.  "This", that is, the fatwa, should not be the subject of his life.  "This" is close to him.  It was caught on recording that he did support it, and even here, he not only reaffirms it, but blames himself for being a "fool" when he told the truth to the audience.  Next, he gives another reason for believing the "fatwa" against Rushdie: 
 I'm a firm believer in the law.  I was never a supporter of the fatwa [against Rushdie], but people don't want to hear that because they keep saying that I believe in the law of blasphemy. All I'm saying is, how can you deny the Third Commandment? It's an Islamic principle that you must follow the law of the land where you reside.

The word "that" shows distancing language.  Yet, even as he distances himself from the fatwa, he now defends it:
1.  it is the law
2.  It is the third commandment in Islam
3.  It is an "Islamic principle" that "you" must follow the "law of the land."

Not only is it Koran, Islam, but he also says "the law of the land."

Question:  In his personal, subjective, internal dictionary, what "land" does he refer to?
Saudi Arabia?
Iran?
England?

Please note:  When he said he "never" supported it, he was deceptive.  Yet, a more powerful principle is in play:
Referring to his lie about denying it, would he lie about his lie?

He would like rock and roll hall of fame and what it brings but he refused to reinterpret the Koran to make it sound peaceful.  He refused to lie about his lie.  

This is one of the most complex of principles, and in the live training, it is done best through repetition, but it is also one of the most powerful of all tools.  It is what makes the questionnaire so brilliant:  It locks every person into an answer, which we then pound away with questions, getting the subject to defend or deny his answer. 
It gets us to the truth. 

Analytical Interviewing is for law enforcement, human resources, employment, journalism, therapy, counseling, sales, business negotiations, and just about every place where truth is needed to be known. 
Analytical Interviewing clears the innocent, and exposes the guilty. 
It uses the principles of Statement Analysis within the accepted guidelines of psychology and human nature, and gets a subject to commit himself to an answer, "yea or nay", and then re-focuses the subject back to his answer, knowing:
if he is lying, he will not lie about his lie.  He will come clean. 
If he is telling the truth, he will truthfully asset this.  

Cat Stevens fell on his own sword. 
He, as a "peaceful" Muslim, called for support of the death of a expresser of Freedom of Speech.  When pointed back to his statement, which was deceptive, he could not lie about his lie.  He had to come clean. 
No man can lie twice. 
In Steven's case, he not only was unable to look at his lie and lie about it, but actually went to the point of supporting the violence of his religion.  He yielded even more information, giving the reasons for his violent belief.  

In the interview, he continued to back peddle from his statement.  We all have our own internal, personal, subjective dictionary.   Remember, the word "dog" is often used to describe non Muslim.  The recent article, "Is this my Jewish boyfriend or my dog?"that was controversial, and in the news this week,  touches upon this theme. 
Stevens, or Islam, sings one song that he was challenged upon.  Was he calling Rushdie, the "dog" of the song?
One song on the new album seems to take aim at the controversy: "Cat and the Dog Trap." "Cat's in a cage," he sings. "Chained to a stone/Empty bowl by his side." He admitted it was autobiographical, but he refused to ID the inspiration behind the antagonistic dog, though Rushdie is a likely suspect., said the author "I used to be followed by a moon shadow," Yusuf says when pushed on the topic. "Now I'm followed by all these misconceptions, and they're like a ball and chain. I just want to write music from my heart and give people a message of hope and the search for a better place."

It would be interesting to learn what "hope" and "better place" he has for Rushdie, who lived his life in fear and hiding.  
Yet for us, it is another example of how Statement Analysis can not only get to the truth, but how its principles are so powerful; so very powerful, that they may be employed in the interview process, and "force" the subject to "show his hand."
The liar does not wish to be seen as a liar.  
The liar will not look on his lie, and lie about it.  He will come clean, or he will be silent. 
There are linguistic indictors that most subjects find irresistible, and will talk.  More on that later...

Saturday, March 28, 2015

Amanda Knox: "I'm The Lucky One"

'Grateful to have my life back': Amanda Knox murder conviction overturned by Italian court, surprising the mother of victim Meredith Kercher

Splash News

Amanda Knox addresses the media after being acquitted of Meredith Kercher's murder.

Speaking through tears outside her mother's Seattle home, Amanda Knox shared her relief hours after Italy's highest court overturned her murder conviction.
"I am so grateful for the justice I have received," Knox told local media outside her mother's Seattle home. "I am so grateful to have my life back."
The ruling by the Supreme Court of Cassation ended a years-long legal drama that brought two convictions and an acquittal for the 2007 murder of Knox's British roommate, 21-year-old Meredith Kercher.
Knox and her former Italian boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, were convicted from afar last year after two previous flip-flops on the verdict.

Kercher’s mother, Arline Kercher, told Britain’s Press Association news agency that she was “a bit surprised and very shocked.”

“They have been convicted twice so it is a bit odd that it should change now,” she said.

Amanda Knox prepares to leave the set following a television interview in New York in January 2014.Mark Lennihan/AP

Amanda Knox prepares to leave the set following a television interview in New York in January 2014.

When the verdict was read aloud, Vedova exclaimed: "Finished!"
It’s a victory of justice,” Vedova said outside the courtroom. “This was a mistake from the beginning.”
Knox first thanked supporters in a short statement after the verdict was announced.
Amanda Knox talks on a phone in the backyard of her mother's house Friday, March 27, 2015, in Seattle.Ted S. Warren/AP  Enlarge
ITALY OUTMassimo Percossi/AP  Enlarge

Both Knox, who was awaiting the verdict in her hometown of Seattle were she works for a local newspaper, and Sollecito have long maintained their innocence.

“I am tremendously relieved and grateful for the decision of the Supreme Court of Italy,” she said. “The knowledge of my innocence has given me strength in the darkest times of this ordeal.”
Speaking briefly to media Friday night, with her family and fiance at her side, Knox wouldn't comment on who she believes killed Kercher.
"She deserved so much in this life," Knox said. "I'm the lucky one."
The judges’ decision will be released within 90 days, according to authorities.
Knox, who was awaiting the verdict in Seattle, and Sollecito have both long maintained their innocence.
Knox spent the past few years working as a freelance reporter for her hometown newspaper, the West Seattle Herald, and recently got engaged to former New York musician Colin Sutherland, who now lives in Seattle.
PHOTO RELEASED BY THE ITALIAN POLICE, AP  PROVIDES ACCESS TO THIS PUBLICLY DISTRIBUTED HANDOUT PHOTO TO BE USED ONLY TO  ILLUSTRATE NEWS REPORTING OR COMMENTARY ON THE FACTS OR EVENTS DEPICTED IN  THIS IMAGE.AP

Knox and ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito were convicted last year for the 2007 murder of her roommate, 21-year-old Meredith Kercher (pictured).

Kercher was found with her throat slashed in the apartment she shared with Knox and two other students in Perugia, Italy, on Nov. 2, 2007. She had also been sexually assaulted.
Knox and Sollecito were arrested days later and first convicted in 2009 after prosecutors argued the murder was part of a ritualistic sex party gone wrong.
The pair claim they were not at the apartment the night of the murder, but at Sollecito’s home smoking pot and having sex.
Stefano Medici/ASSOCIATED PRESS

Amanda Marie Knox, left, and Raffaele Sollecito, stand outside her rented house on the day 21-year-old British student Meredith Kercher was found dead, in Perugia, Italy.

In 2011, an appellate judge overturned the conviction and Knox returned to the U.S. after four years in behind bars.
Eventually another man, Rudy Guede, from Ivory Coast, was arrested, tried and convicted of the murder in a separate trial and sentenced to 16 years in jail.
But Italy’s high court threw out the Knox acquittal last year and ordered new trials for her and Sollecito at a Florence appeals court.
Knox was sentenced to 28 ½ years and Sollecito to 25 years in prison before Friday’s decision.
Sollecito’s lawyer, Luca Maori, called the young man with the good news from the steps of the courthouse.
“You have your whole life ahead of you now, Raf,” he told Sollecito.
“He almost couldn’t speak," Maori said after the call. “Eight years of nightmare over.”
Francesco Maresca, an attorney representing the Kercher family, was clearly disappointed by the ruling.
“I think that it’s a defeat for the Italian justice system,” he said.
With News Wire Services

Friday, March 27, 2015

Statement Analysis: David Ortiz on Steroids

Ortiz Testing PullThe following is attributed to David Ortiz, and it is written regarding steroid use.  We analyze the statement, only, not the person.  Should we learn later, he did not write it, it was ghost written, it was written by him with help, or that he wrote it, would not change the fact that we view the statement; the words chosen.  

Regarding steroids, we look for a simple denial, which in the world of Statement Analysis, is called a "Reliable Denial.  It consists of three components.  If four are present, it is not reliable.  If two are present, it is not reliable.  A reliable denial consists of a most simple formula; something so simple, in fact, that people often miss it. 

In this simple formula we have the pronoun "I", the past tense "did not" (or "didn't") and the allegation addressed ("steroids" or "PEDs").  The truly innocent (not only those who are judicially innocent) simply make a reliable denial.  

The guilty, or deceptive sound differently than the truly innocent.  The guilty will:

a.  Issue Unreliable Denials
b.  Point to the number of times they were not caught

a.  Unreliable Denials consists of such statements like:

"I never used steroids", which, by itself, is not reliable.  The word "never" cannot be substituted for "did not."  If one says, "I did not use steroids" it is not necessary to use "never", in which a non-descrit amount of time is addressed.  For years, Lance Armstrong was unable or unwilling to say "I did not use PEDs" but he was able, quite often, to say "I never used..."

Principle:  "never" is not to be a substitute for "did not" in Statement Analysis.

"I would never use PEDs" with the word, "would", which avoids the past tense verb.  

"Why would I take PEDs?" is to issue a question, in hopes of moving away form the topic, yet it still avoids the simple reliable denial formula that those who did not "do it" are able to say.  

Since more than 90% of deception comes from missing or withheld information, we can now see, from these words, if the writer of these words will issue a reliable denial.  


b.  The number of times they were not caught. 

Marion Jones boasted that she was the most tested Olympian athlete.  This is what it is:  a boasting of the number of times one has not been caught and it is a technique of avoidance of a reliable denial. 

Think of someone in high school who is caught cheating on an exam. 

Would a legitimate defense be how many times they took a test without cheating?

How about a bank robbery at an ATM?

imagine the defense:  "I have withdrawn money from this ATM each Friday night, 52 times a year, for the last 10 years, meaning that I have withdrawn money from this ATM more than 500 times without robbing!  Why would I rob now?  I would never rob from this ATM!"

This sounds persuasive to the untrained ear, but it avoids the simple:  "I did not rob this ATM" as alleged. 

c.  The number of words used instead of a Reliable Denial indicates the weakness of the need to persuade.  One can talk on and on and on, yet avoid saying, "I didn't do it."  This was Michael Jackson's method of deception.  Instead of saying, "I did not molest a little boy", he not only avoided using this simple sentence instead opting to talk about how much he loved little boys and how he loved little boys in Africa, the Middle East, Central and South America, and in California, and how he shared his bed with them.  

This not only avoids saying he didn't do it, but tells us that he had a lot more victims than the few in California who he paid millions of dollars to be silent. 

He is still hailed as a "hero" in some circles, today.  

What shall we find from this article attributed to David Ortiz, the slugger of the Boston Red Sox?

Will he simply write, "I did not use steroids"? or will he have a much longer story to tell?

Statement Analysis is in bold type, with emphasis added to specific words in the article.  This is from the Players' Tribune.  

Assuming David Ortiz wrote the article, the question is:

Did David Ortiz use steroids?

Let's let the subject guide us in our conclusions.  This statement is 2,332 words in length.  The reliable denial of "I didn't use PEDs" is 4 to 5 words in length.  

The Dirt

I was ready to shoot somebody, man. Literally. I was sleeping at my house in the Dominican this winter when I heard a banging on my front door at 7:30 in the morning. Now, I got security. My kids and family are sleeping in the house. I wasn’t expecting anyone. Who in the hell is banging on my door? I come down the stairs yelling like, “Who the f*** is there?”
I look on the security camera by the door and it’s two American guys holding briefcases. I could tell by the way they looked what was in the briefcases. Pee cups and big needles.
MLB sent them down on a little vacation to my island. What a job.
So I open the door.
“Sorry for the interruption, but we need to take some samples.”
I’m looking at these guys like, “7:30 in the morning? Really, bro?”
So the guys come in with their equipment and start taking my blood in the kitchen. My kids are so used to this by now that they’re laughing and taking pictures. This is nothing new. The one guy is sticking me with the needle while the other one is shooting the shit with me, telling me he’s from Colorado.
“Warm down here!” he says.
“I didn’t know you guys were coming,” I say. “You gotta be more careful. This is the Dominican, bro.”
“We’re just doing our job,” he says.
“Let me tell you something,” I say. “The only thing you’re going to find in my blood is rice and beans.”

In some people’s minds, I will always be considered a cheater. And that’s bullshit. Mark my words: 

Here is the perfect place for him to write, "I'm not a cheater.  I didn't use PEDs."  He has introduced the topic with the statement, "Mark my words", which calls for emphasis, weakening what is about to be said:

Nobody in MLB history has been tested for PEDs more than me. 

This statement avoids the simple, "I didn't use steroids", which might have ended the story, as there is nothing more to discuss.  We do not need to know if he was tested, or how many times he was tested, or how many times he passed a test.  Lance Armstrong had a way of swapping urine and saving his own blood.  We simply listen for, "I didn't use steroids" or "I didn't use PEDs" and be done with it.  This is additional information that, in Statement Analysis, shows not only avoidance of the Reliable Denial (RD) but a need to persuade, and a need to change the topic of discussion.  


You know how many times I’ve been tested since 2004? 

This is a question in an open statement.  

More than 80.

He does not know the precise answer?

 They say these tests are random. If it’s really random, I should start playing the damn lottery. Some people still think the testing is a joke. It’s no joke. Ten times a season these guys come into the clubhouse or my home with their briefcases. I have never failed a single one of those tests and I never will.

This sounds like a powerful denial but it is not.  A reliable denial is powerful in its truthful content:

"I did not take steroids" or "I did not use PEDs."  This statement avoids saying it. 

But that doesn’t matter to some people. Some people still look at me like I’m a cheater because my name was on a list of players who got flagged for PEDs in 2003. 

We note that within his own words may be an embedded admission:  "I'm a cheater."

We now also have a specific time frame in mind:  "2003."  This is important because it allows him to say:

"My name was on a list of players who got flagged for PEDs in 2003.  But I did not use PEDs.  I am not a cheater. "


Let me tell you something about that test. 

"Let me tell you" is similar to "Mark my words" and is often used, statistically, by deceptive people who now wish to be believed.  It is similar to "swear to God" and other oaths.  

Note the word "that" is distancing language.  This may be appropriate if he is thinking of the date of the test.  If he is, however, psychologically distancing himself from the test, we may see this if the topic of the test's result is the focus of the sentence:  

Most guys were taking over-the-counter supplements then. Most guys are still taking over-the-counter supplements. 

Note that he introduces "most guys", which does not specifically mention himself.  Remember the three components of a reliable denial?

I.  The Pronoun "I" is the easiest word for us to use.  We use it millions of times in our lives.
II.  The past tense "did not" or even the relaxed "didn't" with the contraction.
III.  The specific allegation:  "PEDs"

Here, we have the avoidance of the easy pronoun "I", and we have a specific time frame mentioned:  "then", which, in context, is 2003. 

But, we then have "most guys" repeated, making "most guys" sensitive to him, and the time frame is the present tense . 

Go back to the word "that" and consider:  was "that" distancing language due to the passage of time since it was 2003?  Or, is he in the present tense, and the distancing language is due to something else, like the test result?

It is here he can say, "I didn't use, therefore, I passed the test"

If one did not use, one will not allow for the possibility of  a failed test. 


If it’s legal, ballplayers take it. 

Note the introduction of "legal" in his language, where he was not able to say "I am not a cheater", but embedded, "I'm a cheater" in his own language.  

Why? Because if you make it to the World Series, you play 180 games. Really think about that for a second. 180 games.

"Really think" is another example where the subject calls the attention of the audience (reader) for the need to persuade. 
Next, note the order for why "most guys" would use "over the counter supplements" then (in 2003) and the "most guys" still:  


 Your kids could be sick, your wife could be yelling at you, your dad could be dying — nobody cares. Nobody cares if you have a bone bruise in your wrist or if you have a pulled groin. You’re an entertainer. The people want to see you hit a 95-mile-an-hour fastball over a damn 37-foot wall.

Here are the reasons that "most guys" took over the counter supplements in 2003 and why "most guys" take over the counter supplements today, according to the writer:

1.  sick kids
2.  wife yelling at you
3.  dad dying 
4.  no one caring
5.  bone bruise in your wrist
6.  "you" have a pulled groin 
7.  "You" are an entertainer
8.  The "people" are blamed:  they want to see "you" hit a 95 mph fastball over a damn 37 foot wall. 

If "most guys" took over the counter supplements in 2003, it was not their fault ,but the reasons above. 
If "most guys" take them today, it is not their fault, it is the reason listed above, including the fans, by who's money pays "most guys" salaries. 

This is not to use the pronoun "I" and say that this is what the subject did. 

Most MLB players take a dozen pills a day just to get them through the season — multivitamins, creatine, amino acids, nitric oxide, all kinds of stuff. Whatever you tell them is legal, they’ll take it.

"Most guys" take over the counter supplements. 
Here we have a change of language.  Here it is "most MLB players" take a dozen pills a day.  
When language changes, there should be a reason for it to change, as it represents a change in reality.  If there is no justification for the change, it may be that we are looking at deception in the language.  

In the list he then gives, many ingredients of over the counter supplements are noted.  The context appears similar, that is, if the "dozen pills" are creatine, amino acids, and so on; that is, over the counter supplements. 

There does not appear to be a change in reality in the change of language.  


But back in the early 2000s, 

The word "but" refutes (or minimizes) the information that preceded it, in comparison to what is about to follow.  Does he wish to refute his own claim?

Do "most guys" or "most MLB players" do something different, now?  We are not made to wait long to see:  


you’d go into GNC and the guy working there would say, “Hey, take this stuff. It’s great. It builds muscle, helps with soreness, burns fat, whatever.”

Here, it is not that "most guys" nor "most MLB players" would go into GNC, but "you" would.  This is distancing language.  

Okay, sure, I’ll take that. I’m buying an over-the-f***ing-counter supplement in the United States of America. I’m buying this stuff in line next to doctors and lawyers. Now all of a sudden MLB comes out and says there’s some ingredient in GNC pills that have a form of steroid in them. I don’t know anything about it.

Note the present tense language. 
Note the location of specific purchases being the United States of America. 
Please note that it is commonly reported that the purchase of testosterone in Mexico, Central America and South America is often over the counter, and in some places, sold openly, while at others, sold "under the counter" but readily sold.  

If you think I’m full of it, go to your kitchen cabinet right now and read the back of a supplement bottle and honestly tell me you know what all of that stuff is. I’m not driving across the border to Mexico buying some shady pills from a drug dealer. I’m in a strip mall across from the Dunkin’ Donuts, bro.
In 2003, MLB wanted to measure what players were taking and figure out some kind of standard. 

Please note that MLB was testing specifically for illegal substances:  Principally the muscle building steroids such as testosterone, as well as the use of human growth hormone.  The other things tested for were masking agents, as well as "balancing" drugs which were taken in attempts to offset the side effects of the steroids and  hormones.  For example, massive amounts of HGH (human growth hormones) were needed for muscle building, but this could put the athlete into risk of diabetic shock.  In small amounts, HGH helped athletes heal faster, sleep better, and slow down the aging process.  
Testosterone, in large amounts, converts to estrogen, which causes unhealthy reactions in men, including the development of breasts, so anti-estrogen (cancer) medications were used.  

MLB was looking for cheaters who used drugs to artificially build muscle and recover from injuries faster, which not only gave them advantages over non-users, but risked the players' lives. 

With the commonly known ability to purchase steroids south of the United States border, athletes could use for years, during development, stop using them, test clean, and have a distinct advantage over American players who built muscle without drugs.  

The muscle gained with steroids does not simply "go away" when the steroids are stopped.  Slight loss only is expected if the athlete continues to lift weights.  Some liars will talk about lifting weights and other accomplishments during times they were "clean" from using, as if this proved something.  It does not.  Well, it does actually:  it proves the need to continue to employ words (lots of them) while avoiding the simple reliable denial of "I didn't use PEDs" in any simple form.  

Another danger:  While getting bigger, not only is "roid rage" a side effect, but with the increase of appetite can come unwanted weight gain, so the athlete goes into the "shredding" stage where he takes off body fat.  This too, employs dangerous drugs that can lead to heart attack and strokes. 

It was not just cheating that MLB sought, but protection of health.  

Next note what every mother of a teenager knows:  guilt seeks friends. 

The pronoun "we" puts him in with others and seeks to spread out guilt:  

We all got tested and MLB sealed the results. The next year, they said, “Okay, you can’t take any pills with this, this and this,” — all kinds of stuff that was previously in supplements that anybody could buy. They used our tests to figure out what should be considered a performance-enhancer. Okay. Fine. Great. Clean it up. I love it. Shit, if you catch someone taking PEDs now that we all know the rules and have been educated about what’s in these supplements, forget 25, 50 games. Suspend them for an entire year. 

I don’t care, because I’m not doing it.

Note that rather than issue a RD, he not only avoids saying it, but he goes to the present tense, "I'm not doing it", which we can believe that at the time this was written, he was not taking PEDs.  
We can believe this, and we can believe the test results, both the one distanced from in 2003, and the other 80 plus tests that came after that, of which he speaks of.  

The next couple seasons, I start noticing things changing. Guys are a lot more conscious about what they’re putting in their body. But I’m getting tested 10 times a season and I’m still in the gym benching 400 pounds. 

I’m out there in 2006 hitting 54 home runs. Nobody wants to talk about that though. They’re on me for my flair now. “Papi, how come you walk around the bases so slow when you hit a home run? How come you flip your bat like that? Don’t you think that’s disrespectful to celebrate?”
Yeah, I’m gonna have fun. It’s who I am. I just hit a baseball 500 damn feet. I grew up in the gutter and now I’m out here in front of the world living my dream and you all want me to feel sad? I can’t do it. I’m here to bring joy to this game.

Analysis conclusion follows this lengthy article.  

People ask me all the time how I turned into such a monster in my early 30s. “How are you doing this? You must be cheating.” You know how? Physically, I was always a bull. But I learned to play the game with my head and my heart and my balls. I got smarter. I got mentally tougher. I used to have a trick every time we went into Yankee Stadium, especially in the playoffs. I’d walk out to the on-deck circle and look into the crowd and pick out the craziest guys there. I’d find the ones that were screaming all kinds of stuff at me, and I’d look them right in the eyes. It was like a game — see who blinks first. Then I’d turn to my dugout and say, “Hey, watch this. I’m gonna hit this one to the choo-choo train.”
One night I hit a home run and when I was rounding third base I found these two guys in the stands who had been screaming at me. And they were literally fighting. The one guy was yelling, “Why the f*** did you piss him off, man?”
Boston Red Sox v New York Yankees
I became a great hitter because of my mental preparation. This is a thinking man’s game. You can be the strongest dude alive and you’re not going to be able to hit a sinker with 40,000 people screaming at you. That’s what really makes me mad when I think about the way I will be remembered. They’re only going to remember my power. They’re not going to remember the hours and hours and hours of work in the film room. They’re not going to remember the BP. They’re not going to remember me for my intelligence. Despite all I’ve done in this game, I’m just the big DH from the Dominican. They turn you into a character, man.
You think I’m joking?

He continues to use a multitude of words and in the case of the Reliable Denial missing, it only adds to the deception.  The number of words he needs to persuade, versus the 4 or 5 words needed to deny steroid use will be seen in the end result.  

Is he persuading readers that he did not take steroids, while refusing to simply say he did not take steroids?
Or, is he revealing something about his own personality, instead?


In 2013, I came off the DL and started hot. My first 20 games I was hitting like .400. And the reporter with the red jheri curl from The Boston Globecomes into the locker room says, “You’re from the Dominican. You’re older. You fit the profile of a steroid user. Don’t you think you’re a prime suspect?”

Here is yet another place where he can say he did not use steroids.  

He has set up multiple scenarios in which the call for denial is given. 

Each place where he sets up the scenario for a response, he avoids denying taking steroids or PEDs.

He’s saying this with a straight face. I had taken like 70 at-bats. Anybody can get hot and hit .400 with 70 at-bats. I was stunned. I’m like, I’m Dominican? I fit the profile? Are you kidding me?

Please note "Dominican" and the number of drug traffickers who go there to purchase and re-sell steroids to gyms is known in law enforcement. 

Is this the "race card" being played?  If so, it is another tangent, which shows, in language, the need to take the topic in a different route other than a denial.  

The profile of a steroid user is one who:

a.  has the means to obtain steroids.  The means is not only money, but geography.  
b.  has a body that changes
c.  has his career extended beyond the norm.  


I wanted to kill this guy. But you can’t react. That’s what they want. They want you to get angry so they can bury you. So I just smiled at him and asked for his address.
“Why do you want my address?” he said.
“Because I just got tested two days ago.” I said. “I’ll mail you the f****ing results.”

He will mail the results but not say "I didn't use"

This is a reporter from my own city coming to my locker and telling me I’m too good, that I must be on some shit. I’m sitting there thinking, Man, I get tested 10 times a year and I’ve helped win this town two World Series titles in 2004 and 2007 and this guy who has never played a game of professional baseball in his life is telling me I’m a suspect.
My test was clean just like the other 8 or 9 tests that season. My batting average settled down to .300, because of course it did. I hit like 30 home runs and we won the World Series. Was that acceptable for the reporter? Were my numbers too high for a player from the Dominican? Should I have taken another blood test before popping the damn champagne?
He never apologized.
Ortiz Steroids Pull Short
I get asked all the time: “Do you think you’ll be inducted into the Hall of Fame? Do you think it’s fair for you to be included after your name was on that list in 2003?”

Let me tell you about fair. I grew up in a neighborhood where there was a shooting every day. Every single day. I didn’t know if I was going to step outside to go play at the park with a f***ing tape ball and a stick and get shot. I saw people get killed right in front of me. I grew up in a house where my father used to hit my mother. There was a fight in my house pretty much every other day. It was normal. I grew up in a house that didn’t have the luxury of proper nutrition or vitamins. A protein shake? Are you kidding me? The only protein I knew about until I was 16 was frijoles negros. Black beans.

These reporters always want to talk about fair. The world ain’t fair.
I’ll never forget coming into the clubhouse before a day game against Oakland in 2009 when a reporter came up to me and said, “Hey, you know your name is about to be on a list of steroid users on ESPN?”
I literally said, “Ha!” and walked away. God’s honest truth: I thought he was messing with me.

Here we have the principle in statement analysis of "deity" in which is commonly used by habitual liars. 


About 30 minutes later, I’m getting dressed when I see my face pop up on the TV. I see “Failed Test. 2003.” 

Here is where he can say "I didn't fail the test in 2003", instead, he uses another (clever) tactic:

diversion: 


No one had ever told me I’d failed any test.

The test result is not addressed, but the lack of information given to him is.  This is to blame the testers while avoiding saying "I didn't fail.'"

Next, note "I'm dirty" in his language, where he sources "some documents" as "saying" this.  This is not to enter the language of another, but to embed:
"I'm dirty"

 Now six years later some documents get leaked and they’re saying I’m dirty. I called my agent and asked what was going on. He didn’t have any answers for me. I called the MLB Players’ Association and they didn’t have any answers for me. To this day, nobody has any answers for me. Nobody can tell me what I supposedly tested positive for. They say they legally can’t, because the tests were never supposed to be public.

Instead of saying "I didn't fail the test", he blames "nobody" for not telling him which drug they caught him taking.  

This writer is a liar from childhood.  


Let me tell you something. Say whatever you want about me — love me, hate me. But I’m no bullshitter. I never knowingly took any steroids. If I tested positive for anything, it was for something in pills I bought at the damn mall. If you think that ruins everything I have done in this game, there is nothing I can say to convince you different.

Deception indicated.  


After I saw my face on ESPN, I felt a lot of darkness. I felt a lot of anger. I knew what was coming. But I went out there that day and when I stepped up to the plate, I just thought, Papi, look at where you are. Look at where you came from. Nobody’s shooting at you. Nobody’s trying to kill you. They pay you to play a kid’s game.
When I’m at the plate, I really feel like I’m in heaven.
I hit the game-winning home run into the bleachers at Fenway that day. That was it, man. That was my closure.

This is instead of saying, "Papi, you didn't use steroids, don't worry..."
david ortiz red sox
When I got to the clubhouse, it was crazy. Reporters were everywhere. Nobody asked about the homer. Nobody asked how many times I’ve been tested since 2003. Since that day, I have been asked the same question a million times: Do you think you deserve to be in the Hall of Fame?

Hell yes I deserve to be in the Hall of Fame.

Would he say, "I deserve to be in the Hall of Fame because I didn't use steroids"?

He gives a different reason instead of not using steroids, since steroid use is what has kept Barry Bonds out:  

 I’ve won three World Series since MLB introduced comprehensive drug testing. I’ve performed year after year after year. But if a bunch of writers who have never swung a bat want to tell me it’s all for nothing, OK. Why do they write my legacy?

Note narcissistic lying patterns.  Note the abundance of words used rather than the 4 or 5 needed to issue a denial.  

Let me tell you what I really care about. 

In context, it should now read about the 3 world series victories after drug testing.  Instead he shows what he "really" cares about:  


When we played in Texas a few days later after the news came out, people were screaming, “Cheater, cheater, cheater!” It was really vicious.

Here he can say, "I am not a cheater.  I didn't use PEDs."


My family was sitting right there in the stands. After the game, my son came up to me in the hotel with tears in his eyes and he says, “Dad, why are they calling you a cheater? Are you a cheater?”

Here is yet another time to say "Son, I did not cheater.  I didn't use steroids."

The race card has been played;
the homer card (home fans) has been played;
now father hood is another emotional topic employed in the place of denying steroid use.  This is to show the personality of the writer, highly persuasive, highly narcissistic, and very deceptive.  

As a father, that’s a moment you’re never prepared for. I looked at him in the eye and said, “No, I’m not a cheater.”
In 75 years, when I’m dead and gone, I won’t care if I’m in the Hall of Fame. I won’t care if a bunch of baseball writers know the truth about who I am in my soul and what I have done in this game. I care that my children know the truth.

Here he can tell us the truth and say, "I didn't use", but in each and every scenario he brought up, skillfully employing diversionary and emotional scenarios, he could not say the simplest of words.  

Analysis Conclusion:  

The subject used 2332 words.  The reliable denial is 4, or 5 at the most, which would come out to less than 1% in total, or

.00214 % 

Here, we find that the actual percentage of words used to reliably deny using steroids or PEDs to be 0%

The subject is deceptive. 

The subject is unwilling or unable to say that he did not use steroids; therefore, we are not permitted to say it for him. 

He does, however, use more than 2,000 words to avoid saying "I didn't do it", showing not only an acute need to persuade, but a habit of speech common to habitual liars.  

Deception Indicated.

If David Ortiz wrote this, and English is his second language:  even if we step back from the nuances of language, his need to employ this extreme volume of words, combined with the attempts to employ emotionally laden language, and the avoidance of the RD still shows deception. 

In what may have intended to convince writers that he did not use, and should be voted into the Hall of Fame, may actually have the opposite effect, as writers see, in his own words, just how much success he has gained from cheating, and how distance he, himself is, from telling the truth.  

A word about figures of speech in which attention is called: 
There is an appropriate use of such terms, but in a statement where a denial is expected, or issued in an unreliable manner, specifically, indicates weakness and is the language of deception.  Many people refer to the finger wagging or pointing (Rafael Palmero, Bill Clinton), which are both good examples.  Yet, in any challenge, it is just that, a challenge. 

"let me tell you" and so on...

In the context of a denial, it is yet another method of emphasizing the lack of denial, highlighting the weakness.  Ortiz' use of it is extreme.  This shows childhood habit.